---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 229

                             Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Medical Monitoring Class Actions Remain Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Due Dec. 2
ALTRIA GROUP: Remains a Defendant in Kraft Thrift Plan Case
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 6,150 Honda and Mantis Mini Tillers
APPLIED MICRO: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Settlement Order

ARENA PHARMA: Bramson Plutzik & Sherman File Class Action Suit
ATLAS ENERGY: Being Sold to Chevron for Too Little, Suit Claims
BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Excessive Telephone Call Charges
BEMAN: Recalls 11,300 Bowhunting Arrows
CARECREDIT LLC: Sued for Abusive Health Care Financing Practices

COOK COUNTY: Settles Strip Search Class Action Suit for $55.3MM
CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Eight FLSA Violations Suits
CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
CVS CAREMARK: Remains a Defendant in Lawsuit by John Lauriello
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Executes Settlement in FLSA-Violations Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Settles Majority of $19-Million Settlement Accrual
EXPEDIA INC: Obtains Tentative Approval of Class Action Settlement
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Nevada Plaintiffs Directed to Specify Complaint
FJ SCIAME: Has No Equity in Property, Says Bruce Supply
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Tobacco Growers Not Covered in Settlement

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Settles Structured Class Suit for $72.5 Mil.
HARTFORD LIFE: Settles Suit Alleging RICO Violations for $54 Mil.
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Wins Dismissal of Multiple ERISA Lawsuits
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Jan. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LEE PUBLICATIONS: 9th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Order

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Misapplying Mo. Payments to Interest Only
KFORCE INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Calif. Class Action
LANCE INC: Defends 2 Class Actions Related to Snyder's Merger
PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Settles Class Action Suit for $17.3 Million
PENNSYLVANIA: School District Faces Class Action Over Bracelets

RINO INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
TEXAS WINDSTORM: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $72 Million
TORONTO HYDRO: Class Action Lawsuit Settlement May Hit Customers
TOYS "R" US: Feb. 18 Fairness Hearing on Internet Purchases
UCI INTERNATIONAL: Antitrust Suit Against Champion Still Pending

UCI INTERNATIONAL: Champion Remains a Defendant in Quebec Suit
UCI INTERNATIONAL: Ontario Suit Against Champion Still Pending
UNITED HEALTH GROUP: Continues Defense of 7 Remanded Suits
WELLS FARGO: Jury Selection in Lending Class Action Begins


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: East Anglian Fined GBP30T for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Facing 1,171 Actions at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Involved in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,530 Cases Ongoing v. Standard Motor Products
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Still Party to "Premises" Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Caterpillar Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $317MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler AG Faces 124,360 Claims in U.S.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler U.K. Units Face 287 Open Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Harsco Dropped to 20,085 at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Posts $14.2MM Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Received 4,800 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Posts $10.4MM A&E Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Ongoing v. IPL at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M & F Worldwide Continues to Face Injury Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 6 Units Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simakis Case v. 72 Firms Filed Oct. 20 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quimby Fined $27,620 for East Longmeadow Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doyle Widow Supports U.K. Apprenticeship Scheme
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merced Firm, Staff Indicted on Asbestos Charges

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newton Abbot Nurse Seeks Help to Claim Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cirencester Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Launches "Transparent" Policy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Help in Claiming Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vineland Electrician Awarded $3.72MM in Payout

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Brookside to Continue in Summer 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Penalized C$8T for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case on Breach at Eggers Bldg. Settled for $85T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still Party to Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Douglas Emmett Facilities Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Claims Drop to 5,150 at Oct. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Facing 7,870 Claims at Oct. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Party to Mt. Vernon Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 1.8T New Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Subject to Cases in Tex. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Subject to Cases in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Records $15M Charge at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Subject to Property Damage Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Personal Injury Actions Ongoing v. W. R. Grace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $970MM Excess Coverage at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $50.2MM Libby Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy, BGE Still Have 488 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,842 Claims at Sept. 30



                             *********

ALTRIA GROUP: 4 Medical Monitoring Class Actions Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that it is a defendant in four pending medical
monitoring class actions.

Three of the purported class actions pending against Altria's
wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. been brought in New
York (Caronia, filed in January 2006 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York), Massachusetts
(Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts) and California (Xavier,
filed on May 14, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California) on behalf of each state's
respective residents who: are age 50 or older; have smoked the
Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been
diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a
physician for suspected lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases
seek to impose liability under various product-based causes of
action and the creation of a court-supervised program providing
members of the purported class Low Dose CT Scanning in order to
identify and diagnose lung cancer. Neither claim seeks punitive
damages.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the trial court granted in part PM
USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims. Argument was heard in June 2010.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. On July 8, 2010, PM USA petitioned
the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied on September 1, 2010.

In Xavier, on October 4, 2010, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unfair competition claim and
independent medical monitoring cause of action. Trial has been set
for November 14, 2011.

The fourth purported class action (Calistro) was filed on July 7,
2010, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas & St. John. Altria
Group, Inc., was voluntarily dismissed from the case by the
plaintiffs on August 23, 2010. On September 13 and 14, 2010,
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their claims
against all defendants except PM USA. Plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands
who do not suffer from personal injury but who have been unable to
successfully complete at least one effort to quit because of
addiction. In addition to requesting medical monitoring,
plaintiffs seek the funding of a smoking cessation program,
compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs
have filed a motion to stay and transfer the case to the "Lights"
multidistrict litigation proceeding. PM USA has filed an
opposition to this motion.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Due Dec. 2
--------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that its petition for a writ of certiorari in
relationg to the "Scott" class action is due on December 2, 2010.

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott
class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay
for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana
jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including Altria's
wholly-owned subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc., in connection with
plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, but also found that
plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance. The
jury also found that cigarettes as designed are not defective but
that the defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking
and diseases and marketed their products to minors. In May 2004,
in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs
approximately $590 million against all defendants jointly and
severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs
the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment
interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. PM USA's share
of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been allocated.
Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. Pursuant to a stipulation
of the parties, the trial court entered an order setting the
amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants in accordance
with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a
Louisiana statute, fixing the amount of security in civil cases
involving a signatory to the MSA. Under the terms of the
stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the right to contest, at a later
date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on any grounds
including the applicability or constitutionality of the bond cap
law. In September 2004, defendants collectively posted a bond in
the amount of $50 million ($12.5 million of which was posted by PM
USA).

In February 2007, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal
issued a ruling on defendants' appeal that, among other things:
affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the class;
struck certain of the categories of damages included in the
judgment, reducing the amount of the award by approximately $312
million; vacated the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled
approximately $444 million as of February 15, 2007; and ruled that
the only class members who are eligible to participate in the
smoking cessation program are those who began smoking before, and
whose claims accrued by, September 1, 1988. As a result, the
Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded the case for proceedings
consistent with its opinion, including further reduction of the
amount of the award based on the size of the new class. In March
2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected defendants' motion
for rehearing and clarification. In January 2008, the Louisiana
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' and defendants' petitions for
writ of certiorari. In March 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to
execute the approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment
interest or, in the alternative, for an order to the parties to
submit revised damages figures. Defendants filed a motion to have
judgment entered in favor of defendants based on accrual of all
class member claims after September 1, 1988 or, in the
alternative, for the entry of a case management order. In April
2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to
stay proceedings and the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In June 2008, the
United States Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in the amount of
approximately $280 million (subsequently changed to approximately
$264 million) and defendants filed a motion to enter judgment in
their favor dismissing the case entirely or, alternatively, to
enter a case management order for a new trial. In July 2008, the
trial court entered an Amended Judgment and Reasons for Judgment
denying both motions, but ordering defendants to deposit into the
registry of the court the sum of $263,532,762 plus post-judgment
interest.

In September 2008, defendants filed an application for writ of
mandamus or supervisory writ to secure the right to appeal with
the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in December
2008, the trial court entered an order permitting the appeal and
approving a $50 million bond for all defendants in accordance with
the Louisiana bond cap law discussed above.  In April 2009,
plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal seeking to reinstate the June 2004
judgment and to award the medical monitoring rejected by the jury.

In April 2010, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued
a decision that affirmed in part prior decisions ordering the
defendants to fund a statewide 10-year smoking cessation program.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal amended and, as amended,
affirmed the amended 2008 trial court judgment and ruled that,
although the trial court erred, the defendants have no right to a
trial to determine, among other things, those class members with
valid claims not barred by Louisiana law. After conducting its own
independent review of the record, the Court of Appeal made its own
factual findings with respect to liability and the amount owed,
lowering the amount of the judgment to approximately $241 million,
plus interest commencing July 21, 2008, the date of entry of the
amended judgment (which as of October 25, 2010 is approximately
$30 million). In its decision, the Court of Appeal disallowed
approximately $80 million in post-judgment interest. In addition,
the Court of Appeal declined plaintiffs' cross appeal requests for
a medical monitoring program and reinstatement of other components
of the smoking cessation program. The Court of Appeal specifically
reserved to the defendants the right to assert claims to any
unspent or unused surplus funds at the termination of the smoking
cessation program. In June 2010, defendants and plaintiffs filed
separate writ of certiorari applications with the Louisiana
Supreme Court. On September 3, 2010, the Louisiana Supreme Court
denied both sides' applications.

On September 13, 2010, defendants filed a single-justice
application with the United States Supreme Court seeking a stay of
the judgment pending the defendants' filing and the Court's
disposition of the defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari.
On September 24, 2010, Justice Antonin Scalia, as the Justice
responsible for the U.S. Fifth Circuit, granted the stay.

The defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari is due on
December 2, 2010. As of September 30, 2010, PM USA has recorded a
provision of $26 million in connection with the case and has
recorded additional provisions of approximately $3.2 million
related to accrued interest.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


ALTRIA GROUP: Remains a Defendant in Kraft Thrift Plan Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that it remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed by certain participants in the Kraft Foods Global,
Inc., Thrift Plan.

Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Thrift Plan, a
defined contribution plan, filed a class action complaint on
behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift
Plan in July 2008 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Named
defendants in this action include Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
(now Altria Client Services Inc.) and certain company committees
that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan.
Plaintiffs request, among other remedies, that defendants restore
to the Kraft Thrift Plan all losses improperly incurred.

The Altria Group, Inc., defendants deny any violation of ERISA or
other unlawful conduct and are defending the case vigorously.

In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. In addition
to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable
relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed
claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of
company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants.

In February 2010, the court granted a joint stipulation dismissing
the fee and stock fund claims without prejudice as to the
remaining defendants, including Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
Accordingly, the only claim remaining at this time relates to the
alleged negligence of plan fiduciaries for including the Growth
Equity Fund and Balanced Fund as Kraft Thrift Plan investment
options.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in March 2010,
which the court granted on August 26, 2010.

Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement between Altria Group,
Inc. and Kraft, the Altria Group, Inc. defendants may be entitled
to indemnity against any liabilities incurred in connection with
this case.

Altria Group, Inc. -- http://www.altria.com/-- is the holding
company of Philip Morris USA Inc. (PM USA) and John Middleton,
Inc., which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes and other tobacco products.  Philip Morris Capital
Corporation (PMCC), another wholly owned subsidiary, maintains a
portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases.  The company's
segments are U.S. tobacco; European Union; Eastern Europe,
Middle East and Africa; Asia; Latin America, and Financial
Services.  In March 2008, the Company completed the spin-off of
Philip Morris International Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary.  In
January 2009, the Company completed the acquisition of UST Inc.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 6,150 Honda and Mantis Mini Tillers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Honda Motor Co., of Torrance, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,150 Honda and Mantis Mini Tillers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

A rubber grommet that is part of the engine's fuel tank may crack
and leak fuel, posing a fire hazard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves mini tillers have Honda GX25 mini four-stroke
engines and their engine serial numbers can be found on the engine
near the fuel tank cap.  Both brands come in red and black.

Honda Mini Tiller: Model number FG110 with serial numbers GCALT
                   1696948 to 1700567.

Mantis Mini Tiller: Model numbers 7262 and 7270 with serial
                    numbers GCART-1165215 to 1171495.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11040.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
through Honda Power Equipment Dealers, The Home Depot, outdoor
power equipment dealers, rental dealers, retailers, mail order and
catalog houses nationwide from March 2010 through September 2010
for about $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using any mini tiller with
engines in the affected serial number ranges and contact any Honda
Power Equipment dealer or Honda Engine dealer (Mantis owners only)
to arrange to have the fuel tank assembly replaced free of charge.
Registered owners of the recalled mini tillers will be sent a
notice by mail.

