CAR_Public/090619.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 120

                           Headlines

ALCOA INC: Faces Pa. Lawsuit Over Alumina Refinery in Australia
BEAZER HOMES: Aug. 13 Hearing Set for $30.5M Ga. Suit Settlement
BLUE CROSS: Faces California Litigation Over "Rescissions"
BROCADE COMMS: Dismissal of Calif. Amended Complaint Appealed
BROCADE COMMS: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved on Jan. 23

CHINESE DRYWALL: La. Court, Judge Selected For Several Lawsuits
C.R. ENGLAND: Plans to Appeal Magistrate Order in OOIDA Lawsuit
DYNAMEX INC: Electronic Discovery in Calif. Labor Suit Ongoing
DYNAMEX INC: Lawsuit by Independent Contractor Drivers Stayed
FLORIDA SCHOOL: Ex-Employee Denies Allegations in Abuse Lawsuit

FMC CORP: July 14 Hearing Set for Pa. Antitrust Suit Settlement
GOOGLE INC: Sept. 14 Hearing Set for $20M Adwords Settlement
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk Amended "Sewell" Suit Pending
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: In Talks to Settle Securities Fraud Suit
IOVATE HEALTH: Baum Hedlund Files Hydroxycut Consumer Fraud Suit

KB HOME: Faces Calif. Suit For Allegedly Rigging Home Appraisals
MICHAEL BAKER: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Litigation
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Lawsuit by Former Hourly Retail Employees
MICHAELS STORES: To Defend "Adams" Wage and Hours Suit in Calif.
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: N.Y. Court Nixes Most Claims in Stock Suit

OPTIONABLE INC: Judge Refuses to Revive Natural Gas Options Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: DPW Sued Over Policy for Mentally Retarded Adults
PRESSTEK INC: July 20 Hearing Set for $1.25M Lawsuit Settlement
SPRINT SPECTRUM: Treo 600 Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Accessory Suit Settled
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Appeal to Nixed GTA Lawsuit Deal Pending

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: EA Buyout Offer Suit Deal Pending Approval
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Maulano" Securities Suit Remains Stayed
TORO CO: Sept. '09 Status Conference Set for Consumer Fraud Suit
UNITED KINGDOM: Court Says Nuclear Test Veterans Can Sue MoD

UNITED PARCEL: Tentatively Settles "Bates" Lawsuit in California
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Stockholders Suit Pending in Tel-Aviv, Israel


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Facing MPERS Case in New Jersey
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 535 Claims at March 29
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Good Shepherd School Settles AHERA Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stamp Upholds Ruling in CSX Case on June 4
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 16 New Cases Filed May 18-22 in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Actions filed May 25 to 29 in Ill. Court
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues $10T Fine to United Gilsonite
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Seeks GBP1Mil in Payout Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action v. Vale Inco Europe Ongoing in Wales
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on Radiologists' Case on May 29

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vedanta to Raise Bid for Asarco LLC Offer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at Deutsche Bank Halted on June 9
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korea Gov't. Has 110 Cases from Closed Mine
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caswell Group Supports Daily Mirror Crusade
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in AstenJohnson Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Partial Dismissal in Watts Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Farrell's Move for New Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gray's Family Gets $1.2Mil in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Charges v. Favorito Dropped in Grace Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby Machinist's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lancashire Teachers Seek Cleanup in Schools
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Dumped at Nanty Glo Recreation Spot
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Ruling in Eickleberry Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings Issued in Bankston, Brown Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Howard Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Silvestro Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Nicholas Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PDG Notes $4M Reduction in Cleanup Revenues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Cotswold Resident's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NERA Bares Filing, Settlement Trends Report

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Granger Suit v. Chevron Filed in Jefferson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reynolds Gets $8.4MM Award in Hamilton Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AG Files Contamination Lawsuit v. Decoulos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Addingham Resident's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Osborne's Case v. Texaco, Chevron Underway

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Fountaindale, E. Russell
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SUNY Medical Work Delayed on Asbestos Fears
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Cites World Bank Report's Importance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CAG Seeks More Info on BoRit Asbestos Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Vacates Ruling in Daley's Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Trial Ordered in Nolan v. Weil-McLain
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Ledaura Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Casella Site to Accept Waste Until Dec. 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Health Emergency Declared in Mont. Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Berkeley Scientist's Death

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Chick Released From Prison Last May 21
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Davison County Accepts $11,340 Cleanup Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LVI Disputes Cambria's $34.1Mil Cleanup Bid
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos at Wallaga Lake Town to be Removed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos, Other Hazards Found at Swannanoa

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Protest Waste Plant's Extension


                           *********

ALCOA INC: Faces Pa. Lawsuit Over Alumina Refinery in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in
Pennsylvania over its alumina refinery in Wagerup, Australia,
Narelle Towie of PerthNow reports.

The suit was filed one behalf of residents living near the
refinery, which is 125km south of Perth.  It is being led by
health crusader Erin Brockovich, according to PerthNow.

The company is accused of knowingly, negligently and recklessly
operating its factory and poisoning surrounding communities with
toxic emissions, reports PerthNow.

PerthNow reported that sick residents claim they suffer from
uterine cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer, leukemia,
lymphoma, heart complications, sinus and skin problems, and even
death as a result of the pollution from the plant.

Court documents refer to an additional 240 past and present
residents, who claim they suffer from similar ailments, PerthNow
reports.

The law firm of Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy LLC in
Pittsburgh filed the class-action suit, which involves more than
10 local residents, according to the PerthNow report.

For more details, contact:

          Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy LLC
          20 Stanwix Street, Seventh Floor,
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4802
          Phone: 412-391-9860 or 1-800-222-8816
          Fax: 412-391-7453
          e-mail: info@cbmclaw.com
          Web site: http://www.cbmclaw.com


BEAZER HOMES: Aug. 13 Hearing Set for $30.5M Ga. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 13, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. for
the proposed $30.5 million settlement in the matter, "Beazer
Homes USA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:07-cv-
725-CC."

Bloomberg News previously reported that Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
agreed to pay $30.5 million to settle a class-action suit over
allegations it misled shareholders about problems with its
mortgage-lending practices that led to a federal investigation
(Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2009).

Under terms of the settlement, the company denies any
wrongdoing, according to a statement by Beazer.  The settlement
is subject to final approval by Judge Clarence Cooper of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
according to the Bloomberg News report.

The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers are named as defendants in a putative securities class-
action suit filed on March 29, 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 26, 2009).

The plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of Beazer Homes' common stock between July 27,
2006, and March 27, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects because the company did not disclose facts related to
alleged improper lending practices in its mortgage origination
business.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.

Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed on May 18 and
21, 2007, before the same district court, asserting similar
factual allegations and proposing class periods of July 28,
2005, through March 27, 2007, and March 30, 2005, through March
27, 2007, respectively.

The three cases were subsequently consolidated by the court and
the court appointed Glickenhaus & Co. and Carpenters Pension
Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs.

On June 27, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws, which purports to assert claims on behalf of a
class of persons and entities that purchased or acquired the
securities of Beazer Homes during the period Jan. 27, 2005,
through May 12, 2008.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts a claim against the
defendants under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company business and prospects, including, among other things,
alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to alleged
improper lending practices in the company's mortgage origination
business, alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to
improper revenue recognition and other accounting improprieties
and alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
company's land investments and inventory.

The Consolidated Complaint also asserts claims against the
Individual Defendants under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Exchange Act.

The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that the suit is
properly maintained as a class action, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  Briefing of the
motion was expected to be completed in March 2009, according to
the company's Feb. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The suit is "Eugene Kratz, et al. v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq. (lfeldman@milberg.com)
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300

          Krissi T. Gore, Esq. (KGore@chitwoodlaw.com)
          Chitwood Harley Harnes
          2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          Fax: 404-876-4476

               - and -

          Francis P. Karam, Esq. (karam@bernlieb.com)
          Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212-779-1414

Representing the defendants are:

          Richard W. Clary, Esq. (rclary@cravath.com)
          Cravath Swaine & Moore
          825 Eighth Avenue, Worldwide Plaza
          New York, NY 10019-7475
          Phone: 212-474-1227


BLUE CROSS: Faces California Litigation Over "Rescissions"
----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross of California, a subsidiary of WellPoint Inc. faces a
purported class-action lawsuit by Wittney Horton of Los Angeles,
whose own insurance was canceled after she sought routine
medical care.

Ms. Horton represents 6,000 similar victims of Blue Cross
"rescissions" - retroactive cancellations of insurance policies
after a patient gets sick with an expensive-to-treat illness.

When Ms. Horton applied for coverage with Blue Cross, she filled
out the long and confusing application to the best of her
ability.  She gave Blue Cross permission to review her medical
records.  Blue Cross accepted her application and sold her
coverage.  After Ms. Horton sought routine medical care, Blue
Cross scoured Horton's medical record and retroactively
cancelled her coverage.  Blue Cross said it would have never
sold her a policy if the company had known Horton had
"polycystic ovaries," a condition not disclosed on her
application.  The rescission letter was the first time Ms.
Horton had ever heard about this condition.  Ms. Horton's doctor
had suspected she had the condition, noted it in Ms. Horton's
medical file, but never told Ms. Horton about it.


BROCADE COMMS: Dismissal of Calif. Amended Complaint Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of their second
amended class-action complaint against Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On Oct. 23, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against
Brocade and certain of its former officers and current and
former directors.

This action was filed in the California Superior Court in Santa
Clara County on behalf of individuals who owned Brocade stock
between Feb. 21, 2001 and May 16, 2005.

The complaint generally alleges that Brocade and the individual
defendants breached the duty of disclosure by failing to
disclose alleged wrongful conduct, including conduct complained
of in the securities litigation, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and other relief against the defendants.

On Nov. 26, 2007, this action was removed from State Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On Dec. 3, 2007, Brocade filed a motion to dismiss the action in
its entirety on the ground that it is preempted by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

On March 6, 2008, Brocade's motion to dismiss was denied and the
case was remanded to State Court.  On May 29, 2008, Brocade
filed a demurrer to the complaint.

On July 10, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
Brocade filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Aug. 4,
2008.  On Sept. 12, 2008, Brocade's demurrer was granted and the
amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

On Oct. 15, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint generally alleges that Brocade and
the individual defendants violated or conspired to violate the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  Brocade filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on Nov. 17, 2008.  On Jan. 30, 2009, the Court
granted Brocade's motion and, on March 3, 2009, the Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  On May 14, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according to the company's
June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. -- http://www.brocade.com/
-- is a supplier of data center networking solutions that help
enterprises connect and manage their information.  The company
offers a line of data center networking hardware, software
products and services.  The company is organized in four
operating units: The Data Center Infrastructure (DCI), The
Server Edge and Storage (SES), The Services, Support and
Solutions (S3) and The Files (Files). Brocade products and
services are marketed, sold to end-user customers through
distribution partners, including original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), distributors, systems integrators, value-
added resellers (VARs) and by Brocade directly.


BROCADE COMMS: Settlement of Securities Suit Approved on Jan. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
on Jan. 26, 2009, granted final approval of the proposed
$160,098,500 settlement in the matter, "In re: Brocade
Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB,"
which was filed against Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.

                         Case Background

Brocade manufactures, among other things, products designed to
help information technology organizations manage and profit from
their data assets.  Brocade is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business in San Jose,
California.  KPMG was Brocade's external auditor during a
portion of the Class Period.

Beginning on May 19, 2005, six putative class-action lawsuits
alleging securities laws violations were filed against Brocade
and its officers and directors.  These actions were consolidated
before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.  In January, 2006, the Court
appointed the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System as
Lead Plaintiff and approved APERS' selection of Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP and Patton Roberts, PLLC as "Lead Counsel" in the
action.

On April 14, 2006, APERS filed a 105-page Consolidated Class
Action Complaint against Brocade, certain officers and directors
of Brocade, and KPMG.

APERS alleged that Brocade and certain of its officers and
directors made false and misleading public statements and
omitted material information about Brocade's finances relating
to stock option grants and stock option based compensation in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 during the Class Period.

APERS alleged that KPMG misled investors by falsely stating that
Brocade's financial statements were prepared according to
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that KPMG had
conducted its audits according to Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards.

Class Action Settlement

On May 30, 2008, Brocade reached an agreement in principle with
the lead plaintiffs to settle the federal securities class
action that would result in a payment by Brocade of $160.0
million to the plaintiff class in exchange for the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in the
litigation.  The parties filed final documentation of the
settlement with the Court and the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on Nov. 18, 2008.

In December 2008, Brocade deposited $160.0 million into an
escrow account on behalf of the plaintiff class to be released
upon final approval of the proposed settlement by the Federal
District Court.  On Jan. 26, 2009, the Federal District Court
granted final approval of the settlement, according to the
company's June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

This suit is "Brocade Securities Litigation, Consolidated Case
No. 3:05-CV-02042-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

For more information, contact:

          Eric Wetzel, Esq.
          Nix, Patterson & Roach
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Phone: 903-645-7333 or 512-474-7514
          Fax: 903-645-4415
          Web site: http://www.nixlawfirm.com/

               - and -

          In Re Brocade Securities Litigation Settlement
          Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 3266
          Portland, OR 97208
          Phone: 1-877-507-4370
          e-mail: questions@brocadeclasssettlement.com
          Web site: https://www.brocadeclasssettlement.com/


CHINESE DRYWALL: La. Court, Judge Selected For Several Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
     On May 27, 2009, the Multi District Litigation (MDL) Panel
heard argument for consolidating thousands of Chinese Drywall
lawsuits throughout the United States.  In an order that was
entered on June 15, 2009, the MDL selected the Eastern District
of Louisiana Federal United States District Court.  The MDL
Panel selected experienced trial Judge Eldon E. Fallon to
oversee the cases.  A pre-trial conference has been set for July
9, 2009 at 2:00 pm at Judge Fallon's courtroom, Room C-468,
United States Courthouse, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana.  100,000 cases from across the nation are expected to
be consolidated for pretrial matters and discovery in the dry
wall litigation that has impacted homeowners throughout the
country.  Florida is expected to have 35,000 cases filed within
the next year regarding this problem.  "This is the largest
construction defect case in the history of the United States and
consumers need help now," said Ervin A. Gonzalez, one of
Florida's leading lawyers that have been representing hundreds
of homeowners with dry wall problems.  "By consolidating the
cases, the Court will allow for the more efficient and effective
handling of these claims.  Ultimately it should reduce the
expense involved in litigating the cases and should promote
global resolutions of these claims."

     The Court will likely select an Executive committee for the
Plaintiffs and Defendants to run the litigation on behalf of all
interested parties and soon after require a joint case
management plan to be submitted that outlines the parties'
pleading and practice schedule as well as the proposed discovery
schedule.  Given that many of the Defendants are from foreign
countries like China and Germany and were served under The Hague
Convention requirements, the Court may attempt to simplify and
streamline the service and notice requirements on the foreign
corporate parties in order to keep the cost of litigation down
and to speed up the process.

     As early as 2007 many homeowners who moved into their newly
constructed homes began to notice strong "rotten egg" odors in
their homes.  They also noticed that many of their new
appliances were failing, wiring was corroding, air-conditioning
coils needed replacing and they began to experience headaches,
sore throats, nose bleeds and upper respiratory problems.

     According to the Chinese Drywall lawsuit, the culprit is
alleged to be defective drywall that emits various sulfide gases
and/or other chemicals through "off-gassing" that creates
noxious, "rotten egg-like" odors, and causes corrosion of metals
including those in air-conditioners, refrigerator coils,
microwaves, faucets, utensils, copper tubing, electrical wiring,
computer wiring, personal property, electronic appliances, and
other metal surfaces and household items.  The only solution is
to "gut" the homes and remove the toxic drywall down to the
studs.  "Most homeowners are unable to move out because they
cannot afford to pay their mortgages and the rent on another
apartment or home.  This is a serious matter that requires
immediate attention.  We will ask the Court to take prompt
action in order to make the responsible parties accountable for
the harm that they have caused hundreds of thousands to suffer."
Gonzalez currently represents homeowners in individual and class
action litigation in state and federal court.

     The homeowners are seeking compensatory damages for the
direct and consequential damages caused by the defective drywall
that include the cost of repair and replacement of the
homeowner's houses and personal property as well as relocation
costs and other related economic expenses.  The lawsuit is also
seeking damages for medical monitoring to provide medical
screening.

For more details, contact:

          Ervin A. Gonzalez
          Phone: 305-476-7491 or 305-298-1888.


C.R. ENGLAND: Plans to Appeal Magistrate Order in OOIDA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. England has indicated that it intends to appeal an order
issued by Magistrate Judge David Nuffer in the matter, "OOIDA
vs. C.R. England," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah, Land Line Magazine reports.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) filed
the case against the carrier in June 2002 along with five of its
owner-operator members.  It was certified as a class action in
August 2005 on behalf of owner-operators who entered into a
lease agreement with C.R. England from June 1998 to August 2002
(Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2007).

Since then, C.R. England has since amended its lease document
and required all of its owner-operators to sign a new agreement.

In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Ted Stewart ruled that motor
carrier C.R. England violated truth-in-leasing regulations
between June 1998 to August 2002 by failing to specify charge-
back items and forcing purchase of services in its contracts
with owner-operators.

The judge also found that the motor carrier had improperly
managed truckers' escrow accounts.  He ordered C.R. England to
provide an accounting of disbursements of truckers' escrow
funds, which amount to more than $6.3, according to OOIDA.  He
gave the motor carrier 30 days from June 20 to file a written
proposal regarding the accounting of the truckers' escrow money.

"...[T]his is really the first suit that has gone to trial on
the merits on the merits -– the merits being the actual wording
of the truth-in-leasing regulations..," according to Jim
Johnston, president and chief executive of OOIDA.

According to a Land Line Magazine report, the court ruled that
the motor carrier must provide an accounting of what happened to
those funds.

In October 2008, Judge Stewart held that individual class
members would be entitled to restitution, along with "payment of
reasonable interest," if they had positive escrow balances after
consideration of any allowed setoffs.  Judge Stewart then
referred the case to Magistrate Judge David Nuffer to oversee
the disposition of individual class members' escrow claims, Land
Line Magazine reported.

One of the big issues facing the magistrate judge is exactly how
much that rate of interest should be.  OOIDA suggested that
Utah's statutory legal interest rate of 10 percent be used.
C.R. England argued that the 91-day Treasury bill rate should
apply, according to Land Line Magazine.

Land Line Magazine reported that the magistrate judge used
neither in his final decision.  Judge Nuffer cited a paragraph
included in a number of the motor carrier's own leases that use
an 18 percent annual "finance charge" on balances overdue in the
event that either party to the lease (the driver and C.R.
England) defaulted on any amount due.  Judge Nuffer ruled that
class members who did not enter into leases containing an 18-
percent default interest rate are entitled to the regulatory
interest rate, or 91-day Treasury bill rate.

Those whose leases did contain the 18-percent default rate are
entitled to restitution at the rate of 18 percent, or 1.5
percent per month, on escrow funds.

According to a court order filed in late May, C.R. England
asserted that the 18 percent rate was "not reasonable,"  Land
Line Magazine reports.

However, Judge Nuffer wrote that "the Defendant should not be
permitted to argue that its own form contract is unreasonable
when that rate is applied to the Defendant," reports Land Line
Magazine.

"Our analysis indicates that class members who leased on with
C.R. England between 2000 and the summer of 2002 signed
contracts containing the 18 percent default rate," David A.
Cohen of The Cullen Law Firm, OOIDA's litigation counsel, told
Land Line Magazine.  "To the extent these drivers have positive
escrow balances they will be entitled to 18 percent interest on
their unreturned escrow funds."

Mr. Cohen cautioned, however, that C.R. England has indicated
that it intends to appeal the magistrate judge's ruling to Judge
Stewart.

The appeal will be filed the week of June 15, and Judge Stewart
is likely to issue a ruling later this summer.  OOIDA President
and CEO Jim Johnston told Land Line Magazine the Association
will vigorously oppose any attempt by C.R. England to overturn
the magistrate judge's ruling that the company must pay 18
percent interest on improperly retained owner-operator escrow
funds.

Mr. Johnston told Land Line Magazine that Judge Nuffer has
issued an aggressive schedule on wrapping up the case, including
a status report due in October 2009.


DYNAMEX INC: Electronic Discovery in Calif. Labor Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic discovery is continuing in a purported labor class-
action lawsuit against Dynamex, Inc., according to the company's
June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005.  The lawsuit
alleges that the company unlawfully misclassified its California
drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees.

The suit asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of
the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other
benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of
certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other
benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer
payroll taxes under federal and state law.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2,
2006.  A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and the court denied
this request.  The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5,
2007.

Following the exchange of briefs, an Appellate Hearing was held
in August 2008.  The Appellate Court determined that the trial
court's denial of an earlier motion by the plaintiff to compel
disclosure of the names and contact information for all members
of the putative class prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to
support his motion for class certification.

The ruling reversed the Denial of the Motion for Class
Certification and remanded the matter for additional discovery
and eventual re-hearing.

Pursuant to Order of the Court, the names and contact
information for members of the putative class were produced by
the company in January 2009.

In early February 2009, Plaintiff was permitted to file a First
Amended Complaint, which among other matters, added an
additional named Plaintiff.

Electronic Discovery is continuing and is expected to lead to
the filing of a Motion by Plaintiff for Class Certification in
June 2009.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


DYNAMEX INC: Lawsuit by Independent Contractor Drivers Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit filed by independent contractor
drivers against Dynamex, Inc., is stayed, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2008,
by two California independent contractor drivers alleging that
the company's classification of California drivers as
independent contractors was unlawful, and that as a consequence
they were denied the benefit of various California wage laws.

The plaintiffs further alleged that such misclassification
constituted unfair competition under California business
statutes.  Because the complaint in large measure contains the
same causes of action as an on-going California case filed in
2005, the company filed a Special Demurrer and a Motion to Stay
further proceedings pending the outcome of the earlier action.

Following a November 2008 Hearing, the Court issued a Stay.

Plaintiffs' subsequent attempt to consolidate their action with
the Los Angeles County action was denied.

On Jan. 21, 2009, one of the named Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed his claims without prejudice in order to attempt to
join the Los Angeles County suit.  The Plaintiff has
subsequently been added to the Los Angeles County suit.

Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com/-- is a provider of
same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada.
Through its network of business centers, the company provides
same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing
its ground couriers.


FLORIDA SCHOOL: Ex-Employee Denies Allegations in Abuse Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A former Florida Panhandle reform school employee is denying
allegations of abuse in a class-action lawsuit filed against him
and several other entities, The Associated Press reports.

During a May 21, 2009 deposition, Troy Tidwell said, "Never was
a boy beat in my presence," at the former Florida School for
Boys in Marianna.  Mr. Tidwell said boys were spanked, but not
beaten, when they broke the rules or tried to run away.  He also
said misbehaving boys were fed a "soup that would change their
conduct," reports AP.

Mr. Tidwell, another former school employee, the Department of
Juvenile Justice, and four other state departments are named as
defendants in the lawsuit, AP reported.

According ot Northwest Florida Daily News, ,ore than 300 men who
spent time at two Florida reform schools a half century ago are
suing the state claiming they were raped and severely beaten by
state employees.


FMC CORP: July 14 Hearing Set for Pa. Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on July 14, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., to
consider a proposed settlement by FMC Corp., Arkema Inc. (f/k/a
Atofna Chemicals, Inc. and Elf Atochem North America, Inc.) and
Arkema France (f/k/a Atofna S.A. and Elf Atochem S.A.) in the
matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682."

The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District
Court  for  the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market
Street, Courtroom 10B, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.

                        Case Background

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are those who purchased Hydrogen
Peroxide (including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in
the U.S. or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from
any of these defendants:

       -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.;

       -- Akzo Nobel Inc.;

       -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf
          Atochem North America, Inc.);

       -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem
          S.A.);

       -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.);

       -- Degussa Corporation;

       -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- FMC Corporation;

       -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.;

       -- Kemira Oyj;

       -- Solvay America;

       -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.;

       -- Solvay S.A.; and

       -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.).

In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged
conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant
manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium
percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007).

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs from the defendants.

For more details, contact:

          Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation
          Settlement Administrator
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          P.O. Box 58309
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309
          Phone: 1-800-252-5745
          http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hausfeld LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 202-540-7200

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. (rkaplan@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 800-290-1952
                 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/


GOOGLE INC: Sept. 14 Hearing Set for $20M Adwords Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 14, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. For
the proposed $20,000,000 settlement in the matter, "CLRB Hanson
Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc., Case No. 5:2005-cv-03649."

The hearing will be held at the U.S Courthouse, 280 South 1st
Street, San Jose, California 95113.

Mediapost previously reported that Google Inc. reached a
$20,000,000 settlement for the purported class-action lawsuit,
"CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc., Case No.
5:2005-cv-03649" (Class Action Reporter, April 6, 2009).

The class-action lawsuit was filed by two small business
advertisers, namely Minnesota-based printing company CLRB Hanson
Industries and N.J.-based Howard Stern (not the radio
personality); they argued that Google had charged them more for
ads on certain days than they'd agreed to pay for, according to
Mediapost.

Google countered that it had only overcharged them to make up
for days when it under-delivered ads, but still chose to end the
litigation with a settlement.  Both plaintiffs will receive
$20,000; Google agreed to pay their lawyers more than $5
million.  Other affected advertisers will get AdWords credits,
Mediapost reported.

In a statement to Mediapost, a company spokesperson said,
"Google believes the claims are without merit, but we are
pleased to have the litigation behind us and to move forward
with our business objectives."

In mid-2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California ruled that the lawsuit, which is challenging
Google Inc.'s AdWords billing practices, may proceed (Class
Action Reporter, June 4, 2008).

AdWords is Google's primary advertising program and is the main
source of its revenue.  AdWords ads appear on Google.com as well
as on Google partner sites like Ask.com (Class Action Reporter,
April 24, 2008).  AdWords ads, however, may also appear on
third-party Web sites, which use AdSense, the other side of the
Google advertising model.

Google charges its advertising customers when someone "clicks"
on one of their ads.  During the sign-up process, users tell
Google the maximum that they are willing to pay per "click."

During this process, users encounter two adjacent boxes.  Into
the first, customers enter the amount they wish to pay per
"click" of an ad displayed on Google.com.  The second box is
marked "optional."  Into this box, a user can enter the amount
they would be willing to pay per "click" of an ad appearing on a
third party web page.  But leaving the box blank does not
prevent ads from appearing on third-party sites.

Instead, Google places the ads on third-party sites anyway.  And
users are automatically charged per click based on the amount
they entered into the first box.  This suit arises from the fact
that both actions occur without the user being informed.

Ads on third-party sites are widely-acknowledged to be far less
effective (and therefore less valuable to the advertiser) than
ads on Google.com.  Google, of course, still profits greatly
from these ads.

Filed in 2005, plaintiffs in the suit seek to represent all
Google AdWords advertisers who have been charged more than their
per day daily budget, and will request the Court to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.

On May 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied, in part, Google's motion for
summary judgment, and determined that a lawsuit challenging,
among other things, Google's practice of charging AdWords
advertisers more than an advertiser's specified per day "daily
budget" may proceed.

The suit is "CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC et al v. Google Inc.,
Case No. 5:2005-cv-03649," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware,
presiding.

For more information, contact:

          CLRB Hanson LLC et al. v. Google Class Action
               Settlement
          c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC
          P.O. Box 8090
          San Rafael, California 94912-8090
          Web site: http://www.adwordssettlement.com/

          Rachel S. Black, Esq. (rblack@susmangodfrey.com)
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          Seattle, Washington
          Phone: 206.516.3899
          Fax: 206.516.3883
          Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com/

              - and -

          Lester L. Levy, Esq. (llevy@wolfpopper.com)
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 451-9606
          Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com/


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk Amended "Sewell" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in a purported class action suit, Randolph
Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., is pending.

A subsidiary of the company has been named as a defendant in the
purported class-action suit filed on May 30, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging
violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of certain home
purchasers in southwestern Florida and sought damages,
rescission of certain purchase agreements, restitution of out-
of-pocket expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint on Dec. 14, 2007.

Following oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the
court dismissed the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs
to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Oct. 31, 2008.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss this second amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of certain home purchasers
in southwestern Florida and seek damages, rescission of certain
purchase agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and
attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's June 5,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs,
constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes,
attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise
condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned
residential developments.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: In Talks to Settle Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.; its chief financial officer J.
Larry Sorsby; and its chief executive officer and president, Ara
K. Hovnanian, are in discussions over possible settlement of a
consolidated securities fraud class action suit filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The class-action complaint was originally filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Sept.
14, 2007, accusing Mr. Sorsby of inflating the home builder's
share price through false and misleading statements (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2007).

Named plaintiff, and later court-appointed lead plaintiff,
Herbert Mankofsky, brought this securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Hovnanian between Dec. 8, 2005, and Aug. 13,
2007.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1934.  It also alleges that during the class period, the
defendants issued a materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and prospects.

According to the suit, as a result of these misleading
statements, Hovnanian stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the class period, reaching a high of $54.29 per
share in Jan. 2006.

However, as a direct result of the market learning of
defendants' wrongdoing, the price of Hovnanian shares declined
and the plaintiff and the class suffered a loss on their
investment in Hovnanian.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendant;

     (b) whether the defendant omitted and misrepresented
         material facts;

     (c) whether defendant's statements omitted material facts
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
         circumstances under which they were made, not
         misleading;

     (d) whether defendant knew or deliberately disregarded that
         his statements were false and misleading;

     (e) whether the price of Hovnanian common stock was
         artificially inflated; and

     (f) the extent of damage sustained by class members and the
         appropriate measure of damages.

The plaintiff prays for judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class,
        damages, including interest;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees;
        and

     -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the action was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
captioned, "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation," alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
future prospects with respect to the Company's acquisition and
operation of First Home Builders of Florida in violation of
federal securities laws.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
July 14, 2008.  On Sept. 11, 2008, plaintiff filed his
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.  The company filed its
reply brief on Oct. 28, 2008.

In March 2009, the parties agreed that the Motion to Dismiss
would be withdrawn and that the Plaintiffs would file a second
amended complaint.

The company's insurance carrier has agreed to provide coverage
for the case under the company's insurance policy, therefore the
maximum exposure to the company is the deductible, which has
already been incurred and expensed as defense costs.  The
parties are discussing possible settlement of the matter,
according to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

The suit is "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William C. Cagney, Esq. (wcagney@windelsmarx.com)
         Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
         120 Albany Street Plaza
         New Brunswick, NJ 08901
         Phone: (732) 846-7600

Representing the defendants is:

         Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq. (deakeley@lowenstein.com)
         Lowenstein Sandler P.C.
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500


IOVATE HEALTH: Baum Hedlund Files Hydroxycut Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Recalled Hydroxycut products are defective and dangerous
according to a lawsuit filed by Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman
in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of everyone who
consumed any of the recalled weight loss Hydroxycut supplements.

The lead plaintiff in this class action, Marvin Thomas of Los
Angeles, is seeking compensatory, equitable, declaratory, and
injunctive relief for himself and everyone in the Hydroxycut
class against the defendants for, among other things, violations
of various states' deceptive trade practices acts,
misrepresentation, fraudulent, false and misleading
advertisements, and unjust enrichment by distributing a product
about which they had been making unsubstantiated claims of
safety and effectiveness.

     The class action lawsuit (CV 09-04337) was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the manufacturers of Hydroxycut: Iovate
Health Sciences USA Inc. (Blasdell, N.Y.); Iovate Health
Sciences Inc., (Ontario, Canada); and MuscleTech Research and
Development, Inc. (Ontario, Canada).

     According to the complaint, the Hydroxycut products that
were the subject of the May 1, 2009 and May 7, 2009 Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) recalls, were a series of dietary,
weight loss and muscle building supplements and drugs which
posed serious health risks, including serious liver injuries, or
hepatotoxicity (chemical-driven liver damage).

     Because Hydroxycut is a dietary supplement and not a
prescription drug, it was not regulated by the FDA and did not
require approval by the FDA, according to one of Mr. Thomas'
attorneys, Ilyas Akbari, also a bio-engineer.  "In this case
they cannot hide behind the dubious FDA preemption defense.

     "We believe defendants have known for a long time that
their products were unsafe yet they continued to mass market
them for profit," according to Mr. Akbari. He went on to say
that questions concerning the safety of Hydroxycut can be traced
back to 2003 when the state of Missouri filed a complaint
alleging that Hydroxycut's claims of being "clinically proven"
and "safe" were false and misleading.  That case settled but
nothing changed. The first scientific publications that Baum
Hedlund was aware of which associated Hydroxycut with liver
injury were reported in March 2005.  Since then, numerous
publications have reported injuries associated with these
products and, recently, at least 23 adverse event reports were
submitted to the FDA.  The FDA informed Iovate of its belief
that Hydroxycut was not safe.  The manufacturers finally agreed
with that assessment, which led to the May, 2009 recalls.

     Baum Hedlund warns that the number of adverse events has
almost certainly been under-reported.  Approximately 15% of the
U.S. population uses dietary/weight loss supplements and
Hydroxycut, which was promoted as "America's #1 Selling Weight-
Loss Supplement," was by far the leading product in this market,
selling about 9 million units in 2008 alone.  With such wide
usage, the actual number of reported cases likely underestimates
the true incidence of injuries by several degrees of magnitude,
especially here in Southern California, which may have been hit
the hardest by this fraud.  Californians have always been among
the most health conscious in the country and probably consume
dietary supplements on a larger scale than any other part of the
nation.

     Anyone with a Hydroxycut-related injury should seek medical
attention.  For more information about this class action please
call 800-827-0087 or 310-207-3233.


KB HOME: Faces Calif. Suit For Allegedly Rigging Home Appraisals
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Two California homeowners filed a class-action lawsuit
against KB Home (NYSE: KBH), Countrywide Financial and LandSafe
Appraisal Services, expanding cases previously filed in Arizona
and Nevada claiming the companies conspired to systematically,
artificially and illegally rig home appraisals and sale values
in KB developments throughout the state.

     The lawsuit lists identical claims to the suit filed in
Arizona last month.  Homeowners claim KB Home and the other
defendants inflated home prices by as much as $300 million in
California alone.

     Between 2006 and 2008, KB built more than 15,000 homes in
California at an average selling price of $425,000 the complaint
cites.  Attorneys conservatively estimate that each home had an
inflated appraised value of $20,000, the suit states.

     "KB and Countrywide created an opportunity where the
companies could control every aspect of a buyer's real estate
transaction," said Steve Berman, lead attorney and managing
partner at HBSS.  "The defendants essentially created a black
hole in the process, where they could rig and falsify appraisals
and home sale values and customers had absolutely no idea."

     According to the 75-page complaint, Countrywide funneled
all its KB customers' home appraisals to one person at LandSafe,
an appraisal subsidiary of Countrywide who, in turn, would
deliver an appraisal value at whatever KB and Countrywide
ordered.  These individuals were under direct instruction to
value homes at or above the contract price, even if it meant
violating regulatory guidelines and requirements.

     In two KB Home developments cited in the complaint, sampled
appraisals were inflated by $48,000 and $52,000 per property.
KB's major markets in California include communities in Fresno,
Los Angeles and Ventura, Orange County, Riverside, Sacramento,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Jose and Oakland and Stockton.

     The suit details a litany of tactics LandSafe appraisers
used to deliver the predetermined value, including blatantly
falsifying sale prices for comparable properties; using
comparable properties that were as much as 10 miles away, and
citing comparable properties that were in other planned
communities.

     "Countrywide approved loans for amounts in excess of homes'
true values and pushed homeowners into loans they didn't qualify
for, ultimately dooming them to financial failure," said Berman.
"Homeowners now find themselves unable to make payments or
unable to sell the home at a value that allows them to pay off
the loan - these are alarming practices and damaging not only to
customers but to the entire home loan industry."

     The lawsuit includes allegations of a second scheme with
Countrywide and its subsidiary appraisal arm, LandSafe.  The
suit alleges LandSafe outsourced appraisal work on individual
appraisers willing to 'play ball,' and forced appraisers to
accept payment below market value.  LandSafe then charged
plaintiffs upwards of $400 for services, when the company
completed no work of its own.

     According to the complaint, KB Home ran into similar
appraisal problems in 2005 when it settled with HUD for $3.2
million to resolve an investigation into the company's
underwriting violations. This includes approving loans to
borrowers not eligible, approving loans based on overstated or
incorrect income, failing to include all of a borrower's debts,
failing to properly verify sources of funds and failure to meet
HUD requirements.

     The HBSS lawsuit claims violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and violation of
California unfair competition law.

     The lawsuit represents anyone in California who purchased a
home from KB Home and financed through Countrywide.  To join
this case, homeowners can contact attorneys by visiting
http://www.hbsslaw.com/kbhomes,e-mailing kbhomes@hbsslaw.com or
calling (206) 623-7292.


MICHAEL BAKER: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 11, 2009 for the proposed
$4,500,000 settlement in the matter, "Michael Baker Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:08-cv-00370-JFC."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
at the United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15219.

Previously, Michael Baker Corp. announced that it has reached an
agreement in principle with the lead plaintiffs in the
previously disclosed class-action lawsuit against the Company.
The settlement is subject to court approval after notice to the
class members.  The amount of the settlement, which the Company
did not disclose, will be covered in full by the Company's
insurance (Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2009).

Initially, four separate complaints were filed by holders of the
company's common stock against the company, as well as certain
of its current and former officers (Class Action Reporter, July
7, 2008).

The complaints in these lawsuits purport to have been made on
behalf of a class of plaintiffs consisting of purchasers of the
company's common stock between March 19, 2007, and Feb. 22,
2008.

The suits alleged that the company and certain of its current
and former officers made materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and other fees and costs.

In June 2008, all of the cases were consolidated into a single
action, according to the company's June 30, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.

For more details, contact:

          In re Michael Baker Corp. Securities Litigation
          c/o Heffler, Radetich, & Saitta L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 70,
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-0070
          Phone: (800) 355-2582
          Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: (610) 822-2203
          Fax: (610) 667-7056
          Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838
          Web site: http://www.barrack.com


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Lawsuit by Former Hourly Retail Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. intends to defend a purported class-action
proceeding commenced by Nicole McLeod, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

On March 30, 2009, Nicole McLeod, a former Michaels employee,
commenced a purported class-action proceeding against Michaels
Stores, Inc. on behalf of herself and current and former hourly
retail employees employed in California from March 30, 2005 to
the present.

The McLeod suit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, and removed by the Company to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The McLeod suit alleges that Michaels failed to pay overtime
wages and provide meal and rest periods (or compensation in lieu
thereof).

The McLeod suit also alleges that this conduct was in breach of
California's unfair competition law. The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, restitution, damages for unpaid wages,
waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


MICHAELS STORES: To Defend "Adams" Wage and Hours Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit entitled "Adams, et. al. v. Michaels
Stores, Inc.," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

A purported class-action suit was filed on Dec. 29, 2006, by
John DeJoseph, a former Michaels store manager in Valencia,
California.

Mr. DeJoseph commenced the purported class-action proceeding
against Michaels Stores on behalf of himself and current and
former salaried store employees employed in California from May
10, 2002, to the present.

The DeJoseph suit was filed with the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  It alleges that Michaels
failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal periods, accurately
record hours worked, provide itemized employee wage statements,
and that Michaels unlawfully made deductions from employees'
earnings.

Additionally, the suit alleges that the foregoing conduct was in
breach of California's unfair competition law.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages for unpaid wages,
penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In January 2008, the plaintiff submitted a brief in support of
class certification.  The company contested class certification
by filing responding materials on March 14, 2008.

On June 4, 2008, the class was certified as to certain claims.
However, on a motion for de-certification filed by the company,
the Court de-certified the class on March 12, 2009.

On April 22, 2009, counsel for the former class filed a new
action, "Adams, et. al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc." in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Adams suit includes approximately 125 individual plaintiffs
who were members of the former class in the DeJoseph suit and
alleges that Michaels failed to pay overtime wages, provide meal
and rest periods (or compensation in lieu thereof), accurately
record hours worked and provide itemized employee wage
statements.  The Adams suit additionally alleges that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of California's unfair
competition law.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages for unpaid wages,
penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company intends to defend the class action, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Michaels Stores, Inc. -- http://www.michaels.com/-- is an arts
and crafts specialty retailer in North America providing
materials, ideas and education for creative activities.


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: N.Y. Court Nixes Most Claims in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed all but one claim in a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit against NovaGold Resources, Inc. and its
officers, Darryl Greer of the Courthouse News Service reports.

Previously, Law360 reported that most claims in the case were
dismissed.  But, a single claim against NovaGold under the
Securities Act of 1934 survived, along with some "controlling
persons" claims against its officers (Class Action Reporter,
June 10, 2009).

According to the Courthouse News Service, Judge Denise Cote
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Securities
Act, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were either time-barred
or insufficient.  The limitation period expired a month before
the complaint was filed, because a company press release
disclosing that NovaGold had initiated another feasibility study
of the project had triggered a "duty of inquiry."

The Courthouse News Service reported that Judge Cote dismissed
other claims against certain NovaGold directors and
underwriters, including Citigroup, because cost estimates
suggesting the project's economic viability were "forward-
looking statements accompanied by cautionary language," and
protected by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's
safe-harbor provision.

While not ruling on the merits of the case, the judge did allow
the case to move forward based on allegations that NovaGold
"misrepresented the project's cost estimate and viability,"
reports the Courthouse News Service.

                            Case Background

The suit is caption, "In Re: NovaGold Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08 Civ 7041 (DLC)."  It generally charges
NovaGold and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 11, 2008).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the costs,
progress and viability of NovaGold's multi-billion dollar Galore
Creek project.  Specifically, defendants repeatedly touted the
results of a feasibility study which estimated the capital costs
for the Galore Creek project to be CDN$2.2 billion.  In fact,
developing Galore Creek would cost $5 billion, over twice what
defendants represented.

On November 26, 2007, the Company announced that it would
suspend activities at Galore Creek based on the results of an
updated feasibility study which reflected the true costs for the
Galore Creek project.  As a result of this disclosure,
NovaGold's stock price dropped from $20.24 to $9.48 the next
trading day, a drop of 53%.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of NovaGold securities during the class period.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3df5

For more details, contact:

          Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. (jfonti@labaton.com)
          Benjamin D. Bainco, Esq. (bbianco@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0844 or 212-907-0845 or 888-753-2796
          Fax: 212-883-7045 or 212-883-7044
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/


OPTIONABLE INC: Judge Refuses to Revive Natural Gas Options Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York refused a bid by Optionable, Inc.
shareholders to reconsider an order dismissing a putative
securities class-action suit related to natural gas options,
Law360 reports.

According to the company's May 15, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009, the plaintiff in a shareholder class-
action lawsuit against Optionable Inc. seeks to file an amended
complaint (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2009).

On May 11, 2007, two lawsuits were initially filed before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These suits are:

      -- "Alexander Fleiss v. Optionable Inc., Mark Nordlicht,
         Kevin Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig and
         Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3753 (LAK)," and

      -- "Robert Rastocky v. Optionable, Inc., Kevin Cassidy
         and Edward O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3755 (CLB),"

Subsequently, five additional lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York:

     1. "Jagdish Patel v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, and
        Edward J. O'Connor, Case No. 07 CV 3845 (LAK)," filed
        on May 16, 2007;

     2. "Peters v. Optionable, Inc., Mark Nordlicht, Kevin P.
        Cassidy, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and Marc-
        Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 3877 (LAK)," filed on
        May 17, 2007;

     3. "Manowitz v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Edward J.
        O'Conner, and Mark Nordlicht, Case No. 07 CV 3884
        (UA)," filed on May 17, 2007;

     4. "Glaubach v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 4085 (LAK)," filed
        on May 24, 2007; and

     5. "Bock v. Optionable Inc., Kevin Cassidy, Mark
        Nordlicht, Edward J. O'Connor, Albert Helmig, and
        Marc-Andre Boisseau, Case No. 07 CV 5948 (LAK)," filed
        on June 22, 2007.

Each of the lawsuits names the company as a defendant and some
of the lawsuits name as defendants all or certain of the
directors and officers of the company.

The directors and officers of the company that were named as
defendants include:

   * Mark Nordlicht, former Chairman of the Board of Directors
     of the Company;

   * Kevin Cassidy, former Chief Executive Officer and Vice-
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company;

   * Edward J. O'Connor, President of the Company and member of
     the Board of Directors; and

   * Marc-Andre Boisseau, the Chief Financial Officer of the
     Company.

By order dated May 24, 2007, the Rastocky matter was voluntarily
dismissed.

By Orders dated June 20 and July 3, 2007, the Fleiss, Patel,
Peters, Manowitz, and Glaubach cases were consolidated under the
caption, "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07-CV-
3753 (LAK)."

By Order Nov. 20, 2007, Judge Kaplan granted the motion of KLD
Investment Management, LLC, to serve as lead plaintiff and
approved its choice of counsel, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages arising from alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, including the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. ss. 78a et seq., and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, 17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b -5.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period of Jan. 22, 2007, to May 14, 2007, defendants failed to
disclose certain information in public filings and statements,
made materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations in public filings and statements, sold
artificially inflated stock and engaged in improper deals, had
an improper relationship with and "schemed" with its customer
Bank of Montreal, and understated the company's reliance on its
relationship with BMO.

The complaint alleges that while the company's stock was trading
at artificially inflated prices, certain defendants sold shares
of common stock of the company.

On Feb. 15, 19, and 20, 2008, the company and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which motions
were opposed by the plaintiffs.

On April 3, 2008, Judge Kaplan ordered the individual defendants
to file only a single joint reply memorandum in response to the
plaintiffs' oppositions.  Thus, in April 2008, the company filed
its reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss
the complaint, and the individual defendants filed their joint
reply memorandum of the same.

Earlier, Optionable, Inc., sought the dismissal of the
consolidated shareholder lawsuit entitled "In re Optionable
Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV 3753 (LAK)" (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008).

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion in all
respects, and a final judgment of dismissal was entered on Oct.
23, 2008.

On Jan. 13, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Rule
60(b) for relief from the Oct. 23, 2008 Final Judgment and
seeking to file an amended complaint.

The suit is "In re Optionable Securities Litigation, Case 07 CV
3753 (LAK)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

               - and -

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980

Representing the defendants are:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
          Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr L.L.P.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: 212-230-8800
          Fax: 212-230-8888

               - and -

          Paul Edouard Dans, Esq. (pdans@eapdlaw.com)
          Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLP
          750 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-912-2736
          Fax: 212-308-4844


PENNSYLVANIA: DPW Sued Over Policy for Mentally Retarded Adults
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and Estelle B. Richman, Managing Director for the
City of Philadelphia, are facing a purported class-action suit
challenging the department's practice of holding mentally
retarded adults at state psychiatric hospitals, Terrie Morgan-
Besecker of Wilkes Barre Times-Leader reports.

The suit was filed on June 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by the Philadelphia-
based Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania on behalf of
eight mentally retarded adults, namely: Leah Jimmie, 28, and
Josette Halechko, 26, both of Luzerne County; Lewis Bowers, 43,
of Tioga County; Janice Slater, 19, of Lackawanna County; Ronald
Pearson, 56, and William Sacks, 49, both of Lehigh County;
Edward Nauss, 59, of Delaware County; and Benjamin Perrick, 65,
of Philadelphia.

Captioned, "Jimmie et al v. Department of Public Welfare of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv-01112,"
the suit alleges DPW is not doing enough to transfer persons who
are institutionalized into community-based programs that would
better suit their needs.

The suit further alleges DPW has failed to provide adequately
trained staff at psychiatric hospitals to deal with the issues
that afflict those with mental retardation and psychiatric
illnesses, reports the Wilkes Barre Times-Leader.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are among approximately
115 persons with mental retardation who are housed at the
state's seven psychiatric hospitals, including Clarks Summit
State Hospital in Lackawanna County.

The Wilkes Barre Times-Leader reported that all of the
plaintiffs, other than Mr. Perrick, suffer from mental health
conditions in addition to mental retardation.  The suit alleges
that housing these individuals in institutions rather than
community settings hinders their ability to live fuller lives.

Part of the problem is that the staff at the hospitals is not
trained to provide mental health services to persons with mental
retardation in a manner that takes into consideration their
intellectual disabilities, Robert W. Meek, an attorney with the
Disability Rights Network tells the Wilkes Barre Times-Leader.

The hospitals also do not provide patients with the opportunity
to interact with the community, which is considered crucial in
teaching life skills to the mentally retarded, according to the
the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the Wilkes Barre
Times-Leader.

"The failure to provide meaningful access to mental health
services ... makes them more likely to be subject to longer
institutionalized stays or to be a 'revolving door' of recurrent
psychiatric readmissions," the suit says.

The suit seeks to require DPW to develop policies and programs
focused on getting the affected individuals into community-based
programs.  It also seeks to require the department to ensure
that mental health services provided to those who are not
suitable for release are tailored toward their mental
disabilities, according to the Wilkes Barre Times-Leader report.

For more details, contact:

          Robert W. Meek, Esq. (rmeek@drnpa.org)
          Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania
          1315 Walnut St.
          Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-4798
          Phone: 215-238-8070
          Fax: 12157723126


PRESSTEK INC: July 20 Hearing Set for $1.25M Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire will hold
a fairness hearing on July 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. For the
proposed $1.25 million settlement of the matter, "Sloman v.
Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00377-JD."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Joseph. N.
LaPlante, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire, 55 Pleasant  St., Concord, NH 03301.

Bod Sanders of New Hampshire Business Review reported that
Presstek, Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit charging that the company misled investors about
its earnings in 2006 (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008).

Previously, it was reported that Presstek, Inc. settled a
purported securities fraud class-action suit filed before the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008).

In October 2006, the company and two of its former executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.  The suit claims to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period from July 27, 2006, through Sept. 29, 2006.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the company and the
other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on
allegedly false forecasts of fiscal third quarter and annual
2006 revenues.

As relief, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, but make no allegation as to losses incurred by any
purported class member, court costs and attorneys' fees.

The company in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it has reached
an agreement to settle the federal securities class-action
lawsuit.  This settlement, which is subject to confirmatory
discovery and court approval, will have no material impact on
the company's 2008 operating results.

The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
          Shapiro Haber & Urmy
          53 State St., Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-439-3939
          Fax: 617-439-0134

               - and -

          Mark L. Mallory, Esq. (mark@malloryandfriedman.com)
          Mallory & Friedman PLLC
          8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603-228-2277

Representing defendants is:

          Robert E. McDaniel, Esq. (remcdanielesq@aol.com)
          McDaniel Law Offices
          755 North Main St.
          Laconia, NH 03246
          Phone: 603-527-0520
          Fax: 603-279-0540


SPRINT SPECTRUM: Treo 600 Wi-Fi/Bluetooth Accessory Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action suit filed by by James Casaburi and Robert
Werksman against Sprint Spectrum L.P. Palm, Inc. (f/k/a palmOne,
Inc.) in 2004 has now led to a settlement for affected
customers.

Humberto Saabedra of PhoneNews.com writes that the suit is
alleging claims from both companies of WiFi and Bluetooth
expansion cards for Treo 600 smartphones were untrue because no
Bluetooth or WiFi cards were ever developed that are compatible
with the Treo 600 (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2009).

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, class members who
are current Sprint subscribers are eligible to receive a $20
bill credit, with class members who are not current Sprint
subscribers are eligible for a $27.50 credit that may be used
for a purchase at Palm's online store, PhoneNews.com reported.

The deadline for filing a claim if affected is Sept. 15, 2009,
according to the PhoneNews.com posting.

For more details, contact:

          Sprint Treo 600 Settlement
          c/o Gilardi & Co.
          P.O. Box 808054
          Petaluma, CA 94975-8054
          Phone: 866-459-3074
          e-mail: Info@sprinttreo600settlement.com
          Web site: https://www.sprinttreo600settlement.com/


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Appeal to Nixed GTA Lawsuit Deal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal from an opinion refusing to
certify the proposed settlement class in the lawsuit captioned
"In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case
No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," is pending, according to Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc.'s June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

                       Case Background

In July 2005, the defendants -- Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc., and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- were subjects of
four purported class action suits.  Two of the four complaints
were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, one was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the other
was filed before the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before
July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer
deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of
merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the
company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas contained "hidden" content, which resulted in the game
receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment
Software Rating Board rather than an Adults Only 18+ rating.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred
all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption,
"In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)."

                            Settlement

In the last half of 2007, the defendants reached a settlement in
the matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:

     (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
         before July 20, 2005;

     (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
         modify and alter the game's content using the third-
         party Hot Coffee modification;

     (c) would not have bought the game had they known that
         consumers could modify and alter the game's content
         using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and

     (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
         could be modified and altered, if they thought this
         possible.

Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.

The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will
depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits.
Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on
settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the
defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million,
in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members
and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel.

In November 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the foregoing consumer class actions and set a
date for a hearing on final approval in May 2008.

On July 31, 2008, the Court issued an opinion refusing to
certify the proposed settlement class.  The Court held that,
under controlling case law issued after the parties negotiated
the settlement, the plaintiffs could no longer meet their burden
of showing that the case could proceed on the proposed class
basis, regardless of whether the purpose of certification was
for litigation or settlement.

Had that settlement been approved, the company would have been
required to spend at least $1,025,000 on settlement benefits, a
majority of which would have taken the form of a contribution to
charity.

The plaintiffs subsequently applied for, and on April 15, 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted,
permission to file an interlocutory appeal.

A copy of the settlement notice is available at:

              http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm PLLC
          110 East 55th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 888-8LL-FNYC

Representing the company is:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action relating to Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas and option backdating is now under submission with the
Southern District of New York Court, according to Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc.'s June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009.

In February and March 2006, four purported class-action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
then current and former officers and directors in the Southern
District of New York Court.

The actions were consolidated, and in April 2007, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated second amended complaint which
contained allegations related to purported "hidden content"
contained in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the backdating of
stock options, including the investigation thereof conducted by
the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and
the restatement of our financial statements relating thereto.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
former Chairman of the Board, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and
one officer and one former officer of its Rockstar Games
subsidiary.

The lead plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs including attorneys' fees and expenses.

In April 2008, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, all
claims as to all defendants relating to Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas and certain claims as to the company's former CEO, CFO
and certain director defendants relating to the backdating of
stock options.

In September 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated complaint seeking to reinstate these claims, which
the company opposed.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: EA Buyout Offer Suit Deal Pending Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has yet to
approve an agreement to settle a shareholder lawsuit against
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. related to a failed buyout
offer from videogame company Electronic Arts, Inc.

On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the company,
filed a purported class-action complaint with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to
explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all
of the company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly
designed to entrench the current board by preventing
stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors,
agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with
ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual
Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete
information.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescissory and other equitable relief and damages.

The plaintiff immediately moved for preliminary injunctive
relief, and the parties engaged in expedited discovery
proceedings.  However, several of the claims have been addressed
by the company's voluntary actions in issuing a supplemental
proxy statement, rescinding the notice by-law amendment,
granting additional time for any present or former stockholders
to nominate directors or propose business, and extending the
annual meeting date.

After the company took such measures, the plaintiff agreed to
withdraw his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and the
annual meeting went forward without difficulty (and without any
stockholders nominating directors or proposing business).

On Dec. 19, 2008, the plaintiff filed a supplement to his
complaint.  The supplement repeats his prior allegations and
also alleges the stockholder vote on the amendment of the
company's Incentive Stock Plan and the amendment to the
management agreement with ZelnickMedia and the grant of stock
thereunder was invalid.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the company filed its motion to dismiss all
claims in both pleadings.

On March 4, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to file a second
supplement to his complaint.  The second supplement contains
additional allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
directors, and misleading and incomplete disclosure with respect
to the proxy statement for the 2009 annual meeting of
stockholders.  The second supplement also sought to enjoin the
vote on the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan at the 2009 annual meeting
of stockholders and a declaration that such Plan is invalid and
void.

On April 3, 2009, the company entered into a settlement in
principle of the plaintiff's complaint and both supplements,
subject to approval by the Delaware Court.  The settlement
provides, among other things, for additional disclosure which is
contained in a supplement to the company's proxy statement.  The
settlement does not provide for a payment of monetary damages to
the plaintiff or the purported class.  The company has opposed
an application by the plaintiff's counsel for fees and expenses
and expects that any award of fees or expenses will be covered
by its existing insurance policies.

According to the company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2009, Take-Two believes that the plaintiff's
complaint and the two supplements are wholly without merit, but
entered into the settlement arrangement solely to save the time
and expense of continued litigation.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Maulano" Securities Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. continue to face a purported
class-action lawsuit over offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to
acquire all of the company's shares.

On April 11, 2008, Michael Maulano, an alleged stockholder,
filed a purported class action in New York state court, New York
County, against the company and certain of its directors.

The allegations are essentially the same as those in the case
filed by Patrick Solomon, with an additional complaint about the
"poison pill" adopted by the company's Board in March 2008.

Because the action was duplicative, the plaintiff agreed to stay
all proceedings in the case in favor of the Solomon case.

No further developments on the case were reported in the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TORO CO: Sept. '09 Status Conference Set for Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Status conference in a consolidated consumer fraud class action
against The Toro Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin over horsepower labels on its lawnmowers
has been set for September 2009.

On June 3, 2004, eight individuals who claim to have purchased
lawnmowers in Illinois and Minnesota filed a lawsuit in Illinois
state court against the company and eight other defendants
alleging that the horsepower labels on the products the
plaintiffs purchased were inaccurate.

On May 17, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to
add 84 additional plaintiffs and an engine manufacturer as an
additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts violations
of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act and statutory and common law claims arising from the
laws of 48 states.  The plaintiffs seek certification of a class
of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1994 through
the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or
four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 30 horsepower that was
manufactured or sold by the defendants.  The amended complaint
seeks an injunction, unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, treble damages under the RICO Act, and attorneys fees.

In late May 2006, the case was removed to U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois.  On Aug. 1, 2006, all of
the defendants, except MTD Products Inc., filed motions to
dismiss the claims in the amended complaint.  On Aug. 4, 2006,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement agreement with MTD Products, Inc., and certification
of a settlement class.

All remaining non-settling defendants have filed counterclaims
against MTD Products, Inc. for potential contribution amounts,
and MTD Products, Inc. has filed cross claims against the non-
settling defendants.  On Dec. 21, 2006, another defendant,
American Honda Motor Co., notified the company that it had
reached an agreement of settlement with the plaintiffs.

On March 30, 2007, the court entered an order dismissing
plaintiffs complaint, subject to the ability to re-plead certain
claims pursuant to a detailed written order to follow.

In May 2008, the court issued a memorandum and order that (I)
dismissed the RICO claim in its entirety with prejudice; (ii)
dismissed all non-Illinois state-law claims without prejudice
and with instructions that such claims must be filed in local
courts; and (iii) rejected the proposed settlement with MTD.
The proposed Honda settlement was not under consideration by the
court and was not addressed in the memorandum and order.  Also
in May 2008, the plaintiffs (i) re-filed the Illinois claims
with the court; and (ii) filed non-Illinois claims in federal
courts in the District of New Jersey and the Northern District
of California with essentially the same state law claims.

In June 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel")
that (i) stated their intent to file lawsuits in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia; and (ii) sought to have all of the
cases transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  In
August 2008, the MDL Panel issued an order denying the transfer
request.  Additional lawsuits, some of which included additional
plaintiffs, were filed in various federal and state courts
asserting essentially the same state law claims.

In September 2008, the company and other defendants filed a
motion with the MDL Panel that sought to transfer the multiple
actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  In early December
2008, the MDL Panel issued an order that (i) transferred 23
lawsuits, which collectively asserted claims under the laws of
16 states, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,
(ii) selected the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin as the transferee district, and (iii) provided that
additional lawsuits will be treated as "tag-along" actions in
accordance with its rules.

An initial hearing was held in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin in January 2009.  At that hearing,
the Court (i) appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and (ii)
entered a stay of all litigation for 120 days so that the
parties could explore mediation.  Formal mediation proceedings
commenced and on May 28, 2009, the Court extended the litigation
stay to Aug. 28, 2009, and re-scheduled the status conference to
September 2009.

To date, more than 65 lawsuits have been filed in various
federal and state courts, which collectively assert claims under
the laws of approximately 50 jurisdictions, according to the
company's June 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 1, 2009.

The Toro Company -- http://www.toro.com/-- is engaged in
designing, manufacturing and marketing professional turf
maintenance equipment and services, turf and micro irrigation
systems, landscaping equipment, and residential yard products.
The company classifies its operations in two business segments:
professional and residential.  A third segment called other
consists of domestic company-owned distributorships, corporate
functions, and Toro Credit Company, a wholly owned financing
subsidiary.  The company's products are advertised and sold at
the retail level under the trademarks of Toro, Exmark, Irritrol,
Hayter, Pope, Lawn-Boy and Lawn Genie.  Toro manufactures its
products in the United States, Mexico, Australia, Italy, and the
United Kingdom.


UNITED KINGDOM: Court Says Nuclear Test Veterans Can Sue MoD
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.K. High Court has ruled that ex-servicemen who were part of
nuclear weapons tests during the 1950s have won the right to sue
the Ministry of Defense (MoD) for compensation, Defence
Management reports.

The High Court ruling could result in the largest class-action
suit ever filed against the MoD, according to Defence
Management.

Defence Management reported that thousands of test veterans have
reported severe and rare health affects in the years and decades
following the tests.  They have argued that they were exposed to
high doses of radiation and were not warned about possible
health risks nor were they given adequate protection against the
blasts.

The MoD claimed that it compensates people when it is clear that
a liability on their part has occurred.  Since many of the test
veterans are now extremely old or dead, it would be impossible
to directly relate their health problems to nuclear tests that
occurred over 50 years ago, reports Defence Management.

However, Defence Management reports that the High Court
disagreed. "All things being equal, a veteran who believes that
he has an illness, injury or disability attributable to his
presence at the tests whose case is supported by apparently
reputable scientific and medical evidence, should be entitled to
his 'day in court,'" Justice Foskett said in his ruling.


UNITED PARCEL: Tentatively Settles "Bates" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service tentatively settled the purported class-
action lawsuit, "Bates, et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,
Case No. CV-99-02216-THE," by agreeing to allow some deaf and
hard-of-hearing employees to compete for jobs driving small
delivery vans after special testing and training, Bob Egelko of
The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The settlement, which awaits approval by from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, would apply to
about 1,000 workers and 1,250 vehicles at UPS, the world's
largest private package carrier, according to attorney Laurence
Paradis, executive director of Disability Rights Advocates in
Berkeley, reports The San Francisco Chronicle.

In 1999, Disability Rights Advocates and Schneider & Wallace on
behalf of hundreds of deaf applicants and employees of United
Parcel Service filed a nationwide class action against the
company that was essentially brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2007).

The suit sought to end widespread discrimination faced by the
deaf employees and applicants at UPS in relation to promotion
opportunities, communication barriers, and exclusion from entire
job classifications, such as driving positions.

In April 2003, the case went to trial.  Several months into the
trial the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the
employment accommodation issues.

The settlement resulted in injunctive relief:

      -- sign language interpreters,

      -- communication aids for current employees and
         applicants,

      -- emergency alerts,

      -- text telephones, and

      -- equal access to promotional opportunities for deaf
         employees.

The settlement also provided $5 million in damages for class
members.  The sole remaining issue in the case after the
settlement was UPS's across-the-board policy requiring
applicants for all driver positions to pass a Department of
Transportation hearing test intended for vehicles over 10,000
pounds, even for positions driving vehicles under 10,000 pounds.

Trial on the "driver issue" (UPS's use of the DOT hearing test)
resumed in September 2003 and continued for three months.  After
a year of deliberation, Judge Thelton E. Henderson ruled that
UPS could no longer use the DOT hearing standard to exclude deaf
employees from driving UPS vehicles under 10,000 pounds.

Under the ruling, UPS is required to individually assess each
deaf driving applicant based on his or her driving
qualifications, rather than using the DOT test.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the dispute involves
trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or less, a small percentage of
UPS' fleet of nearly 100,000 vehicles.  U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations require drivers of trucks weighing
more than 10,000 pounds to pass hearing tests, but the company
has applied the same standards to its smaller vehicles.

UPS argued that deaf drivers were more likely to get into
accidents because they couldn't hear sirens, screeching tires or
other danger signals.  Plaintiffs in the nationwide suit said
they were unfairly confined to low-level jobs as loaders and
sorters despite records that showed they were safe drivers,
according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

After a two-month trial, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson
ruled in 2004 that the company was discriminating illegally
against deaf people with good driving records.  But a federal
appeals court ruled in December 2007 that he had used the wrong
standard and ordered him to reconsider, reports The San
Francisco Chronicle.

Negotiations since that ruling led to the recent settlement, Mr.
Paradis told The San Francisco Chronicle.

The agreement requires the company to use a more lenient hearing
standard, established by an expert panel, for qualified
employees.  Mr. Paradis told The San Francisco Chronicle that
those who are completely deaf won't meet the standard, but many
who consider themselves deaf or substantially impaired will pass
the test and qualify for training, which would probably include
sign-language interpreters and other communication aids.

After a year, the two sides would assess the results and
negotiate changes or a permanent extension, referring any
disputes to an arbitrator.  The company agreed to pay $35,000 to
each of seven employees who filed the suit, and $5.25 million to
their lawyers, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Other employees who believe they were wrongly barred from
drivers' jobs, dating back to mid-1997, can file individual
damage claims with federal and state civil rights agencies,
according to Mr. Paradis.

The suit is "Bates, et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case
No. CV-99-02216-THE," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Thelton E. Henderson
with referral to Judge James Larson.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. (larryp@dralegal.org)
          Disability Rights Advocates
          2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor,
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Phone: 510-665-8644
          Fax: 510-665-8511, E-mail:

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          (tschneider@schneiderwallace.com)
          Schneider & Wallace
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104,
          Phone: 415-421-7100
          Fax: 415-421-7105

Representing the defendant is:

          Christopher J. Martin, Esq. (cjmartin@gibsondunn.com)
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 849-5300


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Calif. Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit against VeriFone Holdings Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class-action claims
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
officers.  The various complaints specify different class
periods, with the longest proposed class period being Aug. 31,
2006, through Dec. 3, 2007.

The lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption "In re
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-6140
MHP."

On March 17, 2008, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and
in May 2008, the court requested additional briefing on these
matters, which was submitted in June 2008.

Each of the consolidated actions allege, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on
allegations that the company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the company's
business and operations during the putative class periods, and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008).

On Aug. 22, 2008, the Court appointed plaintiff National
Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.

Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint
on Oct. 31, 2008, and the company filed its motion to dismiss on
Dec. 31, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, based
on allegations that the company and the individual defendants
made false or misleading public statements regarding its
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Court granted the company's motion on May 26, 2009, and
dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with
leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The company's
answer or responsive motion is due within 30 days of the filing
of a second amended class action complaint.

Discovery has not yet commenced and is not expected to do so
until after the filing of a second amended class action
complaint, the filing by the company of a motion to dismiss the
second amended class action complaint, and a ruling on the
motion to dismiss, according to its June 4, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2009.

The suit is "In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-6140 MHP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H.
Patel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
         Girard Gibbs LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-981-4800
         Fax: 415-981-4846

         Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
         (frankb@johnsonbottini.com)
         Johnson Bottini, LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1400
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-230-0063
         Fax: 619-233-5535

              - and -

         Eli Greenstein, Esq. (Elig@csgrr.com)
         Coughlin Stoia Gellar Rudman & Robbins LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael Howard Steinberg, Esq.
         (steinbergm@sullcrom.com)
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1888 Century Park East
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-712-6600
         Fax: 310-712-8800


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Stockholders Suit Pending in Tel-Aviv, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Holdings, Inc., continues to face a purported
stockholders' class-action lawsuit in Tel-Aviv, Israel, over the
publication of erroneous financial reports.

On Jan. 27, 2008, a class-action complaint was filed against the
company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages
allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the
publication of erroneous financial reports.

On May 25, 2008, the court held a hearing on the company's
motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings, after which the court
requested that the plaintiff and the company submit additional
information to the Court with respect to the applicability of
Israeli law to dually registered companies.  This additional
information was submitted to the court in June 2008 and the
parties currently awaiting the court's ruling on this issue
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008).

On Sept. 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the
company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining its liability.

On Oct. 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.

The company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on
Jan. 18, 2009.

Because the company's motion to stay will depend upon the
Supreme Court's ruling, the District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal, according to the company's June 4, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2009.

VeriFone Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is a
global provider of technology that enables electronic payment
transactions and value-added services at the point of sale.  The
company's system solutions consist of point of sale electronic
payment devices that run the company's and third-party operating
systems, security and encryption software and certified payment
software, as well as third party, value-added applications.
VeriFone Holdings' system solutions process a range of payment
types, including signature and PIN-based (personal
identification number) debit cards, credit cards,
contactless/radio frequency identification, cards, smart cards,
pre-paid gift and other stored-value cards, electronic bill
payment, check authorization and conversion, signature capture
and electronic benefits transfer.  The company's electronic
payment systems are available in several distinctive modular
configurations, offering customers flexibility to support a
variety of connectivity options.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Stull Stull & Brody filed a class-action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of persons who purchased shares of Oppenheimer AMT-FREE
Municipals Fund (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX)
from May 13, 2006 through October 21, 2008.  This action will be
transferred for pre-trial proceedings pursuant to an order of
the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the District of
Colorado.

     The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and
certain of its Trustees violated the Securities Act of 1933 by
issuing prospectuses which misled investors concerning the risks
of investing in the Fund.  These undisclosed risks are alleged
to have been the cause of a severe decline in the value of the
Fund's shares, far exceeding the decline of competing municipal
bond funds.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Howard T. Longman, Esq. (TSVI@AOL.COM)
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, N.Y. 10017
          Phone: 1-800-337-4983


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Facing MPERS Case in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation is a defendant in the case styled MPERS
v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al. (Case No. 03-CV-4372) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark),
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2009.

This lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company
during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002. The
lawsuit named the Company and five current and former officers
and directors of the Company as defendants.

One of these individuals and the Company remain as defendants
after a partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the
action.

The plaintiff's principal allegations against the defendants are
that during the above period the defendants materially misled
the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the
Company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, or U.S. GAAP, by failing to properly account and
accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos
claims arising from past operations of W. R. Grace & Co. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On April 27, 2009, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the MPERS v. Sealed Air
Corporation, et al. case, subject to documentation and Court
approval. The agreement provides for payment of US$20 million,
which will be fully funded by the Company's primary and excess
insurance carriers.

If the settlement in this case is not documented, executed and
approved by the Court, then, should the Court determine that the
Company is liable in this case, it could be required to pay
substantial damages.

Based in Elmwood Park, N.J., Sealed Air Corporation's largest
product segment, Food Packaging, produces Cryovac shrink films,
absorbent pads, and foam trays used by food processors and
supermarkets to protect meat and poultry. The Company's
Protective Packaging segment produces Bubble Wrap, Instapak
foam, Jiffy envelopes, and Fill-Air inflatable packaging
systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Todd Shipyards Faces 535 Claims at March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation faces 535 asbestos claims as of March
29, 2009, of which 12 claims are "malignant" and 523 claims are
"non-malignant," according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2009.

The Company faced about 525 asbestos-related claims, of which 14
were "malignant" and 511 were "non-malignant." (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 13, 2009)

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances,
generally asbestos, at its Seattle shipyard and closed former
facilities.

In addition to the Company, the cases generally include other
ship builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos
manufacturers, distributors and installers, and equipment
manufacturers as defendants, and arise from injuries or
illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other
toxic substances.

The relief sought in all cases varies greatly by jurisdiction
and claimant. Included in 457 cases open as of March 29, 2009
are 535 claimants. The exact number of claimants is not
determinable as 82 of the open cases include multiple claimant
filings against 20-100 defendants. The filings do not indicate
which claimants allege liability against the Company. The
previously stated 535 claimants is the Company's best estimate.
About 217 cases do not assert any specific amount of relief
sought.

About 153 cases assert on behalf of each claimant a claim for
compensatory damages of US$2 million and punitive damages of
US$20 million against 20-100 defendants. About 37 cases assert
US$5 million to US$20 million in compensatory and US$5 million
to US$20 million in punitive damages on behalf of each claimant
against 20-100 defendants.

About 46 cases assert US$1 million to US$5 million in
compensatory and US$5 million to US$10 million in punitive
damages on behalf of each claimant against 20-100 defendants.
About four cases seek compensatory damages of less than US$1
million per claim.

Bodily injury reserves decreased from US$5.4 million at March
30, 2008 to US$5 million at March 29, 2009. Bodily injury
insurance receivables also decreased from US$4 million at March
30, 2008 to US$3.8 million at March 29, 2009.

Based in Seattle, Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private
shipyard in the Pacific Northwest that builds, repairs,
maintains, and overhauls commercial and government vessels.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Good Shepherd School Settles AHERA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The mid-Atlantic office of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, on June 12, 2009, announced that the Church of the Good
Shepherd has settled violations of a federal law on the
management of asbestos materials at The Good Shepherd School,
1401 Carollton Ave., Baltimore, according to an EPA press
release dated June 12, 2009.

The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires
owners and operators of buildings in which private non-profit
schools are operated to conduct a re-inspection of all asbestos-
containing building material in each school building once every
three year and to conduct six-month periodic surveillance
inspections.

The schools must also develop a management plan for asbestos-
containing materials, detailing procedures to prevent asbestos
releases. The management plan must be available at the school,
with annual notification to parent, teacher and employee
organizations of the plan and any asbestos abatement activities.
Schools must train personnel on AHERA compliance and provide at
least two hours of training in asbestos awareness to the
school's custodial and maintenance staff.

The school spent US$17,645 to address the various AHERA issues
and is now in compliance. As a result, EPA has assessed The
Church of the Good Shepherd a final penalty of zero dollars for
its efforts to come into compliance. EPA does not allege that
students or other building occupants were exposed to asbestos as
a result of these violations.

During a 2008 inspection conducted by the Maryland Department of
the Environment, several violations were discovered, including a
failure to re-inspect asbestos-containing materials every three
years – the school had not been inspected since 1998. The
inspection also found that the church had failed to send annual
notifications to parents, teachers, and employee organizations
about the availability of the asbestos management plan as
required.

The settlement announced on June 12, 2009 is part of the EPA's
ongoing efforts to work throughout the mid-Atlantic states to
reduce asbestos hazards in schools. EPA offers compliance
assistance for public, private, charter and parochial schools,
and has conducted outreach at educational conferences.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stamp Upholds Ruling in CSX Case on June 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Frederick Stamp, on June 4, 2009, affirmed
Magistrate Judge James Seibert's May 2009 ruling, stating that
CSX Transportation Inc. could see correspondence between Dr. Ray
Harron and the firm of Peirce, Raimond and Coulter, which is
headed by Robert Peirce, Esq., The West Virginia Record reports.

Judge Stamp has set trial to start Aug. 11, 2009 on CSX's claim
that Mr. Peirce and Dr. Harron conspired to fabricate asbestos
claims.

CSX seeks to recover the cost of defending and settling the
claims.

Judge Stamp's order allows CSX to see all communications between
the firm and Dr. Harron since 1999, including consulting
agreements and other contracts. The order allows CSX to see any
documents relating to expenses Dr. Harron or the firm created or
retained in connection with Dr. Harron's review of X-rays.

The order allows CSX to see the firm's internal correspondence
concerning selection and retention of consulting physicians.

By adopting Judge Seibert's entire order, Judge Stamp adopted
Judge Seibert's statement that he would consider sanctions and
costs at a later date.

Mr. Peirce and Dr. Harron have objected to sanctions, arguing
that CSX did not ask for them.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 16 New Cases Filed May 18-22 in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of May 18, 2009 through May 22, 2009, about 16
new asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-520) Mary E. Anderson of Missouri, a cleaning
   crew member aboard the USS Admiral cruise ship and a nurse's
   aide at the Missouri Pacific Railroad Hospital, claims
   mesothelioma. She says she was also exposed to asbestos
   fibers secondarily through her husband, who worked as a
   molder for Granite City Steel. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Anderson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-512) Robbie J. Dempsey claims her deceased
   husband, Clyde D. Dempsey, developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a pipefitter and plumber. Andrew O'Brien, Esq.,
   Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
   Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
   Esq., of the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis represent Mrs.
   Dempsey.

-- (Case No. 09-L-531) Victor Lee and Priscella Dillbeck of
   Arizona claim Mr. Dillbeck developed mesothelioma after his
   work as an apprentice, machinist and millwright. Mr Dillbeck
   says he also was a member of the Local 448
   Carpenter/Millwright Union for 31 years. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
   and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Dillbeck.

-- (Case No. 09-L-521) Jacob L. and Doris Fullmer of Indiana
   claim Mr. Fullmer developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   hand sander, in the U.S. Navy, material handler, bottler and
   steamfitter. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Fullmers.

-- (Case No. 09-L-502) Bobby Haley of Arizona, mechanic,
   laborer, millwright and truck driver, claims mesothelioma.
   Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Haley.

-- (Case No. 09-L-509) Clarence and JoAnne Haskell claim Mr.
   Haskell developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer,
   operator and finisher, parts manager and purchaser, salesman,
   owner, operator, distributor and carpenter. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill.,
   represents the Haskells. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N.
   Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard,
   Esq., Bridget Baragona, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of
   The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of counsel.

-- (Case No. 09-L-519) Elizabeth Marshall of Kentucky alleges
   her deceased husband, Thomas Marshall, developed asbestosis
   and bilateral pleural plaques after his work as an assistant
   unit operator, unit operator, assistant shift engineer and
   shift engineer at various locations. Christopher R. Guinn,
   Esq., Christopher J. Levy, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and
   John A. Barnerd, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mrs. Marshall.

-- (Case No. 09-L-514) William Z. McClintock of Ohio, who served
   in the U.S. Army and worked for Soil Conservation Service,
   Brown Insulation, Goodyear Truck Tire Center, MTD, Graber
   Metal Works,McClintock Energy, Johnson Controls World
   Services and Ohio Professional Energy Consortium, claims
   mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will be representing Mr. McClintock.

-- (Case No. 09-L-528) Wilfred L. Miller of Virginia, a laborer,
   lineman, foreman and self-employed mechanic, claims
   mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., will be
   representing Mr. Miller.

-- (Case No. 09-L-530) Phyllis A. and John Nelson of Indiana
   claim Mrs. Nelson developed mesothelioma after her work as a
   laborer at Westinghouse Electric Supply and as a teacher at
   Homestead High School. She was also secondarily exposed to
   asbestos through her brothers. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will be representing the Nelsons.

-- (Case No. 09-L-259) Dorathea R. and Joe L. Pierce claim Mrs.
   Pierce developed lung cancer after her work as a supervisor
   within the Vanity Fair Intimates textile manufacturing plant.
   She also worked as a sales associate for Marvin's Building
   Materials, according to the complaint. Elizabeth V. Heller,
   Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will be
   representing the Pierces.

-- (Case No. 09-L-511) Barbara Pratt claims her deceased father,
   Clifford Richardson, developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a floor tile layer and carpenter. Andrew O'Brien, Esq.,
   Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
   Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
   Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, represent Mrs. Pratt.

-- (Case No. 09-L-506) Shirley Mae Roach of Texas claims her
   deceased husband, William Albert Roach, developed
   mesothelioma after his work in the airman first class, at the
   March and Travis Air Force Bases and at Wedron Silica. She
   claims her husband also worked as a plant manager and at R&R
   Construction. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Roach.

-- (Case No. 09-L-503) Alan Steinberg of Texas claims his
   deceased father, Robert Steinberg, developed mesothelioma
   after his work at various locations. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mr. Steinberg.

-- (Case No. 09-L-504) Charles J. Turner of Alabama claims his
   deceased father, Charles B. Turner, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a mechanic, plasterer and logger at various
   locations. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Charles J.
   Turner.

-- (Case No. 09-L-513) Gwen Watts claims mesothelioma on behalf
   of her deceased husband, Virgil L. Watts, who worked as a
   pipefitter and plumber at various locations. Mr. Watts also
   worked for the U.S. Navy. Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher
   Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J.
   Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald, Esq., of the
   O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, represent Mrs. Watts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Actions filed May 25 to 29 in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of May 25, 2009 through May 29, 2009, a total of
11 new asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-532) Robert K. Anderson Sr. and Terri Anderson
   of Wisconsin claim Mr. Anderson developed lung cancer after
   his work as a laborer at C.R. Meyers and Youg's, as an
   insulator at Combustion Engineer, as an insulator at Taylor
   Insulation, and as a cable splicer at Solarus. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Andersons.

-- (Case No. 09-L-555) Patricia L. Duncan claims mesothelioma on
   behalf of her deceased husband, Charles Duncan, who worked
   from as a carpenter and millwright. Andrew O'Brien, Esq.,
   Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
   Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
   Esq., of the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, represent Mrs.
   Duncan.

-- (Case No. 09-L-539) Annette Jarvis of Kansas claims her
   deceased husband, Richard J. Jarvis, developed lung cancer
   after serving in the U.S. Navy and working as a laborer at
   Union Pacific Railroad. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., represent Mrs. Jarvis.

-- (Case No. 09-L-536) Rosalee Klataske of Missouri claims
   mesothelioma on behalf of her deceased father, Billy Lee
   Fast, a farmhand and factory worker at. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind M. Robertson,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mrs.
   Klastaske.

-- (Case No. 09-L-533) Mary E. Lemberger claims mesothelioma on
   behalf of her deceased husband, Jerome Lemberger, who served
   in the U.S. Navy as an electrician's mate and who worked as
   an electrical engineer at various locations. Andrew O'Brien,
   Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
   Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
   Esq., of the O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, represent Mrs.
   Lemberger.

-- (Case No. 09-L-535) Vincenzo LoGrasso of California, a cook,
   chef, kitchen helper and restaurant owner/operator, claims
   mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq.,
   and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. LoGrasso.

-- (Case No. 09-L-549) James Lombardi, a home builder,
   refrigerator and furnace cleaner, carpenter, box car cleaner
   and mechanic, claims mesothelioma. He says he was also
   exposed to asbestos fibers through his father, who worked as
   an open hearth, grinder and chipper. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represents Mr.
   Lombardi. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq.,
   Angela B. Greenberg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget
   Baragona, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law
   Firm in Houston, will be representing Mr. Lombardi.

-- (Case No. 09-L-548) Carlyle Pietro of Pennsylvania, an auto
   service man, carpenter, painter, laborer, shipping department
   clerk, foreman, sailor and storekeeper in the U.S. Navy,
   claims mesothelioma. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Nate
   Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis, represent Mr.
   Pietro.

-- (Case No. 09-L-545) Jason Smith of Tennessee claims his
   deceased father, Clayton Smith, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as an insurance and medical claims adjustor. Timothy
   F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represents Mr. Smith.

-- (Case No. 09-L-538) Robert G. Swaim of Arkansas, a
   fabricator, tester and analyzer, claims mesothelioma. Mr.
   Swaim says he was also secondarily exposed to asbestos
   through his father, who worked as a carman, and his mother,
   who worked at AT&T. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian,
   Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Swaim.

-- (Case No. 09-L-537) Larry Williams of Illinois, an auto
   mechanic, forklift operator, line worker, machinist,
   industrial/auto repairman and laborer, claims mesothelioma.
   T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Nate Mudd, Esq., of French
   and Mudd in St. Louis, represent Mr. Williams.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues $10T Fine to United Gilsonite
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Johnston of the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, New Castle County, issued a US$10,000 fine to
Scranton, Pa.-based United Gilsonite Laboratories, wasted the
court's time by acting in bad faith at mediation in an asbestos
lawsuit, Mesothelioma News reports.

The Company wasted the court's time and resources by pushing
cases to trial as part of its settlement strategy, contrary to
Delaware's rules governing alternative dispute resolution. The
case proceeded through jury selection and halfway through trial
when the case settled.

The Company said that it decided to settle after one of its
employees testified at trial. However, Judge Johnston found that
there was nothing significantly different from the same
employee's deposition testimony to make a difference at trial.

Judge Johnston said that the Company's bad faith conduct
needlessly burdened the court, bailiffs, clerks, jury services,
court reporters, the judge, jurors, and the plaintiffs.

The US$10,000 fine will go to Delaware's Combined Campaign for
Justice, which provides legal service to the poor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Seeks GBP1Mil in Payout Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Devoy's widow, 65-year-old Carole Devoy, is suing for a
record GBP1 million in damages over Mr. Devoy's death from
asbestosis, the Chronicle reports.

Mr. Devoy died at the age of 68 from a lung tumor caused by
exposure to asbestos in the Merchant Navy and in dockyards.

Mrs. Devoy, of West Rainton, Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham,
England, says he was determined to look after her himself for
the rest of her days. However, after Mr. Devoy's death, she had
no choice but to pay for professional carers, at a cost of over
GBP2,000 a month.

Mrs. Devoy was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease 13 years ago.

Judge Reddihough is expected to reserve his ruling on Mrs.
Devoy's claim until a later date.

The issue of liability for Mr. Devoy's illness and death is no
longer contested, but the judge has to assess the compensation
owed to his widow for her loss.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action v. Vale Inco Europe Ongoing in Wales
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed against Vale Inco Europe Ltd is
ongoing in Wales, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center
reports.

A group of Welsh workers who were exposed to asbestos on the job
are at the center of an ongoing asbestos trial. The workers were
exposed to asbestos while performing routine maintenance work on
a furnace.

The furnace, located at the Inco Company work site in Clydach,
Wales, contained asbestos. As the men worked to strip away
corroded metal and brickwork from the furnace, they were exposed
to thermal insulating material that contained asbestos.

The Inco incident occurred in 2007, but is just now going to
court. The incident caused charges to be brought forth against
Vale Inco Europe.

The Company is being charged with four offenses under the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The Company has pleaded
guilty to all four counts.

However, lawyers in the case have argued that the Company worked
rapidly to prevent the spread of toxic asbestos materials after
the incident.

The hearing is expected to resume in Cardiff, Wales, on Aug. 6,
2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Rules on Radiologists' Case on May 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno, who in February 2009,
ordered three radiologists (Jay Segarra, Laminaraya Rao, and
Richard Bernstein) to produce all information about their X-
rays, declared the matter moot on May 29, 2009, The Madison St.
Clair Record reports.

Judge Robreno cancelled hearings on qualifications of Dr.
Segarra, Dr. Rao and Dr. Bernstein under Supreme Court rules
from a decision named Daubert.

Dr. Segarra's lawyer, Matthew Mestayer, Esq., of Biloxi, Miss.,
moved in March 2009 for reconsideration of the February 2009
order but decided in May 2009 to make it moot.

Judge Robreno's order did not identify the firms whose clients
dropped their claims in order to pry the radiologists from the
court's grip.

The omission illustrates Judge Robreno's balance between mass
litigation and individual facts as he rapidly distills valid
claims from the fog of national asbestos litigation. He took
over the docket in 2008 by appointment of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multi District Litigation.

Finding an order in place that would split a suit against many
defendants into separate suits, Judge Robreno decided to enforce
it.

The strategy turned tens of thousands of suits into more than
three million, but asbestos firms failed to follow through on
about half.

Defendants rejoiced and their leading lawyer, Marcy Croft, Esq.,
of Jackson, Miss., moved to dismiss about 1.5 million claims.

Judge Robreno answered that he would not grant mass orders but
would hear motions to show cause why he should not dismiss
specific claims. He recruited magistrates to run settlement
conferences.

Judge Robreno resolved about 500,000 claims from January 2009
through April 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vedanta to Raise Bid for Asarco LLC Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal, on June 14, 2009, reported that Vedanta
Resources PLC will increase the note portion of its offer to
take Asarco LLC out of bankruptcy, Reuters reports.

The Journal reported that Sterlite Industries, a Vedanta
subsidiary, will increase to US$770 million from US$600 million
the note portion of its offer -- valued at between US$2 billion
and US$3 billion, including liabilities.

Sterlite will also improve its terms of payment to asbestos
claimants, a critical group of creditors who had been seeking a
settlement of personal-injury claims arising from Asarco's
operations, the paper reported, citing people familiar with a
term sheet provided to a bankruptcy judge in Texas.

Early in June 2009, rival bidder Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V.
said it has raised the cash component of its offer for Asarco,
which is its U.S. subsidiary, as it sought to top Sterlite's
bid.

Grupo Mexico said it would give US$1.55 billion to Asarco,
lifting the total amount of cash available for distribution to
the Company's creditors to US$2.9 billion.

Grupo Mexico, which lost control of Asarco's board due to the
bankruptcy, had previously offered US$1.3 billion in cash and a
US$250 million loan.

Asarco filed for bankruptcy in 2005 amid more than US$1 billion
in environmental damage and asbestos claims.

Sterlite has offered US$1.7 billion in cash and debt securities
for Asarco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at Deutsche Bank Halted on June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos abatement and ongoing demolition at the former
Deutsche Bank building in New York was brought to a halt on June
9, 2009, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Work on the building was stopped after a broken safety switch
was discovered by FDNY (Fire Department City of New York)
firemen.

Originally, the firemen were called to the scene after smoke was
reported. The smoke was caused by a battery-powered forklift
that had overheated. Firefighters unplugged the forklift, which
stopped the smoke.

Then, workers at the site had hit a switch on the air filtration
system. The system, which is on site to contain contaminants
like asbestos, malfunctioned. This then lead to a stop-work
order at the site.

The former Deutsche Bank building was damaged during 9/11, and
has faced intense scrutiny due to the asbestos issues plaguing
the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korea Gov't. Has 110 Cases from Closed Mine
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Korea's Ministry of Environment, on June 12, 2009,
confirmed that nearly one in two residents (110 out of 215
sampled residents) living in Hongseong and Boryeong near a
closed mine in South Chungcheong Province had lung diseases
caused by inhaling asbestos, The Korea Times reports.

Of the 110, about 55 were diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, which
can develop into lung cancer. About 87 were suffering from
thickened pleura. The residents asked the government to conduct
health checkups on all other people living nearby.

The mine in Hongseong used to be the largest in Asia during the
Japanese colonial rule (1910-1945). The facility was closed in
1983. However, the residents claim that asbestos from the mine
has and is putting their health at great risk.

They said elderly relatives, who have already passed away,
always complained about chest pains, breathing problems and
others, and blamed the mine.

South Chungcheong provincial government is conducting research
on 3,700 residents, and the results are expected to trigger mass
compensation lawsuits.

On the other hand, the Ministry said the same research on
residents near a factory using asbestos in the port city Busan
showed no significant relevance between the substance and
disease - one person was diagnosed with asbestosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caswell Group Supports Daily Mirror Crusade
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caswell Group, an asbestos removal contractor, on June 11, 2009,
announced their support for the Daily Mirror's "asbestos
timebomb" campaign and warned schools in the United Kingdom not
to leave it too late to plan this summer's asbestos removal
works, PRWeb reports.

The Caswell Group reminds local authorities and schools that now
is the time to plan out all asbestos removal works for the
summer break. It comes at a time when campaigners and experts
are estimating that 90 percent of U.K. schools contain asbestos.

According to the Daily Mirror, between 1980 and 2005, 178
teachers died from mesothelioma, and worryingly the number is
rising.

Lee Caswell, Marketing Director explains, "We know this a
daunting subject for Headteachers and we are here to help. We
have a proven track record and considerable experience in
removing asbestos from UK schools. We work closely with our
clients and tailor each solution precisely to their needs."

Full information can be found at www.caswell-group.co.uk


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in AstenJohnson Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued split rulings
in a case involving asbestos styled AstenJohnson, Inc.,
Appellant v. Columbia Casualty Company; American Insurance
Company.

Circuit Court Judges Dolores K. Sloviter, Walter K. Stapleton,
and Wallace Tashima entered judgment in Case No. 07-2305 on
April 2, 2009.

AstenJohnson, Inc. made asbestos dryer felts and other materials
used in the paper industry. Appellees Columbia Casualty Company
and American Insurance Company issued US$52 million of
comprehensive liability insurance to Asten in 1981 and 1982.
These policies contained an exclusion from coverage for any
claim alleging "an exposure to or the contracting of asbestosis"
("the Asbestosis Exclusion Clause").

Both Columbia and American had denied coverage under this
exclusion for all asbestos-related bodily injury claims. Asten
sought a declaratory judgment that its coverage under these
policies included all claims related to asbestos exposure other
than those involving the fibrotic lung disease, asbestosis.

After a three-week bench trial, the District Court denied Asten
the declaratory relief sought. The primary issues before the
Appeals Court were whether Asten was entitled to a jury trial
under the Seventh Amendment, and whether the District Court's
resolution of the coverage issue should stand.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court
insofar as it declared the obligations of American with respect
to the duty to defend or pay defense costs under the 1982
American Excess Policy. Asten was entitled to a jury trial on
its other declaratory judgment claims, however, and in all other
respects the judgment of the District Court were reversed, and
the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Robert C. Heim, Esq., Nory Miller, Esq., John S. Ghose, Esq., of
Dechert, John N. Ellison, Esq., Reed Smith, Esq., and Michael
Conley, Esq., of Anderson, Kill & Olick in Philadelphia,
represented AstenJohnson, Inc.

Ronald P. Schiller, Esq., Jay I. Morstein, Esq., Nicole J.
Rosenblum, Esq., of DLA Piper in Philadelphia, represented
Columbia Casualty Company.

Steven A. Cozen, Esq., Jacob C. Cohn, Esq., of Cozen & O'Connor
in Philadelphia, represented American Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Partial Dismissal in Watts Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, allowed
defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, in the case styled Watts Water Technologies, Inc. &
Watts Regulator Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company &
others (Travelers Indemnity Company, Continental Casualty
Company, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, and Zurich Insurance
Company)

Justice Margaret R. Hinkle entered judgment in Case No.
SUCV2005-02604-BLS on March 25, 2009.

Watts Regulator Company and its parent company, Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., filed this action against several insurance
companies ("the Insurers") seeking a declaratory judgment that
the Insurers had a duty to defend them in about 300 lawsuits
brought in a dozen states alleging bodily injury as result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Since 1936, Regulator has been a manufacturer of valves which
regulate the flow of liquids and gases. In 1985, Water was
incorporated as a holding company, and Regulator became a wholly
owned subsidiary of Water.

Regulator purchased commercial liability policies from the
Insurers which covered periods before Water was created. Since
2001, Regulator, Water and other entities affiliated with Water
had been sued in about 300 lawsuits in a dozen states alleging
injury from asbestos in their products.

In some actions, Regulator was directly named as a defendant. In
others, Regulator was identified as Watts Water a/k/a or d/b/a
Watts Regulator. In other cases, Regulator was not named, but
Water was named either individually or as the successor to
Museco Inc., Leslie Controls, Inc., Ames Company, Inc., Hoke,
Inc., or Powers Process Controls ("the uninsured Watts
affiliates").

Each Insurer was defending under a reservation of rights. Water
had retained Foley Hoag, Esq., as national counsel and other law
firms as local counsel. Regulator had entered into a joint
defense with the uninsured Watts affiliates.

Water and Regulator filed this breach of contract and
declaratory judgment action against the Insurers on June 24,
2005 and were permitted to amend their complaint on Dec. 11,
2008.

Count I of the Amended Complaint alleged breach of contract from
the Insurers' failure to reimburse Water and Regulator promptly
for local and national counsel fees in accordance with the
applicable insurance policies and a July 10, 2007 declaratory
judgment by this Court.

Count II sought a declaratory judgment concerning the Insurers'
obligations with respect to defense costs. Count III alleged
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
under the relevant insurance policies.

Count IV alleged a G .L. c. 93A, s 9 claim against the Insurers
based on violations of G.L. c. 176D, s 3(9). In allowing the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add this claim, this
Court noted that it was not ruling on the legal issue of whether
the plaintiffs, as corporations, would be entitled to relief
under s 9 of Chapter 93A.

Finally, Count V of the Amended Complaint alleged a G.L. c. 93A,
s 11 claim against the Insurers based on unfair claim settlement
practices and other unfair and deceptive acts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Farrell's Move for New Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western
Division, granted Farrell Lines' Motion for a New Trial in an
asbestos case styled Dorothy Ann Jackson, Fiduciary of the
Estate of James E. Jackson, Deceased, Plaintiff v. A-C Product
Liability Trust, et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary entered judgment in Case No.
1:99 CV 10802 on March 31, 2009.

This is a maritime asbestos wrongful death case brought under
the Jones Act. Mrs. Jackson alleged that her husband, James
Jackson, died at the age of 64 of mesothelioma as a result of
occupational exposure to asbestos during his work as a seaman
aboard ships and in shipyards.

Numerous defendants settled or were dismissed during the course
of this case, which eventually went to trial against a lone
defendant, Farrell, successor owner of the vessel Executor.

After a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
Mrs. Jackson in the amount of US$8 million. As part of its
verdict, the jury found the Executor was seaworthy but that
Farrell was negligent and that its negligence was a cause of Mr.
Jackson's mesothelioma.

The jury verdict was later reduced to US$7.812 million after
agreed-upon set-offs. Farrell filed a Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, New Trial. Mrs. Jackson
opposed and Farrell replied, followed by oral argument.

The Court found the verdict was based on inadequate inferences
of asbestos exposure; improper expert hypotheticals and
testimony; and an excessive verdict which was not within the
range of proof and which also shocked the conscience. The
verdict was neither reasonable nor supported by the weight of
the evidence.

Farrell's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law was denied; and
Farrell's Motion for New Trial was granted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gray's Family Gets $1.2Mil in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Gerald Gray, a retired U.S. Navy sailor who died
of mesothelioma, on June 15, 2009, was awarded US$1.2 million
against John Crane, Inc., the Daily Press reports.

Mr. Gray, of Suffolk, Va., died on April 16, 2009 at the age of
75. His death came five weeks before the trial was set to begin
in Newport News Circuit Court against John Crane, which makes
gaskets and other parts used on the ships.

The jury's verdict was against five manufacturers for a total of
US$4 million. Four of the five defendant companies settled out
of court for an undisclosed amount before the case went to
trial, absolving them of the jury's decision. John Crane, which
fought the case at the trial, was apportioned 30 percent of the
blame for the damages, or US$1.2 million.

Mr. Gray joined the Navy in 1951. He worked on several ships
over the course of a 20-year Navy career, breathing in asbestos
fibers by the tens of millions during repair jobs, as parts were
changed out. One of those ships was the aircraft carrier USS
Enterprise, which came to Newport News Shipbuilding for a
maintenance period in the 1960s.

After he retired from the Navy in 1971, Mr. Gray settled in
Hampton Roads and became a schoolteacher in Chesapeake, Va. In
February 2008, about 37 years after he left the Navy, he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The lawsuit had asserted that negligence on the part of John
Crane and the other manufacturers led to Mr. Gray's death. It
contended the companies knew about problems with asbestos before
the workers were exposed, but took no action.

The US$4 million verdict included US$3.83 million in damages and
another US$167,000 in interest. The damages included US$2.25
million for Mr. Gray's pain and suffering; US$1.1 million in
payments for the family's loss; US$466,434 in medical bills; and
US$9,364 in funeral bills.

Bobby Hatten, Esq., who represented Mr. Gray's family, said, "He
suffered a terrible death and a preventable death."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Charges v. Favorito Dropped in Grace Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charges are being dropped against O. Mario Favorito, a former W.
R. Grace & Co. executive, in a Libby, Mont., asbestos trial,
Montana's News Station reports.

This happened one month after a Montana jury dropped the case
against Mr. Favorito's former colleagues.

Mr. Favorito was one of seven defendants originally indicted by
a federal grand jury five years ago along with Grace, accused of
criminal conspiracy in efforts to cover up the asbestos
contamination from the Company's asbestos mining operations in
Libby.

Mr. Favorito's case was severed from the others in July 2006
when the court determined there were possible conflicts that
could prevent him from defending himself.

In May 2009, a jury returned not guilty verdicts against Grace
and the other defendants, effectively undermining the
government's case against Mr. Favorito.

Mr. Favorito had held a number of positions while working for
Grace, including corporate legal counsel and an assistant
secretary for Grace and the Company's chief group counsel.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Derby Machinist's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Derby and South Derbyshire inquest heard that the death of 82-
year-old wood machinist Maurice Gilbert was linked to exposure
to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports.

The inquest heard Mr. Gilbert had written a statement a week
before he died to say he believed his asbestos-related illness
was due to his 25 years working at a former Derby, England,
construction firm, Gee Walker and Slater.

Derby and South Derbyshire deputy coroner Louise Pinder read out
Mr. Gilbert's statement. It said, "Right up until 1969 when the
Company stopped using asbestos sheeting, I was involved with
handling asbestos."

Ms. Pinder said that Mr. Gilbert, of Poyser Avenue, Chaddesden,
talked about, "clouds of asbestos dust emanating from asbestos
cutting machines," which settled on the floor before being swept
up.

The inquest heard how Mr. Gilbert was diagnosed with asbestos-
related lung disease in September 2008 after visiting his GP
because he was very breathless. He was admitted to hospital
after he collapsed and was unwell the day before he died, on
Jan. 28, 2009.

Mr. Gilbert worked at the firm from 1941 to 1969. In 1969, he
went to work for Rolls-Royce until he retired in 1986.

Recording a verdict of death from industrial disease, Miss
Pinder said, "He was exposed to asbestos between 1941 and 1969,
save for a short time in the Royal Signals, pretty much on a
daily basis.

"My understanding is that there is a time-lag between when
someone is exposed to asbestos and development of the disease.
In fact, the time seems to fit entirely."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lancashire Teachers Seek Cleanup in Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers have called for the abatement of asbestos from schools
in East Lancashire, England, after it was found that asbestos is
contained in council-owned buildings, the Lancashire Telegraph
reports.

More than 250 schools, town halls, community centers, public
toilets, and leisure facilities have been noted as having some
form of asbestos.

Revealed under a Freedom of Information investigation, the list
of buildings shows that 55 out of 73 schools in Blackburn and
Darwen contain asbestos. In Burnley, Pendle, Rossendale,
Hyndburn and the Ribble Valley, 213 schools contain asbestos.

Union bosses are urging the United Kingdom Government to remove
the asbestos, saying it should not "take chances with people's
lives."

National Union of Teachers national executive member Simon
Jones, who represents East Lancashire, said, "The only safe
policy is complete removal.

"You can't take chances with people's lives, so whatever the
cost, it has to be met. The Government has now conceded and
accepted that."

About 13,000 of the country's 25,000 schools were built between
1945 and 1974 when asbestos use was at a peak. Many were
refurbished using asbestos in ceilings, wall linings and lagging
pipes. Some are now being transformed as part of the Building
Schools for the Future program.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Dumped at Nanty Glo Recreation Spot
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kasecky, a Nanty Glo, Pa., local, has blown the whistle on
truckloads of asbestos he alleges were dumped at the town's
recreation spot, Mesothelioma reports.

Nanty Glo has a population of over 3,000.

Nanty Glo's park, with an area of 109 acres, has adult and
children's pools, a water slide, sprinkler and diving board, a
bathhouse, pavilions, and various picnic areas. Beyond this
common pool area are campgrounds, walking trails, children's
playground equipment and restrooms, as well as horseshoe pits, a
volleyball court, and venues for fishing and hunting.

Mr. Kasecky, who worked for the Nanty Glo Sewer Authority for
years, says that the borough started dumping old, broken
asbestos pipes beside the park and pool in the 1970s.

By the 1980s, health professionals and others had become aware
of the health effects of asbestos exposure. Even so, Mr. Kasecky
says, the dumping continued, with crushed asbestos hidden just
beneath the surface of the park, some of it dumped by borough
contractors in just the past few years.

Aside from the various pools and recreation areas, there is also
a stream nearby that flows into Davis Run, a popular fishing
spot. Seeping into this watershed, Mr. Kasecky notes, is runoff
contaminated with asbestos fibers and sludge.

This all came out at a recent public meeting, and some residents
were shocked. Others who knew about the dumping practice said
they had been asking the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection for a cleanup for years, with no
success.

Mr. Kasecky says that some landowners also have contaminated
fill on their properties, whether by consent or by accident Mr.
Kasecky did not say, though he did note that landowners "didn't
know what they were getting."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Ruling in Eickleberry Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, ruled against
plaintiffs, in a case involving asbestos filed by Charles
Eickleberry and other parties, finding that joinder of
Plaintiffs' claims under Rule 20 was not suitable.

The case is styled Charles Eickleberry, et al., Plaintiffs v. H.
Lappin, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Noel L. Hillman entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-1556 (NLH) on April 8, 2009.

Mr. Eickleberry, Timothy Junkert, Scott Burhyte, and Michael
Jackson, inmates confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Fort Dix, N.J., filed this Complaint and had
asked the Court to allow them to proceed in forma pauperis.

An application to proceed in forma pauperis was submitted only
by Mr. Eickleberry.

Plaintiffs alleged that the conditions at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Fort Dix violated their Eighth
Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

They alleged deficiencies with respect to cleanliness, toxins
(asbestos exposure), ventilation, lighting, overcrowding,
plumbing, insect infestations, access to the law library, and
recreational facilities.

The Complaint was followed by various "affidavits" alleging
facts specific to each of the various plaintiffs. In addition to
affidavits by the named plaintiffs, there were included
affidavits signed by a non-plaintiff Nicholas Simons.

Plaintiffs named as defendants officials at FCI Fort Dix as well
as the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Charles Eickleberry, Timothy Junkert, Scott Burhyte, and Michael
Jackson in Fort Dix, N.J., pro se.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rulings Issued in Bankston, Brown Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
issued rulings in lawsuits, which are under In re Asbestos
Products Liability Litigation (MDL 875), styled Frank Bankston,
et al v. ABCO Industries, Inc. and Yvonne Brown v. ABCO
Industries, Inc.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil
Action Nos. 01-CV-00162 and 08-CV-71147 on April 6, 2009.

A civil action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi. This civil action had been
transferred to this court as part of the federal systemwide
asbestos products liability litigation, known commonly as MDL
875.

This one civil action has been brought by 2,100 individual
plaintiffs. This Court noted that claims of different
plaintiffs, which involve common legal issues but totally
different alleged facts, may not be grouped into a single
action.

In the instant matter, while it is true that the claims asserted
by each of the plaintiffs against the defendants in this civil
action are based upon alleged injuries allegedly incurred as a
result of exposure to asbestos products, their individual clams
do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of transactions or occurrences, and were therefore not related
within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1).

The Court ruled:

-- Within 60 days, each individual plaintiff shall file one
   "Severed and Amended Complaint" in this court.

-- Each Severed and Amended Complaint shall contain the specific
   claims asserted by that individual plaintiff against any
   defendant named in the Severed and Amended Complaint.

-- Except for Frank Bankston (the lead plaintiff in the
   aforesaid matter originally filed in the U.S. District Court
   for the Southern District of Mississippi), each plaintiff who
   filed a Severed and Amended Complaint shall remit to the
   Clerk of Court a filing fee in the amount of US$350.00.

-- Each Severed and Amended Complaint must be served by the
   concerned plaintiff as required.

-- Failure to comply herewith may result in dismissal of
   Plaintiff's case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Howard Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division, issued split rulings in the case styled Keith Howard,
Plaintiff v. Cargill, Inc., Defendant.

District Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered judgment in Case No.
08-2057-STA-dkv on April 9, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Keith Howard and eight other individuals filed
a joint pro se complaint. District Judge J. Daniel Breen issued
an order on Jan. 29, 2008 that severed the actions and directed
the Clerk to open a new civil action for each plaintiff. On
March 20, 2008, Judge Breen directed Mr. Howard to amend his
complaint.

On April 8, 2008, Mr. Howard filed an amended complaint and
attached a charge of discrimination and notice of right to sue
for a claim of race discrimination. On April 21, 2008, the Court
entered an order dismissing Defendants Martin Crowder, Tim
Campbell, Joe Sparks, and Amanda Jordan and to issue process for
Cargill on Plaintiff's Title VII claims. On May 21, 2008, the
case was reassigned to Judge Anderson.

On May 27, 2008, Cargill filed a motion to dismiss. On May 29,
2008, Cargill again filed its motion to dismiss. On July 15,
2008, Mr. Howard responded to the motion to dismiss.

Cargill asserted that Mr. Howard's claim of race discrimination
should be dismissed. Particularly, Cargill contended that Mr.
Howard had not alleged an adverse employment action because he
had not alleged a change in the terms and conditions of his
employment.

Mr. Howard attached and incorporated his Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge alleging race
discrimination against Cargill to his amended complaint.

Mr. Howard, in his complaint, asserted that, in September 2006,
an inspection was conducted. During the inspection asbestos was
discovered throughout the common work areas. The Blacks and
other minority employees were unaware of the presence of
asbestos as they were routinely assigned to the contaminated
areas. Management never informed the employees assigned to the
contaminated work areas of the presence of asbestos.

Mr. Howard further stated that, Cargill and its Board members
knowingly and willfully placed their employees in a hazardous
work environment filled with asbestos. The Company knowingly and
willfully hires Blacks to work locations and perform work duties
in the asbestos filled areas. No White workers had been placed
in the hazardous areas where the asbestos has been disturbed.
This is one of the largest companies in the United States of its
kind.

For the foregoing reasons, Cargill's motion to dismiss was
granted in part and denied in part. Cargill's motion was granted
to the extent that it sought dismissal of Mr. Howard's claim for
retaliation. Cargill's motion was denied to the extent that it
sought dismissal of Mr. Howard's claim for race discrimination.

Keith Howard, Memphis, Tenn., pro se.

Michael R. Phillips, Esq., Joel H. Spitz, Esq., and John C.
Gardner, Esq., of McGuirewoods LLP in Chicago, Paul E. Prather,
Esq., of Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan & Prather, PLC in Memphis,
Tenn., represented Cargill, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Silvestro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, issued split
rulings in the asbestos case styled Doris Silvestro et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.,
Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Patricia A. Bigelow, Madeleine Flier, and O'Neill entered
judgment in Case No. B196906 on April 13, 2009.

This was an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. This is a wrongful death case in which a jury
found that Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., and Kelly-Moore Paint
Company failed to give adequate warning that their products had
potential risks due to the asbestos contained in those products,
and that the lack of an adequate warning was a substantial
factor in causing Salvatore Silvestro's death.

The jury further found that plaintiffs' economic damages were
US$250,000, and that their noneconomic damages were US$15
million, and allocated fault in the following measures: 30
percent to Kaiser Gypsum, 30 percent to Kelly-Moore, and the
remaining 40 percent divided among 10 others.

After offsetting settlements, the trial court entered a judgment
providing that plaintiffs take US$4.6 million from Kelly-Moore
and US$4.6 million from Kaiser Gypsum. Kelly-Moore thereafter
settled with plaintiffs. Kaiser Gypsum filed this appeal on Feb.
16, 2007.

The Appeals Court affirmed the jury's finding that Kaiser Gypsum
substantially contributed to causing Mr. Silvestro's death, but
reversed its finding that Kaiser Gypsum's measure of fault for
causing his death amounted to 30 percent.

Horvitz & Levy (Lisa Perrochet, Esq., and Wendy S. Albers, Esq.)
and Jackson & Wallace (Mark D. Sayre, Esq., and Jessica A.
Stepp, Esq.) represented Kaiser Gypsum.

Waters & Kraus (Gary M. Paul, Esq., Paul C. Cook, Esq., and
Michael B. Gurien, Esq.) represented Doris Silvestro.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Nicholas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth District, affirmed the ruling
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
which denied Geraldine Nicholas' motion to compel arbitration,
in a case involving asbestos filed on behalf of her late
husband, James Nicholas.

The case is styled Geraldine Nicholas, Individually and as
Administratrix of the Estate of James Nicholas Plaintiff-
Appellant v. KBR Inc., M W Kellogg Co.; Kellogg Brown & Root;
Halliburton Co., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Patrick Higginbotham, Jennifer Elrod, and Catharina
Haynes entered judgment in Case No. 08-20140 on April 15, 2009.

Mrs. Nicholas appealed the denial of her motion to compel
arbitration of her contract dispute with KBR, Inc., the
successor corporation of her deceased husband's (James Nicholas)
former employer, M.W. Kellogg Co.

Mrs. Nicholas contended that the district court improperly ruled
that she waived her right to arbitrate her dispute with KBR.

The Appeal Court concluded that the District Court did not err
when it found that Mrs. Nicholas substantially invoked the
judicial process to the prejudice of KBR.

The Appeal Court affirmed the District Court's judgment. The
matter was remanded for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PDG Notes $4M Reduction in Cleanup Revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------
PDG Environmental, Inc., during the three months ended April 30,
2009, had a reduction of about US$4 million for asbestos
abatement projects, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15,
2009.

The Company's contract revenues decreased by 28.7 percent to
US$12.6 million during the three months ended April 20, 2009,
compared with US$17.7 million in the three months ended April
30, 2008.

Specifically, the Company had a reduction of about US$1.1
million in revenues generated from non-asbestos projects.

Pittsburgh-based PDG Environmental, Inc. provides environmental
and specialty contracting services including asbestos and lead
abatement, microbial remediation, emergency response, loss
mitigation and reconstruction, demolition and related services
throughout the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Cotswold Resident's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
A coroner's inquest heard that the death of 62-year-old Brian
Ratcliff, of Cotswold, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Mr. Ratcliff worked during the 1960s and 1970s as a fitter of TV
antennas. His career brought him into contact with asbestos, as
he often had to drill into loft spaces or roofs in order to
install the antennas.

After having initial symptoms around Easter of 2008, Mr.
Ratcliff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May 2008. He died on
June 13, 2008.

The coroner's postmortem report indicated that Mr. Ratcliff's
cause of death was bronchopneumonia due to malignant
mesothelioma.

The county coroner then officially recorded Mr. Ratcliff's cause
of death as industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NERA Bares Filing, Settlement Trends Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
NERA Economic Consulting, on June 16, 2009, released Snapshot of
Recent Trends in Asbestos Litigation, a report analyzing trends
in asbestos filings and settlements, in light of legislative and
judicial tort reform over the past several years, according to a
NERA press release dated June 16, 2009.

The report, co-authored by NERA Senior Vice President and Mass
Torts and Product Liability Practice Chair Lucy P. Allen, and
Vice President Mary Elizabeth C. Stern, reviews asbestos-related
claims over the period of 2001 to 2008 for 150 solvent
defendants who report claims in their public filings.

Snapshot of Recent Trends in Asbestos Litigation found that
aggregate trends are generally favorable to asbestos defendants.

In particular the authors found that:

-- Asbestos claim filings are down—average claim filings peaked
   in 2003 and have since fallen 84 percent through 2008. This
   drop in filings corresponds to the enactment of legislative
   and judicial tort reforms in multiple jurisdictions.

-- Dismissal rates are up—dismissal rates of asbestos cases have
   steadily increased since 2001 and were three times higher in
   2008 than in 2001.

-- Total indemnity payments are down—the total indemnity
   payments, the aggregated amount a company pays to resolve
   claims each year, increased about 33 percent each year from
   2001 through 2004. In 2005, indemnity payments began to
   decline, on average, and have now dropped back to 2002
   levels.

Snapshot of Recent Trends in Asbestos Litigation may be viewed
on the NERA website: http://www.nera.com/publication.asp?
p_ID=3845

White Plains, N.Y.-based NERA Economic Consulting is a firm
dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative
principles to complex business and legal challenges.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Granger Suit v. Chevron Filed in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maudry Granger and Raymond Granger, on June 12, 2009, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against Chevron Corporation in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of Rufus Granger.

According to the complaint, Rufus Granger developed lung cancer
and pulmonary asbestosis after his work at Gulf Oil (n/k/a
Chevron) in Port Arthur, Tex. During his work, he was exposed to
asbestos fibers and dust, which caused his diseases. He died on
Jan. 18, 2009.

The suit further asserts that, although Chevron knew about the
harms of asbestos for decades, it failed to warn Rufus Granger
of the product's danger and failed to ensure that its employees
were not exposed to asbestos carcinogen.

The Grangers seek punitive and exemplary damages, plus interest
at the legal rate, costs and other relief to which they may be
entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Grangers.

Case No. E184-286 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reynolds Gets $8.4MM Award in Hamilton Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco jury, on June 15, 2009, ruled in favor of former
drywaller Jack Reynolds in his asbestos-related products
liability trial against Hamilton Materials, Inc.

After determining that Hamilton was liable, the jury assessed
US$468,759 in economic damages, and US$8 million in non-economic
damages, due to Hamilton's contribution in causing Mr. Reynolds'
mesothelioma.

MR. Reynolds served in the U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1964 primarily
aboard two naval vessels: USS MASON, a naval destroyer and USS
RANGER, an aircraft carrier. Aboard these ships, he worked
primarily as a painter and in the laundry service department.

After an honorable discharge, Mr. Reynolds went to work for a
fellow navy serviceman's business installing and finishing
drywall in primarily residential construction. He did this until
1973, where his employment changed from construction to the
travel industry. His last occupational exposure to asbestos
occurred in 1973. He retired in 1999.

In 2008, Mr. Reynolds was diagnosed with left-sided malignant
mesothelioma. He has received chemotherapy, multiple drainings
of pleural effusions as well as talc pleurodesis designed to
help prevent further chest fluid accumulation. He resides in Rio
Vista, Calif.

Orange, Calif.-based Hamilton was a manufacturer and supplier of
"Red Dot" brand asbestos-containing joint compound from 1963 to
1977, a product used to fill joints between sheets of drywall
which is sanded after application emitting large amounts of
dust.

At trial, plaintiffs presented evidence showing that when used
as intended, Hamilton's asbestos-containing joint compound
products had to be applied, sanded, disturbed, and cleaned up,
all of which released hazardous respirable asbestos dust. The
jury assigned 20 percent of the liability to Hamilton.

"We are very happy for Mr. Reynolds and his family as they are
deserving, good people." said Gil Purcell, Esq., counsel for
Jack Reynolds.

Gil Purcell, Esq., Andrew Chew, Esq., and Hallie Albert, Esq.,
of Brayton Purcell LLP, represented Mr. Reynolds at trial.

The trial, which began May 20, 2009, was presided over by the
Honorable Mary E. Wiss who sits in Department 504 of the San
Francisco Superior Court.

Hamilton Materials, Inc. was represented at trial by Thomas J.
Tarkoff, Esq., and Kurt Putnam, Esq., of Walsworth, Franklin,
Bevins and McCall, LLP in San Francisco. Other defendants
resolved at or during trial.

The case was styled Jack Reynolds v. Hamilton Materials, et al.
Case No. 274747, San Francisco Superior Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AG Files Contamination Lawsuit v. Decoulos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley's Office, on June
11, 2009, filed a complaint in Suffolk Superior Court against
the owner of a contaminated site in Danvers, according to a
Massachusetts AG press release dated June 12, 2009.

The complaint alleges that Nicholas J. Decoulos violated state
hazardous waste law by refusing to clean up the soils and
sediments at the site, which contain high levels of arsenic and
dioxin. The complaint further alleges that Decoulos has violated
the law by failing to secure the most dangerous sections of the
site and by failing to post signs warning about the hazards at
the property.

AG Coakley said, "The uncontrolled hazardous waste releases at
Mr. Decoulos' property not only present a danger to the
environment, but also pose a significant risk to public health.
It is the responsibility of any property owner to take the steps
necessary to protect the public and to clean up hazardous waste
on their property."

Laurie Burt, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP), said, "The failure of Mr.
Decoulos to take appropriate steps to clean up this contaminated
site is irresponsible and his failure to secure his property
creates an unacceptable risk to nearby residents and the
public."

The property was formerly the site of the Creese and Cook
Tannery and is located along the Crane River in Danvers.
According to the complaint, current conditions pose an imminent
hazard due to the presence of contaminated surface soils in the
former landfills, and in a former lagoon and upland fill pile
along with contaminated sediment in the Crane River located
directly adjacent to the site.

The imminent hazard areas were identified by contractors hired
by the site's owner. Despite reports of individuals accessing
this site for recreational and other purposes, the complaint
alleges Mr. Decoulos has refused to repair fencing and post
warning signs around the imminent hazard areas to prevent human
exposure to the contamination. He has also refused to enter into
an access agreement with MassDEP to allow its contractors to
complete this work, according to an affidavit also filed on June
12, 2009.

In 2004, Mr. Decoulos directed the demolition of a former
tannery building at the property, causing a release of asbestos
containing material to the air, in violation of the
Massachusetts Clean Air Act, according to the complaint. The
asbestos-containing demolition debris from that release remains
at the site and has not been remediated, as required by state
hazardous waste law.

The complaint seeks a preliminary injunction requiring Mr.
Decoulos to grant MassDEP access to the site to secure the
imminent hazard areas and install the necessary warning signs.
It also requests a preliminary injunction requiring Mr. Decoulos
to comply with the law going forward by repairing and replacing
the fencing and warning signs, as necessary, and monitoring and
reporting to MassDEP any further trespasser use of the site.

A hearing on the preliminary injunction request has been
scheduled for June 22, 2009 at 2 p.m. The complaint also seeks a
permanent injunction requiring Mr. Decoulos to comply with state
hazardous waste law by remediating the site, as well as civil
penalties for violation of the Commonwealth's environmental
laws.

The Attorney General's Office brought this action on behalf of
MassDEP. The complaint seeks to enforce alleged violations under
the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention
and Response Act and the Massachusetts Clean Air Act.

Assistant Attorney General Tracy Triplett from Attorney General
Coakley's Environmental Protection Division is handling this
case, with assistance from Maureen Vallatini of MassDEP's Office
of General Counsel and MassDEP environmental analyst Christopher
Pyott.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Addingham Resident's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard at Bradford Coroner's Court on June 16, 2009
heard that the death of 64-year-old Victoria Powell, of
Addingham, England, was linked to secondhand exposure to
asbestos, the Telegraph & Argus reports.

Mrs. Powell had never worked with asbestos or lived an asbestos
factory during her life. The inquest heard that her father, who
also died of an asbestos-disease, had been a maintenance worker
at a power station when she was a child.

Mrs. Powell's husband (John) read a statement to the inquest. He
said, "He would bring his clothing home with asbestos on it.
Following his death Victoria had kept one of his jackets."

Mrs. Powell was diagnosed with asbestos-related malignant
mesothelioma in October 2008. She died at home on April 5, 2009.

Recording a verdict of death by industrial disease, Coroner
Roger Whittaker said, "Without the industrial exposure of her
father bringing asbestos home on his clothes, Victoria Powell
would not have died of malignant mesothelioma related to
asbestos exposure. Although she herself was not exposed in the
workplace, this is related to an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Osborne's Case v. Texaco, Chevron Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of the late Michael W. Osborne Sr., on June 12, 2009,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against Texaco Inc. and Chevron
Corporation in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The elder Mr. Osborne's family (wife Shirley A. Osborne and
children Michael W. Osborne Jr., Dwayne A. Osborne, and Mark D.
Osborne) claims that the elder Mr. Osborne's exposure to
asbestos in the workplace played a role in his death from
mesothelioma.

According to the complaint, Michael W. Osborne Sr. developed
mesothelioma after his work at Texaco and other facilities in
Jefferson County. During his work, he was exposed to asbestos
fibers and dust. He died on March 13, 2009.

Although Texaco and Chevron knew about the harms of asbestos for
decades, they failed to warn Michael W. Osborne of the product's
danger and failed to ensure that their employees were not
exposed to the carcinogen, the lawsuit states.

The Osbornes seek punitive and exemplary damages, plus interest
at the legal rate, costs and other relief to which they may be
entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Osbornes.

Case No. E184-287 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Fountaindale, E. Russell
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington County School District in Hagerstown, Md., says
that asbestos cleanup is ongoing at two schools: Fountaindale
Elementary and E. Russell Hicks Middle School, Mesothelioma
reports.

On June 8, 2009, crews started work at Fountaindale, on Northern
Avenue, where remediation precedes the replacement of all the
school's windows and doors as part of a maintenance program to
increase energy efficiency.

Built in 1949, Fountaindale replaced a one-room schoolhouse then
on the site, and has since been expanded several times, first in
1954, and later to add a second classroom building, a gymnasium,
additional rooms and a connecting hallway. In 1968, a library
was also added. The school serves more than 400 students from
kindergarten through Grade 5.

According to School District Project Manager Michael Whiteley,
the school is in need of energy upgrades, and the old windows
and doors cannot simply be removed and replaced because the
caulking contains small amounts of asbestos.

The E. Russell Hicks School, at 1321 S. Potomac St., is another
energy-efficiency upgrade, replacing windows doors and heaters
in two corridors that connect the two sections of the school.
Built in 1967, the school serves 735 children grades 6 through
8. In Hicks, the asbestos is part of fireproofing insulative
spray added to the roof deck above the ceiling tiles.

In both cases, according to the District's Environmental Safety
Specialist Tony Suranno, the asbestos has been present since the
schools were built and was in good condition, so it did not
present a hazard to students, teachers and school staff.

The asbestos removal is anticipated to take about three weeks,
and will cost a combined total of more than US$45,000.

Precautions included a mandatory notice of asbestos remediation,
posted outside E. Russell Hicks on June 4, 2009 and caution tape
present at playground equipment at Fountaindale. Posting was not
needed at the latter, according to Mr. Whiteley, because the
asbestos content is so small and in such good condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SUNY Medical Work Delayed on Asbestos Fears
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials at State University of New York (SUNY) Medical Upstate
University in Syracuse, N.Y., said that they delayed mowing the
lawn at the Kennedy Square housing complex due to fears about
asbestos, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The grass at the housing complex was dotted with shingles from
the roof of the building. University officials were concerned
that the shingles could contain deadly asbestos fibers. If lawn
mowers had trimmed the grass, the blades could have pulverized
the shingles and sent debris into the air.

If the shingles contained asbestos, the fibers could become
airborne and if inhaled the tiny fibers can lodge permanently in
the lungs of anyone who inhales them.

The test results came back, and the shingles contain no asbestos
material. The University has now hired a contractor who will
trim the grass and remove the debris. SUNY Upstate plans to
transform the housing complex into a US$35 million biotechnology
research center.

The site is overgrown with very tall grasses and weeds, and in
addition to shingles, the debris at the site includes old rugs,
old couches and car seats.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyer Cites World Bank Report's Importance
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York personal injury lawyer Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., says
the World Bank's new construction guidelines raise awareness of
the health risks associated with asbestos and call attention to
the danger of workplace exposure to this once-common building
material, according to a Belluck & Fox, LLP press release dated
June 11, 2009.

Mr. Belluck, a partner at the New York law firm of Belluck &
Fox, LLP, said, "The World Bank's new guidelines remind us that
asbestos is still present in some construction materials. And
once again we're reminded of the importance of limiting
hazardous exposure to asbestos."

The World Bank, which provides financial aid and technical
assistance in more than 100 countries, in May 2009, finalized
construction guidelines to discourage the use of asbestos in new
construction projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CAG Seeks More Info on BoRit Asbestos Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Citizens Advisory Group seeks more communication with the
Environmental Protection Agency, as assessment of the BoRit
asbestos area in Ambler, Upper Dublin and Whitpain moves
forward, according to The Reporter.

The BoRit site, which was used to dispose of asbestos-containing
material until the 1980s, was placed on the EPA's Superfund
National Priorities List in April 2009, which allowed the EPA to
begin investigating long-term solutions.

Francisco Cruz, the EPA community involvement coordinator for
the site, said the operations and maintenance of Phase one of
the removal process, which involves the area around the
Wissahickon Creek, are ongoing. He also reported Phase two,
which involves Rose Valley, is still in the planning stages.

Mr. Cruz addressed the remedial stage of the EPA's process,
noting the organization is still working on plans for the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIFS), which will
collect data to determine site conditions and the nature of the
waste, assess risks and evaluate potential remedial actions.

After RIFS is completed, the EPA will prepare a plan for the
remedial stage, which will then be made available to the public
for comment for 30 days, Mr. Cruz said.

Discussion of the RIFS prompted several members of the citizens
group to express their frustrations that the group is not being
kept up to date with the progress of the remedial process.
Members noted similar frustrations arose when the EPA took some
actions during the removal phase without first informing the
group.

CAG member Sharon McCormick said, "If we can just, even
verbally, get information about what's going to happen in the
next month or six weeks, that would prevent a lot of this
(frustration)."

Mr. Cruz said the EPA would take efforts to ensure CAG was
informed before any remedial action is taken and also suggested
a presentation that would give members an in-depth understanding
of the RIFS process.

CAG Co-Chairman Fred Conner suggested the group reinstitute
weekly or biweekly conference calls between members and the
project manager so the group can remain updated on any progress.

CAG members reported they are in the final stages of going to
local primary care physicians to present information about the
health risks associated with asbestos. They reported several
physicians have agreed to hang up the poster the group designed.

CAG member Sal Boccuti presented two recommendations from the
future plans workgroup. First, the group suggested forming a
panel discussion in which an EPA lawyer would discuss the legal
issues involved to new owners of property near the site.

Second, the group recommended the CAG encourage the
municipalities to meet and discuss progress with the site.

Mr. Boccuti said the work group thought Whitemarsh and Lower
Gwynedd, in addition to Ambler, Upper Dublin and Whitpain,
should be included due to their proximity to the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. Court Vacates Ruling in Daley's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a ruling of the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil, which granted
summary judgment in favor of A.W. Chesterton Inc., U.S. Supply
Company, and Duro-Dyne Corporation, and dismissed Herbert L.
Daley and Evelyn Daley's asbestos complaint with prejudice.

The case was remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.

The case is styled Herbert L. Daley and Evelyn Daley, h/w,
Appellants v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc. and U.S. Supply Company and
Duro-Dyne Corporation, Appellees.

Judges John L. Musmanno, Susan P. Gantman, and Jack A. Panella
entered judgment in Case No. 2763 EDA 2006 on April 15, 2009.

In October 1990, Mr. Daley filed an asbestos action in the
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas seeking compensatory
damages for pulmonary asbestosis and lung cancer. Said action
resulted in an out of court settlement between the parties in
1994. Chesterton, Supply, and Duro-Dyne (Appellees) were not
named in that action.

Thereafter, on Oct. 24, 2005, Mr. Daley commenced an asbestos
mass tort action against numerous defendants alleging that in
August 2005, Mr. Daley contracted malignant mesothelioma as a
result of his occupational exposure to asbestos products,
including products distributed by Appellees.

On July 19, 2006, Appellees moved for summary judgment,
asserting that Mr. Daley's statute of limitations began to run
at the time he was first diagnosed with lung cancer.

On Sept. 11, 2006, after consideration of Appellees' motion and
Mr. Daley's response thereto, the court granted summary judgment
in Appellees' favor and dismissed with prejudice all claims
against Appellees.

On Oct. 2, 2006, the Haleys timely filed this appeal. On Oct.
31, 2006, the Haleys filed their Concise Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New Trial Ordered in Nolan v. Weil-McLain
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the judgments of
appellate and circuit courts and remanded the matter to the
circuit court for a new trial in the asbestos case styled Sally
Nolan, as Executrix of the Estate of Clarence Nolan, Appellee v.
Weil-McLain, Appellant.

Judges Charles E. Freeman, Thomas R. Fitzgerald, Rita B. Garman,
Lloyd A. Karmeier, Anne M. Burke, and Thomas L. Kilbride entered
judgment in Case No. 103137 on April 16, 2009. Judge Kilbride
filed a dissenting opinion and Judge Thomas took no part in the
decision.

Sally Nolan, as executrix of the estate of her late husband,
Clarence Nolan, sought recovery in the Circuit Court of
Vermilion County against defendant, Weil-McLain, for the
wrongful death of her husband.

The jury returned a verdict for Mrs. Nolan, and a majority of
the appellate court affirmed.

In 2001, the Nolans sued 12 corporations, including Weil-McLain,
alleging that Mr. Nolan developed mesothelioma after exposure to
the defendants' asbestos-containing products. Specifically, as
to Weil-McLain, it was alleged that Mr. Nolan was exposed to
asbestos when he installed, repaired or removed boilers
manufactured by the company.

The 11 other defendants either settled or were dismissed prior
to trial, leaving Weil-McLain as the lone defendant in Mr.
Nolan's suit.

In January 2004, Mrs. Nolan's case proceeded to trial against
Weil-McLain. There was no factual dispute that the cause of Mr.
Nolan's death was mesothelioma or that for a period of time
prior to 1974 various asbestos-containing components were
supplied with Weil-McLain's boilers, including cement and rope
manufactured by other entities.

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Mrs. Nolan, awarding
US$2,368,000 in damages. This award was reduced by a
US$1,222,500 setoff for the amounts received from the defendants
who had settled and been dismissed from the case. Weil-McLain
filed a timely post-trial motion. A majority of the appellate
court affirmed the circuit court's decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Ledaura Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, upheld the
Pierce County Superior Court's ruling, which favored landlord
Ledaura, LLC, in a detainer action involving asbestos cleanup
filed by tenants Bret Drager, Randy Gould, Greg Johnson, and
Drager Gould Architects, Inc.

The case is styled Ledaura LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, Respondent v. Randy Gould and "Jane Doe" Gould, husband
and wife; Bret Drager and "Jane Doe" Drager, husband and wife;
and Greg Johnson and "Jane Doe" Johnson, husband and wife; and
Drager Gould Architects, Inc., Appellants.

Judges Elaine Houghton, Christine Quinn-Brintnall, and Joel
Penoyar entered judgment in Case No. 37379-3-II on April 14,
2009.

On Jan. 24, 2006, Leah Caruthers, in her capacity as co-trustee
of the revocable living trust of David W. Smith (trust), entered
into a commercial lease agreement with the tenants. The tenants
agreed to pay the first and last months' rent, followed by rent
of US$4,500 per month, beginning 12 months after the
commencement date.

After the tenants entered into the lease with the trust, they
told Ms. Caruthers that they and their corporate entity, DGA,
would like to occupy a portion of the property formerly used as
an apartment while they renovated the remainder of the property.
Ms. Caruthers agreed.

Soon after the tenants signed the lease, they began remodeling a
760 square foot portion of the property for use as their office.
The tenants moved into the office in April 2006, after three
months of remodeling. On Feb. 16, 2006, the trust transferred
its interest in the property to the newly formed Ledaura LLC.
The entire property, including the ground floor, comprises about
20,000 square feet.

In March 2006, Ms. Caruthers hired Robert Munroe to clear debris
out of the property. During his employment with Ms. Caruthers,
the tenants hired Mr. Munroe to perform demolition work on the
same space.

Instead of finishing the debris clearing, Mr. Munroe began
demolishing the property and, in the process, removed asbestos.
When the tenants learned of this and other problems, they
terminated him. Mr. Munroe later vandalized the property by
damaging electrical systems and moving debris around the
building. After the vandalism, the parties attempted to clear
the debris out of the property and draft a new lease addendum,
but they ultimately they did not reach an agreement.

On July 30, 2007, Ledaura served Mr. Gould a copy of the notice
to pay rent or vacate. Ledaura addressed the notice to Mr.
Gould, Mr. Drager, and Mr. Johnson. On Aug. 10, 2007, Ledaura
filed a complaint for an unlawful detainer action against the
tenants, alleging failure to pay rent. The tenants included a
counterclaim in their answer, and the trial court dismissed it
without prejudice.

The trial court ordered a forfeiture of the lease and the return
of the property to Ledaura within 20 days. The trial court ruled
that with the exception of DGA, the tenants were jointly and
severally liable on all the judgments. The tenants appealed.

Douglas N. Kiger, Esq., of Blado Kiger PS in Tacoma, Wash.,
represented Respondent.

Mark Ronald Roberts, Esq., of Davis Roberts & Johns PLLC in Gig
Harbor, Wash., represented Appellants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Casella Site to Accept Waste Until Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc.'s Pine Tree landfill in Hampden,
Maine, will accept waste (including non-friable asbestos) until
Dec. 31, 2009.

Pine Tree is a secure, special waste landfill, permitted to
accept construction and demolition debris, ash from municipal
solid waste incinerators and fossil fuel boilers, sandblast
grits, oily waste and oil spill debris, non-friable asbestos,
and other approved special wastes.

In November 2006, a phased closure of the landfill was approved
by the Town of Hampden and the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, which will require cessation of waste acceptance by
Dec. 31, 2009.

Rutland, Vt.-based Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides resource
management expertise and services to residential, commercial,
municipal, and industrial customers, primarily in the areas of
solid waste collection, transfer, disposal and recycling
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Health Emergency Declared in Mont. Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P.
Jackson, on June 17, 2009, announced the EPA has determined that
a public health emergency exists at the Libby asbestos site in
northwest Montana, according to an EPA press release dated June
17, 2009.

Over the past years, hundreds of asbestos-related disease cases
have been documented in this small community, which covers the
towns of Libby and Troy. The announcement was made at a joint
press conference with Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and U.S. Senators Max Baucus and Jon
Tester.

This is the first time EPA has made a determination under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) that conditions at a site constitute a
public health emergency. This determination recognizes the
serious impact to the public health from the contamination at
Libby and underscores the need for further action and health
care for area residents who have been or may be exposed to
asbestos.

Investigations performed by the Agency for Toxic Substance and
Disease Registry have found the incidence of occurrence of
asbestosis in the Libby area staggeringly higher than the
national average for the period from 1979 to 1998. EPA is
working with the Department of Health and Human Services, which
is making available a short-term grant to provide needed
asbestos-related medical care to Libby and Troy residents.

During her Senate confirmation hearing, Administrator Jackson
committed to review the situation at the Libby asbestos site
based on current site information, sound science and EPA's legal
authorities. As a result of her review, the Administrator has
decided that conditions at the site present a significant threat
to public health and that making a public health emergency
determination is appropriate.

Sen. Max Baucus, a long-time advocate on this issue,
consistently sought out a determination of a public health
emergency in this region.

Secretary Sebelius tasked two HHS agencies – the Health
Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry – to help county residents.

These two agencies will support a new grant to assist affected
residents who need medical care. Local officials are currently
putting together a grant proposal that will lay out options for
provision of medical care that will work for the residents of
Lincoln County. HHS anticipates that this grant can be awarded
in August 2009.

The Libby asbestos site has been on the EPA's Superfund National
Priorities List since 2002, and cleanup has taken place since
2000. EPA has made progress in helping to remove the threat of
asbestos in the land and air, and with it, the increased risks
of lung cancer, asbestosis, and other respiratory problems.
While EPA's cleanup efforts have greatly reduced exposure,
actual and potential releases of amphibole asbestos remain a
significant threat to public health in that area.

The Libby asbestos site includes portions of the towns of Libby
and Troy and an inactive vermiculite mine seven miles northeast
of the town.

Gold miners discovered vermiculite in Libby in 1881. In the
1920s, the Zonolite Company formed and began mining the
vermiculite. In 1963, W. R. Grace & Co. bought the Zonolite
mining operations. The mine closed in 1990.

It is estimated that the Libby mine was the source of over 70
percent of all vermiculite sold in the United States from 1919
to 1990.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/libby


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Berkeley Scientist's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Berkeley, Gloucestershire,
England, scientist Roy Hancock was linked to exposure to
asbestos, the Gazette reports.

Mr. Hancock, who died of malignant mesothelioma at
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital in July 2008, at the age of 64,
had also visited several power stations being decommissioned in
Russia in the early 1990s and could have come into contact with
asbestos there.

By Christmas 2007, Mr. Hancock started having pains in his
stomach and later in hospital was diagnosed with mesothelioma
and only given a short time to live. He died eight weeks after
diagnosis, his wife Madeleine Hancock said in a statement.

The inquest heard that Mr. Hancock had worked in a building
which had asbestos stripped out of it. It also heard how while
visiting the boiler rooms at Berkeley, Mr. Hancock may have been
exposed to asbestos.

Gloucestershire coroner Alan Crickmore said the scientist had
also been involved in designing and manufacturing small furnaces
for research purposes where he may have been exposed.

Recording an industrial disease verdict, Mr. Crickmore said he
was satisfied that Mr. Hancock inhaled asbestos over a period of
time and there was no evidence to suggest he had done that other
than through his employment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: John Chick Released From Prison Last May 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Chick, on May 21, 2009, who was incarcerated in federal
prison for asbestos-related charges, was released due to good
behavior, The Post-Standard reports.

The 67-year-old Mr. Chick was sentenced to 15 months in federal
prison for his role in a Cayuga County, N.Y., asbestos scandal.
He was released from prison to a halfway house in Syracuse,
N.Y., and is serving the last week of his mandated home
confinement. His 15-month sentence, which was reduced by two
months for good behavior, is scheduled to end on June 19, 2009.

Mr. Chick, a former county employee, was the only person charged
with a crime in the scandal. In January 2007, he pleaded guilty
to conspiracy to violate the federal Clean Air Act. He admitted
in court to supervising the illegal removal of an asbestos-laden
boiler in February 2006 from the county Board of Elections
building in Auburn, N.Y.

Mr. Chick served one year of his sentence at a federal minimum-
security camp attached to Canaan Penitentiary, a maximum
security prison in Waymart, Pa., about 20 miles east of
Scranton.

Mr. Chick was also ordered to pay US$108,000 in restitution for
the costs the county incurred in cleaning up the asbestos. To
date, he has repaid US$450 from his prison earnings, according
to county Treasurer James Orman.

Mr. Chick said he plans to resume working as a self-employed
contractor and spoke about the difficulties of being
incarcerated.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Davison County Accepts $11,340 Cleanup Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioners in Davison County, S.D., on June 16, 2009,
accepted a US$11,340 bid from Horsley Specialties, Inc. to
remove asbestos from the soon-to-be demolished Tower Building,
The Daily Republic reports.

The asbestos removal is scheduled to be completed by Aug. 10,
2009.

The building was part of the Methodist Hospital. Since the
county purchased the building for US$425,000 in 1993, it has
been a drain on the county's finances. On June 16, 2009, County
Maintenance Supervisor Mark Ruml said that one heating bill in
December was US$10,000.

Commissioner Gerald Weiss said he expected the asbestos-removal
bids to be between US$25,000 and US$30,000. Commissioner Jerry
Fischer said he expected US$30,000.

After awarding the $11,340 bid, the commissioners expressed
excitement about inching closer to demolishing the building.

Much of the Tower Building is empty, but it does house the
offices of the County Health Nurse, the local driver's licensing
center and some other state offices.

The only entity that the County Commission is obligated to find
new office space for is the County Health Nurse, and
commissioners spoke briefly about a lease agreement that they
are negotiating at a new location.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LVI Disputes Cambria's $34.1Mil Cleanup Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
LVI Environmental Services Inc., in a lawsuit filed in New York
Supreme Court, asserted that Cambria Contracting Inc.'s US$34.1
asbestos removal bid for the Midtown Plaza in Rochester, N.Y.,
should be disallowed, the Democrat and Chronicle reports.

LVI says that Cambria, of Lockport, N.Y., does not have
sufficient experience in such projects. In legal papers, LVI
states that Cambria overstated its track record and thus does
not meet bidding requirements.

The cleanup, which is supposed to begin in June 2009, is the
first step in the demolition of the downtown Rochester landmark.
Economic development officials for New York State, which is
paying to demolish the shopping mall and adjoining buildings,
awarded the contract to Cambria in May 2009.

The firm was one of six that submitted bids on the project,
which LVI describes in legal papers as the largest single
asbestos abatement project in upstate New York history. An
estimated five million square feet of asbestos-containing
materials are to be removed from the complex over a 14-month
period.

LVI said it believes that it is the next lowest bidder that
fully meets bidding requirements. The company, based in New York
City with an office in Rochester, bid US$39.9 million for the
work.

State Supreme Court Justice William Polito has scheduled a June
30, 2009 hearing on LVI's contentions. He declined an LVI
request that he issue a temporary order barring the state from
moving forward on the abatement and demolition work while the
Company's arguments are heard.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos at Wallaga Lake Town to be Removed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos at the Wallaga Lake Koori Village in New South Wales,
Australia, is set to be removed despite an assessment finding
that there is no health risk to the community, ABC News reports.

The Greater Southern Area Health Service says it has given a
report to the local Merriman's Aboriginal Lands Council that
owns the Wallaga Lake settlement.

Greater Southern's Public Health Director Tracey Oakman says
while there is no health concerns a Site Management Plan is
being developed to manage a clean-up.

Ms. Oakman says the report has also found that there is no need
for community members to have asbestos health checks. She said,
"Certainly the health risk assessment went into that in some
detail and suggested that there could be no recommendation for
health testing for those people. There's no indication for it
based on the level of risk assessment."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos, Other Hazards Found at Swannanoa
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos and toxic chemicals were found in a North Carolina
State-owned property, which was used by the U.S. Army for a
crematorium, in Swannanoa, N.C., the Citizen-Times reports.

Environmental officials are investigating soil contamination
discovered on the property, which is next to Owen High School.
The contaminants were leaking from old transformers found in the
property owned by the North Carolina Department of Juvenile
Justice.

The state Division of Waste Management has ordered the
department to fence in the area to keep the public out and hire
a consultant for development of plan to clean up the mess.

Jaime Kritzer, spokesman for the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, says that it is unknown at this point whether
the contamination has spread off the site, whether anyone has
been sickened from exposure to the polychlorinated biphenyls
found leaking from the transformers or who dumped the waste.

According to a cleanup order by the Division of Waste Management
on March 18, 2009, open access to the site presents a danger to
the public.

State officials have known about the contamination since at
least May 2008, but Mr. Kritzer said a response was delayed in
part because of confusion over who owes the property.

It was determined the waste is on a remote portion of a 33-acre
tract occupied by the Swannanoa Valley Youth Development Center,
said William Lassiter, spokesman for the Department of Juvenile
Justice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Protest Waste Plant's Extension
----------------------------------------------------------------
Many residents in Lancashire, England, are protesting a proposal
to extend an asbestos-processing waste transfer station,
Mesothelioma Cancer News reports.

As reported by the Lancashire Telegraph, A1 Skip Hire Ltd,
Clayton-le-Moors have put in a bid for the expansion on land
that some argue is an area frequented by walkers.

As noted in the report, about 600 signatures have been placed on
a petition in protest of the site extension.

Nick Collingridge, a Lancashire County Council member, is quoted
by the Lancashire Telegraph as stating of the matter, "There is
a high level of discontent. Residents have highlighted a number
of issues and feel their complaints are not being dealt, while
the site owners feel they are being harassed in their attempts
to run a business."


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

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.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *