CAR_Public/090710.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 135

                           Headlines

APCC SERVICES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files N.Y Suit Over Overcharges
BONITA BAY: Faces TwinEagles Members' Litigation in Florida
DES MOINES: Seeks Decertification of Franchise Fees Litigation
DITECH NETWORKS: Appeal to Securities Suit Ruling Nixed in April
GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Gush Etzion Files Suit Over Electricity Outages
JABIL CIRCUIT: Defending Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Norris" Suit
JACKSON HEWITT: "Gomez" Suit in Maryland Dismissed Last June 18
JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling in Ohio CSOA Litigation

JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss Suit by Missouri RAL Customers
JACKSON HEWITT: Settlement of Suit Over RALs Approved in April
JACKSON HEWITT: Virginia RAL Customers' Suit in Pretrial Stage
JACKSON HEWITT: "Wooley" Suit Over False Deductions in Discovery
MASTERCARD INC: To Make Remaining Settlement Prepayment in Sept.

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces "Sample" Economic Lawsuit in Calif.
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Suit by Purchasers of Zicam Products
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Suits by Cold Remedy Nasal Gel Buyers
META FINANCIAL: Guardian Angel Credit Union's Suit Still Pending
NATCO GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger

RECREATION CENTERS: Homeowners Win in Annual Assessment Lawsuit
SEMGROUP ENERGY: Consolidated Amended Securities Lawsuit Pending
SPECTRUM GROUP: To Contribute More Shares to Settlement Fund
STIEFEL LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
TEXAS BAY: Judge Denies Injunction Request in for Tenants' Suit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Kendall Law Group Announces Ga. Suit Filing


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Supreme Court Rules on Dinern Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Cross Case Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court OKs Remand Bid in Holdren Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio District Court Rules on Lamson Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gloucestershire Plumber Exposed to Asbestos

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at N.J. Newsprint Plant Completed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Reaches Deal w/ 4 Md. Schools on Safety
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Reaches Deal on Vermont Sites
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Board OKs Ruling in General Electric Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Underway at King Chevrolet Facility

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sampson Widow to Launch Compensation Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Seeks Reasons for DuPont Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halifax to Check 12 Buildings for Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harlem Valley Site Set for Hazard Abatement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't. to Pay JPY77Mil for Taima's Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Ex-Celanese Worker's Death
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arguments in Morin Case Presented in Mass.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Safety Council Seeks Asbestos Audit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Local NSW Council Knew About Koori Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Ramsgate High-Rise Building

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Illegally Disposed at Annagortha Bog
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Powers Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Garlock Motions in Moeller Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Tatera Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Rando Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Flips Ruling in Lennar Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Affirms Dismissal of Tipps Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issues in Employers Ins. Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Movants' Bid Denied in Burns and Roe Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Apartments Evacuated Due to Hazards

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Plaza Pub Building in N.M.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Salem Construction Site
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grupo Mexico to Pay $1.46B Cash for Asarco
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at St. Brigid's School in U.K.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Move GM Plea to Higher Court Denied

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov't. to Respond to Report by July 21
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 135 Cases Pending v. GenCorp Inc. at May 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Disqualify Granted in Kramig Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants Defendants' Motions in Catania
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses McCormick Claim v. Railroad

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Court Junks Parker Civil Rights Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds GE's Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Enters Ruling in Rando Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flintkote's Bid for Reserves Discovery OK'd
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Alert Raised on Sheffield Playground

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wroughton Museum Denies Presence of Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Battle Calls For Research Center in Leeds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marystown Shipyard Calls for Payout Reforms
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSI Toy Customers Eligible to Get Refunds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Grants Dobrocke Remand Motion

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Entered in 3M Derivative Action
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ontario Local to Pay $87.5T for Handling Breach
ASBESTOS ALERT: Pavilion, Balkema Cited in Waste Handling Claim


                           *********

APCC SERVICES: Bronstein Gewirtz Files N.Y Suit Over Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled, "Dollar
Phone Corp. v. APCC Services, Inc. ("APCC"), Case No. 09-2735."
APCC is the collection agent for many independent payphone
service providers ("PSPs").  The proposed class includes all
telecom carriers (as well as any company that has a toll-free
"8XX" number) that may have been overcharged for toll free
payphone calls made on the payphones APCC represented between
June 1, 2004 and June 26, 2009.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
any overpayments to APCC and an injunction against the alleged
wrongful collection tactics of APCC.

     The complaint alleges APCC violated the Federal
Communications Act as follows: First, the complaint alleges APCC
improperly collected FCC mandated payments from carriers for
ostensibly toll free payphone calls made by the carriers'
customers that in fact were not toll free.  Second, the
complaint alleges APCC violated 47 U.S.C. Section 276(b)(1)(a)
which requires the commission to "establish a per call
compensation plan to ensure that all payphone service providers
are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate
and interstate call using their payphones."  The complaint
alleges APCC grabbed for itself significant amounts of carrier
payments made to compensate PSPs, but which APCC has never
delivered to any PSP.  Third, the complaint alleges APCC has
demanded payment from carriers for calls that were made from a
digitized list of payphone telephone numbers provided by APCC,
many of which are not really payphones at all.  The complaint
seeks to enjoin APCC from seeking payphone compensation not made
from payphones, and to require APCC to refund improper payphone
compensation that it has collected.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com)
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Phone: 212-697-6484
          Web site: http://www.bgandg.com/


BONITA BAY: Faces TwinEagles Members' Litigation in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bonita Bay Group, the developer of TwinEagles golf courses, is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit in in Collier County
Circuit Court that was filed by members of TwinEagles, Dick
Hogan of The News-Press reports.

Greg Hardwig and Laura Layden of Naples Daily News previously
reported that the members filed the class-action lawsuit in June
against the developer for breach of contract, seeking relief on
dues owed, and permission to pay dues into the court registry
instead of giving the money to Bonita Bay, reports Naples Daily
News.

The financially troubled developer has closed both of the
community's championship courses and the clubhouse, including a
restaurant and fitness center, Naples Daily News reported.

John Emmanuel, Esq., an attorney with Fowler White Boggs in
Tampa is representing TwinEagles members, according to Naples
Daily News.

For more details, contact:

          Fowler White Boggs
          501 E. Kennedy Boulevard
          Suite 1700
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Phone: (813) 228-7411
          Fax: (813) 229-8313
          Web site: http://www.fowlerwhite.com/


DES MOINES: Seeks Decertification of Franchise Fees Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Des Moines, Iowa is seeking for the decertification
of a class-action lawsuit over its franchise fee for gas and
electric utilities, The Associated Press reports.

Darwin Danielson of Radio Iowa previously reported that Judge
Joel Novak of Polk County District Court ruled in a class-
action case against the City of Des Moines, Iowa that the city
owes utility customers millions of dollars in refunds for what
he calls "illegal fees" (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009).

Des Moines has been collecting around $13-million a year in
franchise fees from customers of Mid-American Energy to cover
the costs of such services as trimming trees around power lines,
according to the Radio Iowa report.

When Des Moines resident Lisa Kragnes noticed the extra charge
on her utility bill in 2004, she decided to challenge it in
court.  Brad Schroeder, Esq. represented Mr. Kragnes and says
Judge Joel Novak found the city collected much more money than
it needed, Radio Iowa reported.

"They've been collecting a five percent fee and the judge said
only one-and-a-quarter percent approximately is justified.  The
remainder is an illegal tax that the city has been charging
without the authority to do so," Mr. Schroeder tells Radio Iowa.

Mr. Schroeder estimates Des Moines owes Mid American Energy
customers $43-millions in refunds for the period between 2004
and now.

The franchise fee costs the average Des Moines household a
little more than one hundred dollars per year.  City officials
say they will appeal the ruling, reports Radio Iowa.

The Chicago Tribune previously reported that a Polk County judge
has ruled that a lawsuit over the city of Des Moines' utility
franchise fee can continue as a class-action case (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 1, 2008).

According to Chicago Tribune, Judge Joel Novak has ruled that
the attorney for Lisa Kragnes "has the financial wherewithal to
proceed" and can adequately protect the interests of Des Moines
utility customers.

The report recounts that the city has fought the class-action
certification saying it could draw up to 124,000 customers into
the court fight.

Ms. Kragnes filed the lawsuit in 2004, claiming that the 5% fee
on natural gas and electrical bills in Des Moines is an illegal
tax, the report recalls.


DITECH NETWORKS: Appeal to Securities Suit Ruling Nixed in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by the plaintiffs in the action entitled, "In re
Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C 05-
02406-JSW," was dismissed in April 2009, according to the
company's July 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30,
2009.

Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class-action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, purportedly on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Ditech's stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and
May 26, 2005.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in connection with
alleged misrepresentations concerning Voice Quality Assurance
(VQA) orders and the potential effect on Ditech of the merger
between Sprint and Nextel, seeking monetary damages.

All of the lawsuits were consolidated into a single action
entitled, "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, No. C 05-02406-JSW," and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on Feb. 2, 2006.  The defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint, and by order dated Aug. 10, 2006, the
court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint
with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on Sept. 11,
2006.  The defendants again moved to dismiss, and by order dated
March 22, 2007, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint
with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on April 23,
2007.  On May 14, 2007, the defendants again moved to dismiss.
By order dated Oct. 11, 2007, the court dismissed the third
amended complaint with prejudice.

On Nov. 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeal has been fully
briefed.

On April 1, 2009, the parties filed a stipulated motion for
dismissal of the appeal.  On April 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
dismissed the appeal.  With the dismissal of the appeal, the
district court's order dismissing the third amended complaint
with prejudice stands and is the final judgment in this action.

Ditech Networks, Inc. -- http://www.ditechnetworks.com-- is a
global telecommunications equipment supplier for voice networks.
The Company's solutions enable service providers to deliver
consistently clear, secure, end-to-end communications to their
customers worldwide.  Its voice quality products include echo
cancellers, which are used to effectively eliminate echo, a
problem in existing and emerging voice networks.  The Company
designs, develops and markets system-based voice quality
products for mobile networks throughout the world.  Its
productsfeature hardware systems coupled with an array of voice
optimization and measurement software to enhance the quality of
voice communications.  The Company designs, develops and markets
systems that ensure service providers can provide consistently
clear, secure, end-to-end, voice-over Internet protocol (VoIP)
communications to their customers throughout the world.


GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class-action entitled,
"In re Gildan Activewear, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
08 Civ. 5048 (HB)," Andrew Longstreth of Am Law Litigation Daily
reports.

On July 1, 2009, the court granted a motion by the defendants to
dismiss the case, according to Am Law Litigation Daily.

In general, the complaint charges Gildan and certain of its
officers and  directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of  1934.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company's Dominican Republic textile facility
         was underperforming;

     (2) that as a result, sales of the Company's activewear
         were performing below expectations;

     (3) that the Company had materially overstated its
         financial results by failing to timely write-down an
         impairment in the value of its inventories;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         statements about its financial well-being and future
         business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On April 29, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it
announced that it was reducing its second quarter 2008 earnings
guidance from $0.42 per share to $0.35 per share, and reducing
its fiscal 2008 earnings guidance from $1.85-$1.90 to $1.45
$1.50 per share.  The Company stated that this was due to lower
than projected unit sales growth in activewear (as a result of a
shortfall in production for the Dominican Republic textile
facility), a write-down of inventories of discontinued retail
product-lines, and additional costs incurred to service mass
market retailers during the integration of retail information
systems.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $10.99
per share, or 30.6 percent, to close on April 29, 2008 at $24.93
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

A copy of the decision is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ed9


ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Gush Etzion Files Suit Over Electricity Outages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Gush Etzion have filed a lawsuit against Israel
Electric Corp. (IEC) with the Tel Aviv District Court, and asked
it to be recognized as a class-action suit, Yitzhak Danon of
Globes reports.

They are seeking fair compensation for damages caused by
repeated power outages to their communities, according to
Globes.

The statement of claim says that IEC's electricity supply to
Gush Etzion is unreliable, with frequent disruptions including
outages, crashes, power surges, changes in tension, and other
breakdowns, which cause damage, breakdowns, distress, and great
pain to IEC customers in Gush Etzion.  The statement adds that
the residents have been suffering from repeated breakdowns for
years, Globes reported.

The claimants claim that the frequent outages harm their quality
of life, damage property, and sometimes cause physical harm.
They asked the court to order IEC to carry out the necessary
maintenance work within a reasonable period of time determined
by the court in order to prevent extraordinary breakdowns in the
electricity supply, and to order the company to make repairs
immediately upon the discovery of breakdowns, reports Globes.

Globes reported that the claimants also asked the court to order
IEC to pay each claimant NIS 990 for financial damages, for a
total of NIS 4.9 million, and NIS 1,500 per claimant for non-
financial damages (pain and suffering), for a total of NIS 34
million.


JABIL CIRCUIT: Defending Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jabil Circuit, Inc. continues to defend an appeal on the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida's dismissal of
the second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit, according to its July 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2009.

On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class-action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v.
Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the
company and various of its present and former officers and
directors.

The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs
comprised of persons who purchased shares of the company between
Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006.

It asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants had
engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of
options for various senior officers and directors, causing the
company's financial statements to understate management
compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the
company's stock price.

In addition, the suit alleged that the company's proxy
statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its
option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of
its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of
the grant.

A second putative class-action suit, containing virtually
identical legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned,
"Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv-
01883," was filed on Oct. 12, 2006.

The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust
Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action.

On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class-action complaint.  The Consolidated class-action Complaint
is purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Sept.
19, 2001, and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain
of its current and former officers, including:

     -- Forbes I.J. Alexander,
     -- Scott D. Brown,
     -- Wesley B. Edwards,
     -- Chris A. Lewis,
     -- Mark T. Mondello,
     -- Robert L. Paver, and
     -- Ronald J. Rapp,

as well as certain of the company's directors:

     -- Mel S. Lavitt,
     -- William D. Morean,
     -- Frank A. Newman,
     -- Laurence S. Grafstein,
     -- Steven A. Raymund,
     -- Lawrence J. Murphy,
     -- Kathleen A. Walters, and
     -- Thomas A. Sansone.

The Consolidated class-action Complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.  It contained
allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the original
putative class-action and, in addition, alleged that the
defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances
that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was
lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third
quarter of fiscal year 2006.

On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
consolidated class-action complaint asserting claims
substantially similar to the Consolidated class-action Complaint
it replaced but adding allegations relating to the restatement
of earnings previously announced in connection with the
correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense
for certain stock option grants.

At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed
the First Amended Consolidated class-action Complaint without
prejudice, but with leave to amend the complaint by May 12,
2008.

On May 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The Second Amended class-action Complaint
asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same
defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact
as in the First Amended Consolidated class-action Complaint
except insofar as plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's
independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant
and added additional allegations with respect to:

       -- pre-class period option grants,

       -- the professional background of certain defendants,

       -- option grants to non-executive employees,

       -- the restatement of the Company's financial results for
          certain periods between 1996 and 2005, and

       -- trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the
          defendants during the class period.

The Second Amended class-action Complaint also includes an
additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants
pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the
Exchange Act.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint.

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed this
dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009.

The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil
Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Steven D. Merryday.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com)
         Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
         1101 Market St., Suite 2400
         Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
         Phone: 215-238-1700

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com)
         Holland & Knight, LLP
         100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288
         Tampa, FL 33601-1288
         Phone: 813-227-8500
         Fax: 813-229-0134


JACKSON HEWITT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Norris" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. awaits a ruling on its motion to
dismiss the purported class-action complaint by Quiana Norris in
the Superior Court of Indiana, Marion County.

On April 14, 2009, Quiana Norris brought a purported class-
action complaint against the company in the Superior Court of
Indiana, Marion County, on behalf of Indiana customers who
obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure
to comply with Indiana's Credit Services Organization Act, and
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On May 1, 2009, the company filed a notice removing the
complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.

On June 8, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  A
decision by the Court is currently pending, according to the
company's July 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30,
2009.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: "Gomez" Suit in Maryland Dismissed Last June 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint by Alicia Gomez against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. was dismissed last June 18,
2009.

On Feb. 16, 2009, Ms. Gomez brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of Maryland,
Montgomery County, on behalf of Maryland customers who obtained
RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to
comply with Maryland's Credit Services Businesses Act, and for
an alleged violation of Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, and
seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On March 18, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 18, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in all respects, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff has a right to appeal, according to its July 2, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling in Ohio CSOA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class-action complaint filed
against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County is appealing a lower court
decision to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration in the
matter.

On Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, on behalf of Ohio customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure to comply
with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged
unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss, or
alternatively, to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration.

On May 5, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to stay
proceedings and to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's
claims, and denied the company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the Court's
decision to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration,
according to the company's July 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended April 30, 2009.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss Suit by Missouri RAL Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. seeks to dismiss Sherita
Fugate's purported class-action complaint, according to the
company's July 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30,
2009.

On April 29, 2009, Sherita Fugate brought a purported class-
action complaint against the company in the Circuit Court of
Missouri, Jackson County, on behalf of Missouri customers who
obtained RALs facilitated by the company, for an alleged failure
to comply with Missouri's Credit Services Organization Act, for
an alleged violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act,
and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

On May 29, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Settlement of Suit Over RALs Approved in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement of the purported class-action suit filed by Canieva
Hood and Congress of California Seniors against Santa Barbara
Bank & Trust ("SBB&T") and Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
received final court approval in April 2009.

On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors brought a purported class-action suit against SBB&T and
the company in the Superior Court of California (Santa Barbara,
following a transfer from San Francisco) seeking declaratory
relief in connection with the provision of RALs, as to the
lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, as
to the validity of SBB&T's cross- lender debt collection
provision and as to whether the method of disclosure to
customers with respect to the provision is unlawful or
fraudulent, and seeking injunctive relief, restitution,
disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses.

The company was named in the action for allegedly collaborating,
and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T.

The Congress of California Seniors was subsequently removed, and
Tyree Bowman was added, as a plaintiff.

On Dec. 18, 2003, Ms. Hood also filed a separate suit against
the Company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Montgomery
County) and sought to certify a class in the action.

The allegations of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and
violation of certain Ohio law relate to the same set of facts as
the California action.

Plaintiff sought equitable and declaratory relief, damages,
attorneys' fees, and expenses.

In order to avoid the costs and inconvenience of continued
litigation, the company agreed to a settlement in the Hood
California matter in connection with an overall settlement by
the other defendant, SBB&T, and the third-party bank cross-
defendants.

On April 29, 2009, the Court ordered final approval of the
settlement and entered judgment in the matter.  The settlement
provides for a payment by the company of $2.8 million as part of
an overall settlement amount.  In connection with the settlement
of the Hood California matter, the Hood Ohio matter was
dismissed with prejudice.

As of April 30, 2009, the company had a liability of $2.8
million included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities for
settlement of this matter, according to its July 2, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2009.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: Virginia RAL Customers' Suit in Pretrial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Tax
Service Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
West Virginia, is in its pretrial stage, according to the
company's July 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30,
2009.

On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter (now substituted by Christian
Harper and Elizabeth Harper as proposed class representatives)
brought a purported class-action complaint against the company
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia,
on behalf of West Virginia customers who obtained RALs
facilitated by the company, seeking damages for an alleged
breach of fiduciary duty, for alleged breach of West Virginia's
Credit Service Organization Act, for alleged breach of contract,
and for alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
connection with the company's RAL facilitation activities.

On March 13, 2008, the Court granted the company's partial
motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract
claim.

On July 15, 2008, the company answered the first amended
complaint.

On Feb. 10, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class.
The company opposed that motion.

On Feb. 11, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.  On the same day, the company filed a motion for
summary judgment.

On March 6, 2009, the company opposed Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment.

On April 7, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
certifications of four legal questions to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals.  Decisions by the Court on those
motions are currently pending.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


JACKSON HEWITT: "Wooley" Suit Over False Deductions in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action complaint filed by Brent Wooley against
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. is in its discovery and pretrial
stage, according to the company's July 2, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2009.

On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought a purported class-action
complaint against the company and certain unknown franchisees in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint, which was subsequently amended, was brought on
behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services
that allegedly included false deductions without support by the
customer that resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS
against the taxpayer for violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeering and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and alleging unjust enrichment and
breach of contract, seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax
return preparation, Basic Guarantee and Gold Guarantee coverage
and denial of Gold Guarantee claims.

Following dispositive motions, on Dec. 24, 2008, the company
answered Plaintiff's fourth amended complaint with respect to
the remaining breach of contract claim.

Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/
-- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local
individual income tax returns through a network of franchised
and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S.  The Company provides its
customers with accurate tax return preparation services and
electronic filing.


MASTERCARD INC: To Make Remaining Settlement Prepayment in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated will make a prepayment of its remaining
payment obligations in an antitrust class-action lawsuit
settlement on Sept. 30, 2009.

Under a Settlement Agreement dated as of June 4, 2003, between
MasterCard International Incorporated the principal operating
subsidiary of MasterCard, and a number of U.S. merchants in a
class-action lawsuit challenging certain aspects of the payment
card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law, MasterCard was
required to pay US$125 million in 2003, and US$100 million
annually each December from 2004 through 2012 in connection with
the settlement of the litigation.

On July 1, 2009, the company entered into an agreement (the
"Prepayment Agreement") with the plaintiffs to modify its
payment obligations under the Settlement Agreement.  Pursuant to
the Prepayment Agreement, the company will make a prepayment of
its remaining US$400 million in payment obligations at a
discounted amount of US$335 million on Sept. 30, 2009.

The Prepayment Agreement is subject to court approval, according
to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated July 2, 2009.

MasterCard, Inc. -- http://www.mastercard.com/-- is a global
payment solutions company that provides a variety of services in
support of the credit, debit and related payment programs of
over 24,000 financial institutions and other entities that are
its customers.  Through its three-tiered business model as
franchisor, processor and advisor, the company develops and
markets payment solutions, process payment transactions, and
provides support services to its customers and, depending upon
the service, to merchants and other clients. It manages a family
of payment card brands, including MasterCard, MasterCard
Electronic, Maestro and Cirrus, which it license to its
customers. The Company conducts its business principally through
MasterCard Incorporated's principal operating subsidiary,
MasterCard International Incorporated.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces "Sample" Economic Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit styled,
"Barbara Sample et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,"
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On June 23, 2009, an economic class-action lawsuit was filed
against the company, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel products while in
California or from a source in California within the four years
prior to June 23, 2009.

According to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission dated July 2, 2009, the lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the company concealed or omitted
material information regarding the safety of the nasal gel
products.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the Company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The Company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-
Symptom relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the Company
had sold products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.
Its Zicam products are marketed in the cough and cold market
category. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the Company's top 15 customers accounted for more than
80% of its net sales and three customers each accounted for more
than 10% of the Company's net sales.  In May 2008, the Company
formed Zicam Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam
products in Canada.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Suit by Purchasers of Zicam Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces an economic class-action lawsuit
by purchasers of zinc-based nasal and oral Zicam products,
according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 2, 2009.

On June 18, 2009, the lawsuit was filed against the company,
purportedly on behalf of all persons in the States of Illinois,
California, Florida, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri
who, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations of
their respective state, purchased zinc-based nasal and oral
Zicam products.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
falsely represented the effectiveness of these products.

The suit is captioned Thomas Hohman et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois (Eastern Division).

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the Company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The Company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-
Symptom relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the Company
had sold products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.
Its Zicam products are marketed in the cough and cold market
category. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the Company's top 15 customers accounted for more than
80% of its net sales and three customers each accounted for more
than 10% of the Company's net sales.  In May 2008, the Company
formed Zicam Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam
products in Canada.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Suits by Cold Remedy Nasal Gel Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces four economic class-action
lawsuits filed by purchasers of Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel
products, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 2, 2009.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company
concealed or omitted material information regarding the safety
of the nasal gel products.

The lawsuits have been filed against the company since the U.S.
Food and Drugs Administration's issuance of a warning letter.

The lawsuits are styled:

   -- Teperson et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of California,
      filed June 24, 2009 (purportedly on behalf of all
      California residents who purchased Zicam nasal gel
      products from and after June 24, 2005);

   -- Floyd Fessler et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et
      al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
      Illinois, filed June 25, 2009 (purportedly on behalf of
      all Illinois residents who purchased Zicam nasal gel
      products);

   -- Stewart Roper et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et
      al., U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
      filed June 25, 2009 (purportedly on behalf of all
      purchasers of Zicam nasal gel products in the United
      States); and

   -- Stefanie Riepe et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et
      al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of
      Missouri, filed June 22, 2009 (purportedly on behalf of
      all Missouri residents who purchased Zicam nasal gel
      products).

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better.  Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the Company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand.  The Company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-
Symptom relief, and other cough/cold.  In addition, the Company
had sold products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.
Its Zicam products are marketed in the cough and cold market
category. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the Company's top 15 customers accounted for more than
80% of its net sales and three customers each accounted for more
than 10% of the Company's net sales.  In May 2008, the Company
formed Zicam Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam
products in Canada.


META FINANCIAL: Guardian Angel Credit Union's Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, MetaBank, continues to
face a class-action complaint entitled, "Guardian Angel Credit
Union v. MetaBank (Cause No. 08-CV-261-PB)."

On July 14, 2008, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire.

The suit was filed on behalf of Guardian Angel Credit Union and
all other CD purchasers similarly situated, to recover funds in
connection with purported MetaBank certificates of deposit.

No further updates on the complaint were disclosed by the
company in its July 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2009.

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.metacash.com/-- is a
registered unitary savings and loan holding company.  MetaBank
(the Bank), the only direct, active full service banking
subsidiary of Meta Financial, is a community-oriented financial
institution offering a variety of financial services to meet the
needs of the communities it serves and a payments company that
provides services nationwide.  The company provides a range of
financial services.  The principal business of MetaBank is
attracting retail deposits from the general public and investing
those funds primarily in one- to four-family residential
mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real estate,
agricultural operations and real estate, construction, and
consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's
market areas.  MetaBank also purchases mortgage-backed
securities and other investments permissible under applicable
regulations.  Meta Financial also owns Meta Trust Company, a
South Dakota trust corporation.


NATCO GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Lawsuit Over Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Delaware Chancery Court challenging the
proposed acquisition of NATCO Group, Inc. (NYSE: NTG).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by NATCO
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Cameron International Corporation (NYSE: CAM).  Under the
merger agreement, NATCO shareholders will receive 1.185 shares
of CAM stock for each share of NATCO they own, or approximately
NATCO $38.45 per share, for a total transaction value of
approximately $780 million based on the $32.45 June 1, 2009
closing price of CAM stock, the price of CAM stock the day
before the merger was announced.  The transaction appears unfair
given that, between January and November 2008, NATCO traded in
the range of $41.00-$55.00 a share and that prior to May 26,
2009, Cameron shares have only traded above $30.00 on only three
days since October 2008.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Fax: (212) 363-7171
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/ntg1.html


RECREATION CENTERS: Homeowners Win in Annual Assessment Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward O. Burke of Superior Court in Maricopa County has
sided with members of the Viewpoint Lake Homeowners Association
in their case against the the Recreation Centers of Sun City,
Jeff Dempsey of Daily News-Sun reports.

The judge recently ruled that the RCSC cannot raise the annual
assessment charged to Viewpoint Lake homeowners by more than the
amount of the Consumer Price Index, nor can the association stop
maintaining the lake.  "We are glad to have these issues behind
us, and we look forward to working with RCSC in the future to
ensure everyone in Sun City can continue to use and enjoy all
the Lake has to offer," said Nancy Mangone, the attorney who
represented the homeowners.

Six homeowners -- represented by Nancy Mangone, Esq. -- filed
the class-action lawsuit in February after the RCSC said it
would be raise the annual assessment on lakeside property
owners.

The homeowners maintained that the contracts were valid and
long-standing and should be honored.  RCSC General Manager Jan
Ek said in explaining the decision to ignore the agreement that
the RCSC believed it was unenforceable.

However, in deciding the case, Judge Burke disagreed, finding
that the RCSC is required to comply with the terms of two
agreements: a 1975 agreement, which provided that RCSC, as the
owner of the lake, is required to pay 50 percent of the costs
off the top; and a 1979 settlement agreement, which provided a
fixed formula for allocating water usage and maintenance costs
for Viewpoint Lake among the lakefront property owners.  The
Court also ruled that the 1979 agreement is a "fair and
equitable" settlement of a prior dispute that "has been honored
for the past 30 years."

The RCSC argued that the homeowners association was not a
legally constituted organization when the agreement was reached
and was therefore unable to lawfully execute the terms of the
agreement.  Judge Burke wrote in his decision, "One who deals
with an association as a legal entity capable of transacting
business and who thus receives money or value from that
organization is estopped from denying its existence or its right
to contract."

Estoppel is a legal doctrine preventing one party from making an
allegation or a denial that contradicts what that party has
previously stated as the truth.  In this case, the RCSC honored
an agreement and benefited from it for 30 years and cannot now
argue that the agreement was unlawful, the judge decided.


SEMGROUP ENERGY: Consolidated Amended Securities Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. continues to face a consolidated
amended complaint filed as a putative class-action on behalf of
all purchasers of the company's units from July 17, 2007 to July
17, 2008, according to Semgroup's July 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Between July 21, 2008 and Sept. 4, 2008, these class-action
complaints were filed:

   1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 21,
      2008).   The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on
      Aug. 26, 2008;

   2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma
      (filed July 22, 2008);

   3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles
      D. Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
      Action No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed July 25,
      2008);

   4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District
      Court for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 8,
      2008);

   5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
      Civil Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the U.S. District Court
      for the Southern District of New York (filed Aug. 25,
      2008); and

   6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et
      al., Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States
      District Court for the Southern District of New York
      (filed Sept. 4, 2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case
has been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held
in the Carson case on Oct. 17, 2008.  At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as "In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-425-GKF-PJC."

The court entered an order on Oct. 27, 2008, granting the motion
of Harvest Fund Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in
the consolidated litigation.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling Order
providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may file
a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date of
the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond
within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to modify
the stay of discovery provided for under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The court granted Plaintiff's motion,
and the company and certain other defendants filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that
was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff obtained an extension to file its
consolidated amended complaint until May 4, 2009; defendants
have 60 days from that date to answer or otherwise respond to
the complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009.  In that complaint, filed as a putative class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the company's units from
July 17, 2007 to July 17, 2008 (the "class period"), lead
plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws
against the company, its general partner, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, certain underwriters in its
initial and secondary public offerings, and certain entities who
were investors in the Private Company and their individual
representatives who served on the Private Company's management
committee.

Among other allegations, the amended complaint alleges that the
company's financial condition throughout the class period was
dependent upon speculative commodities trading by the Private
Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Thomas L. Kivisto, and
that Defendants negligently and intentionally failed to disclose
this speculative trading in the company's public filings during
the class period.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges claims for
violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 for damages and rescission with respect to all
persons who purchased our units in the initial and secondary
offerings, and also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-
5, and section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class-action
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and
rescissory damages for class members, pre-judgment interest,
costs of court, and attorneys' fees.

SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. -- http://www.SGLP.com/-- owns
and operates a diversified portfolio of complementary midstream
energy assets.  SemGroup Energy Partners provides crude oil and
liquid asphalt cement terminalling and storage services and
crude oil gathering and transportation services.


SPECTRUM GROUP: To Contribute More Shares to Settlement Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Group International, Inc. still has to contribute
3,227,570 shares to the settlement fund in a securities class-
action, entitled "In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

On Dec. 3, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order and final judgment
granting final approval of the settlement of a securities class-
action against the company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, titled, "In re Escala Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

The order and final judgment granting final approval of the
settlement of the class-action required the company to
contribute an aggregate of $6,000,000 in cash and 4,000,000
newly issued shares of its common stock to a settlement fund for
the benefit of the class.

As of June 30, 2009, the date of its latest Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company has
contributed the full $6,000,000 in cash to the settlement fund,
and has issued to plaintiffs' counsel an aggregate of 772,430
shares of the company's common stock in payment of a portion of
their court-approved legal fees.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the company entered into a contract with
plaintiffs' counsel in the securities class-action providing for
Spectrum to repurchase 772,430 shares that it had issued to such
counsel as payment of its court-approved legal fees, at a
purchase price of $1.55 per share.  This transaction closed on
Feb. 9, 2009, at which time those shares were cancelled and
returned to the status of authorized but unissued shares.

However, the company is still required to contribute an
additional 3,227,570 shares to the settlement fund.  Pursuant to
the order and final judgment, these shares must have a value of
at least $2.00 per share, meaning that if the average closing
price of the newly issued shares (based on a ten-day trading
history) is less than $2.00 per share, the company will be
required to issue additional shares and/or make an additional
cash payment so that the settlement fund will receive, in the
aggregate, cash and/or stock having an equivalent aggregate
value of at least $6,455,140 (representing the product of the
remaining 3,227,570 shares to be issued multiplied by $2.00 per
share).

During the 52-week period ending on June 19, 2009, the closing
price for a share of our common stock ranged from $1.18 to $2.98
per share, and on June 19, 2009, the closing price for a share
of our common stock was $2.51.

The issuance of additional shares of the company's common stock
could result in the dilution of its common stock, which could
adversely affect the market price of its common stock, and the
issuance of additional shares and/or the payment of additional
cash amounts to the settlement fund could adversely affect
Spectrum's liquidity and results of operations, according to the
company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated June 30, 2009.

Spectrum Group International, Inc. -- http://www.spectrumgi.com/
-- formerly Escala Group Inc., is a global collectibles network.
The Company is an auctioneer of stamps, coins, arms, armor and
militaria, and other memorabilia, targeting both collectors and
dealers. Escala is also a merchant/dealer of certain
collectibles and trader of precious metals.  Escala conducts its
operations in two business segments: collectibles and trading.
The Company, through its subsidiaries focus on the Philatelic
(stamps) side of the collectibles segments and it includes H.R.
Harmer, Inc. and Nutmeg Stamp Sales, Inc., both in North
America; Corinphila Auktionen of Zurich, Switzerland and
Heinrich Kohler Auktionshaus of Wiesbaden, Germany, both in its
European division; and John Bull Stamp Auctions, Ltd., which
operates within Asia division.  The trading segment of the
Company operates through precious metals.  It is one of the
private sellers of bullion coins and bullion gold, silver and
platinum to the wholesale marketplace.


STIEFEL LABORATORIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
that accuses it of duping employees into selling their shares
back to the company for far less than their value before the
April announcement of a blockbuster deal with London-based
GlaxoSmithKline, The Miami Herald reports.

The suit was filed on July 6, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by James A. Bacon, Karl F.
Popp and Marion Burk, under the caption, "Bacon et al v. Stiefel
Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-21871."

Aside from Stiefel Laboratories, others listed as defendants in
the case are: Charles W. Stiefel, Brent D. Stiefel, Todd
Stiefel, Lodewijk De Vink, Committee Member #1, Committee Member
#2, Committee Member #3, Matt S. Pattullo, Terrence N. Bogush
and Bogush & Grady, LLP

The suit, which is seeking class-action status, alleges Stiefel
employees lost out on $226 million by selling the shares for
about a quarter of their actual value before GlaxoSmithKline
agreed to buy Stiefel for as much as $3.6 billion.  The class is
estimated to be more than 200 people, according to The Miami
Herald.

The Miami Herald reported that it generally accuses the company
and Chairman and CEO Charles Stiefel of securities fraud.  Other
directors are accused of breaching their fiduciary duty.

For more details, contact:

          Beth-Ann Ellenberg Krimsky, Esq.
          (beth-ann.krimsky@ruden.com)
          Ruden McClosky Smith Schuster & Russell
          200 E. Broward Boulevard
          15th Floor PO Box 1900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33302-1900
          Phone: 954-764-6660
          Fax: 954-333-4027


TEXAS BAY: Judge Denies Injunction Request in for Tenants' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gena Slaughter of the 191st State Civil District Court in
Texas denied the request for an emergency injunction against the
owners of the Barclay Square apartments to provide better
cooling of their units, citing state property law, Laurence
Iliff of The Dallas Morning News reports.

"I do believe that the plaintiff has a serious problem," Judge
Slaughter said, adding that she also believed tenants who
reported health problems because of the heat.  However, she
said, "I preside over a court of law," according to The Dallas
Morning News.

The Dallas city housing code requires landlords to keep housing
units at a maximum of 85 degrees.  According to some residents,
some apartments are hotter inside during the day than the
outside temperature, reports The Dallas Morning News.

However, the attorney for Barclay Square, Kenneth Chaiken, Esq.
pointed out that the city did not send a representative to the
hearing as promised.  Part of the complaint involves city code,
and the judge said she also thought a city representative was
supposed to be present, The Dallas Morning News reported.

Manny Alvarez, the tenants' attorney, told The Dallas Morning
News that he will pursue a class-action lawsuit against the
apartment complex owners and that the judge's comments showed
his case has merit.

"She basically said, there's a problem out there, but it's not
her problem, it's the city's problem," Mr. Alvarez told The
Dallas Morning News after the ruling.  He adds tenants will now
try to get the city to enforce the housing code

Previously, Laurence Iliff of The Dallas Morning News reported
that the judge ruled to postpone an emergency hearing on a
purported class-action lawsuit against Texas Bay Barclay Square
Limited Partnership and Bay Equity Real Estate that was filed by
residents of a Pleasant Grove apartment complex (Class Action
Reporter, July 9, 2009).

Judge Slaughter said she was concerned about the tenants and
felt the matter was urgent.  Nonetheless, she ruled that the
defendants had not been given enough notice under the law, and
thus she ordered that the hearing be held on the morning of July
8, 2009, according to The Dallas Morning News.

Kenneth Chaiken, Esq. A lawyer for the Barclay Square
Apartments, told the judge that the air-conditioning system
already has been fixed after arguing that the hearing notice was
legally faulty in several ways, reports The Dallas Morning News.

Barry Carpenter of The 33 News previously reported that Bay
Equity Real Estate is facing a purported class-action suit by
tenants at the Barclay Square apartments who for several weeks
have been without air conditioning (Class Action Reporter, July
7, 2009).

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Manny Alvarez, Esq. on July 2,
2009 in downtown Dallas.  The class-action suit alleges that for
the last 25 days, plaintiff and the other members of the
proposed class have been forced to live in substandard,
uninhabitable and dangerous conditions at Barclay Square
apartments, according to The 33 News report.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Marlene Ceja, a resident at
Barclay Square, is seeking certification of a class-action suit
against the defendants.

In a legal filing, she alleges that the complex is violating a
Dallas city code that requires landlords to keep their
properties at a maximum of 85 degrees, The Dallas Morning News
reported.

The suit seeks "all available damages" and a drop in the rent,
according to The Dallas Morning News.

For more details, contact:

          Alvarez Manny, Esq.
          400 S. Zang Blvd # 1000
          Dallas, TX
          Phone: (214) 942-4500


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Kendall Law Group Announces Ga. Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, today announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
Synovus Financial Corporation (NYSE: SNV) for investors who
purchased stock that was artificially inflated between January
24, 2008 to January 21, 2009.

     According to the complaint -- filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia -- defendants issued
false and misleading statements about the company's business and
financial results and failed to disclose the extent of its large
exposure to Sea Island Company, a resort in Georgia, and the
deteriorating condition of Sea Island.  The complaint further
alleges that the company failed to adequately and timely record
losses for its impaired loans, causing its financial results to
be false.

     As a result of defendants' false statements, investors
purchased Synovus at inflated prices, reaching a high of $13.49
per share on February 1, 2008.  Then, on January 22, 2009,
Synovus reported a net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 of
$637 million, or $1.93 per share.  The fourth quarter 2008
results included provision expense of $364 million and a $443
million non-cash goodwill impairment charge.  On this news,
Synovus stock fell to as low as $4.52 before it closed at $4.75
per share on January 22, 2009.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 4, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com)
          Kendall Law Group
          Phone: 877-744-3728
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Supreme Court Rules on Dinern Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut entered a ruling in an
asbestos case, in which it ordered plaintiffs in the William J.
Dinern asbestos case to respond to a request to revise the case
styled William J. Dinern et al. v. Ad.Smith Corporation et al.

Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. BA085018435S on April 3, 2009.

Plaintiffs in the present complaint had attempted to alleviate a
problem occasioned by the absence of a product containing
asbestos, manufactured or sold or supplied by the defendants
named in the fifth and sixth counts of said complaint.

These defendants were Connecticut Light & Power Company, United
Illuminating Company, Pratt and Whitney, Wyeth Holdings as
successor to American Cyanamid and Pfizer, Inc.

Counts 5 and 6 said that Mr. Dinern worked at premises owned and
operated by said defendants and that the air he breathed
contained asbestos fibers resulting in his contracting lung
cancer. In other words, the plaintiffs asserted a claim of
premises liability, not product liability in counts 5 and 6 of
their complaint, that is, a case claiming an unsafe work place
rather than an unsafe product.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the
request to revise as would be the case in any other premises
liability case, said response to include the right to object to
any request which Mr. Dinern deemed objectionable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Dismiss Appeal in Cross Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
denied Milton B. Cross' motion to dismiss an asbestos appeal
filed by American Optical Corporation (AOC).

The case is styled Milton B. Cross, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. A-Best Products Co., et al., Defendants. This was an Appeal
by American Optical Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Judges James J. Sweeney, Melody J. Stewart, and Mary Jane Boyle
entered judgment in Case No. 90388 on April 27, 2009.

AOC appealed the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court's denial of
its motion to administratively dismiss Mr. Cross' complaint
alleging asbestos-related products liability claims.

After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, the
Appeal Court denied Mr. Cross' motion to dismiss this appeal for
lack of a final appealable order, and the Appeal Court remanded
this cause to the lower court for the limited purpose of
clarification.

On Aug. 19, 2000, Mr. Cross sued AOC, a manufacturer of asbestos
containing protective clothing, alleging asbestos-related lung
injuries. He, who was exposed to various asbestos containing
products during his 30-year career as a laborer, developed lung
cancer and other lung related conditions.

Mr. Cross was also a smoker for 46 years. Medical doctors
attributed Mr. Cross' lung conditions to occupational asbestos
exposure and tobacco use.

On Aug. 10, 2007, AOC filed with the trial court a motion to
dismiss Mr. Cross's claim, alleging that he had not established
the prima facie medical requirements. Specifically, AOC argued
that no competent medical authority had opined that Mr. Cross'
exposure to asbestos substantially contributed to his lung
problems.

Mr. Cross opposed this motion to dismiss. On Sept. 7, 2007, the
trial court denied AOC's motion. It is from this order that AOC
appealed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court OKs Remand Bid in Holdren Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, granted
plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in the asbestos case styled
Franklin D. Holdren, et al., Plaintiffs v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc.,
et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Gertner entered judgment in Civil Action No.
08cv10570-NG in May 4, 2009.

Franklin Holdren worked as a boiler technician onboard various
Navy ships, and in Navy shipyards, from 1957 to 1979. He
inspected and maintained residential and commercial boilers at
power plants, paper mills, and other industrial sites. His
exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment
allegedly caused him to develop malignant mesothelioma.

The plaintiffs filed suit in Massachusetts state court, charging
that the defendants were responsible for Mr. Holdren's asbestos-
related disease.

Five defendants sought removal in this case: Buffalo Pumps,
Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.; Viad Corp.; General Electric
Co. (GE); and Elliott Turbo Machinery Co.

Each claimed that it was a manufacturer and supplier of
equipment used or procured by the U.S. Navy during the period of
Mr. Holdren's employment aboard Navy ships. Each further argued
that, as a government contractor, it had no authority to add
asbestos warnings to the products or accompanying manuals that
it supplied to the Navy. As a result, the defendants sought to
remove the claims against them to federal court.

The District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the
pending action. The plaintiffs' Motion to Remand was granted.

Brian P. Barrow, Esq., of Simon, Eddins & Greenstone, LLP in
Long Beach, Calif., Christopher P. Duffy, Esq., David W.
Fanikos, Esq., Edward P. Coady, Esq., of Coady & Associates in
Boston, and Jonathan A. George, Esq., in Simon, Eddins &
Greenstone, LLP in Richmond, Va., represented the Plaintiffs.

Marianne E. Brown, Esq., David M. Governo, Esq., Bryna Rosen
Misiura, Esq., Michael D. Simons, Esq., of Governo Law Firm LLC,
Lynda R. Jensen, Esq., Peter C. Netburn, Esq., of Hermes,
Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, April M. Luna, Esq., Katharine S.
Perry, Esq., of Adler, Pollock & Sheehan PC, Daniel P. McCarthy,
Esq., of Cooley, Manion, & Jones, LLP in Boston, and Mark O.
Denehy, Esq., of Adler Pollock & Sheehan PC in Providence, R.I.,
represented the Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio District Court Rules on Lamson Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, issued rulings in the case styled Lamson & Sessions
Co., et al., Plaintiff v. William D. Mundinger, et al.,
Defendant.

District Judge Christopher A. Boyko entered judgment in Case No.
No. 4:08CV1226 on May 1, 2009.

This matter came before the Court upon the Court's sua sponte
inquiry over the propriety of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue's
continued representation in this bankruptcy adversary proceeding
of The Lamson & Sessions Co. The parties had briefed the issue
of whether Jones Day's previous representation of YSD
Industries, Inc. ethically precluded Jones Day from representing
Lamson in this adversary proceeding, necessitating Jones Day's
disqualification.

The debtor, YSD, is a closely held corporation whose
shareholders at the time of this action were William Mundinger
and William Peters. At all relevant times, Mr. Mundinger and Mr.
Peters also acted as officers and directors of YSD.

YSD was previously a wholly owned subsidiary of Lamson until
1988, when Lamson sold YSD to Mundinger, Peters, and several
others. Lamson's usual outside counsel, including matters
involving YSD, is the law firm of Jones Day. YSD's usual outside
counsel is the law firm of Henderson, Covington, Messenger,
Newman & Thomas Co., L.P.A.

As part of the sale of YSD to Mr. Mundinger and Mr. Peters,
Lamson required YSD to assume liability for various obligations
to YSD's employees and retirees, as well as liability for
certain asbestos claims.

In July 2004, Lamson filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas, asserting breach of contract by YSD and fraudulent
transfers, breach of contract via alter-ego liability, and
unjust enrichment against Mr. Mundinger and Mr. Peters.

In June 2005, YSD filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 and
Lamson's suit was removed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Ohio as an adversary proceeding. The
bankruptcy trustee successfully moved to substitute himself for
certain of Lamson's claims, but the alter-ego breach of contract
and unjust enrichment claims against Mr. Mundinger and Mr.
Peters were left as personal claims of Lamson.

The adversary proceeding then came before this Court for
resolution. Thus, Jones Day was not disqualified and continued
to represent Lamson in this matter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gloucestershire Plumber Exposed to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Charles Collier, a 79-year-
old plumber from Gloucester, England, who was exposed to
asbestos during his work life, was linked to natural causes,
this is Gloucestershire.co.uk reports.

Coroner Alan Crickmore ruled that although Mr. Collier was
exposed to asbestos during his working life, it did not kill
him. He recorded a verdict that Mr. Collier died of natural
causes on Jan. 31, 2009.

After his death, Mr. Collier was found with a high level of
asbestos in his lungs, about 312,000 fibers per dry gram of
tissue. The court heard that it was clear evidence of asbestos
exposure, but it was not the reason he died.

During the last days of his life, Mr. Collier suspected he had
the asbestos-related cancer, malignant mesothelioma. In fact it
was chronic obstructive airways disease and pneumonia which
killed him, according to experts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abatement at N.J. Newsprint Plant Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The MACK Group, LLC completed an asbestos removal and abatement
project for an unnamed former newsprint company in the State of
New Jersey, according to a MACK Group press release dated July
3, 2009.

The project was a challenge due to the quantity of asbestos
containing materials to be abated as well as the aggressive
schedule for project completion.

The project was completed in two phases: four weeks for the
first phase and five weeks for the second phase. This project
was completed without incident or injury.

The client needed to have the facility abated on a very
aggressive schedule. In addition, the project needed to adhere
to all Federal, State and Local regulations and laws and also be
conducted in a professional manner with strict attention to
safety.

Asbestos containing materials (ACM) included: 87,000 square feet
of VAT and mastic; 23,000 square feet of spray-on fireproofing;
1,000 square feet of transite panels; 500 square feet of roof
tar; 150 pipe fittings; 500 square feet of textured ceiling; and
120 linear feet of caulking.

All work was performed following all Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations as they pertain to asbestos abatement.

Mobilization to the site required that several tasks be
completed with attention to detail. This included the placement
of all required signage on all entrances to the work area,
installing connections to electric and water and the building of
separation barriers and a decontamination facility. Quality
Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) inspection was performed by
MACK personnel.

To remove the asbestos floor tile and mastic, MACK used a
combination of proprietary flooring removal machines that they
own in their fleet of abatement equipment. The flooring removal
machines have zero emissions and fumes allowing for use in
restricted ventilation areas.

MACK used various techniques to remove the other ACM. Wetting of
all ACM and double bagging the ACM using 6 mil thick poly bags
with appropriate labeling. Final cleanup of the work area
included inspection of the work area to insure all material had
been removed, a final wet wipe and HEPA vacuum of all equipment
and encapsulation with a lockdown encapsulant.

The Mack Group was responsible for all OSHA sampling,
recalculation of air pumps, etc. during the course of the work.

All ACM waste was disposed in an approved EPA landfill as per
regulations, complete with all required documentation and
manifests.

The MACK Group, LLC, which is based in Cherry Hill, N.J., is a
contractor providing services from asbestos removal and
abatement to decontamination nationwide as well as Puerto Rico.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Reaches Deal w/ 4 Md. Schools on Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has settled four cases
in Maryland in an effort to ensure the safe management of
asbestos-containing materials in schools, according to an EPA
press release dated July 2, 2009.

In separate consent agreements with the EPA, the Key School,
Inc., Annapolis, Md.; Trinity Episcopal Church's day school,
Glen Arm, Md.; Immanuel Lutheran Church's nursery school,
Preston, Md.; and the Hereford United Methodist Church's Two by
Two Preschool, Monkton, Md., have settled alleged violations of
the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), the federal
law requiring schools to inspect and manage asbestos-containing
building materials.

The AHERA violations the four individual schools were cited for
include failing to prepare and submit an asbestos management
plan, failing to include all school buildings in the management
plan, failure to conduct reinspections of all friable and
nonfriable asbestos every three years, and failure to provide
annual notification of the management plan to parents, teachers,
and employee organizations.

EPA did not find that students or other building occupants were
exposed to asbestos as a result of the alleged violations. The
schools that were cited have now certified their compliance with
the AHERA requirements.

Under AHERA, EPA may agree to reduce or eliminate penalties due
to the schools' cooperation with EPA, compliance activities and
expenditures. The four Maryland settlement agreements are:

-- Based on a Maryland Department of the Environment inspection,
   the EPA cited the Key School, Annapolis, Md. for failing to
   incorporate several buildings in the school's asbestos
   management plan and failed to maintain records of asbestos
   training provided to maintenance and custodial staff. The
   school has spent at least US$5,015 to come into compliance,
   resulting in a zero cash penalty amount.

-- Based on a Maryland Department of the Environment inspection
   at the Trinity Episcopal Church's Day School, Glen Arm, Md.,
   the EPA cited it for failure to conduct reinspections at
   least every three years, provide annual notification to
   parents and staff, include in the management plan information
   regarding asbestos containing material located at the school,
   failure to provide required asbestos safety training to
   maintenance and custodial staff and to ensure that the
   designated person was trained to carry out the duties.
   Trinity Episcopal Church has spent at least US$1,500 to
   comply with AHERA regulations, resulting in a zero cash
   penalty amount.

-- Based on a Maryland Department of the Environment inspection
   at the Immanuel Lutheran Church's Nursery School, Preston,
   Md., EPA cited it for failing to prepare and submit an
   asbestos management plan, failing to reinspect the school
   building every three years and conduct periodic surveillance
   at least every six months, failure to provide annual
   notification to parents and staff, failure to train the
   designated person and provide asbestos safety training to
   custodial and maintenance staff. Immanuel Lutheran Church
   spent at least US$1,345 to comply with AHERA regulations,
   resulting in a zero cash penalty amount.

-- EPA inspected Hereford United Methodist Church's Two by Two
   Preschool, Monkton, Md., and cited it for failing to prepare
   and submit an asbestos management plan, failure to conduct a
   reinspection at least once every three years and conduct
   periodic surveillance at least every six months, and failure
   to provide asbestos safety training to custodial and
   maintenance staff. The school has spent US$7,146 to come into
   compliance, resulting in a zero cash penalty amount.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Reaches Deal on Vermont Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States and the State of Vermont, on July 2, 2009, say
that, as part of a multi-site settlement, G-I Holdings Inc. has
agreed to address asbestos contamination caused by its past
operation of the largest chrysotile asbestos mine and mill in
the country, according to a U.S. Department of Justice press
release dated July 2, 2009.

The 1,673-acre abandoned mine site in Vermont, known as the
Vermont Asbestos Group Mine Site (VAG Site) is the most
significant of the contaminated sites covered by the settlement,
which includes 12 other industrial sites across the country
where G-I may have disposed of hazardous waste.

According to a federal complaint filed in New Jersey, the VAG
Site has two towering piles of asbestos-containing mine and mill
tailings, which are eroding offsite and adversely affecting
downstream surface waters and wetlands. In the complaint, the
United States alleged that these activities may cause exposure
to airborne-asbestos by those who access the site.

Under the July 2, 2009 settlement, G-I will take immediate steps
at the VAG Site by constructing fencing, gates and road barriers
to restrict public access; providing onsite surveillance and
securing the mill buildings.

G-I will also monitor air emissions from the piles; conduct dust
suppression, if necessary, and provide support to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and Vermont for future sampling
and monitoring. These tasks will take place over eight years, at
a cost of up to US$7.75 million.

G-I will also reimburse the federal and state governments for
past and future cleanup costs at the VAG Site and related off-
site contamination. G-I, now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, will
reimburse a portion of the EPA and Vermont's cleanup costs up to
8.6 percent of US$300 million.

Finally, G-I will pay US$850,000 for damages to local wetlands
and waterways contaminated by the site.

As part of the settlement, G-I will also contribute US$104,615
as its share of cleanup costs to resolve federal claims at nine
other superfund sites where its predecessors disposed of
hazardous waste. In addition, under the decree, the federal
government will have up to 10 years to bring claims for cleanup
costs and damages to natural resources at three related heavily-
contaminated sites in or near Linden, N.J.

Under the consent decree, the Linden claims will pass through
the bankruptcy and not be discharged, but will eventually be
paid at the bankruptcy rate of 8.6 percent on the dollar if G-I
is found liable for the contamination.

John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the
Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division,
said, "The cornerstone of this settlement is that G-I is
responsible for completing extensive work at the Vermont
Asbestos Group Mine Site, focusing on site security, air
monitoring and investigating and sampling certain mine tailings.
G-I will also pay for its share of cleanup costs for this Site
and nine other contaminated sites around the country."

The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Jersey, is subject to a 30-day public comment
period and approval by the federal court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Board OKs Ruling in General Electric Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York Workers' Compensation Board panel affirmed a workers'
compensation law judge's decision disallowing an unnamed widow's
claim that the development of her husband's lung cancer, and his
subsequent death, were causally related to his exposure to
asbestos at work.

The case is styled General Electric Co., 109 NYWCLR 76 (N.Y.
W.C.B. Panel 2009).

The widow's claim that the development of her husband's lung
cancer, and his subsequent death, were causally related to his
exposure to asbestos at work was denied. The decedent reported
to his treating oncologist that he was exposed to asbestos while
working as a welder and that he smoked two packs of cigarettes a
day for 45 years. He worked for the employer for almost 40
years.

The oncologist testified that he had no evidence that the
decedent's lung cancer was caused by asbestos. The widow's
medical expert stated that the decedent's exposure to asbestos
played a significant part in his development of lung cancer.

However, the medical expert conceded that the decedent's smoking
history, "without anything else," was sufficient to cause his
lung cancer. The carrier's medical specialist indicated that
because the decedent showed no signs of asbestosis, his
development of lung cancer was unlikely to be related to his
employment.

Upon reviewing the record and considering the testimony and
evidence, the panel found sufficient evidence supporting the
WCLJ's decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Underway at King Chevrolet Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement is underway at the former King Chevrolet car
dealership in Tyler, Tex., in which the site was bought by the
City in 2008, the Tyler Morning Telegraph reports.

Susan Guthrie, communications director for the City, said
getting rid of the asbestos is required before the city does
anything to the building, such as selling or demolishing it.

On May 27, 2009, the City Council awarded a contract to Air
Quality Associates for US$46,775 to remove the asbestos prior to
the demolition of the "Tyler Downtown Development west
properties."

No specific plans have been made about what will be done with
the property, but there is a possibility it could be developed
into a "second square" for the city.

Ms. Guthrie said a decision has not been made on how the
property will be used. The Tyler 21 plan lists it as a
possibility for a "second square" in downtown, with a mixed use
of mostly commercial and residential buildings and with the
potential for some city use.

In July 2008, City Council members announced their plans to
purchase the former King Chevrolet and White's Ford dealerships
and redevelop the land. The council approved the purchase of
roughly 8.65 acres of land, where the old car dealerships sit
empty along Erwin Street, just south of City Hall, for US$1.67
million.

The land purchases were reportedly paid for out of the City's
Oil and Gas Fund.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sampson Widow to Launch Compensation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Sampson's widow, Dorothy Sampson, is tracing the
whereabouts of her husband's former work colleagues, in
preparation for her asbestos compensation claim against the
insurers of Mr. Sampson's Birmingham, England-based former
employers, the Birmingham Mail reports.

Mr. Sampson was 66 years old when he died in January 2008 from
mesothelioma. Birmingham coroner Aidan Cotter ruled Mr.
Sampson's death was due to Industrial Disease at an inquest.

Mr. Sampson is thought to have been exposed to asbestos dust
while working for several local companies, including Metro
Cammell Carriage and Wagon, a firm known to have used asbestos
during the manufacture of bus and train coaches.

Mr. Sampson worked at the firm's Elmdon site in Marston Green
from 1957 to 1958 but moved on to Jackson Brick Works, in
Stonebridge from 1959 to 1960. He was expected to regularly
sweep out the brick drying room which was lined with asbestos
sheeting.

Family solicitors at Irwin Mitchell law firm also believe Mr.
Sampson was exposed to asbestos in the early to mid 1960s during
his employment with Walker Homes as a site laborer.

Iain Shoolbred, a workplace illness expert with Irwin Mitchell,
said, "We are appealing for Alan's former colleagues from Metro
Cammell, Elmdon, Jackson Brickworks and Walker Homes to come
forward to provide us with information."

The companies no longer trade but solicitors will file
proceedings against the companies' insurers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Seeks Reasons for DuPont Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court ordered Jefferson County Judge Donald
Floyd to give reasons behind his ruling to grant Willis
Whisnant, Jr. a new asbestos-related wrongful death trial
against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, The Southeast
Texas Record report.

In a 2008 trial, jurors found DuPont was not responsible for the
wrongful death from mesothelioma of former employee Mr.
Whisnant. Shortly after the verdict, Judge Floyd granted Mr.
Whisnant's motion for a new trial but offered no explanation for
the basis of his decision.

In a 4-3 decision issued on July 3, 2009, justices granted
conditional mandamus relief directing the trial court to set out
its reasons for disregarding the jury's verdict.

Justice Phil Johnson wrote, "Accordingly, we deny, without
prejudice, any relief beyond directing the trial court to
specify its reasons for granting the new trial." He was joined
by Justices Nathan Hecht, Dale Wainwright, Scott Brister, and
Don Willett.

Justice Harriet O'Neill filed a dissenting opinion in which
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson and Justices David Medina and
Paul Green joined.

In March 2008, after a six week trial in Judge Floyd's 172nd
District Court, jurors found in favor of DuPont. Mr. Whisnant
developed mesothelioma and died because of his exposure to
asbestos at DuPont's Sabine River Works. Jefferson County jurors
found no negligence on the part of the chemical company and
awarded nothing to Mr. Whisnant's family.

Shortly after the trial concluded however, Mr. Whisnant's
attorney Glen Morgan, Esq., of Beaumont's Reaud Morgan & Quinn
law firm, contended that the jury verdict was completely
contradictory to the preponderance of the evidence.

Judge Floyd set aside the jury verdict and granted Morgan's
motion for a new trial on May 28, 2009.

DuPont's attorneys appealed Judge Floyd's decision, and on July
24, 2008, the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals denied the
Company's writ of mandamus.

DuPont filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Texas' Supreme
Court. The Company's brief to the court states, "Requiring trial
judges to state a reason for a new trial is the only way to
satisfy this Court's 139-year-old admonition that new trials
cannot be granted on the arbitrary will and pleasure of the
judge presiding."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halifax to Check 12 Buildings for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Halifax Regional Municipality in Nova Scotia, Canada, is
seeking for an outside expert to check for asbestos in 12 City-
owned buildings, including Halifax city hall, The Chronicle
Herald reports.

Aside from the city hall, samples will be collected from public
places like the Halifax regional school board building in
Dartmouth and Metro Transit's ferry terminal on the Halifax
waterfront.

Other buildings listed in the recent tender call include local
fire stations, city works depots, and the Metro Transit property
in the Burnside park in Dartmouth.

On July 4, 2009, Mayor Peter Kelly said he was not familiar with
the asbestos project. Councilor Linda Mosher (Purcells Cove-
Armdale) and Councilor Jim Smith (Albro Lake-Harbourview) told
The Chronicle Herald they had not heard about it either.

The three politicians said regional council does not review
every tender issued by municipal staff.

Mr. Smith's Dartmouth-area district includes the Metro Transit
bus depot in Burnside. He said he was unaware of any asbestos
issues there, but acknowledged the school board's building in
downtown Dartmouth had been identified as a potential problem
site. That building was home to Dartmouth city hall for many
years before municipal amalgamation.

The tender says the successful bidder must provide a floor plan
identifying the location of asbestos-containing materials and
recommend an action plan regarding the potential removal and
disposal of the material.

The successful bidder must also give city staff its plan for
collecting the samples and a schedule for starting and finishing
the project.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harlem Valley Site Set for Hazard Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dover Knolls developers are planning to remove asbestos from
the abandoned Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center (HVPC), located
near Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in the community of Wingdale,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

Officials hope that thousands of new jobs can be restored to the
community, once the buildings have been properly cleaned up and
renovated. The HVPC closed more than 15 years ago.

According to officials, if the facility reopens, an estimated
3,400 construction jobs will be created during the 10-year
build-out of the site. The site itself will provide 1,120
permanent jobs.

Private investors at Dover Knolls Development are prepared to
commit US$600 million to the project's redevelopment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov't. to Pay JPY77Mil for Taima's Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Yokohama District Court, on July 6, 2009, ordered the
Japanese Government to pay JPY77 million to the family of
Hitoshi Taima for his exposure to asbestos while working at a
U.S. naval base in Yokusoka, Kanagawa Prefecture, The Japan
Times reports.

Judge Haruhiko Sakae of the Yokosuka branch of the district
court ruled the government and the U.S. military neglected to
take necessary safety measures, like having workers wear
protective masks.

Judge Sakae also said the government was aware of instances of
asbestos-related health hazards before Mr. Taima began working
at the base in 1977.

Mr. Taima's widow, Mieko, said, "I hope the government and the
U.S. military implement preventive measures so that no other
workers will fall victim to asbestos-related diseases after
being exposed to asbestos at work."

According to the court, Mr. Taima was exposed to asbestos in
insulation filling while fixing and setting up air conditioners
as an engineer at the base between 1977 and 1995. The suit had
demanded JPY94 million in compensation from the government,
which was his employer for the U.S. base work.

In April 2006, Mr. Taima was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
died in May 2007 at the age of 51. Before passing away, he filed
the lawsuit against the government based on the U.S. Navy's
decision in March 2007 that recognized his case as illness and
injury suffered in the course of carrying out one's job duties,
according to his family.

Mr. Taima's family succeeded him as plaintiff after his death.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Ex-Celanese Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard
that the death of Ronald Hewkin, a former British Celanese
process worker, was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Derby
Telegraph reports.

Mr. Hewkin was employed at the Spondon, England, powder-making
plant for 20 years, until he retired in 1998. In January 2005,
he was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. He was given a
maximum of nine months to live but amazed his family by fighting
the disease for another four years.

Assistant deputy coroner Paul McCandless said he was satisfied
that Mr. Hewkin had been exposed to asbestos and recorded a
verdict of death by industrial disease. The hearing marked the
end of nearly five years of uncertainty for Mr. Hewkin's family.
His wife Sylvia said the diagnosis in 2005 had come as a
complete shock.

Mr. Hewkin began working as a joiner, which he had done before
entering the Royal Air Force, for Rawsons builders, before
joining British Celanese, now Courtaulds, as a process worker in
1978.

Mrs. Hewkin said, "When he was told he had nine months it really
changed him. He had always been very active and always doing DIY
jobs around the house but after the operation he couldn't do as
much, which frustrated him."

Mr. Hewkin died on March 14, 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Arguments in Morin Case Presented in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecution and defense lawyers presented arguments in Hampden
Superior Court on the whether an asbestos indictment against
Paul A. Morin should be dismissed, The Republican Newsroom
reports.

Judge C. Jeffrey Kinder took the request under advisement.

According to a prosecutor, when construction workers at the
Soldiers' Home in Holyoke, Mass., took concerns about asbestos
contamination, Mr. Morin told them he did not care and the work
should proceed.

Mr. Morin was indicted because of that action. He was a one-time
national commander of the American Legion. On July 6, 2009,
assistant State Attorney General Andrew A. Rainer said that Mr.
Morin was indicted on a criminal charge for violation of the
Clean Air Act.

Mr. Morin's attorney David P. Hoose, Esq., contends there was no
probable cause for the indictment since there was no evidence
that Mr. Morin, either by his actions or a failure to act,
caused any air pollution.

Mr. Hoose said Mr. Morin had instructed the workers not to touch
the pipes which were wrapped in asbestos and located behind a
wall they were to demolish.

However, Mr. Rainer presented a different set of circumstances.
He told Judge Kinder that by ordering workers to take down part
of a wall between two bathrooms, Mr. Morin had violated the law
even though the wall itself contained no asbestos. The two
bathrooms were being made into a single, handicapped-accessible
bathroom, according to the lawyers.

Mr. Rainer said the two workers who were ordered to take the
wall down were concerned about asbestos, and two middle-level
workers who were asked to order the demolition continue refused
to do so because they, too, were concerned.

Mr. Morin remains on paid administrative leave from his
US$114,345-a-year post pending his prosecution.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: British Safety Council Seeks Asbestos Audit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nimick, the chief executive of the British Safety Council,
says that an asbestos audit should lead to the register and
eventual removal of asbestos, BBC News reports.

The BSC says that 16 teachers die on average each year from
asbestos-related disease and an urgent audit must be carried
out.

The National Union of Teachers said it wholeheartedly welcomed
the BSC's call for better asbestos management.

Mr. Nimick told a conference on corporate responsibility there
had been 228 asbestos-related deaths among teachers in the
United Kingdom over the last 14 years.

Mr. Nimick said, "It is unacceptable that the U.K., in 2009, has
not yet undertaken a national audit of asbestos in schools has
not comprehensively assessed the risks that teachers and pupils
in each and every school face; and has not allocated appropriate
resources to take urgent remedial action."

Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of
Teachers, said she supported the call for a register, and had
taken this up with Prime Minister Gordon Brown early in 2009.
She said there was evidence that asbestos had caused the deaths
of 92 teachers and lecturers between 2001 and 2005.

Several teaching unions have called for all asbestos to be
removed from schools under the Building Schools for the Future
Programme, a project to refurbish all secondary schools in
England.

The government said it was heeding expert advice from the Health
and Safety Executive that it was safer to leave asbestos
undisturbed, or remove it where it was likely to become so.

A spokesperson for the Department for Children, Schools and
Families said the HSE was checking that local authorities were
keeping their obligations to manage asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Local NSW Council Knew About Koori Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Opposition says that documents indicate NSW
State departments and a Koori local council knew about asbestos
at a Koori village, ABC News reports.

Several State Government departments were ordered to produce all
documents relating to the asbestos problem at Wallaga Lake, near
Bermagui, New South Wales.

The community is surrounded by asbestos that was scattered when
older housing commission buildings were knocked down. Certain of
the community's 150 residents were paid under the Work for the
Dole program to demolish the old homes but were not told of the
health risks.

A Health Department investigation has found the asbestos will
not harm the local residents but some federal and state
politicians are not convinced.

Catherine Cusack, the NSW Opposition's climate change
spokeswoman, says the boxes of documents handed over show the
Eurobodalla Shire Council knew about the asbestos in 2003.

Ms. Cusack says documents from the Aboriginal Affairs Department
show the council was involved in dumping the material and has a
serious case to answer. She said, "For them to be involved in
the movement of asbestos actually now makes them potential
perpetrators and targets of an investigation."

Ms. Cusack says the papers reveal NSW Aboriginal Affairs
Minister Paul Lynch was told in 2008, while meeting minutes
confirm the Aboriginal Affairs and Environment and Climate
Change departments knew about the problem in November 2007.

Ms. Cusack says WorkCover was also at the November 2007 meeting
and all departments were briefed about the asbestos in detail.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at Ramsgate High-Rise Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
Astra UK (Contracts) Ltd removed asbestos-contaminated tiles
from a living room and hallway at the high-rise Kennedy House in
Ramsgate, Kent, England, this is kent.co.uk reports.

Lynne Munday, a 52-year-old resident of the Kennedy House who
suffers from lung cancer, complained to Thanet council about her
uneven floor after tiles broke when she tried to vacuum her
carpet.

Astra boss Gary Lawson, said, "By looking at the tiles it is
impossible to know the exact asbestos content unless the tile
has been sampled. We do five or six of these jobs a week and
we've never detected anything that is very serious from vinyl
tiles. In my opinion if there was a risk they would removed."

Branch manager for Mears, Miles Cronin, said, "We think there is
about 1.5 per cent asbestos content in these tiles and it's in
the adhesive, too. We are talking about tiles that have been
there for years and there is a danger when properties disturb
these tiles, but it is a small risk."

A representative from the Asbestos Removal Contractors
Association, said, "The content of asbestos in these tiles is
irrelevant because it's bound in a plastic matrix and it's very
difficult to get them out."

A spokesman for Thanet council said, "There is no risk to
tenants from these tiles. Under the terms of their tenancy
agreement, tenants require written permission from the council
to carry out alterations and this includes removing any tiles.
If a tenant wishes to undertake such work, they must contact the
council first.

"The council would like to reassure tenants that, even if the
tiles are cracked, the danger to exposure is minimal. This is
because if it breaks, it will not release fibers."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Illegally Disposed at Annagortha Bog
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was dumped at Annagortha Bog in Ireland and has
prompted concern among local residents, The Westmeath
Independent reports.

Fianna Fail Councilor Frankie Keena warned people about the
illegal dumping of asbestos in Annagortha Bog, branding it as an
absolute disgrace. He said, "The person who carried out this
deed has no regard for the environment and more importantly for
human health. For someone to do this is like pointing a loaded
gun at a person and pulling the trigger."

Councilor Keena explained that there are strict procedures to
follow for the proper disposal of asbestos. He has reported this
incident to the Council, the Health and Safety Executive and
Gardai as there is an urgent need to remove it.

Councilor Keena concluded, "Finally I urge the public to contact
me if they witnessed anybody carrying out this act or depositing
any other type of material in our bogs and ditches."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Powers Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Edward R. Powers,
Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Appellee.

Judge Robert N. Davis entered judgment in Case No. 05-0240 on
May 1, 2009.

Edward R. Powers appealed through counsel from an Oct. 5, 2004
Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied his claim of
entitlement to service connection for:

-- A respiratory disorder, allegedly resulting from exposure to
   asbestos;

-- Type II diabetes mellitus, with secondary vision problems,
   based on alleged exposure to herbicides; and

-- Hypertension, a digestive disorder, memory and concentration
   problems, a nerve disorder and muscle and joint pain, all
   based on alleged exposure to lead-based paint.

On July 25, 2007, the Appeals Court issued a single-judge
memorandum decision affirming the February 2005 Board decision
with respect to the asbestosis claim, reversing its
determination with respect to the herbicide claim, and setting
aside and remanding with respect to the lead-based paint claims.

Eric K. Shinseki, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, contesting
that part of the Court's decision pertained to the herbicide
claim.

On March 27, 2009, the Federal Circuit vacated this Court's
decision and remanded for further proceedings. Mr. Powers
appealed.

Mr. Powers served in the U.S. Navy from April 1969 to January
1971, including service aboard the U.S.S. Kearsarge from June
1969 to June 1970 in waters off the Republic of Vietnam. He
received the Vietnam Service Medal with one bronze star.

In the decision here on appeal, the Board denied all of Mr.
Powers' claims. The Board found that the preponderance of the
evidence was against Mr. Powers' asbestosis claim.

The Court affirmed the Oct. 5, 2004, Board decision with respect
to the asbestosis and herbicide claims and set aside and
remanded the Board's decision on the lead-based-paint claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Junks Garlock Motions in Moeller Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, at
Louisville, denied Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC's motion
for summary judgment and motion for a new trial in an asbestos
case filed by Olwen Moeller.

The case is styled Olwen Moeller, Plaintiff v. Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, Defendant.

District Judge John G. Heyburn II entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 3:07-CV-00065-H on May 1, 2009.

Garlock made asbestos containing gaskets. Mrs. Moeller sued on
behalf of herself and her deceased husband for his injuries
related to asbestos exposure from Garlock's gaskets. The case
was tried before a jury as a product liability claim based on
strict liability and negligence causes of action.

Garlock moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the
alternative, for a new trial.

The District Court denied Garlock's motion for judgment as a
matter of law. The District Court also denied Garlock's motion
for a new trial.

Eric J. Jacobi, Esq., William R. Kenealy, Esq., of Kenealy &
Jacobi, PLLC, Joseph D. Satterley, Esq., John Robert Shelton,
Esq., of Sales, Tillman, Wallbaum, Catlett & Satterley, PLLC in
Louisville, Ky., represented Mrs. Moeller.

Berlin Tsai, Esq., Ilam E. Smith, Esq., John K. Gordinier, Esq.,
of Pedley & Gordinier, PLLC, in Louisville, Ky., Cary I.
Schachter, Esq., Raymond P. Harris, Jr., Esq., of Schachter
Harris LLP in Dallas, represented Garlock.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Tatera Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin issued split rulings in an
asbestos case filed by Walter Tatera and Vicki Tatera against
FMC Corporation and other defendants. The matter was remanded
for further proceedings.

The case is styled Walter Tatera, deceased, and Vicki Tatera,
individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
Walter Tatera, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FMC Corporation,
Defendant-Respondent, United Healthcare and American Medical
Security, Subrogated Defendants, Kelsey-Hayes Company p/k/a K H
Corporation, Defendant.

Judges Patricia S. Curley, Joan F. Kessler, and Kitty K. Brennan
entered judgment in Case No. 2008AP170 on May 12, 2009.

Mrs. Tatera, individually and as Special Administrator of the
Estate of Mr. Tatera, appealed from a judgment entered after the
Circuit Court for Milwaukee County granted summary judgment to
FMC Corporation in this product liability case.

The trial court dismissed the case on the basis that Mrs. Tatera
had not presented a prima facie case for either a strict
liability or a negligence claim. She contended that the trial
court erred in dismissing the case at the summary judgment
stage.

The Appeal Court agreed with the trial court that Mrs. Tatera
has not presented a prima facie case for strict liability and
affirm on that claim. However, the Appeal Court concluded that
Mrs. Tatera had presented a prima facie case for negligence and
genuine issues of material fact exist. Thus, summary judgment
should not have been granted on that claim.

The Appeal Court affirmed the judgment as to strict liability
but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the
negligence claim.

This case arose from the death of Mr. Tatera, who died from
malignant mesothelioma on Sept. 20, 2004. Mrs. Tatera attributed
the malignant mesothelioma to Mr. Tatera's exposure to asbestos
during the time he worked at B & M Machine, which was a machine
shop owned by Mr. Tatera's father. He was employed at B & M
Machine in 1963, 1964 and 1967-1993.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in Rando Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, upheld the
ruling of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, In and for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, La., which dismissed Murphy Oil,
USA, Inc.'s cross-claim for contractual defense and
indemnification.

The case is styled Ray F. Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc., et
al.

Judges Randolph H. Parro, Page McClendon, and Jewel E. "Duke"
Welch entered judgment in Case No. 2008 CA 1981 on May 8, 2009.

Murphy appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of Lou-Con,
Inc., dismissing Murphy's cross-claim for contractual defense
and indemnification.

On Nov. 22, 2005, Ray Rando, who contracted mesothelioma as a
result of asbestos exposure, filed a lawsuit against a host of
defendants, including his former employers, various premises
owners where Mr. Rando was allegedly exposed to asbestos, as
well as companies that designed, manufactured, sold, and
installed asbestos-containing products.

Lou-Con, Mr. Rando's employer, and Murphy, the owner of a
refinery in Meraux, La., where Mr. Rando allegedly was exposed
to asbestos while working for Lou-Con, were named as defendants
in the lawsuit.

In the petition, Mr. Rando asserted that premises owner Murphy
was strictly liable as the owner of an unreasonably dangerous
facility and was negligent for failing to provide him with a
safe place to work. Mr. Rando further alleged that Lou-Con was
negligent for failing to provide him with a safe workplace.

On Nov. 8, 2006, Murphy filed a cross-claim against Lou-Con
demanding full indemnity and defense costs incurred by Murphy in
the Rando litigation under delictual and contractual theories of
indemnification. Murphy averred that Mr. Rando testified that he
worked for Lou-Con at the Meraux refinery in the early 1970s.

Although unable to produce an actual contract containing a
defense and indemnity provision that had been executed between
Murphy and Lou-Con during the early 1970s, Murphy asserted that
it would prove through secondary evidence the existence of
contracts during the pertinent time frame in which Lou-Con
agreed to indemnify Murphy against all bodily injury claims
arising out of or in connection to the performance of the work
contemplated by the parties' contractual arrangement.

Murphy settled with Mr. Rando and was dismissed from the
litigation on May 4, 2007, but reserved all rights in connection
with its cross-claim against Lou-Con. Lou-Con answered the
cross-claim, denying that it executed any contract containing an
indemnity provision that would have been in effect for the
period of Mr. Rando's alleged exposure at the Meraux refinery.

Lou-Con filed a motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 6, 2007,
Lou-Con and its principals were dismissed from the Rando
litigation.

The trial court held that indemnity agreements could not be
proven by secondary evidence and granted summary judgment in
favor of Lou-Con because Murphy failed to produce a written
contract during the relevant time period containing an indemnity
provision. Murphy appealed.

J. Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq., Cameron R. Waddell, Esq., Jena L.
Duncan, Esq., and Jodi E. Anderman, Esq., of Baton Rouge, La.,
represented Ray F. Rando.

James M. Garner, Esq., Chritopher T. Chocheles, Esq., in New
Orleans, represented Murphy Oil, USA, Inc.

Paula M. Wellons, Esq., Desiree W. Adams, Esq., in New Orleans,
represented Lou-Con, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Flips Ruling in Lennar Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California,
reversed the ruling of the Superior Court of the City and County
of San Francisco, which entered judgment in favor of respondents
in the case styled Center for Self-Improvement and Community
Development, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Lennar Corporation et
al., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Timothy A. Reardon, Ignazio J. Ruvolo, and Maria P.
Rivera entered judgment in Case No. A121982 on May 20, 2009.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the Center for Self-Improvement and Community
Development sued respondent developers (Lennar Corporation;
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.; Lennar Communities, Inc.;
Lennar-BVHP, LLC; Lennar Associates Management, LLC
[collectively, Lennar]; and Gordon N. Ball, Inc.) on allegations
of generating asbestos dust during their construction activities
in the Bayview Hunters Point community.

Respondents answered the complaint, and nearly two months later
moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion asserted that
the Center was a suspended corporation at the time it served the
60-day notice, the 60-day notice was thus "defective as a matter
of law," and therefore the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction.

Ruling for respondents, the trial court reasoned that compliance
with the 60-day notice requirement was jurisdictional and
strictly construed, and the Center's suspended corporate status
when serving the notice was a defense that could not be obviated
by revival of that status. This appeal followed.

Resolution of this appeal involves the interplay of the 60-day
notice statute governing Proposition 65 citizen enforcement, and
the corporate suspension and revivor statutes.

The Appeal Court concluded that respondents' challenge to the
complaint did not raise a noncurable affirmative defense.
Rather, invocation of the Center's lack of capacity was a mere
plea in abatement.

Having attained reinstatement prior to judgment, the Center
regained its capacity to proceed with prosecution of the pending
litigation. Accordingly, the Appeal Court reversed the judgment.

Lozeau Drury, Esq., Michael R. Lozeau, Esq., Richard T. Drury,
Esq., Suma Peesapati, Esq., the Law Offices of Andrew L.
Packard, Andrew L. Packard, Esq., Michael P. Lynes, Esq.,
represented the Center for Self-Improvement and Community
Development.

O'Melveny & Myers, Debra S. Belaga, Esq., Peter Obstler, Esq.,
Marjory A. Gentry, Esq., represented Lennar Corporation; Lennar
Homes of California, Inc.; Lennar Communities, Inc.; Lennar-
BVHP, LLC; and Lennar Associates Management, LLC.

Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, Daniel Rapaport, Esq., Thiele R.
Dunaway, Esq., represented Gordon N. Ball, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Court Affirms Dismissal of Tipps Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
which dismissed Texas prisoner Frederick Lee Tipps' claims,
including asbestos-related, on his conditions at the Galveston
County Jail (GCJ).

The case is styled Frederick Lee Tipps, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Gean Leonard, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.

Circuit Judges Carolyn Dineen King, James L. Dennis, and
Priscilla Richman Owen entered judgment in Case No. 08-40584 on
May 15, 2009.

Mr. Tipps appealed the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous
and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
He alleged that he was possibly exposed to asbestos, lead paint,
and mold while detained at the GCJ. He claimed that Sheriff Gean
Leonard was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm
based on the alleged existence of these harmful materials.

Mr. Tipps contended that Lieutenant Carnley knew about
prisoners' complaints regarding conditions at the GCJ and should
have informed Sherriff Leonard.

The district court's dismissal of Mr. Tipps' action counted as a
strike. Mr. Tipps was hereby warned that if he accumulates three
strikes, he may not thereafter proceed IFP in any civil action
or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any
facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.

Frederick Lee Tipps, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division, Eastham Unit, Lovelady, Tex.,
represented himself.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issues in Employers Ins. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, issued split
rulings in the case styled Employers Insurance Company of
Wausau, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Pacific Employers Insurance
Company, Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Sandy R. Kriegler, Richard M. Mosk, and Paul Turner
entered judgment in Case No. B204712 on May 18, 2009. Judge Mosk
filed a dissenting opinion.

This was appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.

This was an action by an insurer for equitable contribution from
a coinsurer in the defense of asbestos exposure bodily injury
claims against the insured.

Pacific Employers Insurance Company appealed from a judgment in
favor of Employers Insurance Company of Wausau. Defendant asked
the Appeal Court to recognize a rule that would permit it to
avoid its share of the defense burden by separately settling
with the insured. The Appeal Court declined.

The Appeal Court affirmed a summary adjudication order, which
resolved equitable duties but reversed the summary judgment,
which resolved damage questions.


Plaintiff and defendant both at times provided primary
comprehensive general liability insurance coverage to The Scotts
Company either directly or through its parent corporation.
Plaintiff insured Scotts for five consecutive years from Oct. 1,
1968 to Dec. 31, 1973.

In December 2000, defendant and Scotts entered into a settlement
agreement and release of claims.

Scotts was subsequently named as a defendant in more than 200
lawsuits alleging bodily injury caused by asbestos exposure.
Those lawsuits generally did not allege specific dates of
exposure. On Feb. 13, 2003, Scotts filed a coverage action
against plaintiff. On July 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a cross-
complaint seeking contribution from defendant. On or about Feb.
24, 2006, plaintiff entered into a settlement with Scotts.
Plaintiff agreed to pay certain of Scotts's defense and
indemnity costs.

Following its settlement with Scotts, plaintiff moved for a
summary adjudication that defendant had an equitable duty to
contribute to the Scotts litigation defense and indemnity costs.

Plaintiff subsequently sought a summary judgment as to the
dollar amount of defendant's contribution. On October 17, 2007,
the trial court entered summary judgment requiring defendant to
pay: US$10,277,735.70 in past defense costs, US$458,633.76 in
prejudgment interest, and 87.4 percent of all future defense
costs plus prejudgment interest at a rate of seven percent. This
appeal followed.

Berman & Aiwasian, Deborah A. Aiwasian, Esq., and Bruce N.
Telles, Esq., represented Pacific Employers Insurance Company.

Dorsey & Whitney, Steven D. Allison, Esq., and Robert E.
Cattanach, Esq., represented Employers Insurance Company of
Wausau.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Movants' Bid Denied in Burns and Roe Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, denied motions
filed by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) and The
American Insurance Company in the case styled In re Burns and
Roe Enterprises, Inc. et al., Debtors.

Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-4191 (GEB) on May 15, 2009.

This matter came before the Court upon the Motion of Fireman's
Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) and The American Insurance Company
(collectively, the "Movants") for entry of an Order modifying
and clarifying the Court's February 2009 Confirmation Order
under. The Court denied the Movants' motion.

On Dec. 4, 2000 (Petition Date), Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
(BREI) filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of
Title 11 of the United States Code. Burns and Roe Construction
Group, Inc., (BRCGI) filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition on
Oct. 12, 2005.

The cases were administratively consolidated by Order of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Bankruptcy
Court) dated Nov. 7, 2005.

Before the bankruptcy filings, there were more than 12,000
asbestos-related personal injury actions filed against Debtors.
On the Petition Date, BREI filed an Adversary Proceeding in its
Chapter 11 case against its primary, umbrella and excess
insurance carriers, as well as carriers that had issued certain
wrap-up policies. The Adversary Proceeding, Burns & Roe
Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al, 00-
3755(RG), sought a declaration of BREI's rights to insurance
coverage for asbestos claims.

On December 20, 2000, the Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed
an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (Committee), which
is compromised of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants. On March
19, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order appointing
Anthony R. Calascibetta as the Legal Representative of Future
Asbestos Claimants in the BREI Chapter 11 case.

On Nov. 7, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order
appointing Mr. Calascibetta as the Legal Representative in the
BRCGI case. Debtors filed their Fourth Amended Plan of
Reorganization (Plan) on June 9, 2008. By Order dated Sept. 15,
2008, this Court withdrew the reference in these cases with
respect to the Confirmation Hearing.

The American Insurance Company issued a primary, wrap-up
insurance policy in connection with an electric generating plant
known as the Cross Generating Power Station located in South
Carolina (Cross Station). FFIC issued three excess, wrap up
insurance policies in connection with the Cross Station.

FFIC filed certain objections to confirmation of the Debtors'
Fourth Amended Plan. A confirmation hearing was held on Nov. 13,
2008. Following the Confirmation Hearing, by letter dated Feb.
4, 2009, Debtors proposed a modification to the Plan.

On Feb. 23, 2009, this Court entered the Confirmation Opinion
and Confirmation Order, confirming the Debtors' Fourth Amended
Plan.

On March 5, 2009, Movants timely filed the instant Motion for
Modification and/or Clarification of the Confirmation Order.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Apartments Evacuated Due to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Americana apartment complex in Mountain View,
Calif., were asked to move out of their apartments due to the
presence of asbestos, Mesothelioma.com reports.

They were asked to evacuate in order to keep asbestos dust from
coating their belongings during work on the roof of the complex.

Prometheus Real Estate Group plans to install new roofs on five
of the Americana's 22 apartment buildings over the course of the
summer. Each building's roof project will take three weeks to
complete.

The buildings were built during the 1970s, and have fire-
retardant "popcorn" ceilings which contain asbestos. The
asbestos had begun to come loose from the popcorn ceilings
during previous work on the roofs conducted in 2007.

Work on the first building in the Americana apartment complex
was scheduled to begin on July 6, 2009. However, due to the fact
that temporary housing recently became available, many residents
were forced to spend their Fourth of July weekend moving all of
their belongings out of their apartments.

Because the apartment owners were sued over asbestos exposure
after the roof work in 2007, this time around they are being
extremely cautious.

Prometheus had promised to cover belongings left behind in the
apartments to protect them from asbestos dust.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Plaza Pub Building in N.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been discovered at the old Plaza Pub building in
Alamogordo, N.M., where the Tularosa Basin Historical Society
had hoped to install a museum, Mesothelioma.com reports.

In a meeting with city commissioners on June 29, 2009, members
of the Tularosa Basin Historical Society revealed their decision
to abandon the plan to open a new museum in the Plaza Pub
building. The society has decided to discontinue their lease on
the building.

The society had hoped to open a new museum in order to display
their growing collection of artifacts. The building was in need
of renovations, but now that asbestos has been found in the
structure's roof, the additional costs of removing the cancer-
causing substance are too much for the society to bear.

Historical Society President Elizabeth Padilla said, "It's with
very heavy hearts that we have made this decision. But we
believe, because of the limited funding, we cannot continue to
go through the process of renovating the Plaza building."

Ms. Padilla explained to the commissioners that because the
society is nonprofit, about half of their funding comes from
membership dues, one-third comes from bookstore sales, and the
remaining amount comes from public donations.

The future of the building is now uncertain.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Ongoing at Salem Construction Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos at a contaminated construction site for
a new park on 15 Peabody Street in Salem, Mass., is ongoing, The
Salem News reports.

Construction stopped in March 2009 when material containing
asbestos was discovered in the soil.

Mayor Kim Driscoll wrote a letter to abutters stating that the
cleanup "does not pose a health risk to neighborhood residents."
She said that plastic sheeting has been placed over the park as
a "precautionary measure."

Mayor Driscoll added that air tests by the project's
environmental engineer determined that the site is "safe for
anyone in the immediate area."

The cleanup is expected to take four weeks. Once it is
completed, work on the neighborhood park will resume.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grupo Mexico to Pay $1.46B Cash for Asarco
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Mexico S.A.B. de C.V., in court papers, said that it
agreed to pay US$1.46 billion in cash plus a US$280 million note
to regain control of Asarco LLC, Bloomberg reports.

The case is styled In re Asarco LLC, 05-21207, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi).

On July 7, 2009, Grupo Mexico said, "Not only does our plan
provide the assurance of paying creditors 97 cents on the dollar
in cash at closing, we are prepared to close without a labor
accord and are offering a higher payout on the asbestos claims."

Details for three plans were filed on July 6, 2009 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Corpus Christi, Tex.

According to court documents, to achieve a higher payout than
Grupo Mexico's offer, the other two plans require Asarco's
court-appointed managers to win an appeals court case worth
US$7.48 billion against Grupo Mexico's U.S. holding company,
Americas Mining Corp.

Asarco's creditors have until Aug. 5, 2009 to vote on three
competing payment plans: Grupo Mexico's offer; a proposal to
sell the company to mining company Sterlite Industries (India)
Ltd. for US$1.1 billion in cash, plus a note worth US$309
million; and US$500 million in cash offered by an affiliate of
creditor Harbinger Capital Partners.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found at St. Brigid's School in U.K.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was discovered at St. Brigid's School in Denbigh,
Wales, United Kingdom, the Daily Post reports.

School staff gave out the letters on July 2, 2009, telling
students and their families the stage area of the sports hall
was now off limits because of asbestos. The letter said the
toxic mineral will not be removed until the summer holidays.

Unison's Denbighshire regional organizer Jeff Edkins added the
problem is not limited to St. Brigid's as other schools in the
county are also affected.

The assembly hall is occupied daily by pupils and teachers and
is used for concerts and PE lessons. It has been used recently
for school exams.

A spokesman for Denbighshire County Council said, "The location
of the asbestos is an area not open to pupils and, unless
disturbed or damaged, the asbestos does not pose a risk.

"Denbighshire has developed a prioritized list for removal or
enclosure of asbestos. Removals are planned to cause minimum
disruption to the teaching environment."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bid to Move GM Plea to Higher Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Gerber of the federal bankruptcy court in
Manhattan, on July 7, 2009, did not allow certain individuals
claiming to have been harmed by General Motors Corporation
vehicles to appeal directly to a U.S. federal appeals court
against the sale of the Company's assets, Reuters reports.

Judge Gerber also rejected a request by a group of asbestos
claimants to stay the sale of GM to a group led by the U.S.
Treasury.

On July 5, 2009, Judge Gerber approved the Company's plan to
sell its most profitable assets to a "New GM" funded by the U.S.
government.

A lawyer for the accident victims, Steven Jakubowski, Esq., of
Coleman Law Firm, told the court on July 7, 2009 by telephone
that if the GM sale goes ahead, it would be practically
pointless for the victims to seek redress.

However, GM's attorney, Harvey Miller, Esq., of Weil Gotshal &
Manges, said that if the GM sale were blocked or delayed, there
would be nothing left at all for claimants to try to recover.

The U.S. government had set a deadline of July 10, 2009 for the
transaction to be approved, after which it would no longer fund
GM.

The consumer group, along with the asbestos claimants, had
sought to overturn Judge Gerber's decision, because the "New GM"
is being created from assets sold "free and clear" of those
claims and they would be unable to sue.

The asbestos claimants had also filed court papers seeking a
stay of the sale that would delay it from taking effect until
after the results of the appeal.

"New GM" has already agreed to take on product liability claims
brought in the future, but not current claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Gov't. to Respond to Report by July 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Kingdom's Ministry of Justice said in a statement
that it intends to publish a response to an asbestos report by
the U.K. Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, Business
Insurance reports.

The IIAC's recommendation that individuals with pleural plaques
should not be considered disabled will figure in the Ministry's
decision whether workers with the asbestos-related scarring of
the lungs should be compensated.

The IIAC said in its June 30, 2009 report that while pleural
plaques "can be a source of distress and anxiety" to victims and
could carry greater risk of them developing mesothelioma and
lung cancer, "the (Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit)
scheme as presently constituted compensates actual disablement
rather than the future risk of disablement or health anxiety."

"The council recommends against including pleural plaques among
the list of prescribed diseases compensated under the IIDB
scheme," the report stated.

In March 2009, the Scottish Parliament passed the Damages
(Asbestos-related conditions) (Scotland) Act, which overturned a
2007 House of Lords ruling that asbestos-exposed workers with
pleural plaques are not entitled to compensation.

British insurers requested a judicial review of the Scottish
law.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 135 Cases Pending v. GenCorp Inc. at May 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc. faced 135 pending asbestos cases as of May 31,
2009, compared with 157 cases pending as of Nov. 30, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2009.

The Company faced 138 asbestos-related cases pending as of Feb.
28, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 3, 2009)

Most of the cases have been filed in Madison County, Ill., and
San Francisco.

During the six months ended May 31, 2009, the Company recorded
20 claims filed, 22 claims consolidated, 19 claims dismissed,
and one claim settled. Aggregate settlement costs were US$20,000
and average settlement costs were US$20,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 33
claims filed, 31 claims dismissed, and five claims settled.
Average settlement costs were US$246,000 and average settlement
costs were US$49,000.

Rancho Cordova, Calif.-based GenCorp Inc. manufactures aerospace
and defense systems with a real estate segment that includes
activities related to the entitlement, sale, and leasing of the
Company's excess real estate assets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Disqualify Granted in Kramig Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, granted OneBeacon America Insurance Company's Motion
to Disqualify Christopher Bechhold, Esq., and the Thompson Hine
Law Firm, in litigation involving asbestos filed by R.E. Kramig
Co., Inc.

The Court held that Mr. Bechhold and the Thompson Hine firm are
disqualified from representing Kramig or any other party adverse
to the interests of the OneBeacon Insurers.

The case is styled R.E. Kramig Co., Inc., Plaintiff v. Resolute
Management, Inc., et al., Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs.

Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott entered judgment in Case No. 1:07-cv-
658 on May 18, 2009.

Kramig sued Resolute Management, Inc. (RMI), OneBeacon, American
Employer Insurance Company (AEIC), and the Northern Assurance
Company of America (NACA) in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas on July 20, 2007.

OneBeacon, through its predecessors or affiliated companies,
AEIC and NACA, as well as non-parties Commercial Union Insurance
Company (Commercial Union) and Employers Liability Insurance
Company, collectively the "OneBeacon Insurers," issued
commercial general liability policies (CGL policies) and
umbrella policies to Kramig during the relevant time period.

Beginning in the 1990s, Kramig was named as a defendant in
multiple claims and lawsuits for personal injuries allegedly
caused by asbestos exposure. Kramig tendered claims for defense
and indemnification regarding the asbestos lawsuits to the
OneBeacon Insurers and another liability insurance carrier,
Safeco Insurance Company of America.

One of these asbestos lawsuit was captioned Hobart Adams et al.
v. Acands, Inc. et al. The OneBeacon Insurers agreed to provide
Kramig with a defense in the Adams case and assigned the
adjustment and handling of the claim to RMI. RMI retained
Timothy McKay, Esq., and the Trenz, McKay & Knabe law firm to
defend Kramig in the Adams lawsuit.

In or about March 2004, Mr. McKay conveyed a settlement offer
regarding the Adams lawsuit plaintiff to Cristy Bresson at RMI.
Ms. Bresson authorized and instructed Mr. McKay to accept the
settlement offer. However, Ms. Bresson failed to transmit the
settlement monies to Mr. McKay.

The plaintiffs in the Adams lawsuit then moved to enforce the
settlement against Kramig. The trial court entered a judgment
against Kramig in the amount of US$5,000 plus interest of 10
percent per day. Neither McKay nor his law firm provided Kramig
with a copy of the judgment. Kramig did not pay the judgment.

On June 12, 2007, the plaintiffs in the Adams lawsuit moved for
a writ of attachment against Kramig for the amount of the
judgment plus interest, which constituted a balance in excess of
US$1 million.

Defendants removed the action to this Court on Aug. 10, 2007.
Defendants answered the Complaint on Aug. 15, 2007 and then
filed a Third-Party Complaint on Sept. 14, 2007 against Third-
Party Defendants Safeco, American States Insurance Co., American
Economy Insurance Co., attorney Timothy McKay, the law firm of
Trenz McKay & Knabe Co. LPA, and the law firm of Mack McKay &
Knabe.

In the Counterclaim, RMI and the OneBeacon Insurers asserted
that Safeco is the parent and successor to American States and
American Economy. The Third-Party Defendants, the Safeco
Insurers and Mr. McKay and his law firm, each filed separate
Answers to the Third-Party Complaint.

In the pending Motion to Disqualify, the OneBeacon Defendants
move to disqualify Mr. Bechhold and the Thompson Hine law firm
from representing any party adverse to the interests of the
OneBeacon Defendants in this matter.

Beginning in 1994, OneBeacon engaged the Thompson Hine law firm
to represent Kramig, as well as other parties insured by
OneBeacon, in defense of asbestos personal injury liability
claims.

On June 29, 2007, OneBeacon filed its motion to disqualify Mr.
Bechhold and the Thompson Hine firm from representing Kramig in
this matter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants Defendants' Motions in Catania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, granted
Pharmacia Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss Survival Action as
Prescribed in asbestos litigation filed by Michael Catania on
behalf of his deceased wife, Barbara Catania.

The Court also granted a Joint Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment Dismissing Survival Claims filed by Royal Indemnity
Company as successor in interest to Queen Insurance Company of
America and to Royal Insurance Company of America, solely in its
capacity as an alleged insurer of the Aber Company, and the
Travelers Indemnity Company and the Travelers Indemnity Company
on behalf of the Travelers Insurance Company, solely as alleged
insurers of The Aber Company (hereinafter Royal and Travelers)
against Plaintiffs.

The case is styled Michael Catania, et al. v. Anco Insulations,
Inc., et al.

District Judge James J. Brady entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 05-01418-JJB on May 14, 2009.

Mrs. Catania was diagnosed with mesothelioma on May 14, 2001,
for which she and her husband filed suit on Oct. 31, 2001, and
which was subsequently removed to this Court. The Catanias
claimed that Mrs. Catania had been exposed to asbestos from 1951
through 1969, from the contaminated clothing of her uncles who
were insulators.

During the jury trial, the Catanias advised the Court that a
full settlement had been reached. On Nov. 18, 2003, the Court
issued a 60-day dismissal order. Over the next several months,
Mr. Catania filed numerous motions to dismiss as they perfected
their settlements with the various defendants. On May 19, 2004,
the Court issued a final order dismissing the case, "with
prejudice, each party to bear its own costs."

Mrs. Catania died on Jan. 18, 2005. On Nov. 23, 2005, Mr.
Catania and Kristen Catania, Mrs. Catania's daughter, filed suit
against a number of defendants. Some of the defendants had been
previously sued in the First Suit, while others, including the
moving Defendants, were not.

The Current Suit sought damages for Mrs. Catania's wrongful
death. On Aug. 19, 2008, Plaintiffs amended their petition to
assert survival claims.

Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Esq., Jonathan Brett Clement, Esq., Kelly
C. Fogleman, Esq., Lauren R. Clement, Esq., Perry J. Roussel,
Jr., Esq., of Roussel & Clement in LaPlace, La., Angelique Duhon
Freel, Esq., of the Louisiana Department Of Justice in Baton
Rouge, La., Kellie M. Rish, Esq., of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles
in New Orleans, La., represented the family of Barbara Catania.

Jennifer Shepard Kilpatrick, Esq., of Degan Blanchard & Nash,
APLC, Margaret Moran Joffe, Esq., of Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles,
Janet L. MacDonell, Esq., in New Orleans, La., represented the
Defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Dismisses McCormick Claim v. Railroad
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee dismissed the asbestos case
styled Sam McCormick v. Illinois Central Railroad Company.

Judges Alan E. Highers, Holly M. Kirby, and J. Steven Stafford
entered judgment in Case No. W2008-00902-COA-R9-CV on May 19,
2009.

This was an Interlocutory Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Shelby County.

Sam McCormick was diagnosed with lung disease on June 14, 2003.
At some time subsequent to his diagnosis, but prior to Sept. 1,
2005, Mr. McCormick joined a multi-plaintiff lawsuit against his
former employer Illinois Central Railroad Company in
Mississippi, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA),
for asbestos exposure.

Mr. McCormick died on Sept. 1, 2005. He, along with many of the
other plaintiffs, was voluntarily dismissed as a plaintiff in
the Mississippi suit in November 2005.

On June 8, 2006, "Mr. McCormick" sued the Railroad in the Shelby
County, Tenn., Circuit Court, again alleging a cause of action
under the FELA for asbestos exposure. The Complaint listed Mr.
McCormick, in his individual capacity, as the only party
plaintiff.

Railroad filed an Answer and served discovery requests upon Mr.
McCormick on or about Aug. 1, 2006. On Feb. 20, 2007, Railroad
filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Respond to Discovery.

On March 21, 2007, "Mr. McCormick" filed a Suggestion of Death,
suggesting upon the record that "Sam McCormick died on Sept. 1,
2005." "Mr. McCormick" simultaneously filed a motion to
substitute Ann P. McCormick, Mr. McCormick's wife, as the party
plaintiff, stating that she was "duly qualified to serve" having
been "named as the executor of [Mr. McCormick's estate.]"
Railroad claimed that it was unaware of Mr. McCormick's death
until March 21, 2007.

Railroad filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 9, 2007, claiming
that Mr. McCormick lacked the capacity to sue Railroad because
only a living employee or the executor or administrator of a
deceased employee's estate may maintain an action under the
FELA. On May 11, 2007, the trial court denied Railroad's motion
to dismiss and allowed Mrs. McCormick to be substituted as the
plaintiff. Railroad filed a "Motion to Reconsider."

Following a June 29, 2007 hearing on Railroad's Motion to
Reconsider, the trial court allowed "Mr. McCormick" 10 days in
which to substitute the proper party plaintiff. Because "Mr.
McCormick" failed to substitute a proper party plaintiff within
10 days, the trial court entered an Order of Dismissal on July
24, 2007, dismissing "Mr. McCormick's" claim with prejudice.

On Aug. 31, 2007, "Mr. McCormick" filed a "Motion to
Reconsider." Railroad opposed the motion. Following a hearing on
Jan. 18, 2008, the trial court entered an Order on Feb. 19,
2008, granting "Mr. McCormick's" motions to reconsider and for
substitution of Mrs. McCormick, and vacating its prior Order of
Dismissal entered July 24, 2007.

On March 13, 2008, Railroad filed a Request for Appeal by
Permission, requesting to appeal the trial court's order
allowing substitution by Mrs. McCormick, as well as the trial
court's granting of "Mr. McCormick's" "Motion to Reconsider."

The trial court granted Railroad's request for interlocutory
appeal on April 22, 2008. On Aug. 29, 2008, this Court granted
Railroad's Application for Interlocutory Appeal.

The Appeal Court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and
dismissed the case.

Thomas R. Peters, Esq., Michael C. Hermann, Esq., in Bellevue,
Ill., M. Beth Rainwater, Esq., in Memphis, Tenn., represented
Appellant.

R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq., in Memphis, Tenn., represented
Appellee.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: La. Court Junks Parker Civil Rights Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Monroe
Division dismissed Darryl B. Parker's civil rights complaint,
including asbestos claims.

The case is styled Darryl D. Parker v. Department of Correction,
et al.

District Judge Robert G. James entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 08-1553 on May 18, 2009.

On April 23, 2009, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued a
Report and Recommendation, recommending that Mr. Parker's claims
be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

Mr. Parker alleged that he was experiencing breathing problems
and serious headaches and that his "belief is that it is from
asbestos problems here." Magistrate Judge Hayes reasoned that
Mr. Parker's allegations were conclusory.

Mr. Parker alleged that Defendants had failed to respond to his
grievances. Magistrate Judge Hayes did not address this
allegation. This allegation failed to state a claim on which
relief can be granted because Mr. Parker had no constitutionally
protected right to a prison grievance procedure. This claim was
dismissed with prejudice.

Mr. Parker requested that he be transferred to a facility where
he can avail himself of the services of a social worker.
Magistrate Judge Hayes did not address this claim, to the extent
that one is alleged. This claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Darryl D. Parker, of Jackson, La., represented himself.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds GE's Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
which granted a protective order and summary judgment in favor
of General Electric Company in an asbestos case filed by Beverly
Fagerholm.

The case is styled Beverly Fagerholm, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of George Fagerholm, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. General Electric Company, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Frank D. Celebrezze Jr., Colleen Conway Cooney, and Larry
A. Jones entered judgment in Case No. 91986 on May 21, 2009.

On June 5, 2006, George Fagerholm filed a complaint against
numerous defendants stating several causes of action, including
employer intentional tort, from his exposure to asbestos at GE's
Ivanhoe Road facility in Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr. Fagerholm worked for GE at its Ivanhoe Road facility for 39
years. He worked in the factory making experimental furnaces
from 1950 to 1955, and he held a management position at the same
facility from 1955 to 1989. He was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma. He died on Sept. 5, 2006. Mrs. Fagerholm, as the
executrix of her husband's estate, was substituted as the party
plaintiff in this case.

Prior to his death, a videotaped discovery deposition of Mr.
Fagerholm was taken on July 21, 2006, and a videotaped trial
deposition of Mr. Fagerholm was taken on Aug. 1, 2006.

During the course of discovery, GE filed a motion for a
protective order on the scope of inquiry. The trial court held a
hearing on GE's motion and granted the motion in part, thereby
limiting Mrs. Fagerholm's inquiry about GE's general corporate
knowledge during the time of Mr. Fagerholm's employ. On May 22,
2008, at the deposition of GE's designated corporate
representative, Marjorie Drucker, counsel for the parties argued
over the scope of the questions being asked of Ms. Drucker, and
the trial court was asked to intervene to reiterate the scope of
inquiry.

After discovery was completed, GE filed its motion for summary
judgment. The trial court held a hearing on the motion after
both sides had fully briefed the issue of employee intentional
tort. On July 22, 2008, the trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of GE. On Aug. 21, 2008, Mrs. Fagerholm filed a notice
of appeal.

John D. Mismas, Esq., Thomas W. Bevan, Esq., Patrick M. Walsh,
Esq., of Bevan & Associates, L.P.A. Inc., in Northfield, Ohio,
Bruce Carter, Esq., of the Law Office of Bruce Carter in
Hamilton, Ohio, represented Beverly Fagerholm.

Reginald S. Kramer, Esq., of Oldham & Dowling in Akron, Ohio,
represented Appellees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Enters Ruling in Rando Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana entered rulings in the case
styled Ray F. Rando v. Anco Insulations Inc., et al.

Judges Jeannette Theriol Knoll and Jeffrey P. Victory entered
judgment in Case Nos. 2008-C-1163, 2008-C-1169 on May 22, 2009.
Judge Victory filed a dissenting opinion.

The Supreme Court granted consolidated writ applications to
resolve a conflict among the appellate courts of this state on
the issue of whether mesothelioma is a compensable occupational
disease under the pre-1975 version of the Louisiana Workers'
Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal,
First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge, and found that
plantiff Ray F. Rando's tort claim against his employer for
mesothelioma was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of
the Act.

On Sept. 23, 2005, at 59 years of age, Mr. Rando was diagnosed
with mesothelioma. On Nov. 22, 2005, he filed suit against H.E.
Wiese, Inc., n/k/a Jacobs Contractors, Inc. (JCI), and Parsons
Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc., alleging that his
disease was caused by his exposure to asbestos while working as
a pipe fitter during his employment with those companies in the
early 1970s.

At trial, Mr. Rando presented evidence of his exposure to
asbestos while working for JCI in late 1970 and early 1971, and
Parsons from April 1972 to December 1972; although both
exposures were at the Shell Oil facility in Norco, these
exposures were at two separate sections of the plant.

In both employments, Mr. Rando alleged onlooker exposure to
asbestos used by insulators who were not employees of JCI and
Parsons.

The trial court denied JCI and Parsons' motion for summary
judgment in which they asserted that the exclusivity provisions
of the Act barred Mr. Rando's tort suit. The court of appeal
denied Parsons' request for supervisory review.

JCI and Parsons appealed, arguing they were entitled to tort
immunity. The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's
judgment. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
was affirmed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flintkote's Bid for Reserves Discovery OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
granted The Flintkote Company's request for discovery of
reserves in a case involving Aviva Insurance Company of Canada.

The case is styled The Flintkote Company, a Delaware
Corporation, Plaintiff v. General Accident Assurance Company of
Canada, a Canada insurance company; General Accident Fire and
Life Assurance Corporation Limited of Perth, Scotland, a
Scotland insurance company; and Does 1 through 10, Defendants.

District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel entered judgment in Case No. C
04-01827 MHP on May 26, 2009.

On April 14, 2004, Flintkote filed an action in San Francisco
Superior Court against General Accident Assurance Company of
Canada and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance
Corporation Limited of Perth, Scotland, predecessors in interest
of Aviva.

Flintkote alleged breach of contract for defendants' failure to
defend or indemnify plaintiff for claims covered under a primary
insurance policy. Flintkote had requested discovery of reserves
and reinsurance information that was withheld or redacted by
Aviva. Flintkote also requested in camera review of documents
that contained information redacted by defendant on the basis of
attorney-client privilege, work product privilege and
confidential business information.

Flintkote is a company that formerly mined and sold asbestos and
asbestos-based products. It purchased a primary insurance policy
from Aviva's predecessors in interest to cover general
commercial liability, including asbestos-related bodily injury
claims. The policy was in force between Jan. 1, 1958 and Jan. 1,
1961.

In 2004, Flintkote sought bankruptcy protection as a result of
its exposure to asbestos-related lawsuits. It brought this
action to recover from defendant defense and liability costs
paid out as a result of asbestos-related tort claims brought
against it.

Flintkote received responses to interrogatories regarding
reserves. Aviva answered that sometime before Oct. 19, 1983. It
set reserves at US$55,000 and then increased reserves to
US$250,000 between January 1988 and June 1991. Aviva increased
its reserves to either US$450,000 or US$500,000 as of February
1998. Reserves were set at US$400,001 in December 1999 and then
increased to US$2 million on March 15, 2004. Aviva had continued
to set reserves since 2004.

Flintkote added a bad faith liability claim against Aviva,
alleging that Aviva engaged in malicious and unreasonable
conduct, such as failing to defend Flintkote against asbestos-
related claims despite knowledge that the claims were
potentially covered.

Flintkote asserted that Aviva should produce its reserves
documents. Aviva responded that they are protected as
confidential business information and are irrelevant. Flintkote
sought production of Aviva's reserves information and
reinsurance documents that have been withheld and redacted.

Flintkote also alleged that Aviva had improperly made redactions
of documents and requests in camera review of these documents by
the court to determine whether the redactions were improper.

Flintkote's for discovery of reserves information was granted
and its request for reinsurance information was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Alert Raised on Sheffield Playground
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew McIlveny, a 42-year-old father from Sheffield, England,
is concerned that vandals are endangering youngsters by
illegally dumping asbestos on a site used as an unofficial
playground, The Star reports.

Children living around the Arbourthorne gather on the privately-
owned site, off Lichford Road, because there are few other open
spaces to play on the estate.

Mr. McIlveny said, "I'm really worried they are being put at
risk. It started with a couple of bags a month ago, which I
reported to the council.

"Now there's about six bags of waste including old corrugated
asbestos roofing material and glass. It's not just the children
who use the site but also people walking their dogs."

Sheffield Council said it had no record of Mr. McIlveny's
original complaint but has promised to get in touch with him and
remove the asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wroughton Museum Denies Presence of Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE Science Museum at Wroughton, England, denied that the Adrian
Flux Classic Car Show was forced to find a new venue because of
concerns over asbestos in the museum's hangers, This is
Wiltshire.co.uk reports.

In July 7, 2009, it was reported the show, previously known as
the Wroughton Classic Car Show, might have to be cancelled after
its proposed new home, the Liddington Hotel, was sold off by
administrators.

The show has been held at the Science Museum for the past three
years and organizers said they had sought a new venue because of
asbestos in its hangers.

Science Museum spokesman Matt Moore said, "No event would ever
be booked if there was a concern over asbestos. Its presence in
the museum's hangers, common to many similar locations, is
controlled and managed through our health and safety procedures
and stringent checks are made before any event takes place."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Battle Calls For Research Center in Leeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leeds West MP John Battle says that a specialized research
center should be opened in Leeds, England, in preparation for an
increasing number of asbestos-related lung diseases, the
Yorkshire Evening Post reports.

Mr. Battle is to urge Health Secretary Andy Burnham to
significantly increase the Department of Health's investment in
asbestos cancer research.

More than 20,000 people have signed a petition urging the
creation of a state-of-the-art research center and Mr. Battle
wants it built it in Leeds.

Mr. Battle said, "There is no reason why it shouldn't be in
Leeds. We have got a good cancer unit and a good medical school.
There is going to be a massive increase in mesothelioma cases in
the next 20 years, which means now is the time to get on with
it."

Leeds has suffered more than most through the use of asbestos,
partly due to the work of the JW Roberts asbestos factory in
Armley.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Marystown Shipyard Calls for Payout Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marystown Shipyard Families Alliance, a Newfoundland, Canada-
based organization, seeks workers' compensation for shipbuilders
who may have been exposed to asbestos and other carcinogens,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

In June 2009, Bernadine Bennett and Bertha Smith led a meeting
of the Marystown Shipyard Families Alliance. The community of
Marystown is steeped in shipbuilding culture, and many local
families take place in the shipbuilding industry.

Ms. Bennett argues that despite the fact that Marystown was the
site of shipbuilding for generations, the shipbuilding that
occurred in the community from 1967-1998 was particularly
dangerous. During this period, a commercial shipyard was built
by the Canadian government, and was then sold off to a private
owner. She argues that it was during this period that workers
were exposed to various carcinogens like asbestos.

Ms. Bennett says, "For years when it came to occupational
disease claims from the Marystown Shipyard, the [Workplace
Health, Safety & Compensation Commission], they dealt only with
asbestos.

"So when our committee formed three years ago and we started
investigating the workers who actually worked at that shipyard
and the diseases that we saw, we knew at that time that we were
dealing with a whole lot more than asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSI Toy Customers Eligible to Get Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Customers who bought asbestos-contaminated toys based on the
television show "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" are now
eligible to get refunds, The Wall Street Journal reports.

However, Planet Toys Inc., the company that developed the
products would not be footing the bill.

Instead, the retailers who distributed the toys are taking the
fall, agreeing to provide cash refunds for the product. The toys
sold for about US$30 apiece, Victoria Ni, Esq., said.

Ms. Ni, who is with public interest law firm Public Justice,
represented the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in the
case. The ADAO commissioned the original study that identified
asbestos in the toys.

Under the settlement, retailers including Toys "R" Us, Inc.; CBS
Broadcasting Inc.; and Kmart Corporation will pay for the costs
of the claims administration and will hand over US$30,000 to the
ADAO. Customers are eligible for refunds and can also send back
the toys free of charge.

Planet Toys sought bankruptcy protection in March 2009,
committing right off the bat to liquidate its assets under
Chapter 7. At the time, an attorney for Planet Toys said that
the economy was the main reason behind the filing, but Planet
Toys also faces a class-action lawsuit initiated in May 2008.

The lawsuit was brought by parents who thought their kids were
just learning about science while blowing on the special
fingerprint powder included in the CSI: Crime Scene
Investigation Fingerprint Examination Kit and the CSI: Crime
Scene Investigation Forensic Lab Kit. Tests eventually revealed
that the toys contained asbestos.

Planet Toys had been taking part in negotiations over a possible
settlement to the lawsuit, but once its Chapter 7 protection
kicked in, it abandoned its place at the bargaining table.

The bankruptcy code's automatic stay shields companies from
lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Grants Dobrocke Remand Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
granted John and Darlene Dobrocke's Motion to Remand an asbestos
lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler, LLC and other defendants.

The case is styled John Dobrocke and Darlene Dobrocke,
Plaintiffs v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability
Trust, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Claudia Wilken entered judgment in Case No. C 09-
01456 CW on May 26, 2009.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the Dobrockes filed suit in the San Francisco
superior court alleging personal injury and loss of consortium
against numerous defendants, among them Foster Wheeler.

Mr. Dobrocke formerly worked with asbestos as an insulator and
now suffers from asbestos-related lung disease. The precise
nature of the Dobrockes' allegations against Foster Wheeler was
unclear. The only mention in the complaint of Foster Wheeler by
name was the following: "Plaintiffs' claims against defendant
Foster Wheeler LLC (f/k/a Foster Wheeler Corporation) exclude
plaintiff's asbestos exposure at military and federal government
jobsites and aboard U.S. Navy vessels."

The Court shall remand the case back to the Superior Court for
the County of San Francisco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Settlement Entered in 3M Derivative Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company has entered into a settlement of a shareholder
derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware captioned Insulators and Asbestos Workers
Local No. 14 Pension Fund v. George W. Buckley, et al., C.A. No.
07-416-GMS, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2009.

The suit was against the Company as nominal defendant and
against each then current member of the Board of Directors and
the officers named in the Summary Compensation Table of the 2007
Proxy Statement.

The suit alleged that the Company's 2007 Proxy Statement
contained false and misleading statements concerning the tax
deductibility of compensation payable under the 3M Executive
Annual Incentive Plan and the standards for determining the
amounts payable under the Plan.

The terms of the Settlement are set forth in a Notice of
Pendency of Derivative Action, Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Hearing and Right to Appear that was made available to
stockholders. The Settlement provided for disclosure of certain
information by 3M regarding the operation of the Plan and the
adoption by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors
of a resolution confirming its interpretation of the term
"Special Items" as used in the Plan.

The Settlement also provided for the dismissal of the suit, for
the release of all claims against the defendants that could have
been asserted in the suit, and for payment of Plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses by the Company. The Court approved
the Settlement, and its material terms.

The Company and the officers and directors named as defendants
have maintained that the suit was improper from its inception,
and the defendants denied and continue to deny that they
committed any violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty.
However, the Settlement allowed the Company to avoid the
inherent uncertainty of litigation and the distraction and waste
of resources that would have been necessary to pursue the
litigation to conclusion.

The District Court held a hearing on the fairness of the
Settlement on June 3, 2009.

St. Paul, Minn.-based 3M Company is a manufacturer, technology
innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and
services. It manages its operations in six operating business
segments: Industrial and Transportation, Health Care, Consumer
and Office, Safety, Security and Protection Services, Display
and Graphics and Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ontario Local to Pay $87.5T for Handling Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Krishan Judge, the owner of an old commercial building in
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, and his Cambridge-based firm,
1604945 Ontario Inc., were issued total fines of CAD87,500 after
workers renovating his building were put in danger of inhaling
asbestos, The Record reports.

Mr. Judge was fined CAD10,000 and the Company, which owns the
building, was fined CAD70,000 for violating the Occupational
Health and Safety Act.

In addition, Mr. Judge and the Company were assessed victim
surcharge fines of 25 percent, pushing the total penalty to
CAD87,500.

Mr. Judge pleaded guilty to the charges during a hearing in the
Ontario Court of Justice in Kitchener.

The incident, which occurred in June 2007, led to the evacuation
of all tenants in the building, some for more than three months,
while others left permanently.

Mr. Judge was charged by the Ministry of Labour after workers
began renovating the building, the former Boehmer Box warehouse,
at 283 Duke St. W. near Breithaupt Street.

Soon after, the Ministry received a complaint that workers were
not aware they were handling insulation that contained asbestos.

Darrel Hawreliak, a lawyer who represented Mr. Judge in the
case, said his client hired an environmental consultant and
cleanup company when he became aware of the asbestos problem.

Mr. Hawreliak said Mr. Judge pleaded guilty to the charge of
failing to conduct a study of the building for harmful
substances.

Mr. Judge bought the building in 2004. The building currently
houses about 30 tenants.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Pavilion, Balkema Cited in Waste Handling Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Department of Environment Quality issued citations
to Pavilion Township and Balkema Excavating Inc. for violations
over the demolition of two houses and a garage containing
asbestos and then burning the debris, the Kalamazoo Gazette
reports.

The DEQ said the township and county Commissioner Jeff Balkema,
R-Pavilion Township, failed to notify state officials of the
planned demolition of the vacant homes and garage on East O
Avenue. DEQ spokesman Bob McCann said the notification was
necessary so the structures could be evaluated for asbestos.

Mr. McCann added the DEQ's Air Quality Division and its Office
of Criminal Investigations is continuing to probe the incident
to determine whether any other violations occurred.

Mr. Balkema, who owns Balkema Excavating and was first elected
to the county board in 2002, and Pavilion Township Supervisor
Patrick White, both declined to comment for this report. Mr.
White has been Pavilion supervisor since 1981.

Mr. White, Mr. Balkema and Luanne McClain, a member of JCB Land
V LLC, which owned the properties that were demolished, were
notified of the violations in a May 29, 2009 letter from Robert
Christmas, an environmental quality analyst with the DEQ. A copy
of the letter, obtained by the Kalamazoo Gazette, shows the
DEQ's Air Quality Division inspected properties at 5150, 5190
and 5246 East O Ave. on April 23, 2009 after receiving a
complaint.

Mr. Christmas' letter said township officials had ordered that
structures at the three addresses be demolished and hired Mr.
Balkema's company to do the work. In the letter, Mr. Christmas
said in a phone conversation with Mr. Balkema on April 21, 2009
he learned the DEQ had not been properly notified of the
demolition. The letter said Mr. Balkema then was "told
specifically that the materials could not be burned on site."

However, during an April 23, 2009 inspection, Mr. Christmas said
state officials found that houses at 5190 East O Ave. and 5246
East O Ave. "had been demolished and burned." Mr. Christmas said
a garage at 5190 East O Ave. also had been demolished and
burned, according to the letter.

Based on the findings, Mr. Christmas' letter cites eight
violations of the National Emission Standard for Asbestos. Mr.
McCann said JCB Land, the township and Mr. Balkema's company are
equally liable for the violations.

The letter asked the three parties to correct the violations and
to submit a written response by June 19, 2009. A letter Ms.
McClain provided to the Gazette, dated June 17, 2009, shows she
replied to Mr. Christmas telling him she was at the East O
Avenue properties on April 21, 2009 and saw the burning of
debris. She said in the letter that Mr. White, Mr. Balkema, two
to three of Mr. Balkema's employees, a sergeant from the
Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Office and employees of Laraway &
Sons House Moving were present at the time.

Ms. McClain confirms in the letter that she reported the
activity to the DEQ that same day, April 21, 2009.

As part of the state probe, Mr. McCann said investigators are
trying to determine whether the burning of the debris occurred
before or after Mr. Balkema's April 21, 2009 phone conversation
with Mr. Christmas.

Mr. McCann said the township plans to demolish a third house, at
5150 East O Ave., and has submitted proper notification to the
DEQ.

Documents filed in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court show the
properties at the three addresses on East O Avenue have been the
subject of ongoing court proceedings involving Pavilion
Township, Ms. McClain, JCB Land and other individuals.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Balkema Excavating Inc.
1500 River St.
Kalamazoo, Mich. 49048
United States
Tel. No.: (269)345-5289
Fax: (269)345-1137


                            *********

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  * * *