Honda FG110 mini-tiller owners should contact Honda at (888) 888-
3139 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/

Mantis mini-tiller owners should either contact Mantis Customer
Service at (800) 366-6268, visit http://www.mantis.com/or contact
Honda at (888) 888-3139 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/


APPLIED MICRO: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of Settlement Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation is still awaiting a decision on
appeals filed in connection with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's order granting final approval of a
settlement in "IPO laddering cases," according to the Company's
November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The Company acquired JNI Corporation in October 2003.  In November
2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against JNI and the
underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings of
common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, case no. 01-Civ-10740 (SAS).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with JNI's public
offerings.  This lawsuit is among more than 300 class action
lawsuits pending in this District Court that have come to be known
as the "IPO laddering cases."  In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), a settlement has been
reached in all of the cases.

On October 6, 2009, the Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing the case.  The Court
subsequently issued a final judgment.  Several appeals of the
settlement and judgment were filed between October 29 and
November 4, 2009.  Should the settlement be overturned on appeal
and the final approval vacated, the Company's liability, if any,
could not be reasonably estimated at this time, the Company said.


ARENA PHARMA: Bramson Plutzik & Sherman File Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP and Sherman Business
Law have filed a class action suit against Arena Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of purchasers of Arena securities during the Class
Period, May 11, 2009 and September 16, 2010.

The case, Jacobson v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et. al., No.
3:10-cv-02335-BTM -WMC, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

In December 2009, Arena made a New Drug Application to the Food
and Drug Administration for its drug lorcaserin.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company represented to investors that the
application was based on positive results from clinical trials,
and that lorcaserin had the potential to become a first-line
therapy for weight management because this data showed it to be
not only effective, tolerable and safe.

The Complaint alleges that on September 14, 2010, the FDA
disclosed a Briefing Document titled NDA 22529 Lorqess (lorcaserin
hydrochloride) Tablets, 10 mg Sponsor: Arena Pharmaceuticals
Advisory Committee -- September 16, 2010, which revealed, among
other things, that the data available to Arena, but not to
investors, had shown that that lorcaserin was associated with
tumors in rats in certain preclinical studies.

The Complaint also alleges that the FDA found that lorcaserin
produced minimal weight loss results, barely meeting the agency's
threshold for weight loss effectiveness.

On September 14, 2010, Arena shares declined from $6.85 per share
at close on September 13, 2010, to close at $4.13 per share, a
decline of approximately 40%.  On September 16, 2010, multiple
news outlets reported that a federal advisory panel had voted
against recommending approval of lorcaserin. On September 17,
2010, Arena shares declined another $1.99 per share, over 46%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP and
Sherman Business Law, both highly experienced in prosecuting
investor and consumer class actions.  To obtain a copy of the
complaint filed in this action, or to obtain more information
about the firms, this Notice, the action, or your rights and
interests, you may visit http://www.bramsonplutzik.co/or email
info@bramsonplutzik.com

A copy of the complaint may also be obtained from the Court.


ATLAS ENERGY: Being Sold to Chevron for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News service reports that Atlas Energy is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Chevron, for
$38.25 a share or $3.2 billion, shareholders claim in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Nishihara v. Atlas Energy, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-mc-02025 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/16/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Atlas Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: mumeda@robbinsumeda.com
                  soddo@robbinsumeda.com
                  aamiri@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckeyl@kendalllawgroup.com


BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Excessive Telephone Call Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria D'Angelo at Courthouse News Service reports that
San Diego-based BBG Communications, which has a "virtual monopoly"
on pay phones in airports and train stations around the world,
advertises $1 per minute rates for long-distance calls, but
charges callers' credit and debit cards more than $10 per minute,
a class action claims in Federal Court.  "BBG is fully aware of
this unconscionable conduct," and when people complain, it
"attempts to obfuscate who is the responsible company," the class
claims.

"BBG has a virtual monopoly on pay telephones," the complaint
states, with more than 350,000 of them around the world.  "Even
the ubiquitous red telephone boxes in London are operated by BBG,
although nowhere is there any indication that is the case."

BBG "advertises in large print that domestic or international
calls would be only at the rate of a euro or dollar per minute,
with pictures of credit card logos, with a tiny fine print
disclosure saying to call for such rates," the complaint states.
"When a call is dialed or connected, at no time are consumers
automatically advised what fees defendants will charge."

Not until customers receive their credit card statements do they
see that BBG typically bills that "at fees over $10 per minute,"
the complaint states.  "BBG rakes in million of dollars in profits
as a result of this practice, as they handle over 350,000 pay
phones, including the iconic London telephone booths, and process
300 million minutes of calls per month.  Even if only a small
percentage of those minutes are calls made using a credit or debit
card, based on the outrageous per minute charges, this can still
add up to well over $15 million each month."

The complaint continues: "If anyone tries to dispute such charges
by calling the telephone number listed on their credit card
statements, BBG then attempts to obfuscate who is the responsible
company.  BBG's address does not appear on the credit card
statement, BBG operators are instructed not to volunteer the
company name or where the company is located or to clarify if the
caller has called the responsible company that billed him or her
unless the customer gives his or her credit card number, tell
consumers as they told plaintiff(s) to contact BBG Zurich, a shall
company with no real business location, or say that the company is
Call International, Call To International, Faircall, International
Calling Services, International Satellite Communications, National
Telephone Collection Services, NTCS or other names.  Many
customers that have already been charged are obviously reluctant
to provide their confidential credit card information to BBG
representatives over the phone, preventing many consumers from
filing a written complaint.

"BBG is fully aware of this unconscionable conduct.  Thousands of
complaint documenting this exact same practice have been lodged
with the company's Customer Service Representatives ('CSRs') who
are all located and supervised in a centralized call center in
Tijuana, Mexico, by complaints online, or by complaints to the
Better Business Bureau or with MasterCard or Visa.  BBG keeps
electronic records of these complaints.  In fact, BBG's complaint
levels are so high that they have been given an 'F' rating from
the BBB, and if a customer calls MasterCard or Visa to complain
about charges from BBG, the card companies three-way call through
to BBG's California offices and they are directed by the company
to specific individuals to handle such complaints.  For those
consumers who persevere through these obstacles, BBG instructs
operators to give an automatic 30% refund of the unconscionable
charges they impose.  However, in violation of California law, BBG
records such confidential communications without such customers'
advance authorization or consent."

Named plaintiff Vlastimil Sajfr says he was charged $54.33 for a
1-minute domestic call in Frankfurt, Germany.  Mr. Sajfr, a
resident of Mountain View, Calif., says he tried to call using
coins, but received an automated message telling him to use a
credit card.  There were no disclosures on the payphone about
charges or minimum connection fees to make a call using a credit
or debit card.  When he received his credit card statement and saw
the charges, he called Visa to complain and was rerouted to a BBG
representative, who told him there was a 5-minute minimum
connection fee, which was why he was charged more than $50 for one
minute.

The second named plaintiff, David Keeports, says he was charged
$150 for two calls totaling 7 minutes.

"No state or federal regulatory agency has either authorized this
conduct or has primary, exclusive or any jurisdiction over the
wrongful conduct at issue herein not can provide the complete
relief prayed for in this matter, as the relevant state and
federal regulatory agencies possess neither exclusive nor primary
jurisdiction over the billing or disclosure methods of such
charges, or have 'de-tariffed' the regulatory scheme for such
telephones such that there is no basis or reason to refer this
matter to either the FCC or any state regulatory agency," the
complaint states.

The class claims that BBG customer representatives who do not
follow obfuscatory script can be punished with a three-day
suspension from work.

BBG's ostensible corporate headquarters is in San Ysidro, Calif.,
on the Mexican border, but its corporate headquarters and
principal place of business is in San Diego, according to the
complaint.  "BBG and its affiliated companies are part of a
privately held company owned and operated by the Galicot family,
either directly or through alter ego shell corporations they
control," the complaint states.

The class seeks restitution, accounting, an injunction and damages
for breach of contract, violations of consumer and business laws,
unjust enrichment, and violations of California wiretap law.

A copy of the Complaint in Sajfr, et al. v. BBG Communications,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02341 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/15/PayPhones.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          9466 Black Mountain Road, Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          John Mattes, Esq.
          1666 Garnet Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 412-6081

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070


BEMAN: Recalls 11,300 Bowhunting Arrows
---------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Beman, of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of
about 11,300 Beman Bone Collector Arrows.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The recalled arrows can break when launched and hit unintended
targets, posing a puncture hazard to the user and bystanders.

Beman received an incident report involving two arrows.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Beman Bone Collector Arrow sizes 340 and 400
with lot numbers 107545100, 107747900 and 107545200.  "Beman,"
"Bone Collector," "340" or "400" and the lot number are printed on
the arrows.  The arrows are black with green designs and are made
of carbon composite material. The arrows were sold without tips.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11039.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Sporting goods stores nationwide between August 2010 and
September 2010 for about $70 per half dozen.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled arrows and
contact Beman to return the recalled arrows in exchange for free
replacement arrows.  For additional information, contact Beman
toll-free at (888) 380-6234 between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.beman.com/recall/


CARECREDIT LLC: Sued for Abusive Health Care Financing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News service reports that a federal class action claims
CareCredit and GE Money Bank pay doctors to steer patients to them
for financing medical procedures, sometimes in advance, and kick
money back without disclosing it.

A copy of the Complaint in Jezek, et al. v. CareCredit, LLC,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-07360 (N.D. Ill.) (Zagel, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/16/MedicalFinance.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200

               - and -

          Michael P. McIlree, Esq.
          821 E. Lincolnway, Suite 1
          P.O. Box 1446
          Valparaiso, IN 46383
          Telephone: (219) 548-1800


COOK COUNTY: Settles Strip Search Class Action Suit for $55.3MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports the Cook County Board has
approved a $55.3 million settlement in a class-action civil
lawsuit alleging that thousands of inmates at the county jail were
improperly strip searched.

The settlement resulted from the county losing several federal
court rulings stemming back to 2006.  The courts had already
determined the strip search procedures improper and the county has
changed them.

The attorneys representing the former jail inmates will be paid
$15 million, reports indicate, while the remainder of the funds
will be divided among as many as 400,000 inmates jailed between
January 30, 2004 and March 19, 2009.  The County's insurance will
cover $10 million of the settlement, and taxpayers the rest.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Eight FLSA Violations Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend eight putative
collective or class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Since March 2009, the company has been named in a series of eight
putative collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal
courts in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode
Island, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers working in the company's stores at various
locations outside California.

The lawsuits allege that the company failed to pay overtime to
assistant store managers as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and under certain state statutes.  The lawsuits
also seek other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and
federal claims for overtime pay.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend the consolidated
action captioned In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and
maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The claims were initially sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief.  One of these cases was transferred to
Illinois federal court, and the other case was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.  The arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending
developments in the court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.

Caremark appealed a decision which vacated the order compelling
arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and,
following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order
compelling arbitration.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson
Pharmacy case, remain pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


CVS CAREMARK: Remains a Defendant in Lawsuit by John Lauriello
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation remains a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by John Lauriello and pending in the Alabama
state court.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello,
purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of
various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark and others.  Other defendants include insurance
companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the
settled lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark,
several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in
the 1999 settlement.  This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed
class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene
in the Lauriello action.

The attorneys and law firms named as defendants in McArthur's
intervention pleadings have been dismissed from the case, and
discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is underway.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Executes Settlement in FLSA-Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corp. has executed a settlement agreement with a
plaintiff resolving a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws.

In July 2010, the Company and the plaintiff agreed upon principle
terms of settlement, the cost of which was accrued on the balance
sheet as of June 30, 2010.

In October 2010, the Company received an executed settlement
agreement by the plaintiff requiring approval by the courts, which
is expected to occur during the fourth quarter of 2010.


EXPEDIA INC: Settles Majority of $19-Million Settlement Accrual
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia.com reports that it has settled majority of a settlement
accrual of $19 million in a consumer class action lawsuit,
according to Expedia, Inc.'s October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

The Settlement was made on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers who booked hotel stays through Expedia from January 10,
2001 through June 11, 2008, and paid a "Tax Recovery Charge" and a
"Service Fee."  The Settlement provided for the distribution to
Class Members of $123.4 million in cash payments and Expedia
Settlement Credit that can be used for hotel reservations and
"package" reservations that include hotel reservations.

Consumers of hotel stays through Expedia filed a lawsuit against
Expedia primarily concerning the bundled "Tax Recovery Charges"
and "Service Fees" charged by Expedia when consumers book a hotel
stay through Expedia's Web site or telephone operators. The
Plaintiffs alleged that, in its assessment of "Tax Recovery
Charges" and "Service Fees," Expedia (i) committed deceptive or
unfair practices in violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act from January 10, 2001 to June 11, 2008, and (ii)
breached its contractual obligations from February 18, 2003
through December 11, 2006.

Expedia denied Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on December 1,
2009. However, appeals were filed challenging aspects of the Final
Approval Order.  Those appeals have now been resolved.  Expedia
has placed Settlement Credits in the accounts of those
automatically eligible to receive them.  The Settlement Credits
became available for use on June 1, 2010. Expedia Settlement
Credit Notice e-mails were distributed beginning on June 2, 2010.
Checks for Class Members who elected to receive and were eligible
to receive a Cash Payment were distributed beginning in June 2010.

More information on the Settlement is available at:

               http://www.servicefeessettlement.com/

The third-party appeals of the court's order approving the
settlement agreement related to the Expedia.com Consumer Class
Action lawsuit were dismissed on April 14, 2010.

As of September 30, 2010, the majority of the estimated settlement
accrual of $19 million has been settled with either cash payments
or coupon redemptions.  The remaining settlement liability
includes an estimated coupon redemption rate.

Any difference between the company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate the company experience will impact the
final settlement amount; however, the company does not expect this
difference to be material.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Obtains Tentative Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The court overseeing a class action in County of Monroe, Florida,
against Expedia Inc. granted preliminary approval of a class
action settlement, according to the company's October 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

On June 3, 2008, the county of Monroe, Florida filed an individual
action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire. County of
Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 08-cv-10044 (S.D.
Fla.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the county hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment
and conversion.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

On June 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal. On June 26, 2008, the court entered an order dismissing
the lawsuit.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the county of Monroe refiled its lawsuit.  The
court then dismissed the complaint for failure to file a joint
scheduling report.  Plaintiff refiled its complaint on April 15,
2009.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2009.
The court dismissed the April 15, 2009 complaint and ordered the
parties to file a joint scheduling report and move to reopen the
case based on the Jan. 12, 2009 complaint.  On May 27, 2009, the
court reopened the case.  Plaintiff filed its first amended
complaint on May 28, 2009.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint was denied and granted in part by the
court.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Trial was
scheduled for July 19, 2010.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle.

On September 3, 2010, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Nevada Plaintiffs Directed to Specify Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed in District Court in Nevada has been amended
to allege a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in
handling escrows against Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
and Fidelity National Title Agency of Nevada, Inc.  The complaint
seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees.

The defendants are investigating the allegations and have moved
for a more definite statement of the allegations against them,
which was opposed by plaintiffs and is now fully briefed and
submitted.

The court granted defendants' motion and ordered plaintiffs to
file a more specific complaint if they want to pursue their claims
against the companies.

No updates were further reported in Fidelity National Financial,
Inc.'s November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


FJ SCIAME: Has No Equity in Property, Says Bruce Supply
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Supply Corp., on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law Trusts of which
Richards Conditioning Corp. is a trustee, v. F.J. Sciame
Construction Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 114842/2010 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty. November 15, 2010), asks the Court:

(i) as against defendants F.J. Sciame and Fidelity & Deposit
    Company of Maryland, to, among other things, adjudge that:

    -- the plaintiff, by filing and causing the docketing of the
       Mechanic's Lien, acquired a good and valid lien upon the
       interests of Richards, as Subcontractor to F.J. Sciame, in
       the premises located at 7 East 7th Street, New York, New
       York, Block 544, Lot 76, in the sum of $20,608.02, together
       with interest thereon from January 27, 2009, and the costs
       and disbursements of this action,

    -- the defendants be forever foreclosed of all equity of
       redemption or other lien in the property, and that Fidelity
       & Deposit, as surety, be adjudged liable to the plaintiff
       for the amount of its lien, with interest and the costs and
       disbursements of this action; and

(ii) as against defendants Lawrence P. Hopwood and Martin M.
     Hopwood, Jr., officers or directors of directors of Richards,
     that the Court direct the defendants to render to the
     plaintiff a just and full and verified account of the monies
     received and disbursed by them as required pursuant to
     Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New York.

The Plaintiff relates that:

  a) on or before June 2, 2008, Richards entered into an agreement
     with F.J. Sciame, wherein Richards agreed to provide certain
     labor and materials to the project located at the premises,
     which is owned by The Cooper Union for the Advancement of
     Science and Art;

  b) on or before June 2, 2008, the plaintiff and Richards entered
     into an agreement wherein the plaintiff agreed to provide
     industrial plumbing supplies to Richards for use at the
     property;

  c) between June 2, 2008, and June 12, 2008, plaintiff at the
     special insistence and request of Richards, as Subcontractor
     to F.J. Sciame, as Contractor, and with the knowledge and
     consent of Cooper Union, as Owner, provided industrial
     plumbing supplies, including but not limited to pipes, valves
     and fittings, to Richards, for use at the property, all in
     the agreed price and reasonable price of $20,608.02;

  d) to date, Richards and F.J. Sciame have failed to pay the
     amount, and Richards and F.J. Sciame were actually indebted
     therefore to the plaintiff at the time of the filing o the
     Notice of Mechanics Lien; and

  f) on January 27, 2009, within eight months after providing
     the last item of material, the plaintiff filed a Notice of
     Mechanic's Lien in the amount of $20,608,02, in the office of
     the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York, which lien
     has not been paid, canceled, or discharged.

The plaintiff assert that the monies due or to become due to
Richards and the monies that were already paid to Richards in
payment of its performance of its private contract involving the
improvement to the real property above described constitute trust
funds pursuant to the provisions of Article 3A of the Lien Law of
which Richards in the trustee.

That from June 2, 2008, to date, Richards has received from the
general contractor or owner of the project, monies in payment for
the performance by Richards of its private contract for the
improvement of real property on the project, which, pursuant to
the provisions of Article 3A of the Lien Law, are trust funds
required to be held by Richards, as trustee for the benefit of the
plaintiff and the class it represents pursuant to the provisions
of Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall M. Stern, Esq.
          MARSHALL M. STERN, P.C.
          17 Cardiff Court
          Huntington Station, NY 11746
          Telephone: (631) 427-0101


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Tobacco Growers Not Covered in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael-Allan Marion, writing for The Expositor, reports Ontario
tobacco growers are trying to keep from being caught in the
crossfire of a legal battle between the provincial government and
cigarette manufacturers.

The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board and some
individual farmers launched class-action lawsuits during the past
year for $50 million each against Imperial Tobacco, JTI-MacDonald
and Rothman's, Benson and Hedges.

All three statements of claim in the action, filed in Superior
Court in London, deal with a period of activities the companies
are alleged to have carried on between 1986 and 1996 in which some
tobacco was supposedly purchased under a lower export price than
paid for domestic use, but was really used in the country.

The class action seeks the difference between the export price
paid for tobacco sold during the period and the domestic rate the
growers claim they should have been paid.

The allegations in the statements must still be proven in court.

More recently, though, Imperial notified the provincial government
that it wanted to withhold periodic payments to the Ontario
government on its portion of a global settlement of more than $1
billion that it reached with Ottawa and the provinces in 2008
after pleading guilty to violations of the Excise Act, which cover
the same period.

Imperial's move is tied to the tobacco growers' class action in
that the company holds to the position that the interests of the
growers were covered in the global settlement.

The company claims that any money that might be due the growers in
their action should be taken from the payments and put in trust.

The provincial government commenced its own action asking a court
to rule on whether the claims of the growers should be settled by
arbitration or by litigation.

Sutts Strossberg LLP, the Windsor-based law firm pressing the
class action, disagrees and says the growers were never a party to
the global settlement.

"The position of the (tobacco) board is straightforward.  Nobody
settled our claim," said William Sasso, a lawyer with the firm.

"The board had no part in the negotiations leading to the global
settlement.  In fact, they weren't aware of the negotiations until
they were done and a settlement was announced.  So, we take the
position that it has nothing to do with us."

"We are plowing ahead in our class proceedings against the
cigarette manufacturers."

The three companies have not filed statements of defense yet
because the class action has not been certified.

Meanwhile, other tobacco producers have filed separate class
actions against the federal government on behalf of farmers who
have suffered financial losses in Ottawa's alleged failure to
enforce Excise Act provisions; and against the provincial
government for its alleged failure to enforce provisions of the
Ontario Tobacco Tax Act and Retail Sales Tax Act.

In their suits filed in October, Weninger Farms Ltd., an Elgin
County-based company with a farm in Oxford County, and Stanley and
Linda Koscik, who also operate an Elgin County farm, allege the
federal government has not done enough to stem the illegal sale of
tobacco products, by not enforcing provisions of the Excise Act
and the; Excise Tax Act which regulate the production and taxation
of tobacco products.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Settles Structured Class Suit for $72.5 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. paid certain amounts
to resolve a putative nationwide class action in Connecticut,
according to the company's November 2, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against the company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of
persons who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford
property & casualty insurance company that resulted in a
settlement in which some or all of the settlement amount was
structured to afford a schedule of future payments of specified
amounts funded by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance
company.

The operative complaint alleges that since 1997 the company
deprived the settling claimants of the value of their damages
recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity premium of
every Structured Settlement to cover brokers' commissions, other
fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the annuity provider, and
asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.  The district court certified a
class for the RICO and fraud claims in March 2009, and the
company's petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of
the class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009.

In April 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle on a nationwide class basis, under which the company would
pay $72.5 million in exchange for a full release and dismissal of
the litigation.  The $72.5 million was accrued in the first
quarter of 2010. The settlement received final court approval in
September 2010 and was paid in the third quarter of 2010.


HARTFORD LIFE: Settles Suit Alleging RICO Violations for $54 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Connecticut court approved a settlement Hartford Life Insurance
Company reached with a class action related to RICO violations,
the Company noted in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action, Spencer v.
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against the Company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of
persons who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford
property & casualty insurance company that resulted in a
settlement in which some or all of the settlement amount was
structured to afford a schedule of future payments of specified
amounts funded by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance
company.

The operative complaint alleges that since 1997, the Company
deprived the settling claimants of the value of their damages
recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity premium of
every Structured Settlement to cover brokers' commissions, other
fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the annuity provider, and
asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.

The district court certified a class for the RICO and fraud claims
in March 2009.

The Company's petition to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal
of the class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009.

In April 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle on a nationwide class basis, under which the Company would
pay $54 million in exchange for a full release and dismissal of
the litigation.  The $54 million was accrued in the first quarter
of 2010.

The settlement received final court approval in September 2010 and
was paid in the third quarter of 2010.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Wins Dismissal of Multiple ERISA Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
According to its November 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, Health Management Associates, Inc., won dismissal of
multiple ERISA lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court of
Florida after executing a stipulation with plaintiffs.

On or about August 20, 2007, Health Management Associates, Inc.
and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as
defendants in an action entitled Ingram v. Health Management
Associates, Inc. et al. (No. 2:07-CV-00529), which was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort
Myers Division.

The action was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
all participants in or beneficiaries of the Health Management
Associates, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan during the period January
17, 2007 through August 20, 2007 and whose participant accounts
included shares of Health Management's common stock.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants:
(i) breached their fiduciary responsibilities to Plan participants
and their beneficiaries under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and neglected to adequately supervise the
management and administration of the Plan; (ii) failed to
communicate complete, full and accurate information regarding the
Plan's investments in Health Management's common stock; and (iii)
had conflicts of interest. Three similar purported ERISA class
action lawsuits were subsequently filed in the Florida District
Court.

On May 14, 2008, the Florida District Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the four ERISA actions.  The
consolidated case continues to be administered under the docket
number and caption assigned to the Ingram Action.

On July 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which is similar to the original complaint in the
Ingram Action.

The defendants named in the consolidated amended complaint include
Health Management, certain current and former officers and
directors of Health Management and members of the Plan's
Retirement Committee.

During September 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

On September 14, 2010, a U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report
recommending that the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint be granted.

On November 1, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulation that
provides for (i) the dismissal of all claims in the ERISA action,
including the consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice as to
the named plaintiffs and (ii) each side to bear its own costs and
attorneys' fees. On November 2, 2010, the Florida District Court
entered an order of dismissal.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Jan. 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. and Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, Co-Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class in
the Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. securities class-action suit,
announced the following:

               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
           IN RE HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA, INC. LITIGATION
                 CIVIL ACTION NO.  09-CV-5262-PSD

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING, AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT
OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:

ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA, INC. ("HEMISPHERX") FROM
FEBRUARY 18, 2009 THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 1, 2009 (THE
"CLASS PERIOD")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by
Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania dated October 20, 2010, a hearing will be held on
January 20, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6B, United States
Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, to
determine (1) whether the proposed Settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action ("Action") for $3,600,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the motion of Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (3)
whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you have not yet received in the mail the long-form version of
the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement,
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and
Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim Form"), you may
obtain copies of these documents by contacting: In re Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc. Litigation, c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP,
P.O. Box 58578, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8578.  Copies of the Notice
and Proof of Claim Form may also be downloaded from the Claims
Administrator's Web site, http://www.heb.hrsclaims.com/

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim Form no later than February 19, 2011, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.

If you have not obtained a copy of the Notice, you are urged to do
so.  If the proposed Settlement is approved, you will be bound by
the Order and Final Judgment whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim Form.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion by December 29, 2010, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice.  All Class Members who do not request
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Action, including without limitation, the Order of Final
Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice, whether or not you timely
submit a Proof of Claim Form.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to counsel for
the parties not later than January 6, 2011 in the manner and form
set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, may be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

          Attn: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

          Attn:  David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          488 Madison Ave., Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10022

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

By Order of The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania


LEE PUBLICATIONS: 9th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a San Diego
newspaper can't appeal an order granting class certification to a
group of carriers who are suing over wages, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled, though a dissenting
judge expressed concern that the resulting exposure to $18 million
in liability places the paper in a "death-knell situation."

Despite the dissent of Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, the federal
appeals court upheld U.S. District Judge Ted Moskowitz's July 27
order granting class certification to about 800 distributors of
the North County Times.

The carriers claimed that parent company Lee Publications
misclassified them as independent contractors in order to avoid
paying them overtime and to shirk other labor requirements.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge O'Scannlain said the July order
"is questionable because deciding whether each distributor is an
employee requires fact-intensive inquiries that are specific to
each member of the class."

"Although I do not necessarily think that the district court's
judgment is manifestly erroneous, I must respectfully dissent from
our order denying permission to appeal," Judge O'Scannlain wrote.

"I am persuaded that its decision is at least debatable and is
likely to evade review because of the intense settlement pressure
posed by class certification."

He said Lee Publications "faces a 'death-knell situation,' because
certification will expose it, a member of the struggling newspaper
industry, to $18 million in liability, thereby exerting intense
settlement pressure."

A copy of the Order in Dalton, et al. v. Lee Publications, Inc.,
et al., No. 10-80159 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/hfQvS


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Misapplying Mo. Payments to Interest Only
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura D. Lyons and Elain Ruth Lee, individually an on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No.
10-cv-05166 (N.D. Calif. November 15, 2010), asserts violations of
the California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.,
breaches of contract, and unjust enrichment.  The Plaintiffs
accuse JPMorgan, since acquiring the Plaintiffs' option adjustable
rate mortgage loans on September 25, 2008, from the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Washington Mutual
Bank, of continuing to unlawfully: (1) use an interest that is
substantially higher than the promised rate, (2) misapply each
monthly payment to only a portion of interest and no principal,
rather that to principal and interest, and (3) treating
Plaintiff's loans as negative amortization loans.  Further, the
Plaintiffs state that JPMorgan is asserting inflated principal
balances on the loans, which serves only to accelerate negative
amortization and move the loans closer to the 110% or 115% payment
reset threshold and foreclosure.

The Plaintiffs explain that because Washington Mutual wrongly
treated its Option ARM loans as negative amortization loans, it
increased Plaintiffs' principal balances even if Plaintiffs made
monthly payments according to the payment schedule provided to
them.

JPMorgan's actions, the suit says, has directly injured
Plaintiffs, because they are going to be unable to make the
enlarged months payments JPMorgan demands, and that Plaintiffs
face the threat of losing their homes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric M. George, Esq.
          Michael A. Bowse, Esq.
          BROWNE WOODS GEORGE LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          E-mail: egeorge@bwgfirm.com
                  mbowse@bwgfirm.com

               - and -

          Lee A. Weiss, Esq.
          BROWNE WOODS GEORGE LLP
          1 Liberty Plaza, Suite 2329
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 354-4901
          E-mail: lweiss@bwgfirm.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          ARBOGAST & BERNS
          19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          E-mail: darbogast@law111.com
                  jberns@law111.com

               - and -

          Gerson H. Smoger, Esq.
          Steven M. Bronson, Esq.
          SMOGER & ASSOCIATES
          3175 Monterey Blvd.
          Oakland, CA 94602-3560
          Telephone: (510) 531-4529
          E-mail: Gerson@texasinjurylaw.com
                  steven.bronson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDEERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
                  lori@andrusanderson.com


KFORCE INC: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Calif. Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. reached in a settlement with plaintiffs in a
California class action, according to the company's November 2,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Kforce is a defendant in a California class action lawsuit
alleging misclassification of California Account Managers and
seeking unspecified damages.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2010, the parties
participated in mediation and have reached a settlement, subject
to Court approval, in the amount of $1,850,000.

The company cannot provide any assurance that the settlement will
be approved by the Court.


LANCE INC: Defends 2 Class Actions Related to Snyder's Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lance, Inc., is subject to two purported class action petitions
related to its proposed merger with Snyder's, a privately-held
company that is currently one of Lance's customers and
distributors, according to Lance's November 3, 2010 Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010.

On August 5, 2010, Albert A. Ward filed a class action complaint
on behalf of Lance's stockholders against Lance, the members of
Lance's board of directors and Snyder's in the Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

The Ward suit generally alleges that the valuation of the proposed
merger unfairly overvalues the relative contribution of Snyder's
and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to maximize stockholder value in connection with the proposed
merger and their duty of candor by distributing an offering
document related to the proposed merger that was incomplete or
incorrect.

The Ward suit seeks: (i) injunctive relief preventing consummation
of the proposed merger, unless and until Lance adopts and
implements a procedure or process to obtain a transaction that
provides the best possible terms for stockholders; (ii) injunctive
relief preventing consummation of the proposed merger, unless and
until Lance's disclosure of all material facts concerning the
proposed merger, its terms, and valuation; (iii) a directive to
the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of Lance
stockholders; and (iv) rescission of, to the extent already
implemented, the proposed merger agreement and any of the terms
thereof.

The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage and has been removed to the
North Carolina Business Court.  Lance, the Lance board of
directors and Snyder's believe that the lawsuit is without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously.

On September 3, 2010, David Shaev filed a class action complaint
on behalf of Lance's stockholders in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division, against Lance, the members of Lance's board of directors
and Snyder's.

The Shaev complaint generally alleges that (i) the preliminary
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on August 13,
2010 by Lance contained material omissions and misrepresentations
and (ii) the board of directors of Lance, aided and abetted by
Lance and Snyder's, breached its state-law fiduciary duties to
Lance stockholders by failing to maximize shareholder value by
agreeing to sell Lance for inadequate consideration and
disseminating an inadequate joint proxy statement/prospectus.

The Shaev complaint seeks, among other things: (i) injunctive
relief to prevent proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed merger, unless and until the disclosures requested in the
Shaev complaint are made and, (ii) in the event the proposed
merger is consummated, rescission of the proposed merger or the
award of rescissory damages.

The lawsuit is in a preliminary stage.


PARTNERS HEALTHCARE: Settles Class Action Suit for $17.3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Blesch, writing for ModernHealthcare.com reports Partners
HealthCare System, Boston, has agreed to pay $17.3 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the 10-hospital system
failed to pay employees when they worked through scheduled meal
breaks, according to court records.

The agreement was filed Nov. 5 in U.S. District Court in Boston
and remains subject to court approval.  "We greatly value our
employees, and remain fully committed to ensuring that they are
properly paid for all the hours they work," Partners said in a
memo distributed that day to employees.

Partners is one of 26 healthcare systems to be targeted by similar
lawsuits brought by the law firm Thomas & Solomon on behalf of
hospital workers.  The only other organization to settle so far
was CareGroup, a bondholding company that includes Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical Center, Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge,
Mass., and 97-bed New England Baptist Hospital in Boston.
CareGroup agreed to pay $8.5 million in a settlement reached in
June.

The Partners agreement stipulates that the system "asserted and
continue to assert defenses to this action and have expressly
denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or legal liability."


PENNSYLVANIA: School District Faces Class Action Over Bracelets
---------------------------------------------------------------
dBTechno reports a class action lawsuit has been filed by mothers
against a Pennsylvania school district after "I Love Boobies"
breast cancer awareness bracelets were banned from being worn by
students.

The students wearing the bracelets were actually suspended because
they refused to take off the $4 bracelets which promote breast
cancer awareness.

The suspended students had been wearing the bracelets for the
majority of October, and had even obtained their parents'
permission to do so.

"I don't believe that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity or nudity
(in the school code) apply to the word 'boobies' or 'breast,'"
said Amy Martinez, the mother of one of the 12-year old students.

"There were teachers that had 'breast cancer awareness' T-shirts
on" in October, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, she said.

Easton school officials stated that the slogan on the bracelets
was distracting and demeaning, and that some even took offense.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of RINO International
Corporation between November 13, 2009, and November 11, 2010,
inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  RINO,
through its subsidiaries, operates as an environmental protection
and remediation company in the People's Republic of China.  The
Company engages in designing, manufacturing, installing and
servicing wastewater treatment and flue gas desulphurization
equipment, primarily for use in the iron and steel industry, and
anti-oxidation products and equipment for use in the manufacture
of hot rolled steel plate products.  The Complaint alleges that
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning RINO's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading.  Specifically, throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that certain customers
did not purchase flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") systems as the
Company had previously claimed; (2) that the Company's financial
results reported to China's State Administration of Industry and
Commerce were substantially less than the financial results the
Company reported to the public and contained in the financial
statements RINO filed with the SEC; (3) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4), as a result of
the foregoing, that the Company's financial results were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 10, 2010, a research firm issued a report calling into
question, among others, the Company's customer relationships,
accounting, and financial results.  The research firm claimed that
its investigation indicated that RINO had fabricated customer
relationships, exaggerated sales, and issued false financial
statements.  In particular, the report highlighted that the same
day that RINO closed a $100 million financing transaction, certain
officers and/or directors "borrowed" $3.2 million from the Company
to purchase a luxury home in Orange County, California.

As a result of this news, shares of RINO declined by $2.34 per
share, more than 15%, to close on November 10, 2010, at $13.18 per
share, on unusually high volume, and further declined another
$2.08 per share, 15.08%, to close on November 11, 2010, at $11.10
per share, also on unusually high volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from November 15, 2010, to serve as
lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/


TEXAS WINDSTORM: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $72 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Paschenko, writing for The Daily News, reports a $72 million
class-action lawsuit against the Texas Windstorm Insurance
Association was approved Monday, and an attorney who helped broker
the deal expects an ensuing economic boom for Galveston County.

The lawsuit finalizes the majority of roughly 2,600 slab cases
brought against the association as a result of Hurricane Ike's
Sept. 13, 2008, landfall, which caused extensive flooding and
damaged much of the upper Texas coast.

Class members who had homes on Bolivar Peninsula represented about
85% of the cases.  The hurricane swept 3,600 structures from
foundations on the peninsula, leaving nothing but slabs or
splintered pilings.

The association is expected to begin paying between early and mid-
December 1,347 class-action lawsuit claims, Beaumont attorney
Mitchell Toups said.

The association reached a roughly $60 million settlement in July
on some 1,200 claims brought by individuals, who were represented
by more than 50 attorneys.

The combined total of slab cases, some 2,600 for both individual
and class-action suits, was believed to exceed $160 million,
including fees and expenses, Mr. Toups said.

Mr. Toups, who lost his peninsula home of 15 years, said he hoped
to rebuild within a year.

"I think we'll see people rebuilding," Mr. Toups said.  "It was a
wonderful place to go for the weekends and summer . . . I've had
100 people tell me, 'I can rebuild now."  I expect to see a real
boom to the Bolivar Peninsula as a result of the settlement."

Judge Susan Criss of Galveston's 212th District Court approved the
$72 million settlement Monday.

"It would have taken a decade to try all these cases and would
have cost a fortune to pick that many juries, especially all the
people that would have been stricken because they had claims
themselves," Judge Criss said.

Attorneys reached an agreement after six days of hard-fought
mediation, Judge Criss said.

"They were calling at 8 and 9 at night, asking if I was available
for the next day for what they were fighting over, but they worked
it out," Judge Criss said.  "It was contentious and long."

Monday's settlement only covers slab cases and is unrelated to
some 3,000 wind or other damage cases that sought compensation.

$11.5 Million For Attorneys

Attorneys could have earned $22 million in fees from the class-
action lawsuit but settled on $11.5 million.  Minus expenses,
attorneys will take home $10.7 million.

Had the cases been tried individually, attorney fees could have
been $45 million.

Homeowners on average could expect between $50,000 to $60,000 from
the class-action lawsuit.

That figure also could be as low at $10,000 or as high as
$240,000, Mr. Toups said.

Homeowners can't receive more than 100% of their structure's
value.  If a $300,000 house was swept from its foundation and the
homeowner received $250,000 as the maximum-allowable flood
insurance claim, then the homeowner would be entitled to no more
than $50,000 from the settlement, Mr. Toups said.

The payout formula takes into consideration whether the homeowner
recovered from another source, Mr. Toups said.


TORONTO HYDRO: Class Action Lawsuit Settlement May Hit Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Roseman, writing for The Toronto Star, reports the
Ontario Energy Board will decide whether customers should cover
$17 million in costs incurred by electrical utilities in settling
a class action lawsuit.

The case was about excessive late payment penalties charged by
Toronto Hydro and other electricity distributors after April 1981.

Many people say they don't want to absorb any more costs at a time
when electricity bills are going up quickly.

Brian Lafleche read about the upcoming hearing in the North Bay
Nugget.  He wrote to the board and forwarded his email to me.

"The case was against the distributors.  Why should the ratepayers
have to pay for their distributors' incompetence?" he asked.

Robert Lubinski, who saw an ad in the Toronto Star, was outraged
to see that distributors could commit wrongdoing, have a monetary
judgment against them and ask to pass the costs on to consumers.

"This application must be stopped dead in its tracks to spare the
already overburdened Ontario electricity ratepayer from picking up
the tab," he said.

John Todd, an energy consultant at Elenchus Research Associates,
sees the late payment fees in a different light.

The money collected was used to offset distributors' costs,
including the cost of financing the late payments, he says.

"If the late payment fees had not been collected in the past,
rates would have been much higher.  Hence, arguably, it is
customers that benefited from the fees, so it is customers that
should pay now."

The electricity distributors may see a precedent in an Ontario
Energy Board decision in 2008, which also involved late payment
penalties.

In a $22 million settlement of a class action lawsuit that went
all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, Enbridge Gas was
allowed to recoup the costs from its residential customers.

The class action proceeds went into a charity to help low-income
consumers (the Winter Warmth Fund) and to the lawyers who acted
for the plaintiff, Gordon Garland.

"The underlying issue is that it's almost impossible to give
refunds to the people that actually paid the penalties," says
Michael Buonaguro, a lawyer for the Public Interest Advocacy
Centre.

In his view, the Enbridge case is similar to the electricity
distributors' case.  He will act on behalf of the Vulnerable
Energy Consumers Coalition at the upcoming hearing and argue
against ratepayers picking up the costs.

Meanwhile, the Ontario Energy Board continues to hear from
customers, whose responses are posted at its Web site.

"Ontarians who have limited incomes and are just coming out of a
recession cannot afford any more hikes, charges or miscellaneous
fees and 'recoveries' on their hydro bills," says Shawn Lowes.

This is an insult to consumers, says Keith Moyer.

"The class action was applied for in good faith and a ruling in
favor of the consumer was put forth by Mr. Justice Cumming on
April 10, 2010.

"What the distributors are now saying is, 'Sure, we were found
guilty, but we want our money back from all those who were awarded
the judgment, as well as every other customer we have.'"

Says John-Paul Delseny: "I do not believe it is right to unfairly
charge customers late penalty fees, and when caught and penalized
for doing so, pass that penalty back onto the same customers that
might have been unfairly charged in the first place."

Class actions were seen as a way to help ordinary consumers fight
against economic injustices.

The Enbridge decision, if followed in the upcoming electricity
hearing, makes a mockery of this objective.


TOYS "R" US: Feb. 18 Fairness Hearing on Internet Purchases
-----------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is scheduled for Feb. 18, 2011, in Kedem, et
al. v. Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc., et al., to consider a
settlement between the toy retailer and a class of individuals who
returned to a retail store a gift purchase over the Internet from
Babies "R" Us, babiesrus.com, Toys "R" Us, or toysrus.com between
May 4, 2004, and Oct. 29, 2010, and did not receive a full
merchandise credit refund.

Documented claims will be paid the difference between the amount
paid and the amount refunded.  Known claimants will receive $10
merchandise credits.  Unknown claimants submitting undocumented
claims by Feb. 3, 20100, will receive $5 merchandise certificates.

Objections to the settlement and any opt-out notices must be filed
by Jan. 27, 2011, and sent to:

         Toys "R" Us
         Attn: Claims Administrator
         One Geoffrey Way
         Wayne, NJ 07470

Claim forms are available at:

    http://www.torsrusinc.com/settlement/

Toys "R" Us agrees that a minimum Settlement Value shall be
established in the amount of $2,000,000.  Merchandise Certificate
payments to Class Members will be made out of this Value.  Because
this Value serves only as a floor on monies to be paid out by
Defendants, to the extent that greater than $2,000,000 worth of
Merchandise Certificates are claimed, then those claims will also
be paid by Toys "R" Us.  To the extent that less than $2,000,000
worth of Merchandise Certificates are distributed, then Toys "R"
Us may use a portion of this Value to pay the Incentive Award, the
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and the Settlement Implementation
Costs.  Any portion of this Value remaining after all Merchandise
Certificate payments to Class Members, payment of the Incentive
Award, payment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and payment of the
Settlement Implementation Costs shall be part of a minimum
donation made by Toys "R" Us or its affiliates to one or more of
its third-party non-profit charity organizations.  Under no
circumstances shall Toys "R" Us' payment of the Incentive Award,
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, or the Settlement Implementation Costs
have any effect on the payment of full compensation to all Class
Members and there shall be no requirement that Toys "R" Us
increase the amount of its charitable contributions that it had
otherwise planned to make during any time period.  To the extent
the $2,000,000 floor is insufficient to cover all Merchandise
Certificate payments, or the left over amount is insufficient to
cover the agreed upon Incentive Award, Attorneys' Fees and Costs
and Settlement Implementation Costs, Toys "R" Us will satisfy
these payment obligations even though the total paid exceeds
$2,000,000.


UCI INTERNATIONAL: Antitrust Suit Against Champion Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UCI International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc.,
remains a defendant in an antitrust class action lawsuit in
Illinois, according to the company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

Starting in 2008, UCI and its wholly owned subsidiary, Champion
were named as defendants in numerous antitrust complaints
originally filed in courts around the country.  The complaints
allege that several defendant filter manufacturers engaged in
price fixing for aftermarket automotive filters in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and/or state law.  Some of these
complaints are putative class actions on behalf of all persons
that purchased aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the
defendants, from 1999 to the present.  Others are putative class
actions on behalf of all persons who acquired indirectly
aftermarket filters manufactured and/or distributed by one or more
of the defendants, from 1999 to the present.  The complaints seek
treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and
attorney's fees.

On August 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, or JPML, transferred these cases to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On November 26, 2008, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  This complaint names Champion as
one of multiple defendants, but it does not name UCI.  The
complaint is a putative class action and alleges violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act in connection with the sale of light
duty (i.e., automotive and light truck) oil, air and fuel filters
for sale in the aftermarket.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek
treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and
attorney's fees.

On June 30, 2010, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint.  This complaint
names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name
UCI.  The complaint is a putative class action and alleges
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law related
to the sale of replacement motor vehicle oil, fuel and engine air
filters.  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek treble damages,
penalties and punitive damages where available, an injunction
against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and
attorney's fees.


UCI INTERNATIONAL: Champion Remains a Defendant in Quebec Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UCI International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc.,
remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in Quebec,
according to the company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of five defendants in a
class action filed in Quebec, Canada in 2008.  This action alleges
conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and
violations of the obligation to act in good faith related to the
sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five
defendants in the amount of $5 million in compensatory damages and
$1 million in punitive damages.  The plaintiff is seeking
authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding,
which motion has not yet been ruled on.


UCI INTERNATIONAL: Ontario Suit Against Champion Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
UCI International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc.,
is awaiting a ruling in a class action filed in Ontario, according
to the company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Champion, but not UCI, was named as one of 14 defendants in a
class action filed, in Ontario, Canada in 2008.  This action
alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic
interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian
Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters.

The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14
defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and
$15 million in punitive damages.  The plaintiff is also seeking
authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding,
which motion has not yet been ruled on.


UNITED HEALTH GROUP: Continues Defense of 7 Remanded Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
According to its November 3, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated continues to defend itself
from seven remanded lawsuits.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company by health care providers alleging various
claims relating to the Company's reimbursement practices,
including alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO) and state prompt payment laws and breach
of contract claims.

Many of the lawsuits were consolidated in a multi-district
litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District Court of Florida (MDL).  In the lead MDL lawsuit, the
court certified a class of health care providers for certain of
the RICO claims.

In 2006, the trial court dismissed all of the claims against the
Company in the lead MDL lawsuit, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals later affirmed that dismissal, leaving eleven related
lawsuits that had been stayed during the litigation of the lead
MDL lawsuit.

In August 2008, the trial court, applying its rulings in the lead
MDL lawsuit, dismissed seven of the lawsuits.  The trial court
also dismissed all but one claim in an eighth lawsuit, and ordered
the final claim to arbitration.

In December 2008, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court
dismissed without prejudice one of the three remaining lawsuits.
The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to remand the
remaining two lawsuits to state court and a federal magistrate
judge recommended dismissal of those suits.

In April 2009, the plaintiffs in the last two suits filed amended
class action complaints alleging breach of contract, but those
amended complaints were subsequently dismissed without prejudice.

In July 2010, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the seven lawsuits and remanded those cases to the
trial court for further proceedings.


WELLS FARGO: Jury Selection in Lending Class Action Begins
----------------------------------------------------------
Diane Rumbaugh, writing for Your Story, reports jury selection was
set to begin Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court in a lending
discrimination class action against Wells Fargo Bank.  Class
members are loan customers in minority communities in Los Angeles.
Plaintiffs' counsel will be arguing that Wells Fargo consistently
and knowingly discriminated against borrowers in minority
neighborhoods, resulting in these borrowers paying more for their
loans than borrowers in other parts of Los Angeles County. (Opal
Jones, et. al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, et. al Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BC337821).
Judge Anthony J. Mohr is the presiding judge.

When certifying the class last year, Judge Mohr referred to The
Unruh Civil Rights Act.  The Act makes it illegal to deny, aid or
incite a denial, or make any discrimination or distinction on the
basis of, among other things, race, color or national origin.
This includes the failure or refusal to provide all persons with
full and equal advantages and services in all business
establishments.

According to the class action filing, Wells Fargo introduced a
computer program in 2002 called "Loan Economics," which gave loan
officers the ability to offer discounts to loan applicants that
lowered overall loan costs through reduced fees and interest
rates.  The lawsuit alleges that branches in predominately white
communities could use the program to price loans, while bank
branches in predominately minority communities were prevented from
doing so by Wells Fargo management.

"Despite overwhelming evidence that members of Wells Fargo's
management were engaged in blatant racial discrimination that
caused the class of minority borrowers to pay more for their
loans, these officers are still employed and in some cases have
been promoted by Wells Fargo," says A. Barry Cappello, managing
partner of the Santa Barbara law firm of Cappello & Noel, and co-
counsel representing the class.  "The area manager knew he would
make more money for himself if his branches didn't use the pricing
program.  By discriminating, he benefited himself."

Class members are defined as borrowers who obtained a first trust
deed-secured loan from Wells Fargo Bank or Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage for more than $150,000 between May 2002 and December
2005. Members must have applied for their loans at Wells Fargo
branches located within specific areas of Los Angeles County.

"Wells Fargo management continually denied requests by minority
area branch loan officers to use the program so they could offer
lower cost loans to minority borrowers, even when the borrowers
were well qualified," says attorney Leila J. Noel, a partner at
Cappello & Noel and plaintiffs' co-counsel.  "These borrowers did
not shop loans -- they relied on what their Wells Fargo loan
representatives told them.  They did not know that that these loan
officers were prevented from giving them better loan terms and
rates.  Fortunately, they will now have their day in court."

Judge Mohr denied Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment and
motion for class decertification on November 7, clearing the way
for trial.

Plaintiffs' counsel is seeking statutory damages of $4,000 per
loan.  To participate in the class, class members needed to waive
their right to actual damages.  An estimated 7,000 borrowers who
obtained their loans from minority branch locations are expected
to qualify as class members.

Once a jury is selected, the trial will be held at the Central
Civil West Courthouse (600 South Commonwealth, 14th fl., Los
Angeles) and is expected to last about six weeks.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: East Anglian Fined GBP30T for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Magistrates Court issued a GBP30,000 penalty to Norwich,
England-based East Anglian Construction Ltd, a subsidiary of Peter
Colby Commercials, for breaching asbestos safety laws, EDP24
reports.

The Court heard that members of the Company's staff had been asked
to remove the asbestos from the Company's headquarters at Diamond
House in Vulcan Road, Norwich.

The Company had obtained estimates from specialist companies to
remove the asbestos but, after being quoted sums between GBP24,000
and GBP30,000, bosses decided to carry out the work themselves.

They checked online to find out what precautions to take, but
actually followed instructions for removing asbestos concrete
rather than asbestos insulation board, meaning the staff was not
properly equipped.

The Company pleaded guilty to three breaches of health and safety
regulations.  Magistrate Charles Nevick fined the Company
GBP30,000 and ordered that it pay GBP10,000 in legal costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Facing 1,171 Actions at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2010, of the
3,320 asbestos cases brought against subsidiary Central Hudson
Gas & Electric Corporation, 1,171 remain pending, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,994 have
been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson,
and Central Hudson has settled 155 cases.

Headquartered in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., CH Energy Group, Inc.'s
subsidiary, Central Hudson Gas & Electric, provides electricity to
about 300,000 electric and 74,000 natural gas customers in eight
counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers
natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service
territory that extends from New York City to Albany.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Involved in Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. continues to be involved as a defendant in a
number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits.  However, neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber, the materials that allegedly caused
the injury underlying the lawsuits.  Moreover, the asbestos-
containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed
within the subject Products.

The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers
or indemnitors where necessary.  The latest of these actions,
Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,
et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial
District, Adams County, Ill., as case number 10-L-48.

In the lawsuit, the Company seeks to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos lawsuits filed against the Company.

Headquartered in Quincy, Ill., Gardner Denver, Inc. makes blowers,
petroleum pumps, and various compressors, such as reciprocating,
rotary screw, and sliding vane compressors, as well as positive
displacement and centrifugal blowers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,530 Cases Ongoing v. Standard Motor Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,530 asbestos-related cases were outstanding at Sept. 30,
2010 for which Standard Motor Products, Inc. was responsible for
any related liabilities, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

At June 30, 2010, the Company said that 1,534 asbestos cases were
outstanding for which it was responsible for any related
liabilities.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2010)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation.  When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through Sept. 30, 2010, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$11.2 million.  In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims for
coverage under this agreement, and received about US$2.5 million
in reimbursement for settlement claims and defense costs.  The
Company has submitted additional asbestos-related claims to such
insurance carrier for coverage.

In addition, in May 2010, the Company entered into an agreement
with an excess insurance carrier to provide the Company with
limited insurance coverage for defense and indemnity costs
associated with asbestos-related claims.  The Company will submit
claims to this carrier after it has exhausted its coverage under
the agreement with the primary insurance carrier.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of Aug. 31, 2010.
The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability for
settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$25.7 million to
US$66.9 million for the period through 2059.

The change from the prior year study was a US$900,000 decrease for
the low end of the range and a US$600,000 increase for the high
end of the range.  An incremental US$1.8 million provision in the
Company's discontinued operation was added to the asbestos accrual
in September 2010 increasing the reserve to about US$25.7 million.

According to the updated study, legal costs, which are expensed as
incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations, are
estimated to range from US$20.3 million to US$61.3 million during
the same period.
Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products,
Inc. manufactures engine management and air conditioning
replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket.  Customers are
auto parts warehouse distributors (CARQUEST and NAPA) and auto
parts retailers (Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Still Party to "Premises" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation has been named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.  This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations.  Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases,
the Company tenders it to the prior owner.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
23 claims tendered during period, 21 claims resolved during
period, and 1,140 claims unresolved at end of period.  During the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 18 claims
tendered during period, 14 claims resolved during period, and
1,139 claims unresolved at end of period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases.  As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$16 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$16 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
Cases include all cases for which service has been received by the
Company.  Certain prior cases that were filed in error against the
Company have been dismissed.

During the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company recorded
three claims filed during the period, two claims resolved during
the period, and 40 claims unresolved at end of period.  During the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded one claim
filed during the period, three claims resolved during the period,
and 41 claims unresolved at the end of period.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$200,000 and
nil during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.  As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company had an accrual of
US$225,000 relating to these cases.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation
manufactures differentiated organic chemical products and
inorganic chemical products.  Products include MDI, amines,
surfactants, maleic anhydride, epoxy-based polymer formulations,
textile chemicals, dyes and titanium dioxide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Caterpillar Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to face unresolved legal actions
involving disputes on product design, manufacture and performance
liability (including claimed asbestos and welding fumes exposure),
contracts, employment issues, environmental matters or
intellectual property rights.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Peoria, Ill., Caterpillar Inc. makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power
generation systems.  The Company sells its equipment worldwide via
a network of 3,500 locations in 180 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $317MM Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted
to US$317,191,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$352,537,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$323,947,000 as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 13, 2010)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable amounted to US$216,393,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$244,265,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

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

Headquartered in Geneva, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and
construction contractor and power equipment supplier delivering
technically advanced, reliable facilities and equipment.  The
Company employs about 13,000 professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler AG Faces 124,360 Claims in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG faced 124,360 open asbestos-related claims in
the United States during the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010,
compared with 129,300 open claims during the fiscal quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United States faced 122,490 open
asbestos claims during the fiscal three months ended June 30,
2010, compared with 130,500 open claims during the fiscal three
months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13,
2010)

During the fiscal quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company
recorded 2,840 new claims and 970 claims resolved.  During the
fiscal quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 890 new
claims and 2,090 claims resolved.

Total asbestos-related assets in the U.S. were US$238.8 million as
of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$274 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.  Total
asbestos-related liabilities in the U.S. were US$341.3 million as
of Sept. 30, 2010 and US$376.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Through Sept. 30, 2010, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were
about US$723.1 million and total cumulative defense costs paid
were about US$334.1 million.

Over the last several years, certain of the Company's subsidiaries
have entered into settlement agreements calling for insurers to
make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over time, for use by
the subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related indemnity and defense
costs and, in certain cases, for reimbursement for portions of
out-of-pocket costs previously incurred.

During the fiscal nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's
subsidiaries reached agreements to settle their disputed asbestos-
related insurance coverage with three additional insurers.

As a result of these settlements, the Company increased its
asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded gains of US$7
million and US$14 million, respectively in the fiscal quarter and
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company expects to have net cash inflows of US$10.5 million as
a result of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the
asbestos liability indemnity and defense payments for the full
fiscal year 2010.

Headquartered in Geneva, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and
construction contractor and power equipment supplier delivering
technically advanced, reliable facilities and equipment.  The
Company employs about 13,000 professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler U.K. Units Face 287 Open Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom faced 287
open asbestos-related claims as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have
received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to
asbestos.  To date, 955 claims have been brought against the
Company's U.K. subsidiaries.

Total asbestos-related assets were US$35.5 million and total
asbestos-related liabilities were US$35.5 million as of Sept. 30,
2010.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its liability
assessment.

If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$53.7 million.

Headquartered in Geneva, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and
construction contractor and power equipment supplier delivering
technically advanced, reliable facilities and equipment.  The
Company employs about 13,000 professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Harsco Dropped to 20,085 at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are 20,085 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

There were 24,120 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against the Company as of June 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 20, 2010)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from
exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In
their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among
others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of
numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

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

Of the pending cases as of Sept. 30, 2010, about 19,593 are
pending in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New
York State.  The other claims, totaling 492, are filed in various
counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal
District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York State
court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 24,573 cases.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 750 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corporation's metals
segment offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap
management, and other services for steel and nonferrous metals
producers.  This segment's units act as an on-site service partner
at about 170 locations in 35 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Posts $14.2MM Gross Reserves at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation's subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings
LLC's reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
include US$14.2 million of gross reserves and US$14.1 million of
net reserves at Sept. 30, 2010, and US$18.9 million of gross
reserves and US$18.8 million of net reserves at Dec. 31, 2009.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corporation and Platte River Insurance Company (collectively
"CATA") between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited such business in 1976.  CATA released
US$3.5 million of such net reserves at June 30, 2010 based on a
reserve study that was completed in the 2010 second quarter.

Although the Company is unable at this time to determine whether
additional reserves, which could have a material impact upon its
results of operations, may be necessary in the future, the Company
said it believes that CATA's asbestos and environmental reserves
were adequate at Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in New York, Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the
property and casualty and surety insurance business through its
wholly owned subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC (AIHL).
AIHL's insurance business is conducted through its wholly owned
subsidiaries RSUI Group, Inc., Capitol Transamerica Corporation
and Platte River Insurance Company (collectively "CATA"), and
Pacific Compensation Corporation, formerly known as Employers
Direct Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Received 4,800 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received about 4,800 new asbestos-related claims during the nine
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 2,800 new claims during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

MLIC received about 2,076 new asbestos-related claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 1,726 claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 6, 2010)

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts.  These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through
the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized
or failed to disclose those health risks.

MLIC said it believes that it should not have legal liability in
these cases.

As reported in the 2009 Annual Report, MLIC received about 3,910
asbestos-related claims in 2009.

Headquartered in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides insurance,
employee benefits and financial services with operations
throughout the United States and the Latin America, Asia Pacific
and Europe, Middle East and India regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Posts $10.4MM A&E Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss
adjustment expense reserves for all direct business written by its
property and casualty companies related to asbestos and
environmental damage liability were US$10.4 million at Sept. 30,
2010 and US$11.3 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Net of reinsurance, these reserves were US$19.9 million at
Sept. 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for all direct
business written by the Company's property and casualty companies
related to A&E damage liability, included in the reserve for
losses and LAE, were US$11.3 million at June 30, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, Aug. 27, 2010)

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves for
assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental
damage liability of US$34.9 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and US$45.6
million at Dec. 31, 2009.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has terminated
its participation; however, it continues to be subject to claims
related to years in which the Company was a participant.

The US$10.7 million decrease in these reserves during the first
nine months of 2010 was primarily due to a large claim settlement
within these pools.  A significant part of the Company's pool
reserves relates to its participation in the Excess and Casualty
Reinsurance Association (ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982.

In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business
has been in runoff.  The Company's percentage of the total pool
liabilities varied from one percent to six percent during these
years.  Its participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years.

Headquartered in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group,
Inc.'s primary business operations include insurance products and
services in three property and casualty operating segments.  These
segments are Personal Lines, Commercial Lines, and Other Property
and Casualty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Ongoing v. IPL at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company, as of Sept. 30, 2010, is a defendant in a little less
than 100 lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death
stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing
products formerly located in IPL power plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" meaning that IPL did
not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products.  These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.

IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these claims.
Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s
business consists of the generation, transmission, distribution
and sale of electric energy conducted through its principal
subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M & F Worldwide Continues to Face Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp. is subject to contingent claims that include
various environmental and asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC.

The Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect to pay on
its own behalf material amounts related to these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling
Company, Inc. (Original Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various
operating businesses, all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996.
Prior to the 1988 sale, those businesses had manufactured certain
asbestos-containing friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as
100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various personal
injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. -- now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor" -- assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc., the Company and two of
its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement.  Under the
Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI substantially
all of its assets and liabilities other than the assets and
liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace Division and
certain contingent liabilities and the related assets, including
its historical insurance and indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which it
manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products.  The
subsidiary and its successors have pursued litigation against the
insurers providing this coverage in order to confirm its
availability and obtain its benefits.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement, all
of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims
are managed and paid by others.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company has not incurred and does not
expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-related
claims not subject to the arrangements.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company that
conducts its operations through its indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide.  The
Company's businesses are organized along four business segments:
Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and Licorice
Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 6 Units Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.  To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's
business unit.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., IDEX Corporation consists of
four reportable business segments: Fluid & Metering Technologies,
Health & Science Technologies, Dispensing Equipment and Fire &
Safety/Diversified Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simakis Case v. 72 Firms Filed Oct. 20 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Weirton, W.Va., John Michael Simakis and his wife
Nancy J. Schramm, on Oct. 20, 2010, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against 72 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Simakis was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Sept. 7, 2010.  He was employed by Weirton Steel
from 1966 until May 1985 and his father was employed by the same
company in the late 1940s.

Mr. Simakis and Ms. Schramm seek compensatory and punitive
damages. Brian A. Prim, Esq., represents them.

Case No. 10-C-1874 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quimby Fined $27,620 for East Longmeadow Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
levied a fine of US$27,620 against Stephen R. Quimby of East
Longmeadow, Mass., for violating state asbestos regulations,
according to a MassDEP press release dated Nov. 10, 2010.

Mr. Quimby is a Massachusetts-registered home improvement
contractor and also the owner of the residential building on
Parker Street in East Longmeadow where the violations occurred.

In December 2009, MassDEP received a complaint regarding
demolition of a residential building with asbestos transite
siding.  Upon inspection of the site, MassDEP determined that
prior to demolishing the structure, Mr. Quimby had removed
asbestos siding from the residential home and was storing the
asbestos siding in the garage.  Broken asbestos siding was also
found on the ground at the site.

Mr. Quimby did not file the required asbestos notification, nor
did he employ the proper asbestos-handling, and disposal
procedures.

In the consent order issued by MassDEP, Mr. Quimby agreed to a
penalty of US$27,620.  He will pay US$4,000 of the penalty, and
MassDEP agreed to suspend the balance of the penalty for one year,
provided he remains in compliance with the state asbestos
regulations.

Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, Mass., said, "MassDEP's asbestos regulations include
notification requirements and establish safe removal and handling
practices for demolishing or renovating buildings to prevent the
release of asbestos to the environment.  Failure to properly
remove asbestos-containing material can result in significant
penalty exposure, and higher cleanup, decontamination, disposal
and monitoring costs."

Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal,
handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the
asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate
MassDEP regional office for assistance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doyle Widow Supports U.K. Apprenticeship Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Doyle, whose husband Dave Doyle died after being exposed to
asbestos fibers, is backing a new training initiative that aims to
save the lives of young apprentices in Cheshire and Merseyside,
England, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release
dated Nov. 11, 2010.

Mrs. Doyle hopes the HSE scheme will help get the message across
to thousands of trainee joiners, electricians, plumbers and other
tradespeople about the dangers they face from asbestos.

Lecturers at six training colleges are being provided with a new
pack of teaching materials for young apprentices.  The initiative
is being rolled out across Cheshire and Merseyside following a
successful pilot.

Mr. Doyle died from mesothelioma in 2006 after working as a joiner
all his life.  He was exposed to asbestos while using the material
to make properties fire resistant.  Mrs. Doyle said, "Dave's death
has had a devastating impact on our family.  Young people need to
realize the real cost asbestos can have on their lives.

"Both our sons and grandson have followed Dave into the building
trade so I've made sure they're aware of the dangers.  Trainee
apprentices need to know they're not immortal."

The new "Introduction to Asbestos" learning package is aimed at
young trades people who may come into contact with the material,
which was often used for fireproofing or insulation, while
carrying out their work.

The teaching materials include a video interview with Christopher
Morgan, who died from mesothelioma in March 2010.  The 58-year-old
pipe fitter was exposed to asbestos fibers while repairing heating
systems decades earlier. In the video, he urges young apprentices
to take the threat of asbestos seriously.

David Gartside, HSE Board Member, said, "We're encouraging college
lecturers to use our new learning package as part of their
apprenticeship courses.  I hope the video message from Christopher
Morgan will make them realize asbestos is a genuine danger."

HSE research has found that, although trades people know asbestos
is harmful to health, they believe it is an historical problem not
still relevant to them.  They therefore do not take action to
protect themselves.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merced Firm, Staff Indicted on Asbestos Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Attorney Benjamin W. Wagner announced on Nov. 10, 2010 that
Firm Build Inc., of Merced, Calif.; its president Patrick Bowman,
44, of Los Banos; its administrative manager Joseph M. Cuellar,
71, of Fresno; and its construction project site supervisor
Rudolph I. Buendia III, of Merced, were charged by a grand jury in
an 11-count superseding indictment with violations of various
Clean Air Act statutes and regulations, according to U.S.
Department of Justice press release dated Nov. 10, 2010.

According to the superseding indictment, the defendants are
charged with conspiracy to submit false statements and a false
writing.  Firm Build Inc. and Mr. Cuellar are charged with the
submission of false statements and a false writing to the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, an agency
responsible for administering the Clean Air Act for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in Merced County.

All four defendants are charged with nine violations of the Clean
Air Act and with knowing endangerment of another person by the
release of asbestos into the ambient air.

Mr. Wagner said, "Prosecuting environmental crimes is an important
priority for the U.S. Department of Justice, but those
environmental crimes that can have an adverse impact on human
health are particularly deserving of prosecution."

According to the superseding indictment, these charges stem from
defendants' unlawful abatement of regulated asbestos-containing
materials during the demolition and renovation of Building 325 at
the former Castle Air Force Base in Atwater from 2005 until March
2006.  Firm Build Inc. performed the demolition and renovation
work to convert the former base's motor pool at Building 325 into
an automotive mechanic training center.

The superseding indictment alleges that during the renovation at
Building 325, Firm Build Inc. directed its employees and high
school students from the Workplace Learning Academy to remove and
dispose of more than 260 linear feet of pipe insulation and
additional quantities of insulation on other facility components
that contained regulated asbestos-containing material without
using proper protective equipment or taking protective measures.

This case is the result of an investigation by the Merced County
District Attorney's Office, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District, and the U.S. Environmental, Office of
Criminal Enforcement.

If convicted, the defendants face a maximum sentence of five years
in prison, a US$250,000 fine, and three years supervised release
on all charges except the knowing endangerment of another person
charge which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison, a
US$250,000 fine, and three years supervised release.

The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion
of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory
sentencing factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which
take into account a number of variables.

The charges in an indictment are only allegations, and a defendant
is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newton Abbot Nurse Seeks Help to Claim Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Jameson, a 58-year-old woman who lives near Newton Abbot,
England, seeks former colleagues in her battle to claim
compensation for her asbestos-related injuries, the Express & Echo
reports.

Diagnosed with mesothelioma last June 2010, Mrs. Jameson believes
she may have been exposed to asbestos while working as a trainee
psychiatric nurse in the North East during the late 1960s and
early 1970s.

Helen Grady, a workplace illness expert with Irwin Mitchell
Solicitors' South West office, who is representing Mrs. Jameson,
said, "Sadly, Mrs. Jameson is one of a growing number of people
diagnosed with mesothelioma whose jobs are not usually associated
with heavy exposure to asbestos.  We believe the exposure occurred
at Middlesbrough's St Luke's Hospital.

"Hospital staff and teachers who were exposed to quite low levels
of asbestos 20 or 30 years ago and family members who breathed in
asbestos dust brought home on loved one's work clothes, are now
being given a shocking diagnosis."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cirencester Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Lavern Ponting, a financial
administrator for a housing association, was caused by asbestos,
but she had never knowingly been in contact with asbestos, the
Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard reports.

Mrs. Ponting, who died at the age of 50, had never worked in
places where asbestos was used and neither had her husband Andrew
Ponting, Gloucestershire Deputy Coroner David Dooley was told.

Recording an open verdict, Mr. Dooley apologized to Mrs. Ponting's
family for being unable to give them closure due to the lack of
evidence to pinpoint the source of the asbestos that killed her.

Mrs. Ponting died at her home in Cotswold Avenue, Cirencester, on
May 7, 2010.  Mr. Ponting said she had gone to the doctor feeling
unwell and with a persistent cough.  She was referred to the
specialist oncology unit at Cheltenham General Hospital and was
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.  He said he had worked in
the building and concrete trades most of his life and she had
washed his work clothes.

Mr. Ponting said he had worked in dusty environments but he was
never told there was asbestos present and he had not been able to
find where his wife might have come into contact with it.

The coroner's office had contacted the Pontings' employers and had
not been able to find any occasions when either of them had come
into contact with asbestos.

The Coroner even contacted the Cirencester schools Mrs. Ponting
had attended as a child but was still unable to discover any time
when she could have been exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Launches "Transparent" Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Premier Anna Bligh of Queensland, Australia, says there is now a
transparent asbestos system, including asbestos registers, ABC
News reports.

The Queensland Government says it is regrettable that parents were
not told about asbestos that was detected at a school.  Education
Queensland did not tell parents and teachers when fibers were
found at Redcliffe State High School in 2008 because of advice
that it posed no risk.

Opposition education spokesman Bruce Flegg says that was the wrong
call.

Education Minister Geoff Wilson says the guidelines have been
redrafted so parents are told.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Help in Claiming Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
The unnamed widow of William Victor Panes, a former plumber for
Surrey, England who died from mesothelioma at the age of 78, is
appealing for his work mates to come forward with information to
help her battle for justice, the Surrey Comet reports.

Mr. Panes was diagnosed in June 2010.  He died four months later
on Oct. 11, 2010.  It is thought Mr. Panes was exposed to asbestos
while working as a plumbing and heating engineer for several local
firms in Cobham and Woking, from the age of 14.

Although the companies Mr. Panes worked for in the 1940s and 50s
have ceased trading it is still possible to pursue legal claims
through the employers' insurers.

Helen Grady, a workplace illness expert from Irwin Mitchell
solicitors, said, "Although no amount of money can truly
compensate for the death of a loved one, it is important to
continue the fight for justice begun by Mr. Panes, to find out how
he came to be exposed to asbestos fibers."

To do this it is very important to hear from Mr. Panes' former
colleagues, who may have important information about working
practices at the time.

Mr. Panes recalled asbestos being loaded into particular work
sites by the lorry load, like bags of flour.  He also remembered
having to mix up asbestos and cut through lagged asbestos pipes as
part of his day-to-day work.

Mrs. Grady said he worked for TG Burns between 1962 and 1981 and
for Steers between 1952 and 1962, building a new secondary school
in Cobham.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vineland Electrician Awarded $3.72MM in Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Bird, a 55-year-old electrician from Vineland, N.J., was
awarded US$3.72 million in a lawsuit settlement over asbestos
exposure, The Daily Journal reports.

Mr. Bird's attorney, Rachel Placitella, Esq., said that her client
worked as an electrician and encountered asbestos-containing
products on job sites.

Mr. Bird sued the manufacturers of the asbestos-containing
products for liability after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Ms. Placitella, of the law firm Cohen, Placitella & Roth, said, "I
am grateful that I was able to help such a kind-hearted and
wonderful family.  Mr. and Mrs. Bird are very satisfied with this
settlement.  Mr. Bird is a fighter and continues to battle this
dreadful disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Brookside to Continue in Summer 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal will resume in the summer of 2011 in Brookside
School, a northern New Jersey school, where repairs to an
encapsulation of asbestos on school pipes took place, the
Mesothelioma Resource Center reports.

NorthJersey.com reported that encapsulation material, which keeps
asbestos secured to piping, was repaired in the basement of the
Brookside School, which is in the Allendale School District.

The encapsulation was done by D&S Restoration in Paterson at a
cost of US$16,800.  Air quality tests were conducted by an
asbestos management company following completion of the repairs at
an additional cost of US$1,027.

The district's interim business administrator Ruthann Quinn told
the website, "That's normal procedure when you have anything done.
They have somebody monitor just to make sure no particles are in
the air, even though it's in the basement.  It's not near anybody,
[but] you still take all the precautions you can."

Mr. Quinn said crews will return to the Brookside School next
summer when the school is unoccupied in order to remove asbestos
from a sealed crawl space in the basement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supervisor Penalized C$8T for Cleanup Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary O'Neill, a supervisor, was fined C$8,000 on Nov. 9, 2010 for
violating asbestos regulations imposed by the Occupational Health
and Safety Act, according to Canadian Ministry of Labour press
release dated Nov. 15, 2010.

On Nov. 17, 2009, Mrs. O'Neill was acting as a supervisor for
1636487 Ontario Limited, carrying on business as O'Neill
Excavating 2005.  That day, she and one worker were removing the
asbestos insulation surrounding a boiler at a rental property on
Albert St., in Belleville, Ontario.

A tenant in the adjoining unit, concerned the asbestos was not
being removed properly, notified the Hastings and Prince Edward
County Health Unit.  The Ministry of Labour was then notified.

A Ministry of Labour investigation found that proper protective
clothing was not worn in the work area, and the work area was not
properly sealed off to prevent the spread of asbestos.

Mrs. O'Neill pleaded guilty to:

   -- Failing to ensure that only persons wearing proper
      protective clothing enter a work area where there is an
      asbestos dust hazard and

   -- Failing to use the proper methods required to seal off the
      work area to prevent the spread of airborne asbestos fibers.

Mrs. O'Neill was fined CAD4,000 for each count.

The fines were imposed by Justice of the Peace Deanne Chapelle.
In addition to the fines, the court imposed a 25-percent victim
fine surcharge, as required by the Provincial Offences Act.  The
surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to
assist victims of crime.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case on Breach at Eggers Bldg. Settled for $85T
----------------------------------------------------------------
A civil asbestos enforcement action arising from the demolition of
a large industrial building owned by Eggers Industries at 1819
River Street, Two Rivers, Manitowoc County, Wis., has been filed
and resolved, Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced
on Nov. 11, 2010, according to a Wisconsin Department of Justice
press release dated Nov. 11, 2010.

All three named defendants have settled the case by agreeing to
pay forfeitures and costs totaling US$85,000.

Vinton Construction Company, Eggers Industries, Inc., and Douglas
M. Wanek, superintendent/estimator for Vinton Construction, were
the subjects of a civil complaint alleging violations of asbestos
regulations, including:

   -- Failing to thoroughly inspect the facility for asbestos
      prior to commencing demolition activities,

   -- Failing to remove all asbestos from the facility prior to
      demolition, failing to adequately wet asbestos before
      removal,

   -- Failing to carefully lower asbestos,

   -- Failing to wet all asbestos during stripping operations, and

   -- Failing to keep asbestos wet until collected and contained.

The settlement between the parties calls for Vinton Construction,
Eggers Industries, and Mr. Wanek to pay forfeitures, costs and
surcharges totaling US$85,000.  The settlement was approved by the
Honorable Judge Patrick L. Willis, Manitowoc County Circuit Court,
on Nov. 11, 2010.

Mr. Van Hollen stated, "Compliance with Wisconsin's asbestos
removal regulations is essential in preventing a serious hazard to
the environment and to public health. Failure to meticulously
follow the regulations on the handling of asbestos can needlessly
expose many unsuspecting citizens."

The violations were investigated by inspectors at the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, who referred the matter to the
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Assistant Attorneys General Steven Tinker and Mary Batt
represented the State.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal proceedings are pending or may be brought against Sunoco,
Inc., arising out of its current and past operations, including
matters related to allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances (like asbestos or benzene) and general
environmental claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Nov. 4, 2010, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum refiner
and marketer and chemicals manufacturer with interests in
logistics and cokemaking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., including its subsidiaries, has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses, which were
acquired by the Company and do not involve products, which were
manufactured or sold by the Company or relate to previously owned
businesses of the Company which are under new ownership.

In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new
owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed to
indemnify the Company against these claims.  The Indemnified
Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such
sellers and new owners.

These sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the future;
however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation
in 2007.

To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a
result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.

Headquartered in Paoli, Pa., AMETEK, Inc. has two reportable
segments, the Electronic Instruments Group and the
Electromechanical Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still Party to Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc., or its subsidiaries, faced some asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Nov. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in certain
U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims against numerous
industrial companies.

Headquartered in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. is a
diversified growth company that designs, manufactures and
distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and industrial
imaging products and software, industrial technology products and
radio frequency products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Douglas Emmett Facilities Contain Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental site assessments and investigations have identified
20 properties in Douglas Emmett, Inc.'s consolidated portfolio
containing asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Nov. 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The asbestos would have to be removed in compliance with
applicable environmental regulations if these properties undergo
major renovations or are demolished.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the obligations to remove the asbestos from
these properties have indeterminable settlement dates, and
therefore, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the fair
value of the associated conditional asset retirement obligation.

Headquartered in Santa Monica, Calif., Douglas Emmett, Inc. is a
fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed Real Estate
Investment Trust.  As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company owns 50
office properties (including ancillary retail space) and nine
multifamily properties, as well as the fee interests in two
parcels of land subject to ground leases.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Claims Drop to 5,150 at Oct. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 5,170 asbestos-
related claims as of Oct. 29, 2010, compared with 7,343 such
claims as of July 23, 2010, and 7,464 claims as of April 29, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Nov. 5, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products that the Company previously manufactured.  The Company
produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and
used in certain paper mills.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products that the Company previously
manufactured.

As of Oct. 29, 2010, about 779 claims remained against the Company
in the MDL.  This compares to 12,758 claims that were pending at
the MDL as of Feb. 6, 2009.  Of these remaining 779 MDL claims,
448 were originally filed in state courts in Mississippi.

As of Oct. 29, 2010, the remaining 4,391 claims pending against
the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than
the MDL.

As of Oct. 29, 2010, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 35,491 claims.  The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$7.005 million.  Of this amount, almost
100 percent was paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that the Company should be able to access.

Headquartered in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes
paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that
move paper stock through each phase of production).  The Company
produces about 45% of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the
remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Facing 7,870 Claims at Oct. 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., was defending against 7,870 asbestos-related claims as of
Oct. 29, 2010, compared with 7,907 such claims as of July 23, 2010
and April 29, 2010 and 7,905 such claims as of Feb. 16, 2010.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of
the Company, is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which the Company is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999.  Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.  In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.
It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing
fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of Oct. 29, 2010, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 9,717 claims for a total of US$200,000.  Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights.  The remaining
11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon.  During
2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

As of Oct. 29, 2010, 6,821 (or about 81%) of the claims pending
against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.  No amounts have been
paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001.  The Company said
it does not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding
the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims.

Headquartered in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes
paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that
move paper stock through each phase of production).  The Company
produces about 45% of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the
remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Party to Mt. Vernon Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., in some asbestos cases, is named both
as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products.  The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims.  On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Headquartered in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes
paper machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that
move paper stock through each phase of production).  The Company
produces about 45% of the monofilament yarn used in its paper
machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for the
remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 1.8T New Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. says that, during the nine months ended
Sept. 30, 2010, subsidiary Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.
received about 1,800 new asbestos claims, settled or dismissed
about 1,300 claims for a total of US$7 million, and had about
49,500 claims outstanding at the end of the period.

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.  About 90
days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

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

The outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2010 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims
the Company believes will not have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated results of operations, financial position
or cash flow.

The outstanding claims at Sept. 30, 2010 also exclude about 19,000
inactive claims.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$231
million, including US$166 million for unasserted claims and US$1
million for committed settlements that will be paid over time.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against the Company.

However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be
filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future.  The projected
value of these claims is included in the Company's estimated
liability as of Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Subject to Cases in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending
claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value
of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.

On Oct. 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was
unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to
asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the
legislation was enacted in June of 2003.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Subject to Cases in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims
than the acquired company's adjusted asset value.

In November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation,
et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the statute violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, due
to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork raising
federal and state constitutional challenges to the amended statute
(Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA 2006).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of this
decision.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Records $15M Charge at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., during the third quarter and first nine
months of 2010, the Company recorded a charge of US$15 million to
increase its accrual for asbestos-related costs for claims in
Texas that were pending on June 11, 2003.

The Company anticipates that settlement of these claims will
extend over a number of years.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. designs,
manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer goods.  The
Company's primary products include steel and aluminum cans for
food, beverage, household, and other consumer products and metal
vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Subject to Property Damage Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In asbestos property damage actions filed against W. R. Grace &
Co., the plaintiffs generally seek to have the defendants pay for
the cost of removing, containing or repairing the asbestos-
containing materials in the affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001 Filing
Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts; judgments after trial were entered in favor of
the Company in nine cases; judgments after trial were entered in
favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases for a total of US$86.1
million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the one
on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attic
Insulation and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI).

About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March 31,
2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.  The
Company objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
different bases.  As of Sept. 30, 2010, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003 bar date remain
outstanding.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 395 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$147 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.

About 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the Oct. 31,
2008 claims bar date and, as of Sept. 30, 2010 an additional 1,310
U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Personal Injury Actions Ongoing v. W. R. Grace
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be subject to asbestos personal
injury claims that allege adverse health effects from exposure to
asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 PI
Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement
amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not
involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about 163,698 PI
Claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a
total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against the
Company.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims.  A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $970MM Excess Coverage at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Sept. 30, 2010, there remains
about US$970 million of excess asbestos-related coverage from 54
presently solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.
For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims.

Since 1985, insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities
has not been commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements, which are
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with
underwriters of a portion of the Company's excess insurance
coverage.

Under these agreements, the insurers have agreed, subject to
certain conditions, to pay to the PI Trust (directly or through an
escrow arrangement) an aggregate of about US$236 million in
respect of claims for which the Company was provided coverage
under the affected policies.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $50.2MM Libby Liability at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby,
Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing
sites outside of Libby, was US$50.2 million at Sept. 30, 2010 and
US$51.6 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, including
the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of
Libby, was US$50.5 million at June 30, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 20, 2010)

During 2009, the Company learned that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency may reinvestigate about 100 former or currently
operating plants at which vermiculite concentrate from the Grace-
owned Libby vermiculite mine was expanded.  Of these expansion
plants, seven are currently owned by the Company.

The Company is unable to determine the possible results of any
reinvestigation and whether it may result in additional claims by
EPA.  The estimated obligation as of Sept. 30, 2010 does not
include any costs in respect of this reinvestigation or any
additional EPA claims, which cost if any, are not currently
estimable.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. supplies
catalysts and other products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for
the manufacture of plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty
materials for a wide range of industrial applications; sealants
and coatings for food and beverage packaging, and specialty
chemicals, additives and building materials for commercial and
residential construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy, BGE Still Have 488 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 488 individuals who were never employees of Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company have
pending asbestos claims each seeking several million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.  In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.

Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.
To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority has
been resolved for amounts that were not material to the Company's
financial results.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Md., Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
is an energy company that includes a generation business, a
customer supply business, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,842 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at Sept. 30, 2010, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,842 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 52
claims from those previously reported.

At June 30, 2010, was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos
induced illness involving claims by about 16,790 plaintiffs, which
is a net decrease of four claims from those previously reported.
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2010)

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 38,952 of those
claims were dismissed, 17 were tried to defense verdicts, seven
were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being or will
be appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial
amount and 570 were decided in favor of the Company following
summary judgment motions.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Lincoln Electric Holdings,
Inc.'s primary business is the design and manufacture of arc
welding and cutting products, manufacturing a broad line of arc
welding equipment, consumable welding products and other welding
and cutting products.  The Company also has a leading global
position in the brazing and soldering alloys market.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Leah Felisilda, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter
A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *