CAR_Public/090724.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 145

                           Headlines

AG-MART PRODUCE: Faces Farmworkers' Suits in Florida Over Wages
ALTA CITRUS: Faces Farmworkers' FLSA Violations Suit in Florida
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Kansas Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
C & B FARMS: Faces Migrant Farmworkers' Suit in Fla. Over Wages
CAPITAL GROWTH: Nebraska Court Approves Settlement in "Brehm"

CROUSE HOSPITAL: Faces N.Y. FLSA Litigation Over Overtime Pay
FAXTON-ST. LUKE'S: Still Faces N.Y. ERISA, FLSA Violations Suit
GAMING PARTNERS: Second Amended "Kaplan" Lawsuit Pending in Nev.
GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Trim Claims in AdWords Lawsuit
KADANT INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit Pending

MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Second Circuit Affirms Nixing of N.Y. Suit
NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Cancer Risk of Hot Dogs
NCAA: Hausfeld LLP Sues on Behalf of Former Student Athletes
NEW MOTION: Continues to Dispute Claims Over Marketing Practices
SEARS HOLDINGS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation

SPARK NETWORKS: "Adelman" Lawsuit Dismissed in November 2008
ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces ERISA, FLSA Suit in N.Y. Over Overtime Pay
STATION CASINOS: Nevada Court Dismisses "Lukevich" Labor Lawsuit
TRIBUNE CO: Del. Judge Denies Bid to Pursue Pay Discrepancy Case
VELOCITY EXPRESS: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for Contractors' Lawsuit

VELOCITY EXPRESS: Still in Talks to Settle Consolidated Lawsuit
VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Narducci"
WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Judge Approves $35M Litigation Settlement
WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Deal
YUM! BRANDS: August 11 Trial Set for "Archila" Lawsuit v. KFC

YUM! BRANDS: Dec. 16 Trial Set for Judgment Bid in Moeller Suit
YUM! BRANDS: "Hardiman" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell
YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit Consolidated with Suits v. Taco Bell
YUM! BRANDS: "Medlock" Suit Consolidated w, Suits v. Taco Bell
YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell

YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability
YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 25 Hearing Set for Calif. RGMs Certification
YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Faces "Widjaja" Wage and Hour Lawsuit


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Suit Filing

TRONOX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Grants Ruling in Silta's Favor
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion in Anderson Case Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment for Caterpillar Upheld in Anderson
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Porter's Bid for Summary Judgment Affirmed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Summary Judgment OK'd in Whitt Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Griffin's Summary Judgment OK'd in Ransford
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Lloyd's Summary Judgment Move
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling in Whipkey Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New York Court Rules on TIG Insurance Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in McKee Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $514MM Settlement at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Floor Layer Gets GBP70T in Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Ex-Handyman's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thurlby Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scarborough Worker's Death Linked to Hazard

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Hall in Illinois Slated for Cleanup
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Harbor Cleanup to Cost Up to EUR300T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Illegal Dumping in Hawaii Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Heighington Countryside
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered at Sinopec Star's Oil Rig

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute on "Dysfunctional Database" Settled
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ryder's Wife's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oliver to Give GBP1T for Every Case Settled
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Sumas River in Wash.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cork City Sues Bakery for Asbestos Breaches

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waseca Library Renovation Estimated at $47T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $450T Needed to Replace Water Lines in Ore.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Somerset Local Gets GBP175T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup to Commence at Bridge in Heuvelton
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona Memorial Closed July 15 Over Hazards

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Removed From Bridgewater Elementary
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAVSG Seeks Probes for Schools in Bradford
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Library in Glasgow
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Darrah Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Bugosh Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in James Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Federal Ins. Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Reverse Ruling in Nationwide Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langone's Claim v. Beloit City Filed July 6
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citro Action v. Kraft Foods, Inc. Underway

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus Dispute on CAD175,280 Bill Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Concord Steam Charged $22,000 for Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chilwell Resident's Death Linked to Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Marcy, N.Y. Center to Cost $420T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Gov't. to Tighten Hazard Regulations

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hampshire Locals Still Waiting for Payout
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dunfermline Local Gets Payout for Injuries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MoD Notes GBP770T Paid to Civilian in 2008
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling in Vicknair Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in PWA Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Parkland Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Enters Ruling in Bailey Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Velto's Motion for Default Judgment Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cohen Claim Filed Against Nashua on March 3

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Multi-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Filed During July 13 to 17 in Ill.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 Actions Filed During July 6-10 in Madison
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tax Benefits Not Assured on Hardie Transfer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidheiny, Cartier Ordered to Stand Trial

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 17 Products in South Korea
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Gets GBP500T in Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Site Cleanup to Commence on August 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. DEP Issues NOV at Ambler Ex-Boiler Site


                           *********

AG-MART PRODUCE: Faces Farmworkers' Suits in Florida Over Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. is facing two purported class-action
lawsuits Florida that was filed by farmworkers who say they were
cheated out of pay, Laura Layden of The Naples Daily News
reports.

The Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, an advocate for
farmworker rights in Florida, filed the suits in June.  These
lawsuits are seeking damages and relief for more than 1,000
workers, who claim they were paid less than the minimum wage
required by law for work they did during the past two seasons,
according to The Naples Daily News.

Seven farmworkers are named plaintiffs in the two cases, which
were both filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.

One suit was captioned, "Chavez-Guillermo et al v. Ag-Mart
Produce, Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00387."  It was filed by Jaime
Chavez-Guillermo, Irma Andres-Hernandez, Apolinar DeJesus and
Rodrigo Rojas-Cristobal.

The second suit is entitled, "Rojas-Cristobal et al v. Ag-Mart
Produce, Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00386."  It was filed by Pablo
Rojas-Cristobal, Alfredo Aristeo-Agustin and Maria Gabriel-
Antonio.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. (Greg@Floridalegal.Org)
          Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
          508 Lucerne Ave.
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Phone: 561/582-3921
          Fax: 561-582-4884


ALTA CITRUS: Faces Farmworkers' FLSA Violations Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alta Citrus, LLC and its owner Carlos G. Gamez are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Laura Layden of The Naples Daily
News reports.

The suit was filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida by Andres Gonzalez-Gonzalez,
Francisco Acevedo-Hernandez and Nicolas Vega-Camacho, under the
caption, "Gonzalez-Gonzalez et al v. Alta Citrus, LLC et al,
Case No. 2:2009-cv-00388."

The case is a class-action brought by three farmworkers, who
were employed through the H-2A guest worker program.  The
farmworkers say that they were paid wages below what is required
by the program and state law, according to The Naples Daily
News.

Earnings were based on a piece-rate and were routinely below the
minimum wage, according to the lawsuit, reports The Naples Daily
News.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. (Greg@Floridalegal.Org)
          Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
          508 Lucerne Ave.
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Phone: 561/582-3921
          Fax: 561-582-4884


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Kansas Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America, N.A. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit
accusing it of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act failing to
pay overtime to some employees, Adam O'Daniel of Charlotte
Business Journal reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 13, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas by Amanda Brawner and Gynon Hamilton,
under the caption, "Brawner et al v. Bank of America, N.A., Case
No. 2:2009-cv-02073."

Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Donelon, P.C. recently filed a
lawsuit against Bank of America, N.A. on behalf of bank tellers
and personal bankers for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime
worked at company bank branches across the country.  The lawsuit
was filed as a collective action, which means that other Bank of
America employees with similar job duties may join the case to
seek their allegedly unpaid wages (Class Action Reporter, July
13, 2009).

In the Complaint, the employees allege that Bank of America
failed to pay bank tellers and personal bankers for overtime
worked.  In particular, employees work more than forty hours in
a work week, but instead of paying them overtime, Bank of
America:

       -- gives them "comp time,"

       -- tells them not to record the hours worked over forty,
          and/or

       -- lowers or "modifies" the tellers' and personal
          bankers' recorded hours by eliminating any overtime
          hours.

Also, the lawsuit alleges that Bank of America automatically
deducts time for meal breaks; however, employees were routinely
required to perform work during unpaid meal breaks (or were not
able to take such breaks).

The failure to pay employees their earned overtime wages is in
direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The
FLSA provides for recovery of unpaid overtime wages, an equal
amount for liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and litigation
costs. Back wages can be sought over either a two- or three-year
period from the date the employee joins the case, depending on
whether the violation is deemed willful.  Both present and
former employees of Bank of America, N.A. may participate in the
case.

For more details, contact:

          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. (ashlea@stuevesiegel.com)
          George Hanson, Esq.
          Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
          460 Nichols Road Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-714-7103
          Fax: 816-714-7101
          Web site: http://www.stuevesiegel.com

          Charles J. Brown, Esq. (kclawyerbrown@yahoo.com)
          Brown & Associates, LLC
          204B North US 169 Highway
          PO Box 125
          Trimble, MO 64492-0125
          Phone: 816-505-4529
          Fax: 816-357-2101

          Daniel William Craig, Esq. (dcraig@dancraigpc.com)
          Donelon, PC
          1125 Grand Blvd.
          Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: 816-221-7772
          Fax: 816-283-3823


C & B FARMS: Faces Migrant Farmworkers' Suit in Fla. Over Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
C & B Farms, Inc. and its owner Charles W. Obern are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by farmworkers who say they
were cheated out of pay, Laura Layden of The Naples Daily News
reports.

The suit was filed on June 18, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida by Joel Aleman, Jose Luis
Ayala, Antonio Bareno, Jesus Bohorquez, Adolfo Carrillo, Melecio
Castellon, Salvador Gomez, Erasto Gutierrez, Sebastian Hernadez,
Antonio Lopez, Edgar Lopez, Crisanto Lopez-Mendoza, Francisco
Lorenzo, Francisco Mejia, Lorenzo Mendez, Mateo Pascual, Domingo
Perez-Gomez, Maria Teresa Pineda, Eleodoro Roblero, Eusebio
Romero, Alma Dalia Santiago and Domingo G. Sebastian, under the
caption, "Aleman et al v. Carrillo et al, Case No. 2:2009-cv-
00385."

The 22 migrant workers say that in the 2008-09 season they were
denied the proper record-keeping and wage statements required by
law and that the grower routinely paid them less than minimum
wage of $6.55 an hour, according to The Naples Daily News.

The class includes more than 200 workers, most of whom aren't
fluent in English and primarily come from Mexico and Central
America, according to the lawsuit, reports The Naples Daily
News.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory Scott Schell, Esq. (Greg@Floridalegal.Org)
          Migrant Farmworker Justice Project
          508 Lucerne Ave.
          Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
          Phone: 561/582-3921
          Fax: 561-582-4884


CAPITAL GROWTH: Nebraska Court Approves Settlement in "Brehm"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska gave
preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in the matter,
"Brehm et al v. Capital Growth Financial et al, Case No. 8:07-
cv-00254-JFB-TDT," which alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act, The Associated Press reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on June 29, 2007 by Willard
F. Brehm, Gladys M. Brehm, Alvena T. Frost, Arlin Stutheit,
Richard Hauberg, Elaine Hauberg, Gary Rademacher and Pamela
Rademacher.

It was filed against Capital Growth Financial, Rebecca Engle,
Brian Schuster, Engle & Schuster Financial, American Capital,
Royal Palm Capital Group, Capital Growth Equity Fund I, Alan
Jacobs, Michael Jacobs, Gerald Parker, John Boyce, Geraldine
Magaldinck, Patrick Harrington, Peter Kirschner and Stark Winter
Schenkein & Co.

The plaintiffs in the case are former clients of brokers Rebecca
Engle and Brian Schuster, who both have pleaded not guilty to
eight felony counts of securities fraud.  Several lawsuits and
arbitration claims have been filed against them and their former
employers accusing Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster of improperly
selling risky investments, according to The Associated Press.

Court documents filed in the lawsuits and criminal complaints
say investors were defrauded out of at least $20 million.

Most of the investors involved in the arbitration or lawsuits
wanted conservative, stable investments with little risk because
they were nearing retirement age or were already retired when
they got involved with Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster.  They say the
brokers instead invested their money in high-risk enterprises in
Florida and never fully explained the risks, reports The
Associated Press.

Ms. Engle and Mr. Schuster, a former Nebraska football player,
worked together in Nebraska City at times between 2000 and 2007.
The brokers were affiliated with at least three different
companies -- Capital Growth Financial LLC, Wachovia Securities
LLC and VSR Financial Services Inc. -- during those years.

The settlement that gained preliminary approval On July 21, 2009
is between the investors and Capital Growth along with two of
the firm's former executives, Alan and Michael Jacobs, The
Associated Press reported.

The settlement terms were listed as confidential in U.S.
District Court in Nebraska.  But a copy of the settlement was
filed in a related case in Florida, where Capital Growth was
trying to collect from its insurer, Quanta Specialty Lines
Insurance Co.

According to those court documents, obtained by The Associated
Press, Quanta will pay $646,160 to the class-action plaintiffs
and another $93,840 to a specific investor who won an
arbitration claim against Capital Growth.  Separately, the
Jacobses will pay $170,000 in a different arbitration claim.

Quanta also agreed to pay $230,000 in legal fees related to the
defense of Capital Growth and the Jacobses.

This settlement does not represent the end of the case because
several other defendants in the class-action lawsuit have not
settled or admitted wrongdoing.  And resolving some of the
lawsuits or arbitration claims only generates additional
litigation, according to The Associated Press.

For more details, contact:

          James B. Cavanagh, Esq. (jcavanagh@liebenlaw.com)
          LIEBEN, WHITTED LAW FIRM
          2027 Dodge Street
          Suite 100, Scoular Building
          Omaha, NE 68102
          Phone: (402) 344-4000
          Fax: (402) 344-4006

          David M. Gaba, Esq. (davegaba@compasslegal.com)
          COMPASS LAW GROUP
          1200 Fifth Avenue
          Suite 1900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 251-5488
          Fax: (206) 734-3854

          Gregory C. Scaglione, Esq.
          (greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com)
          KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM
          1125 South 103rd Street
          Suite 800, One Pacific Place
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Phone: (402) 390-9500
          Fax: (402) 390-9005

               - and -

          John L. Spray, Esq. (JLS@mattsonricketts.com)
          MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM
          134 South 13th Street
          Suite 1200
          Lincoln, NE 68508-1901
          Phone: (402) 475-8433
          Fax: (402) 475-0105


CROUSE HOSPITAL: Faces N.Y. FLSA Litigation Over Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, New York is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit, which claims that employees at the
hospital are owed overtime pay for working through their lunch
breaks, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York by Michele Fengler and
Marianne Meyers, under the caption, "Fengler et al v. Crouse
Health Foundation, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:2008-cv-01221."  It
generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Listed as defendants are: Crouse Health Foundation, Inc., Crouse
Health System, Inc., Crouse Health, Inc., Crouse Health
Hospital, Inc., Crouse Hospital Auxillary, Inc., Paul
Kronenberg, John Bergemann, The Laboratory Alliance of Central
New York, LLC, MDR MRI Technical Services, LLC, MDR/Little Falls
Technical Services, LLC, MDR/Fulton MRI Technical Services, LLC,
MDR/Crouse Technical Services, LLC, Syracuse Endoscopy
Associates, LLC, Plaza Corporation of Central New York, Crouse
Irving Alumnae Association, Crouse-Irving Memorial Physicians'
Office Building, LLC, Crouse Physicians, P.C., Crouse Physician
Organization IPA, Inc., Crouse Medical Group, P.C., Crouse
Irving Management Services and Corporation and Crouse Hospital
401K Retirement Plan.

In general, the suit claims that the hospital has practices and
policies that automatically deduct hourly workers' lunch breaks
from their pay, even when they work during those breaks caring
for patients, according to AP.

For more details, contact:

          Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
          (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin, Thomas Law Firm
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540
          Fax: 585-272-0574


FAXTON-ST. LUKE'S: Still Faces N.Y. ERISA, FLSA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare continues to face a purported
class-action lawsuit in New York generally alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Fair Labor Standards Act, The Associated Press reports.

Joleen Ferris of WKTV reported that the suit was filed by Dawn
Hamelin, Julie Flint, and Rakiesha Griffin in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York on Nov. 13, 2008.
It was brought on behalf of 89 current and former employees of
the healthcare provider (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008).

Captioned, "Hamelin et al v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare et
al., Case No. 6:08-cv-01219-DNH-GJD," the suit is claiming that
the healthcare organization's payroll system automatically and
repeatedly deducted 30 minutes for lunch periods that the busy
healthcare workers never took, according to WKTV.

The suit is "Hamelin et al v. Faxton-St. Luke's Healthcare et
al., Case No. 6:08-cv-01219-DNH-GJD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York, Judge David N.
Hurd, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
          (nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin, Thomas Law Firm
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540
          Fax: 585-272-0574


GAMING PARTNERS: Second Amended "Kaplan" Lawsuit Pending in Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaming Partners International Corp. continues to face a second
amended complaint in the purported class action suit entitled,
"Robert J. Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan
a/k/a Melody Sullivan Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T.
McCullough, Eric P. Endy, Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners
International Corporation."

On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misstatements and omissions by the company, entitled, "Robert J.
Kaplan v. Gerard P. Charlier, Paul S. Dennis, Eric P. Endy,
Alain Thieffry, Elisabeth Carrette, Robert J. Kelly, Charles R.
Henry, Laura McAllister Cox and Gaming Partners International
Corporation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00849-LDG-GWF," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, under.

Mr. Kaplan has been designated by the court as lead plaintiff.

On Feb. 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
deleting several of the originally named defendants, and adding
three others.  The action is now captioned, "Robert J. Kaplan v.
Gerard P. Charlier, Melody J. Sullivan a/k/a Melody Sullivan
Yowell, David Grimes, Charles T. McCullough, Eric P. Endy,
Elisabeth Carrette and Gaming Partners International
Corporation."

The defendants, on April 16, 2008, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was thereafter granted and an
Order was entered dismissing the Amended Complaint without
prejudice on Nove. 18, 2008.  Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint on Jan. 9, 2009.  Defendants Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint was filed on Feb. 27, 2009, and remains
pending, according to the company's May 13, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Gaming Partners International Corp. -- http://www.gpigaming.com/
-- manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment.  The
Company's business activities include the manufacture and/or
supply of gaming chips, table layouts, wheels, playing cards,
dice, gaming furniture and miscellaneous table accessories,
which are used in conjunction with casino table games, such as
blackjack, poker, baccarat, craps and roulette.  It has three
subsidiaries: Gaming Partners International USA, Inc. (GPI USA),
Gaming Partners International SAS (GPI SAS) and GPI Mexicana
S.A. de C.V. (GPI Mexicana).  GPIC's products are sold to
licensed casinos primarily in the United States and Canada,
under the brand names Paulson, Bourgogne et Grasset (B&G), Bud
Jones and T-K.  The Company has existing production facilities
in Las Vegas, Nevada; San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, and Beaune,
France.


GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Agree to Trim Claims in AdWords Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Google Inc. and the plaintiffs in a putative class-action suit
over the Internet giant's popular AdWords program have struck a
deal to end unjust enrichment claims against Google in exchange
for the company's agreement to drop a breach of contract
counterclaim, Law360 reports.

Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California signed off on the deal on July 15, 2009,
according to Law360.


KADANT INC: Appeal to Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissal of a purported class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of a putative class of consumers
who purchased defective decking and railing products
manufactured by Kadant, Inc.'s discontinued operation.

Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a
consumer class action suit brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph
Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative
class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing
products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and
October 2003.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375-
JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the company on
Jan. 7, 2008.  Other defendants named in the suit are Kadant
Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc.

The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other
things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade
practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
punitive damages under various state consumer protection
statutes.  The plaintiffs claim that damages exceed $50 million.

On March 14, 2008, the company and its co-defendants filed
motions to dismiss all counts in the complaint.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court dismissed the complaint in its
entirety, including all claims against the company, Composites
LLC, and the other co-defendant.

On Dec. 4, 2008, the plaintiffs sought to vacate this order of
dismissal in order to amend their complaint, and this motion was
denied without prejudice by the Court on Jan. 12, 2009.

On Jan. 27, 2009, the plaintiffs renewed their motion to vacate
the order of dismissal in order to amend their complaint, which
motion was opposed by the company on Feb. 10, 2009 and denied by
the Court on March 3, 2009.

On March 27, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended notice of
appeal, clarifying an earlier notice and seeking to challenge
the Court's dismissal on Nov. 19, 2008 and the Court's denial on
March 3, 2009.

On April 16, 2009, the Court formally opened the plaintiffs
appeal and on April 23, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss as
untimely that portion of the plaintiffs appeal seeking to
challenge the Nov. 19, 2008 dismissal.  The Court has yet to
schedule a hearing on the plaintiffs' appeal or defendants'
partial motion to dismiss, according to Kadant's May 13, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009..

The suit is "Fisher, et al. v. Liberty Diversified Industries,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph
L. Tauro, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
          (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com)
          Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Phone: 610-891-9880
          Fax: 610-891-9883

               - and -

          Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com)
          Thornton & Naumes LLP
          30th Floor, 100 Summer Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-720-1333
          Fax: 617-720-2445

Representing the defendants are:

          John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com)
          WilmerHale LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: 617-742-9100
          Fax: 617-526-5000

               - and -

          Edward William Little Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com)
          McCarter & English, LLP
          225 Franklin street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: 617-345-7018
          Fax: 617-204-8018


MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Second Circuit Affirms Nixing of N.Y. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Medis Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: MDTL) announced that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the Southern District of New York's dismissal of the putative
class action initiated against Medis and its former CEO, among
others.  Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New
York had dismissed the case captioned, "Medis Investor Group v.
Medis Technologies Ltd. on August 18, 2008."

     Medis had vigorously denied any allegations of wrongdoing,
and is gratified by the Second Circuit's decision.

Medis Technologies Ltd. -- http://www.medistechnologies.com--
headquartered in New York, is the first company in the world to
market a personal and portable liquid fuel cell capable of
providing electrical power to the mobile electronics
marketplace.  The Medis fuel cell features a patented,
proprietary fuel formulation that utilizes borohydride to
generate electricity upon activation; it is safe, clean, silent,
and recyclable.  First generation products include the Medis 24-
7 Power Pack; 24-7 Xtreme Portable Power Solution; and the Medis
Fuel Cell Power Emergency Kit.


NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Cancer Risk of Hot Dogs
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Three New Jersey residents are suing Nathan's Famous, Kraft
Foods/Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, Con Agra Foods, and Marathon
Enterprises for failing to warn consumers that hot dogs increase
the danger of colorectal cancer.  The action comes in the wake
of landmark scientific studies linking hot dogs and similar
meats to colon cancer.

     The class-action consumer fraud lawsuit, which is being
filed July 22 in Superior Court in Essex County, seeks to compel
all five companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot
dog packages sold in New Jersey. The labels would read "Warning:
Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk
of cancer."

     The nonprofit Cancer Project is filing the suit on behalf
of John O'Donnell, Ruthann Hilland, and Michele DeScisciolo, who
purchased hot dogs made by the companies without being made
aware that processed meat products are a cause of colorectal
cancer.

     "Just as tobacco causes lung cancer, processed meats are
linked to colon cancer," says Neal Barnard, M.D., president of
the Cancer Project.  "Companies that sell hot dogs are well
aware of the danger, and their customers deserve the same
information."

     The lawsuit is based on the findings of a landmark report
from the American Institute for Cancer Research, based on 58
separate scientific studies, showing that just one 50-gram
serving of processed meat (about the amount in one hot dog)
consumed daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer, on
average, by 21 percent.  Every year, about 150,000 Americans are
diagnosed with colorectal cancer; approximately 50,000 die of
it.

     In March, the National Cancer Institute published a study
of more than half a million people showing that red and
processed meat intake is associated with a higher risk of dying
from cancer and cardiovascular disease.


NCAA: Hausfeld LLP Sues on Behalf of Former Student Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------
     Hausfeld LLP announced the filing of a federal class action
lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) on behalf of former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and
a class of thousands of former NCAA Division I men's basketball
and football players.

     The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleges that the NCAA
has illegally deprived former student-athletes from receiving
any compensation for the use of their images and likenesses in
numerous revenue-generating formats, including DVD sales and
rentals, photograph sales, video games, "stock footage" clips
sold to corporate advertisers, jersey and other apparel sales,
and rebroadcasts of "classic" games.

     Class representative Ed O'Bannon was named the Most
Outstanding Player in the 1995 NCAA basketball tournament, in
which he led his team to the national championship.  Mr.
O'Bannon's image is currently utilized in numerous DVDs and
photographs offered for sale and rental by the NCAA and its
business partners, in stock footage available for sale to
corporate advertisers, and in a basketball video-game licensed
by the NCAA.  Mr. O'Bannon's games also appear on television as
part of the rebroadcast of "classic" games.

     "College sports has become a multi-billion dollar business
due to thousands of former student-athletes like myself.  I'm
participating in this case to stand up on behalf of all former
players who have been treated unfairly," said Mr. O'Bannon.  "It
is not about personal gain for me, but a matter of basic
fairness."

     The Complaint seeks injunctive relief that will enjoin the
NCAA from its alleged anticompetitive practices and protect
students in the future.  Plaintiffs also seek damages for all
those former Division I men's basketball and football players
whose images have been licensed or sold by Defendants, their co-
conspirators, and/or their licensees in the last four years.

     "No one has a right to own or control another person's
image or likeness for eternity without providing fair
compensation," said Michael D. Hausfeld, Chairman of Hausfeld
LLP.  "Former student athletes should have a voice in how their
own images or likenesses -- once they are no longer students --
are used throughout their lifetime."


NEW MOTION: Continues to Dispute Claims Over Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Motion, Inc. continues to dispute allegations concerning the
company's marketing practices associated with some of its
services billed and delivered via wireless carriers.

The company is named in two class action lawsuits, in Florida
and California, involving these allegations.

In one of these matters, the company has received a Summary
Judgment on its Motion to Dismiss related to a number of the
allegations made in the original complaint.

The company has accrued for the related costs through purchase
accounting in the amount of $0.275 million in connection with
these matters, according to the company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

New York-based New Motion, Inc. -- http://www.atrinsic.com/--
doing business as Atrinsic, Inc., is a digital advertising and
entertainment network in the United States.  Atrinsic is
organized around two divisions: Networks, which offers service
online marketing and distribution, and Entertainment that offers
its content direct to users.


SEARS HOLDINGS: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class-action
lawsuit by Kmart Corp. shareholders for failing to back up
allegations that top officers of the big box retailer -- now
part of Sears Holding Corp. -- concealed the true value of the
company's real estate assets, suppressing the company's stock
price, Law360 reports.

The motion to dismiss the purported class-action lawsuit,
entitled, "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," remains pending (Class
Action Reporter, June 15, 2009).

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --
each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.
Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class
of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or
after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the
2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of
Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,
which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a
consolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice
defendants' motion to dismiss.  After taking some additional
discovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the Court.  On March 17, 2009, the Court
heard arguments on the pending motion.  The parties await a
ruling, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 2, 2009.

The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331

          Mark Casser Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337

               - and -

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7040
          Fax: 302-622-7100

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000


SPARK NETWORKS: "Adelman" Lawsuit Dismissed in November 2008
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit filed against Spark Networks, PLC,
which alleges violations of the California Dating Services Act,
was dismissed in November 2008, according to the company's July
21, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Nov. 14, 2003, Jason Adelman filed a nationwide class action
complaint against the company in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court based on an alleged violation of California Civil Code
section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

The complaint included allegations that the company is a dating
service as defined by the applicable statutes and, as an alleged
dating service, the company is required to provide language in
contracts that allow:

      -- members to rescind their contracts within three days;

      -- reimbursement of a portion of the contract price if the
         member dies during the term of the contract; and

      -- members to cancel their contracts in the event of
         disability or relocation.

Causes of action include breach of applicable state and federal
laws, fraudulent and deceptive business practices, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff sought remedies including declaratory relief,
restitution, actual damages although not quantified, treble
damages and punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
The case also sought to certify a nationwide class action based
on their complaints.  Because it was a class action, it was
assigned to the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation
Program.

Mediation occurred in "Adelman" in 2004, but did not result in a
settlement.  A post-mediation status conference was held on July
16, 2004.  At that status conference, the court suggested that
the parties agree to a bifurcation of the liability issue.  The
purpose of the bifurcation is to allow the court to determine
whether as a matter of law the California Dating Services Act
applies to the company.

In this way, if the court determines that the CDS Act is
inapplicable, all further expenses associated with discovery and
class certification can be avoided.

The court has permitted limited discovery including document
requests and interrogatories, the parties will each be permitted
to take one deposition without further leave of the court, the
parties will be allowed to designate expert witnesses, and the
court will conduct a trial on the issue of the applicability of
the CDS Act to the company's business in the spring of 2006.

Although some written discovery relating to the bifurcated trial
has been completed, depositions have not yet been completed.  A
second mediation occurred in "Adelman" on Feb. 10, 2006.

The mediation resumed soon afterward, but did not result in a
settlement.  The bifurcated trial on the issue of the
applicability of the CDS Act to the company's business in the
Adelman action was set for Sept. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 8, 2006, the court granted the company's application to
bifurcate the trial of the issue of actual injury or damages and
set the trial for Aug. 17, 2006.

The court determined at the Bifurcated Damages Trial that Mr.
Adelman did not suffer any actual injury or damages, thus Mr.
Adelman's claims were dismissed and a judgment was entered to
award attorneys' fees and costs to the company.

On Jan. 31, 2007, the Court awarded the company $50,000 in legal
fees.

The company filed an appeal of the attorneys' fees award in
order to seek an award of all of the attorneys' fees incurred in
this matter.  Although the company agrees that the Court
properly granted its Attorneys' Fees Motion, it believes that
the Court should have awarded the company attorneys' fees in the
full amount it requested, approximately $390,000, and not the
amount actually awarded, $50,000.

Mr. Adelman has cross-appealed in an attempt to vacate the
attorneys' fees award entirely.  The Appellate Court heard oral
argument on Feb. 19, 2008.

On March 20, 2008, the Appellate Court issued an Order Vacating
Submission in response to a letter dated March 17, 2008, from
the Court of Appeals in which the Court asked to be briefed on
certain additional issues.  Briefs were filed by both parties on
April 23, 2008.

The matter has been submitted to the Court for decision and the
company expects a decision within July 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, June 26, 2008).

On Aug. 13, 2008, the company and Mr. Adelman entered into a
confidential settlement and release agreement.  On Nov. 3, 2008,
the Court formally entered a dismissal of the entire action with
prejudice pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.

Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a provider
of online personals services in the U.S. and internationally.
The Web sites enable adults to meet online, participate in a
community and form relationships.  The features of the Company's
Websites include such as detailed profiles, onsite email
centers, real-time chat rooms, instant messaging services and
offline singles events.  The Websites include
http://www.Jdate.com,http://www.AmericanSingles.com,
http://www.BlackSingles.com,and http://www.ChristianMingle.com.
It also operates several international Web sites and maintains
operations in the United States and Israel.


ST. JOSEPH'S: Faces ERISA, FLSA Suit in N.Y. Over Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, New York is
facing a purported class-action lawsuit, which claims that
employees at the hospital are owed overtime pay for working
through their lunch breaks, The Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on Nov. 13, 2008 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York by Robert Colozzi, Tammy
Aiken and Christine Correia, under the caption, "Colozzi et al
v. St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center et al, Case No. 5:2008-
cv-01220."  It generally alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 and the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Listed as defendants are: St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center,
St. Joseph's Hospital, Theodore M. Pasinski, Frank Panzetta, St.
Joseph's Health Center Properties Inc., St. Joseph's Hospital
Health Center Foundation, Inc., Auxillary of St. Joseph's
Hospital Health Center, Inc., Franciscan Health Support
Services, LLC, Franciscan Health Support, Inc., Franciscan
Management Services, Inc., Franciscan Associates, Inc., Alumnae
of St. Joseph's Hospital Training School for Nurses, Alumni
Association St. Joseph's College of Nursing Inc., St. Joseph's
Health Center Medical Office Building, LLC, St. Joseph's
Hospital Foundation-Elmira, N.Y. Inc., Health Care Management
Administrators, Inc., Sisters of St. Francis of the Neumann
Communities and St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center Employees
401K Savings and Retirement Plan and Trust.

In general, the suit claims that the hospital has practices and
policies that automatically deduct hourly workers' lunch breaks
from their pay, even when they work during those breaks caring
for patients, according to AP.

For more details, contact:

          Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
          (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com)
          Dolin, Thomas Law Firm
          693 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Phone: 585-272-0540
          Fax: 585-272-0574


STATION CASINOS: Nevada Court Dismisses "Lukevich" Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed a
massive proposed class-action lawsuit against Station Casinos
Inc., alleging current and former Station employees are owed
wages for unpaid hours they claimed to have worked, Steve Green
of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

In dismissing the lawsuit on July 16, 2009, Judge Larry Hicks of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada cited a
little-known jurisdictional rule for class-action lawsuits,
according to The Las Vegas Sun.

The rule is called the "home-state controversy exception" and
says federal courts must decline jurisdiction in such cases when
two-thirds or more of the members of the proposed class-action,
and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in which
the lawsuit was filed, reports The Las Vegas Sun.

In this case, filed in 2008, the jurisdiction issue came up in
March, court records show.  Attorneys for Station Casinos
asserted the home-state controversy argument and prevailed.
That's because of the 20,219 people on the list of potential
class-action plaintiffs, 18,899 have a Nevada address, The Las
Vegas Sun reported.

It was previously reported that the purported class-action
complaint against the company was initiated on Feb. 4, 2008, by
former Station Casinos employees Josh Luckevich, Cathy Scott and
Julie St. Cyr (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2009).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company:

       -- failed to pay its employees for all hours worked,
       -- failed to pay overtime,
       -- failed to timely pay wages, and
       -- unlawfully converted certain earned wages.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of
the lawsuit, compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000,
punitive damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
the plaintiffs' counsel.

The company filed a response to the complaint on March 10, 2008.
The parties are currently in the discovery process.

The company has yet to file a response to the complaint,
according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Josh Lukevich v. Station Casinos, Inc., Case No.
2:08-cv-00141-LRH-LRL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Larry R. Hicks, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Kelly McInerney, Esq. (kelly@mcinerneylaw.net)
          McInerney & Jones
          9460 Double R Blvd., Suite 103
          Reno, NV 89521
          Phone: 775-853-6440
          Fax: 775-853-6445

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq. (matt@righettilaw.com)
          Righetti Law Firm, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: 415-983-0900
          Fax: 415-397-9005

Representing the defendants is:

          Joanna S. Kishner, Esq. (joanna.kishner@dlapiper.com)
          DLA Piper US LLP
          3960 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Phone: 702-677-3900
          Fax: 702-737-1612


TRIBUNE CO: Del. Judge Denies Bid to Pursue Pay Discrepancy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former Tribune Co. account executive, who claims she was fired
for complaining about alleged pay discrepancies and due to her
age, has lost a bid to lift the automatic stay in the media
giant's bankruptcy case to pursue a putative class-action suit,
Law360 reports.

On July 21, 2009, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware denied Jayne Clement's
motion, citing the plaintiff's failure to establish cause for
relief, according to Law360.


VELOCITY EXPRESS: Dec. 2009 Trial Set for Contractors' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A December 2009 trial is set for a purported class-action suit
by independent contractors against Velocity Express Corp. and
its subsidiary, CD&L Inc., according to the company's May 12,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009.

In connection with the CD&L acquisition, the company assumed the
defense of a class action suit filed in December 2003, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, seeking to certify a class of California based
independent contractors from December 1999 to the present.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for various employment
related claims, including, but not limited to overtime, minimum
wage claims, and claims for unreimbursed business expenses.

CD&L filed an Answer to their Complaint on Jan. 2, 2004 denying
all allegations.

Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification was granted in part
and denied in part on Jan. 28, 2007.

During the three and nine-months ended March 28, 2009, the
company recorded benefits of approximately $0.5 million and $1.5
million resulting from changes in the estimated settlement
liability related to this matter.

Discovery on this matter is ongoing and a trial date has been
adjourned to December 2009.

Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of
providing time definite ground package delivery services.


VELOCITY EXPRESS: Still in Talks to Settle Consolidated Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Express Corp. remains in settlement discussions with
the plaintiffs in the consolidated class-action lawsuit filed by
independent contractor drivers.

Nine purported class-action lawsuits were filed against the
company between December 2007 and July 2008.

These suits, which were filed by a very small group of
independent contractor drivers in six different states, seek
unspecified damages for various unsubstantiated employment
related claims.

In response to the proliferation of these cases, the company's
outside counsel filed a motion to have the cases consolidated
pursuant to federal multi-district litigation rules.

On Oct. 8, 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the company's motion and ordered that the
cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings.  The Panel
ordered that the cases be consolidated in the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.

At this point, the cases have all been transferred to the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, for further proceedings in that
court.

A non-binding mediation of these cases took place on April 14,
2009, and settlement discussions are ongoing.  Unrelated
discovery and motion practice is presently stayed.

Velocity has filed answers rejecting all employment based
allegations of the various complaints, according to the
company's May 12, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009.

Velocity Express Corp. -- http://www.velocityexp.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of
providing time definite ground package delivery services.


VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Narducci"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a
district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the matter, "Narducci v. Bellwood, Vlg of, et al.
Case No. 1:01-cv-01425," which names the mayor of Bellwood,
Illinois, and its police chief as defendants, The Courthouse
News Service reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 28, 2001 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by former village
comptroller Nicholas Narducci against Mayor Donald Lemm, Police
Chief Gregory Moore and other village officials, accusing them
of surreptitiously recording phone calls from the village's
finance department.

Mr. Narducci sued the officials under the U.S. Constitution and
a federal wiretapping law, claiming the village should have
notified him and other finance employees when it began recording
five finance department phone lines in 1994, according to The
Courthouse News Service.

The recording plan had been proposed by former comptroller Joe
Lagen, who was concerned about the growing number of threats
from angry residents whose water services had been turned off,
usually for failure to pay utility bills.

Officials also thought the emergency recording system would help
root out abuse of village phones for personal calls and would
shed light on complaints about finance department employees
being rude to callers.

A few years after Mr. Narducci replaced Mr. Lagen, he said he
learned about the illegal recording scheme, reports The
Courthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service reported that Judge Milton I. Shadur
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
dismissed the former comptroller's state-law claims and any
federal constitutional claims involving calls made after Mr.
Narducci learned about the recording in February 2000. However,
Judge Shadur allowed the class-action case to proceed on the
remaining illegal search and wiretap claims.

The defendants appealed, asserting their immunity to the class-
action allegations.

However, the Chicago-based federal appeals court refused to
reverse Judge Shadur's ruling.  The court said, "Given that the
allegations in this case include the recording of every phone
call, for at least a six-year period, with no notice to the
affected employees.  Mr. Narducci has presented sufficient
evidence of a violation of the Fourth Amendment to withstand
summary judgment."  It added, the employees' privacy rights were
clearly established at the time, The Courthouse News Service
reports.

In addition, the court also dismissed the officials' motion for
summary judgment on the remaining wiretapping claims, saying
they failed to raise that defense in their initial appeal,
according to The Courthouse News Service.

"Lemm and Moore were the moving party for summary judgment; if
they felt entitled to terminate the proceedings because of
qualified immunity, they were required to bring that issue to
the court's attention," according to the appeals court.

The court further said, "Finally, as the district court pointed
out, the present case has been litigated since 2001, while the
motions for summary judgment were submitted in 2006; five years
is ample time for the defendants to develop the issue and
present it in their initial motion."

A copy of the court ruling is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fce


WAL-MART STORES: Wash. Judge Approves $35M Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector granted
final approval on July 20, 2009 to $35 million settlement that
resolves a class action lawsuit brought in 2001 by Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. workers in Washington State who alleged they were
deprived of meal and rest breaks and worked off the clock at
Walmart stores and Sam's Clubs.

     "We are pleased that Judge Spector found the settlement is
fair, adequate, and reasonable," notes Class Counsel Beth
Terrell of Seattle law firm Terrell Marshall & Daudt PLLC.  The
settlement provides for monetary compensation and injunctive
relief.  The injunctive relief benefits all employees by
requiring Walmart to continue to take steps to prevent wage and
hour violations at its 50 stores and clubs in Washington, steps
that include the use of new technologies and compliance tools.
As for monetary compensation, employees who fill out a simple
claim form are eligible to receive a cash payment.

     "We encourage all employees and former employees who have
not done so to fill out a claim form if they want a share of the
settlement proceeds. The claim form only takes a few minutes to
fill out," states Rachel Geman of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Class Counsel.  Ms. Terrell further notes that
"Employees still have until August 19th to submit a claim form
and both Class Counsel and a claims administrator are available
to help class members with any questions."

     "This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations are
not representative of the company we are today," said Daphne
Moore, Walmart spokesperson.  "Our policy is to pay associates
for every hour worked and to make rest and meal breaks
available.  This is a commitment we make to the more than 1.4
million associates who choose to work for Walmart and serve our
customers and members every day.  We have worked hard to have
the right communication, processes, and systems in place to help
ensure we live up to this commitment."

Claim forms are available at http://www.walmartwageswa.comor by
calling 1-877-867-6208.


WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Grants Attorney Fees in BAR/BRI Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted attorney fees to two law firms
that objected to the $49 million settlement in an antitrust
class-action suit against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan,
Inc., the publisher of the BAR/BRI bar examination review
course, Amanda Bronstad of The National Law Journal reports.

However, Judge Real, who originally had denied fees to the
objectors, granted significantly less than the attorneys had
requested.  He also refused to grant fees to several pro se
objectors, according to The National Law Journal.

On July 13, 2009, Judge  Real granted $8,125 to John W. Davis of
the Law Office of John W. Davis in San Diego, who represented
eight objectors, and $16,250 to C. Benjamin Nutley of Kendrick &
Nutley in Pasadena, Calif., who represented five objectors,
reports The National Law Journal.

Mr. Davis had been seeking $42,655 in fees and $884 in costs;
Mr. Nutley initially requested $108,000 in fees.

The judge's ruling was in connection to an issue that had been
remanded to his court by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The 2007 settlement came in a case filed on behalf of 300,000
class members who claimed to have overpaid, on average, about
$1,000 for BAR/BRI's bar review course because its parent
company, West Publishing Corp., conspired to monopolize the
market in a deal with Kaplan Inc., which sells preparatory
courses for the Law School Aptitude Test, reports The National
Law Journal.

The class sought $300 million, triple the estimated antitrust
damages.

Before the settlement was finalized, several objectors raised
questions about the incentive awards, valued at $25,000 to
$75,000, that five of the seven class representatives were to
receive as part of the deal, The National Law Journal reported.

Matthew Hirsch of Law.com previously reported that U.S. District
Judge Manuel Real approved the $49 million settlement of the
BAR/BRI class-action case on July 9, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, July 19, 2007).

However, the judge rejected the incentive awards.  He also
refused to grant attorney fees to the lawyers for the objectors.

In April 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Real's decision
on the fees, concluding that the objectors' efforts in raising
the incentive award issue deserved some relief of legal costs,
according to The National Law Journal.

The appeals court specifically upheld a $49 million settlement
in an antitrust class-action lawsuit against West Publishing
Corp. and Kaplan, Inc. over test preparation courses for law
school admissions and the bar exam, though the court has
reversed and remanded an order approving attorneys' fees for the
plaintiffs' counsel.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued it decision on April 23, 2009 (Class Action
Reporter, April 28, 2009).

                        Case Background

The case was filed by former law students in California,
Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all
persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar
Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006).

Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a
BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring
with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full-
service bar review courses.  Kaplan is an international provider
of educational and career services.

BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to
assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or
more bar examinations required by each state and the District of
Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law.

Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct,
consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than
they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007).

In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of
the litigation.  On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement
agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a
procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29,
2007).

Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service
bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. Where
BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up
to the present time.  Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 to
make a claim.  Objections are due May 21, 2007.

As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish
a $49 million fund.  The settlement also provides for other non-
monetary relief.  Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30%
of the total amount they paid for a bar review course from the
fund.

BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net:

                http://www.barbri-classaction.com

The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel
L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eliot G. Disner, Esq.
          Noah E Jussim, Esq.
          McGuireWoods, LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8299
          Fax: 310-315-8298
          e-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com

          Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq.
          Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq.
          Colleen M. Regan, Esq.
          Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-315-8200
          e-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com

          - and -

          Joanna Shally, Esq.
          Shearman and Sterling
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-848-4700

Representing the defendants are:

          Edward A. Klein, Esq.
          Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif
          1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Phone: 310-500-3500

          Stuart N. Senator, Esq.
          Lee Scott Taylor, Esq.
          Munger Tolles & Olson
          355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl.,
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Phone: 213-683-9100
          e-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com

          - and -

          Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq.
          Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq.
          Brian A. Sun, Esq.
          Jones Day
          555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-489-3939
          e-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or
                  cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com

For more details, contact:

          BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator
          P.O. Box 24639
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Phone: 1-888-285-7850
          e-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com


YUM! BRANDS: August 11 Trial Set for "Archila" Lawsuit v. KFC
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 11, 2009 trial has been set for a putative class-action
suit styled, "Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," in
California state court, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s July
21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the class-action suit was filed in California
state court on behalf of all California hourly employees
alleging various California Labor Code violations, including
rest and meal break violations, overtime violations, wage
statement violations and waiting time penalties.

KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 7, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case will not go
forward as a class action.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of civil
penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act as a
representative of other "aggrieved employees."  Discovery is now
complete, and a trial date has been set for Aug. 11, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Dec. 16 Trial Set for Judgment Bid in Moeller Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion for summary judgment  in a class-action
lawsuit styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp. is scheduled
for Dec. 16, 2009.

Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in the
class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On Aug.4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California (the "California Restaurants")
accessible to the class.

The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural
and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to
the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil Rights
Act (Unruh Act), and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA).

They have requested:

   (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell
       to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations;

   (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of
       the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

   (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum
statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh
Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the
class.  They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The District Court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals
with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for
mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were
denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of
disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California
Restaurants.  The class includes claims for injunctive relief
and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  The parties are currently proceeding with the
equitable relief stage of this action.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and
again on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution.  The court
granted Taco Bell's request for an extension to file its motion
for summary judgment on the ADA claims until Oct. 20, 2009.  A
hearing on the motion is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2009.

Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potential
architectural and structural compliance issues at the
restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws, according to the company's July 21, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: "Hardiman" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et
al.,"has been consolidated with other lawsuits in "In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp.,
the company and other related entities.

This lawsuit, styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et
al.," is filed on behalf of Hardiman individually and all other
aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.

The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.

On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding
class-action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in
California very similar to the Medlock case, including
allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods,
improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon termination,
unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200.

On July 25, 2008, Taco Bell removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, and
subsequently filed a notice of related case.

On July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to the same judge as
in the "Medlock" case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to strike the
PAGA claims.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and
Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate
on May 19, 2009.  The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline
of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.
The hearing on any class certification motion is currently
scheduled for January 2011.  Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: "Leyva" Suit Consolidated with Suits v. Taco Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Miriam Leyva vs. Taco
Bell Corp., et al.," has been consolidated with other lawsuits
in "In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
13, 2009.

On June 16, 2008, the "Leyva" lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp.
and the company was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

The case was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other
California hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages
upon discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements,
unfair business practices and wrongful termination and
discrimination.

This case is very similar to the "Medlock" case, accordingly, on
July 3, 2008, Taco Bell filed a notice of related case.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Aug. 20, 2008.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in Los Angeles on
Jan. 23, 2009.  Plaintiff did not oppose removal, and the
parties stipulated to transfer the case to the Eastern District
of California, where the "Medlock" case is pending.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and
Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate
on May 19, 2009.  The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline
of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.
The hearing on any class certification motion is currently
scheduled for January 2011.  Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: "Medlock" Suit Consolidated w, Suits v. Taco Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action styled, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell
Corp.," has been consolidated with other lawsuits in "In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled, "Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California.

The case was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have
worked for the defendants within the last four years and alleges
numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal
and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation
of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Jan. 10, 2008.

On March 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint adding a nationwide FLSA claim for
unpaid overtime.  Taco Bell opposed the motion and on June 10,
2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and
Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate
on May 19, 2009.  The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline
of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.
The hearing on any class certification motion is currently
scheduled for January 2011.  Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: "Naranjo" Suit Consolidated w/ Suits v. Taco Bell
--------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Loraine Naranjo v. Taco
Bell Corp., et al.," has been consolidated with other lawsuits
in "In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions," according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
13, 2009.

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.

The case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all
other California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime,
failure to reimburse for business related expenses, improper
wage statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure
to pay minimum wage and unfair business practices.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Dec. 5, 2008.

Plaintiffs did not oppose removal and agreed to transfer the
case to the Eastern District of California, where the "Medlock"
case is pending.

The company filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which
was denied on Jan. 20, 2009.

Taco Bell moved to consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and
Naranjo matters and the court granted the motion to consolidate
on May 19, 2009.  The consolidated case is styled In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a filing deadline
of Aug. 26, 2010, for motions regarding class certification.
The hearing on any class certification motion is currently
scheduled for January 2011.  Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Nov. 2009 Arbitration Set for Restitution Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
A November 2009 arbitration has been set for liability during a
portion of the alleged restitution policy period in a putative
class action on behalf of general and assistant restaurant
managers of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s LJS concept.

On Nov. 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former LJS restaurant
manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of
himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and
assistant restaurant managers.

Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a
policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS
employees, including Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") and
Assistant Restaurant General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary
or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful
violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company
funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified
its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.

Mr. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Mr. Johnson's suit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On Dec. 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's
claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and
Nick Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated an
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA")
(the "Cole Arbitration").  The Cole Claimants sought a
collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class as
alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlying
claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued
a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute
Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on
a collective or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate
the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South
Carolina.  On Sept. 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class
Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be
certified in the Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather
than as an "opt-in" collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On Jan. 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on Jan. 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth
Circuit's decision was denied on Oct. 7, 2008.

The parties participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, and
again on Feb. 28, 2009, without reaching resolution.
Arbitration on liability during a portion of the alleged
restitution policy period is currently scheduled for November
2009.

LJS expects, based on the rulings issued to date in this matter,
that the Cole Arbitration will more likely than not proceed as
an "opt-out" class action, rather than as an "opt-in" collective
action.  LJS denies liability and is defending the claims in the
Cole Arbitration, according to the company's July 21, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Sept. 25 Hearing Set for Calif. RGMs Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in the
putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of all current
and former Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") against Taco
Bell Corp., a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands, Inc.,
has been continued to Sept. 25, 2009.

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was
filed in Orange County Superior Court.

On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled,
"Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego
County Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to
represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to the
present.

The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour
laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and
seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.

As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in San
Diego County.  Discovery is underway.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal
court in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008.  Plaintiffs have sought to
remand the case back to state court and the court took the
matter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  A hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion has
been continued to Sept. 25, 2009, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Faces "Widjaja" Wage and Hour Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled, "Endang Widjaja vs. Taco
Bell Corp., et al.," is pending, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s July 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 13, 2009.

Taco Bell is a concept of YUM! Brands, Inc.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with the putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against
Taco Bell and the Company.

The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former California
hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individuals
employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers and
alleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,
failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices and
conversion.

This case appears to be duplicative of Taco Bell's pending
consolidated hourly class action case (In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions).

Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court and filed a
notice of related case.

On June 18, 2009, the case was transferred to the Eastern
District of California where the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case is pending and was subsequently transferred to the
same district court judge.

Taco Bell requested that the court consolidate this case with
the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, and the court
deferred its decision pending a noticed motion.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system
of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates
units or they are operated by independent franchisees or
licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements.
In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in
Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Accuray Inc.
NASDAQ: ARAY) common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Initial Public Offering on or about February 7, 2007,
as well as purchasers of the Company's common stock between
February 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint charges Accuray and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act.

     Accuray designs, develops, and sells the CyberKnife system,
an image-guided robotic radio surgery system for the treatment
of solid tumors.  The CyberKnife system combines continuous
image-guidance technology with a compact linear accelerator to
deliver high doses of radiation to a tumor from different
directions.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose material
information concerning the quality and realistic likelihood of
fulfillment of contracts in Accuray's "backlog," a figure
representing the direct revenue that Accuray expects to receive
from the sale and servicing of the CyberKnife system.

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose the following adverse facts:

       -- at the time of Accuray's IPO, Accuray changed its
          definition of backlog to include both contingent and
          non-contingent contracts;

       -- beginning in the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2007
          (at the time of the IPO), Accuray would report backlog
          that consisted of both contingent and non-contingent
          backlog, thereby increasing the total reported
          backlog;

       -- defendants materially overstated the amount of the
          Company's backlog;

       -- Accuray reported as backlog orders for the CyberKnife
          system that did not have a substantially high
          probability of being booked as revenue;

       -- a significant portion of commissions paid to
          CyberKnife sales personnel were earned prior to those
          potential sales being booked as revenue;

       -- Accuray sales personnel entered into contingent
          contracts for CyberKnife systems that did not have a
          substantially high probability of being booked as
          revenue;

       -- Accuray did not have adequate internal controls and
          procedures to ensure that potential orders reported as
          backlog had a substantially high probability of being
          booked as revenue; and

       -- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
          basis for their positive statements about the Company,
          its backlog, earnings, operations and prospects.

     On August 19, 2008, Accuray announced its fiscal fourth
quarter and full year 2008 financial results for the period
ended June 28, 2008 in a press release titled "Accuray Announces
Results for the Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year End 2008; 28 New
Contracts Valued at $115.5 Million Signed in Fourth Quarter."
That same day, Accuray held a conference call with analysts and
reiterated the financial results in the press release and
revealed that Accuray removed another $39 million from backlog.
Thus, Accuray removed approximately $127 million in backlog
during the last three quarters of fiscal 2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Accuray common stock during the Class Period, as
well as purchasers of Accuray common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO on or about February 7, 2007.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site http://www.csgrr.com/cases/accuray/


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical
Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) during the period between May 29,
2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company
failed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's
("FDA") current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP")
requirements; that the Company failed to take corrective
measures to have its manufacturing facilities comply with cGMP
requirements; that the Company failed to remedy known violations
of FDA regulations; that as a result of the foregoing the
Company's ability to secure FDA approval for pending drug
applications was jeopardized; and that as a further result of
the above, the Company would have to recall certain products.

     According to the complaint, on June 25, 2009, after the FDA
announced that U.S. Marshals had seized drug products
manufactured by Caraco from the Company's facilities because of
the Company's failure to comply with the FDA's cGMP
requirements, the value of Caraco's stock declined
significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MTXX) during the period between December 22, 2007 and
June 15, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Matrixx had
received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events regarding
the Zicam Cold Remedy Products; that Matrixx failed to report
these incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to do
so; that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulations
despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its
meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading when made.

     According to the complaint, on June 15, 2009, after the FDA
banned the use of certain zinc-containing Zicam products, the
value of Matrixx's stock declined significantly.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com)
          Brower Piven
          The World Trade Center-Baltimore
          401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
          Baltimore, Maryland 21202
          Phone: 410/332-0030
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com



MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Kendall Law Group Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, announced that a securities class action was filed
against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) on behalf of
investors who purchased stock at artificially inflated prices
between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009.

     According to the complaint, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, defendants failed to
disclose that:

       -- Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious
          adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam
          Cold Remedy Products;

       -- Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA;

       -- Matrixx failed to comply with FDA regulations despite
          repeated assurances of its compliance.

     On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received a
warning letter from the FDA and would withdraw its Zicam Cold
Remedy Products from the market. On this news, the price of
Matrixx stock fell almost 70% on heavy trading volume.

     By September 15, 2009, a Matrixx shareholder must move for
lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation
and participate in important decisions including whether to
accept a settlement and how much of a settlement to accept for
the Class in the action.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq. (hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com)
          Kendall Law Group
          3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Sarraf Gentile LLP announces that on July 17, 2009, a class
action lawsuit was filed against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MTXX) and its top officers.

     The complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona and seeks damages for violations of
the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15,
2009, inclusive.

     Matrixx is a nutrient and drug delivery company that
develops, manufactures and markets delivery systems for
bioactive compounds. According to the complaint, defendants
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the
company's operational well being and future prospects.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose or indicate:

       -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of
          serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the
          Zicam Cold Remedy Products;

       -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the
          FDA despite having an obligation to do so;

       -- that Matrixx failed to comply with FDA regulations
          despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
          statements about meeting FDA regulations were false
          and misleading.

     On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received a
warning letter from the FDA and would withdraw its Zicam Cold
Remedy Products from the market.  On this news, the price of
Matrixx stock fell roughly 70%.

     No class has yet been certified in the action.


For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          11 Hanover Square
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967
          Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/


TRONOX INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     On July 21, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock (Class A or B) of Tronox,
Inc.[OTC:TRXAQ; OTC:TRXBQ] between November 29, 2005 and January
12, 2009 against certain officers and directors of Tronox, Kerr-
McGee Corporation, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and certain
officers and directors of Kerr-McGee pursuant to Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and
78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5].

     The case name is styled, "Shi v. Kerr-McGee Corporation, et
al."

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants fraudulently
concealed Tronox's massive environmental liabilities and
resulting financial problems causing massive losses to innocent
investors while unjustly enriching themselves.

     Kerr-McGee spun-off Tronox into an independent entity in a
two-step process.  First, in November of 2005, Kerr-McGee
generated $225 million in proceeds following the initial public
offering of Tronox at the price of $14.00 per share and retained
control of 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock. Next, in
March of 2006, Kerr-McGee distributed its remaining 56.7% stake
in Tronox to shareholders as Class B shares by way of a
dividend.

     The Complaint further alleges that defendants, at the time
of the IPO, knowingly mislead and misrepresented investors by
materially understating the scope of Tronox's environmental and
tort liabilities.  The Registration Statement, and the
prospectus therein, contained information that was materially
false, misleading and ignored the adverse conditions facing
Tronox.  As is explained in further detail in the Complaint,
Tronox has put forth allegations in its bankruptcy action
(Tronox, Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et al.) that the
Registration Statement was materially misleading and greatly
understated the liabilities that Tronox was burdened with.  The
Defendants continually misled investors throughout the Class
Period by making materially false statements and concealing the
true nature of Tronox's liabilities in numerous press releases
and SEC filings.

     On June 22, 2006, Anadarko made an offer seeking to acquire
Kerr-McGee for $18 billion, which included $16.4 billion in
cash.  On August 10, 2006, the Kerr-McGee shareholders voted to
approve the offer and Kerr-McGee became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Anadarko, and as a result, Anadarko became the
successor-in-interest to Kerr-McGee.

     Eventually, the market was able to uncover what the
Defendants were attempting to conceal, Tronox's environmental
and tort liabilities were in far excess of what had been
represented, and, as a result, Tronox was in financial ruin and
would need to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws therefore
rendering the stockholders' investments virtually worthless.

     In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said
defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied,
to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of
Tronox common stock.  Had plaintiff and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Grants Ruling in Silta's Favor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, upheld the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, which
returned a verdict in favor of M.M. Silta, Inc., in a breach of
contract action involving asbestos filed against Cliffs Erie,
L.L.C. (Cliffs).

The case is styled M.M. Silta, Inc., Plaintiff/Appellee v.
Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.; Cliffs Mining Company, Defendants,
Cliffs Erie, L.L.C., Defendant/Appellant, John Does, Number 1
through 5, Defendants.

Circuit Judges Roger L. Wollman, Myron H. Bright, and Steven M.
Colloton entered judgment in Case No. 08-2620 on July 16, 2009.

Silta brought this breach of contract action against Cliffs,
alleging that Cliffs failed to perform its obligations under two
agreements stemming from reclamation of a Minnesota taconite
mine.

Cliffs is a subsidiary of Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc., an iron ore
producer. In 2002, Cliffs began liquidating the assets of a Hoyt
Lakes, Minn., mine that it had purchased from a bankrupt
competitor.

Stephen DeVaney was charged with selling the equipment on
Cliffs' behalf. Melvin Silta, the owner and primary employee of
Silta, was a frequent customer of Mr. DeVaney's.

Between 2002 and 2006, Mr. Silta purchased hundreds of items
from the mine, paying about US$3.5 million. Mr. Silta operated a
salvage business, wherein he would purchase equipment and resell
it for a profit.

The transaction giving rise to this appeal occurred in June
2004. Mr. Silta approached Mr. DeVaney and proposed purchasing
248 industrial circuit breakers that were located throughout the
mine and used for operating high voltage machinery. Mr. Silta
wrote Cliffs a check for US$2,480 and Mr. DeVaney typed a sales
invoice stating that Silta had purchased 248 "MS 13 Asbestos
containing breakers."

The breakers remained undisturbed and unnoticed until January
2006, when Mr. DeVaney told Mr. Silta to remove his equipment
from the mine because of an impending sale of the property to a
third party, PolyMet Mining, Corp. Later that month, Mr. Silta
presented his sales invoice and attempted to move the breakers,
but Cliffs told Mr. Silta that the breakers had been sold to
PolyMet, along with a mining facility that Polymet had
purchased.

Cliffs thereafter sent Mr. Silta a US$2,480 refund check, which
he refused, insisting that he wanted the breakers. Cliffs
continued to reject Mr. Silta's claim, arguing that he had
abandoned the breakers by not removing them at an earlier date.

By the time the case went to trial, both Mr. Silta and Cliffs
had discovered that the breakers contained only a small quantity
of non-friable asbestos that did not require abatement.

In addition, Mr. Silta introduced evidence that the breakers had
substantial value. He cited several trade journals indicating
that similar breakers sold for between US$23,000 and US$65,000
each, and he pointed to the fact that PolyMet was apparently
using the breakers to operate mining equipment at the Hoyt Lakes
facility.

Cliffs countered that Mr. Silta had abandoned the breakers by
leaving them on Cliffs' property for 19 months. Alternatively,
Cliffs argued that Mr. Silta's failure to abate the asbestos or
remove the breakers was a material breach of contract that
excused its own performance.

Cliffs also maintained that, if it had breached the agreement,
the proper measure of Mr. Silta's damages was the scrap value of
the breakers (about US$500 per breaker) because the parties had
not contemplated that the breakers might be resold.

The jury concluded that Cliffs had breached the contract, and it
awarded Mr. Silta US$27,500 for each of the 248 breakers. The
district court denied Cliffs' post-trial motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a new trial, and it added prejudgment interest
of US$509,166.25, for a total judgment of US$7,329,166.25.

Louis A. Chaiten, Esq., Jeffery D. Ubersax, and Peter G.
Pattakos, Esq., all of Cleveland, Ohio, represented Cliffs Erie,
L.L.C.

Kyle E. Hart, Esq., and Kristine Kroenke, Esq., both of
Minneapolis, represented M.M. Silta, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Defendants' Motion in Anderson Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
denied motions in limine "Based Upon the Virginia Statute of
Repose" filed by defendants, in an asbestos action filed by
Barbara Anne Anderson.

The case, which is part of In re Asbestos Products Liability
Litigation (No. VI), is styled Barbara Anne Anderson, Plaintiff
v. Alfa Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge entered judgment in
the case on July 10, 2009.

Before the Court were the motions in limine "Based Upon the
Virginia Statute of Repose" filed by Defendants Bondex
International, Inc.; RPM Inc. and RPM International; and
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, on May 21, 2009, both adopted on
that same date by Defendant Union Carbide Corporation.

Ms. Anderson filed a timely response on June 10, 2009. Oral
argument was heard upon the motions on June 16, 2009. The
motions asserted that Ms. Anderson's claims of exposure to
asbestos during the construction of drywall partitions at
various federal installations at which she worked from 1962 to
1985 were barred by the Virginia statute of repose.

Defendants sought the entry of an Order precluding any evidence
of those exposures.

This case was initially filed in the Richmond Circuit Court on
Oct. 26, 2006, and was then removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

It was transferred to this Court on April 23, 2007 as part of
Multidistrict Litigation Docket 875. On June 17, 2009, Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno, to whom MDL 875 is assigned, referred the
case to this court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment for Caterpillar Upheld in Anderson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed the ruling
of the King County Superior Court, which ruled in favor of
Caterpillar, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Ruby J.
Anderson.

Judges Ronald E. Cox, Linda Lau, and Marlin J. Appelwick entered
judgment in Case No. 60271-3-I on July 13, 2009.

On Aug. 11, 2008, the Appeal Court filed its original decision
in this case. There, the Appeal Court affirmed the trial court's
summary dismissal of the claims against defendants Lockheed
Shipbuilding Company and Todd Shipyards Corporation.

However, the Appeal Court reversed its order in limine at trial
excluding the theory of the case that Caterpillar had a duty to
warn of the dangers of using asbestos insulation with the
engines it manufactured. Thereafter, the Supreme Court granted
Caterpillar's petition for review and remanded this case to this
court for reconsideration.

Accordingly, the Appeal Court had reconsidered its original
decision and now affirmed the judgment on the defense verdict at
trial. Here, the trial court decided that Caterpillar had no
duty to warn about asbestos insulation used with the engines it
manufactured.

William Joel Rutzick, Esq. of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender in
Seattle represented Ruby J. Anderson.

John Alan Knox, Esq., of William Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Walter
Eugene Barton, Esq., Robert Hopkins Madden, Esq., in Seattle,
represented Caterpillar, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Porter's Bid for Summary Judgment Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, granted Porter
Hayden Company's motion for partial summary judgment in an
asbestos insurance case filed by National Union Fire Insurance
Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.

The case is styled National Union Fire Insurance Co. of
Pittsburgh, PA, et al., Plaintiffs v. Porter Hayden Company,
Defendant.

District Judge Andre M. Davis entered judgment in Civil Action
Nos. AMD 03-3408 and AMD 03-3414 on July 7, 2009.

Porter Hayden is a Maryland corporation that sold and installed
industrial insulation products containing asbestos fibers from
the 1920s into the 1980s. In 1973, Porter Hayden ceased all of
its installation operations. However, it continued selling
insulation materials and other products until 1982. Porter
Hayden purchased four comprehensive general liability (CGL)
policies from National Union.

In December 2000, Porter Hayden brought a declaratory judgment
action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City seeking coverage
for tens of thousands of asbestos-related claims under two
insurance policies issued by National Union covering the period
from April 1, 1984, to April 1, 1986.

In March 2002, while that suit was pending in state court,
Porter Hayden filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Maryland. On June 30, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court
confirmed Porter Hayden's Third Amended Second Modified Plan of
Reorganization.

Porter Hayden moved for partial summary judgment for a
declaration that National Union's obligation to defend Porter
Hayden against policy holders' allegations of covered injury
during a relevant policy period included paying for costs
incurred in handling claims presented to the Porter Hayden
Asbestos Bodily Injury Trust. National Union filed a cross-
motion for partial summary judgment.

National Union's motion for partial summary judgment was denied
and Porter Hayden's motion for partial summary judgment was
granted.

Timothy R. Dingilian, Esq., Brian Charles Malone, Esq., of
Jackson and Campbell PC, Barry J. Fleishman, Esq., of Dickstein
Shapiro LLP in Washington, D.C., represented Plaintiffs.

Robert E. Johnston, Esq., Donald Robertson McMinn, Esq., Marc S.
Mayerson, Esq., Stephanie D. David, Esq., of Spriggs and
Hollingsworth, Michael R. Engleman, Esq., of Dickstein Shapiro
LLP in Washington, D.C., Deborah Hunt Devan, Esq., of Neuberger
Quinn Gielen Rubin and Gibber PA in Baltimore, represented
Porter Hayden Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Summary Judgment OK'd in Whitt Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, granted Essex Insurance Co.'s motion for partial
summary judgment in a case involving asbestos filed by Whitt
Machine, Inc.

The case is styled Whitt Machine, Inc., Plaintiff v. Essex
Insurance Co., Defendant.

Senior District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel entered judgment in Case
No. 1:08-CV-00439 on April 14, 2009.

Whitt owns real property and improvements located at 800/806
Central Avenue, Middletown, Ohio. It obtained insurance policy
number 1CJ7894 from Essex for the Building. The Policy was in
full force and effect from Feb. 16, 2007, through Feb. 16, 2008,
and covered losses due to fire.

On or about May 26, 2007, a fire destroyed the Building. Whitt
notified Essex and timely submitted claims for damage to the
Building, debris removal, additional debris removal, and
pollutant cleanup. Essex paid directly to Whitt, and to others
on its behalf, US$600,000 to cover the direct physical loss of
the Building.

In addition, Essex tendered to Whitt a check in the amount of
US$10,000 to discharge its obligations under the Policy's Debris
Removal Additional Coverage provision. Whitt had not accepted
the check in anticipation of the resolution of this litigation.

Whitt paid more than US$200,000 to remove debris and clean up
and remove asbestos from the Building. Essex refused to cover
Whitt's asbestos removal expenses and refused to pay more than
US$10,000 for debris removal.

Whitt brought suit in Ohio state court alleging breach of
contract and bad faith in Essex's refusal to cover the costs of
debris removal and pollutant clean up in excess of the
US$600,000 Essex had paid and the US$10,000 Essex had proffered.

Whitt and Essex both filed their cross motions for summary
judgment on Oct. 31, 2008.

The Court denied Whitt's motion for partial summary judgment and
granted Essex's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
dismissed Whitt's breach of contract claim.

James Papakirk, Esq., Todd J. Flagel, Esq., of Flagel & Papakirk
LLC in Cincinnati, Ohio, represented Whitt Machine, Inc.

David Laurence Eidelberg, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio, Richard D.
Sweebe, Esq., of Ulmer & Berne LLP in Cleveland, Ohio,
represented Essex Insurance Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Griffin's Summary Judgment OK'd in Ransford
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California,
upheld the ruling of the San Francisco County Superior Court,
which granted summary judgment in favor of Griffin Wheel
Company, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Alva Ransford.

The case is styled Alva Ransford et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Griffin Wheel Company, Inc., Defendant and
Respondent.

Judges James A. Richman, J. Anthony Kline, and Paul R. Haerle
entered judgment in Case No. A121620 on July 9, 2009.

Mr. Ransford is dying of mesothelioma he claimed was caused by
asbestos encountered in 39 years of repairing and replacing
brakes on locomotives and rolling stock owned by the Union
Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads.

For 15 of those 39 years, Mr. Ransford came into contact with a
type of brake shoe containing asbestos that was manufactured by
Griffin. Joined by his wife, Ora Myrtle Ransford, Mr. Ransford
filed a complaint for damages against Griffin in August 2007.

The trial court granted Griffin's motion for summary judgment
after concluding that "pursuant to the Locomotive Boiler
Inspection Act and the Safety Appliances Act, the plaintiffs'
causes of action were preempted" by these federal statutes.

The summary judgment was affirmed.

Steven Marc Harowitz, Esq., of Harowitz & Tigerman in San
Francisco, Ted W. Pelletier, Esq., of the Law Office of Ted W.
Pelletier in San Anselmo, Calif., represented the Ransfords.

Monty Bottom, Esq., Larry D. Ottaway, Esq., of Foliart, Huff,
Ottaway & Bottom in Oklahoma City, Okla., Douglas A. Kroesch,
Esq., of Gallawa, Brown, Kroesch & Kauffroath in Sacramento,
Calif., represented Griffin Wheel Company, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Denies Lloyd's Summary Judgment Move
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, denied Lloyd Lumber Co.'s motion for summary judgment
in an asbestos case filed by Richard Roule.

The case is styled Richard L. Roule, Executor of the Estate of
Margaret Roule et al. v. ACMAT Corporation et al.

Judge Trial Referee David W. Skolnick entered judgment in Case
No. CV075006975S on May 29, 2009.

Mr. Roule, Executor of the Estate of his deceased wife Margaret
and as her surviving spouse, brought the instant action against
Lloyd Lumber claiming that Mrs. Roule was exposed to asbestos-
containing products purchased from Lloyd causing her to develop
mesothelioma, and resulting in her death on or around April 11,
2005.

Cargill, Inc. (successor to Lloyd Lumber) now moved for summary
judgment arguing that the Roules had not produced any admissible
evidence showing exposure by Mrs. Roule to Lloyd asbestos
products.

Accordingly, Lloyd Lumber's motion for summary judgment as
against Mr. Roule was denied.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Reverses Ruling in Whipkey Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
reversed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas, which ruled in favor of William Whipkey and Marilyn
Whipkey in an asbestos case filed against General Motors
Corporation and Garlock Sealing Technologies (jointly
"appellants").

The case is styled William Whipkey, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Larry A. Jones, Colleen Conway Cooney, and Frank D.
Celebrezze, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 88240 on July 9,
2009.

GM and Garlock appealed the judgment of the lower court, finding
that R.C. 2307.93 cannot be retroactively applied to the lawsuit
filed by the Whipkeys. The Appeals Court reversed the ruling and
remanded the case to the lower court.

Mr. Whipkey passed away in September 2007, but the action was
maintained by Mrs. Whipkey.

On Feb. 9, 2004, the Whipkeys filed a complaint against various
defendants, including GM and Garlock, alleging injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured and
distributed by each defendant. More specifically, the Whipkeys'
claim is based upon Mr. Whipkey's development of lung cancer.

In August 2005, GM moved to administratively dismiss the
Whipkeys' lawsuit.

After a hearing in February 2006, the trial court denied GM's
motion, finding that the Whipkeys filed their complaint in
February 2004, which was prior to the effective date of H.B.
292. Therefore, the court concluded that the case would proceed
under the law that was in effect prior to Sept. 2, 2004. It is
from this order that GM and Garlock appealed.

The Whipkeys moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of final
appealable order. The Appeals Court granted the claimants'
motion to dismiss in July 2006.

Appellants then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, contending
that the trial court's decision was a final appealable order.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter, finding that
the trial court's decision was a final appealable order.
Appellants now appealed.

Judgment was hereby reversed and remanded. The case was remanded
to the lower court for further proceedings.

Susan Squire Box, Esq., Brad A. Rimmel, Esq., Nathan F. Studeny,
Esq., of Roetzel & Andress in Akron, Ohio, represented General
Motors Corp, et al.

Victoria D. Barto, Esq., Christina Tuggey Hidek, Esq., Matthew
C. O'Connell, Esq., Douglas R. Esq., of Simek, Sutter, O'Connell
& Farchione Co. LPA in Cleveland, Ohio, represented Garlock
Sealing Technologies.

Mary Brigid Sweeney, Esq., Christopher J. Hickey, Esq., of Brent
Coon & Associates in Cleveland, Ohio, represented the Whipkeys.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: New York Court Rules on TIG Insurance Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, issued
rulings in the case involving asbestos styled AIU Insurance
Company, Plaintiff v. TIG Insurance Company, Defendant.

U.S. Magistrates Judge Henry Pitman entered judgment in Case No.
07 Civ. 7052(SHS)(HBP) on July 8, 2009.

By notice of motion dated Sept. 15, 2008, TIG Insurance Company
moved for partial reconsideration of Judge Pitman's Opinion and
Order dated Aug. 28, 2008 (August 28 Order).

The August 28 Order granted in part and denied in part AIU
Insurance Company's motion to compel the production of documents
listed on TIG's privilege log as withheld on the basis of the
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.

TIG now moved for partial reconsideration over 25 of the
documents, which Judge Pitman ordered produced.

AIU brought this action alleging breach of contract and seeking
declaratory relief for TIG's failure to pay amounts due under
four reinsurance contracts. AIU issued four umbrella insurance
policies to the Foster Wheeler Corporation and its affiliates
covering the period from Oct. 1, 1978 to Oct. 1, 1982. AIU
subsequently reinsured its exposure under the umbrella insurance
policies with International Insurance Company, TIG's predecessor
company, under the Reinsurance Contracts.

Foster Wheeler manufactures boilers and other steam-generating
and heat-exchange equipment and, since the late 1970s, it has
been the subject of thousands of asbestos-related personal
injury claims.

On Aug. 7, 2007, AIU sued TIG, alleging that TIG had breached
the Reinsurance Contracts by failing to indemnify AIU for its
share of the settlement payments.

On Nov. 12, 2007, AIU served its First Request for Production of
Documents on TIG. On or about June 24, 2007, Judge Pitman
directed that the documents in issue be submitted to his
chambers for in camera review.

After reviewing the documents in camera, Judge Pitman found that
many of the documents were not privileged attorney-client
communications or attorney work-product and on August 28, Judge
Pitman issued an Order which directed the production of these
documents. TIG now moved for partial reconsideration with
respect to about 25 of the documents that Judge Pitman ordered
produced.

Accordingly, Judge Pitman's August 28 Order was hereby modified
on reconsideration.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Rulings in McKee Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County,
issued split rulings in the asbestos case styled Charles McKee,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. A-Best Products Co., et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Cheryl L. Waite, Gene Donofrio, and Joseph J. Vukovich
entered judgment in Case No. 06 MA 164 on June 30, 2009.

Appellant A-Best Products, Co. is one of 80 named defendants in
a personal injury case involving claims of asbestos-related
injury filed in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.

The allegations included negligence, negligent installation,
strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment,
and conspiracy. The particular ruling at issue in this appeal
granted a motion filed by the Appellees requesting that the case
be set for trial and that the case be tried under the law as it
existed prior to the enactment of H.B. 292.

The Appellees argued that the retroactive application of H.B.
292 was unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Appellees'
motion. The court held that H.B. 292 was unconstitutionally
retroactive because it denied the Appellees a vested right.

The court ordered the case to proceed under common law standards
rather than the new statutory standards. This appeal followed.

The trial court also incorrectly found that Appellee Joseph
Shary met his prima facie evidentiary burden. The judgment of
the trial court was reversed and the case was remanded for
further proceedings. The trial court was also ordered to
administratively dismiss, without prejudice, the claims of Mr.
Shary.

Richard E. Reverman, Esq., Kelly W. Thye, Esq., of Young,
Reverman & Mazzei Co., LPA in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Vincent L.
Greene, Esq., of Motley Rice LLC in Providence, R.I.,
represented Plaintiffs-Appellees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $514MM Settlement at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s asbestos settlement (under current
liabilities) was US$514 million as of June 30, 2009, compared
with US$613 million as of June 30, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 16, 2009.

The Company's asbestos settlement (under current liabilities)
was US$484 million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$579
million as of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, April 24,
2009)

The Company recorded US$3 million as net asbestos settlement
during the three months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$4
million during the three months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company recorded US$7 million as net asbestos settlement
during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$4
million during the six months ended June 30, 2008.

Second quarter 2009 net income includes an aftertax charge of
US$2 million, or US$0.02 per share, to reflect the net increase
in the current value of the Company's obligation under its
proposed asbestos settlement, which is pending court
proceedings.

Reported second quarter 2008 net income included one-time,
aftertax charges related to the Company's AG&S business of US$23
million, or US$0.14 per share, and an aftertax charge of US$2
million, or US$0.01 per share, for the proposed asbestos
settlement.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. supplies paints, coatings,
optical products, specialty materials, chemicals, glass and
fiber glass. The Company has more than 140 manufacturing
facilities and equity affiliates and operates in more than 60
countries. Sales in 2008 were US$15.8 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bristol Floor Layer Gets GBP70T in Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelius Doherty, a 76-year-old former floor layer from
Bristol, England, was GBP70,000 in compensation for his injuries
developed after exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

When he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008, Mr. Doherty was
told he probably had 18 months to live and suffers pain every
day.

Mr. Doherty, who served with the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire
Light Infantry in the 1950s, said he had friends who have died
as a result of exposure to asbestos. He said, "Asbestos was
there but we did not know the damage it could do. Some of the
apprentices used to make snowballs out of it. No one knew it
could harm us. We would not have done it if we had."

Mr. Doherty worked for Bedminster-based C W Jones Flooring Ltd
on and off from 1963 to 2005 along with other companies in the
Bristol area that no longer exist. He also worked in building in
New Zealand. His case was brought against C W Jones Flooring,
which remained the sole defendant.

Mr. Doherty was represented by Simon Allen, partner at Russell
Jones and Walker, who said that about 2,000 people die from the
cancer in the UK every year and it is expected to peak in 2020.

The case was settled out of court three weeks before it was due
to be heard but the firm did not admit liability.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Ex-Handyman's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Gloucester, England, ruled that the death of
Phillip Stanton was linked to exposure to workplace asbestos,
this is Gloucestershire.co.uk reports.

The 72-year-old Mr. Stanton, a former laborer and handyman,
worked for Ford and Weston and Hyett Builders, as well as many
other local companies, Gloucestershire deputy coroner David
Dooley was told.

Mr. Stanton died on March 26, 2009. His wife, Pamela Stanton,
said her husband had worked at Gloster Saro in Brockworth when
Hyett Builders had been carrying out work there. She said, "He
said he had to go into a boiler room where other men were
wearing suits and masks to remove asbestos after the company
closed, but he was not given any protection.

"He also worked at Gloucester Docks in buildings where there
were great clouds of dust and the debris had to be swept down
from floor to floor.

"He retired at 69 and was very active. He was still riding his
bike until he started having breathing problems. He went to
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital where they found he had fluid on
his lungs. He was referred to Bristol Royal Infirmary and they
found he had mesothelioma."

Dr. Dooley said that Gloster Saro made firefighting equipment,
so there was likely to have been asbestos there.

In a statement made to his solicitors before he died, Mr.
Stanton said until the diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma, he
had no previous chest illnesses and was relatively fit for his
age enjoying a wide variety of activities. He detailed all the
places he had worked in his life and the deputy coroner thought
he would almost certainly have come into contact with asbestos
in many of them.

Mr. Stanton said he had been aware of the dangers of asbestos
exposure from the 1980s. He remembered working with powdery
asbestos when contractors were removing it but he had to go into
the same boiler room with nothing but a mask.

Pathologist Dr. John McCarthy said the malignant mesothelioma
(cancer) had affected one lung and the heart. Microscopic
examination showed asbestosis damage in the lung and a level of
asbestos fibers in a range of results where mesothelioma could
result.

Dr. McCarthy added that Mr. Stanton had died of bronchial
pneumonia caused by the mesothelioma and the death was related
to asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thurlby Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 63-year-old driving
instructor Trevor Alburey, of Thurlby by Bourne, England, was
linked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Telegraph reports.

Mr. Alburey was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 and died at
his home on April 9, 2009.

The inquest into Mr. Alburey's death at Stamford Town Hall heard
the only time he had been exposed to asbestos was when he was a
child as his father worked with asbestos.

Mr. Alburey's wife, Jean, said when he was diagnosed with the
disease, they had tried to recall a time when he had worked with
asbestos. She told the inquest, "He recalled that his father
used to come home covered in white powder and play with him and
his sister."

A post-mortem examination found the cause of death to be
pulmonary thromboembolism and bronchopneumonia.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Gordon Ryall
said, "It was accidental because his father wasn't aware he was
passing the asbestos on. The speed at which the condition
progressed to the diagnosis is quite normal but unfortunately
there is no cure. It is a very unpleasant condition."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scarborough Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Scarborough County Court heard that the death of
78-year old James McBride, of Lythe, Scarborough, England, was
linked to exposure to asbestos, the Scarborough Evening News
reports.

Mr. McBride had worked in the Merchant Navy and then for Dorman
Long Chemicals, in Teesside.

A statement written by Mr. McBride before he died was summarized
by coroner Michael Oakley at the inquest. It stated that Mr.
McBride worked closely with asbestos during both jobs. Mr Oakley
said, "He came into contact with asbestos when in the navy. He
refers to having to remove pipes that were lagged with asbestos.

"When he worked at Dorman Long Chemicals even in a more
management position he says he came into contact with asbestos."

A post mortem examination concluded that Mr. McBride died of
mesothelioma. Mr. Oakley recorded that Mr. McBride died from
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Hall in Illinois Slated for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln Hall of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Ill.,
particularly the basement, is earmarked for asbestos abatement,
Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

On July 13, 2009, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed off on a
grant of US$57 million to be used for renovations. The grant
money is part of a statewide capital improvement plan, which is
funded by taxes as well as online gambling.

The Lincoln Hall will benefit from this renovation money. The
last renovation at the building was nearly 70 years ago.

Matthew Tomaszewski, the director of facilities and planning at
the University of Illinois, said, "You enter into the building
and the first thing you see is the damage to the floor. It's a
tripping hazard."

The basement is filled with asbestos and aging pipes. Mr.
Tomaszewski added, "I know it does seem like a joke, but this is
true. The students would come down the steps we just came down
to find their academic advisor."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Irish Harbor Cleanup to Cost Up to EUR300T
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement at the harbor in Dun Laoghaire, Ireland, will
cost between EUR150,000 and EUR300,000 and will take about 10
weeks to complete, Herald.ie reports.

The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company (DLHC) plans to carry out
works which will see a number of old buildings containing
asbestos removed. Specialized contractors will be required due
to the presence of asbestos.

Plans to develop the area around Carlisle Pier have been in the
pipeline for some time but have been hit by a series of delays.
It is not operational at the moment.

According to documents seen by the Herald, the current phase
will "comprise building demolition and site clearance within the
boundary of Dun Laoghaire Harbour." However, extra care will
have to be taken because the works "will involve asbestos
removal and work in a maritime environment."

At present, the Harbour Company is looking for a suitable and
experienced contractor to carry out the work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Probe on Illegal Dumping in Hawaii Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The investigation of the State Departments of Health and
Hawaiian Homelands into the illegal dumping of asbestos in
Waianae, Hawaii, is ongoing, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Department of Hawaiian Homelands began removing the waste
and disposing of it properly and safely on July 16, 2009.

Students from Leeward Community College and their instructors
are outraged by the dump. Lucy Gay of Leeward Community College
says, "We're sick and tired of having people take advantage of
our community."

According to Carroll Cox of Envirowatch, the site of the illegal
dumping grounds is owned by the state, and has a locked gate.
Despite the "No Trespassing" sign at the site, it appears that
the area has been used for several years to dispose of hazardous
waste.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Dumped at Heighington Countryside
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrugated sheets of asbestos were dumped and left out in the
open on a county path near Heighington, County Durham, England,
the Darlington & Stockton Times reports.

The sheets were disposed of by Darlington Borough Council, but
Heighington councilor Gerald Lee has appealed for anyone who
knows anything about the incident to come forward.

Councilor Lee said, "Fly tipping not only kills animals. It also
costs the English tax payer millions of pounds to remove the
tons of waste dumped every day. It also leaves our beautiful
towns and countryside unsightly."

A spokeswoman for the council said the sheets were cleared as
soon as Councilor Lee informed them of the situation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered at Sinopec Star's Oil Rig
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was discovered on an oil rig owned by China-based
Sinopec Star Petroleum Co, Ltd, Mining Safety reports.

The oil rig, located at Lascelles Wharf in Geelong, Australia,
is operated by Maersk Drilling Services A/S. The 30,000-ton rig,
Kan Tan IV, is undergoing a multi-million dollar, six-week
refit, according to WorkSafe Victoria.

Dieter Vetter, a former worker and elected health and safety
officer on the rig, says that asbestos had posed danger to
workers refurbishing the rig. He alleges he was squeezed out of
his position because he raised concerns about safety.

State union officials say that the rig's owners were pushing
hard to meet a deadline to guide the rig back through shipping
channels into Bass Strait and have accused the company of not
taking proper precautions.

Maersk Drilling says that asbestos had been found and dealt with
in pipe gaskets and an exhaust system on the rig.

Jakob Diemer, the Company's senior general manager of
engineering, said an asbestos audit carried out on the rig in
Trinidad by an Australian company had issued an all-clear. He
says that while finding the asbestos had been frustrating, the
Company had gone to extra lengths to ensure safety.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dispute on "Dysfunctional Database" Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Varas, Esq., of Hazelhurst, Miss., and Marcy Croft,
Esq., of Jackson, Miss., on July 13, 2009, advised District
Judge Eduardo Robreno that they met and resolved issues
concerning a "dysfunctional database" in asbestos litigation,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Varas, who charged that defendants in national asbestos
litigation generated false allegations against his clients from
a dysfunctional database, withdrew the charge.

Mr. Varas withdrew a July 6, 2009 motion for sanctions and Ms.
Croft withdrew a motion to dismiss claims of Mr. Varas' clients.
They wrote that they would provide the court with a list of
plaintiffs whose claims would be dismissed, transferred to
bankruptcy dockets or proceeded upon.

Judge Robreno presides over pretrial proceedings in asbestos
suits from around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multi District Litigation.

In 2008, Judge Robreno ordered any plaintiff suing more than one
defendant to sever the suit and state a specific claim against
each defendant. Asbestos lawyers began settling and dropping
cases at a phenomenal rate.

In May 2009, Judge Robreno reported resolution of more than
500,000 claims in four months.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ryder's Wife's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Ryder, of Welwyn Garden City, England, says that the
death of his wife Maureen was due to second-hand exposure to
asbestos, due to his work with Norton Abrasives, Asbestos.com
reports.

Norton Abrasives, which manufactures and supplies abrasives for
technical manufacturing and commercial applications, household
and automotive refinishing solutions, was bought by Saint-Gobain
in 1990.

Mr. Ryder worked for the Company from 1963 through 1985 and said
he was unknowingly exposed to asbestos dust on the job. Upon
returning home at the end of the workday, he recalls his wife
brushing the dust off his clothing.

Mr. Ryder said, "She would brush the dust from my clothes every
evening and then hand wash them ready for the next day." This
resulted in the secondhand exposure to asbestos he believes led
to his wife's mesothelioma diagnosis.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oliver to Give GBP1T for Every Case Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chester, England-based solicitors Oliver and Co promised to
donate GBP1,000 to MacMillan Cancer Support and British Lung
Foundation for every asbestos case they settle in court, the
Chester Chronicle reports.

Oliver and Co has agreed to donate funds to the charity of their
client's choice after recovering millions of pounds in damages
in recent years.

Partner Craig Howell said, "We work closely with both charities
because they provide great support in all aspects of care to our
clients who find themselves facing the most difficult time. We
see how hard they work and want to give something back to these
worthy causes."

Clients who suffer from asbestosis and asbestos-related lung
cancer have often developed the illnesses after coming into
contact with asbestos in their place of work.

Oliver and Co recently settled a case for a man who was exposed
to asbestos while working in industry in the South East more
than 30 years ago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered in Sumas River in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to samples recently collected by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, naturally-occurring asbestos
has been carried downstream of Swift Creek and along the banks
of the Sumas River in the State of Washington, according to an
EPA press release dated July 20, 2009.

The asbestos comes from a landslide on Sumas Mountain that
deposits asbestos-laden sediment into Swift Creek, the focus of
previous health and environmental studies.

The EPA's sampling revealed asbestos and several metals in
water, bank sediments, and recent flood deposits in Whatcom
County, north of Swift Creek, and approaching the Canadian
Border. EPA has shared the study results with local property
owners, the local and state health departments, the Washington
Department of Ecology, and officials in Canada where the Sumas
River continues northward.

Dan Opalski, Director of EPA's Superfund Cleanup Office in
Seattle, said "These asbestos levels deserve close attention.
The new data will enable agencies to make important health
recommendations so local families make informed decisions to
protect themselves."

The samples taken from the Sumas riverbank showed higher
concentrations of asbestos than previous samples of Swift Creek
dredged material. Concentrations ranged up to 27 percent
asbestos along the Sumas riverbank.

The Whatcom County Health Department and Washington Department
of Health have sent an advisory to residents and property owners
along the Sumas River. The advisory outlines measures people can
take to limit their exposure to asbestos in water, sediment and
flood deposits.

Agencies including Whatcom County Health Department and Whatcom
County Public Works, state departments of Health, Ecology, and
Labor and Industries, and federal Army Corps of Engineers,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and EPA are
coordinating resources and information to address this problem
for both the near term and long term.

Engineering options, including building a structure that would
control sediment near the landslide, are being considered. The
situation may also call for changes to local land use planning.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cork City Sues Bakery for Asbestos Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Cork, Ireland, initiated legal action against the
owners of the former Keating's Bakery, on Tramore Road, for
allowing material including asbestos to be stored in it, the
Irish Examiner reports.

Councilor Mary Shields questioned city manager Joe Gavin on the
issue at the last council meeting. Mr. Gavin said the legal
action was being taken under Section 14 and Section 32 of the
1996 Waste Management Act.

Section 14 allows a local authority take action where there may
be a risk of environmental pollution arising from the carrying
on of an activity at a certain premises. Section 32 deals with
the collection and movement of waste.

The original bakery firm traded for many years in Cork city, and
moved from Coburg Street in the 1970s to Tramore Road, taking
over a former shoe factory.

The business went into receivership in 1987, and Keating's
bakeries in Kanturk invested and it ran again with Fitzgerald
family involvement up to 1997 when production ceased. The 1.7-
acre site has had a long and complex planning history since.

The Keating family applied to develop residential projects on
the site, but one was refused by An Bord Pleanala following
third party appeals in 2003, while a subsequent proposal in 2005
was withdrawn just before Christmas. The site was sold soon
afterwards to Frinailla Developments, which in turn lodged plans
to develop the site.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waseca Library Renovation Estimated at $47T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The renovation and removal of asbestos at the Waseca-LeSueur
Regional Library in Waseca, Minn., is estimated at US$47,000, in
which the City of Waseca is covering the cost of the project,
the Waseca County News reports.

Starting July 30, 2009 and running through Aug. 23, 2009, the
Waseca-LeSueur Regional Library will be closed for asbestos
removal and renovation.

Along with the removal of asbestos tiles, the project will also
see new carpeting installed in the library.

In the meantime, library director Theresa Meadows encourages
everyone looking to get some summer reading material to come
over to the library so they have plenty to read while they are
closed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $450T Needed to Replace Water Lines in Ore.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An issue in need of funding is a US$450,000 project to replace
an aging asbestos cement water line in Eagle Point, Ore.,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The pipes, made from cement that contains asbestos, are six
inches in diameter. The funding would upgrade the water line to
new materials, and expand the size to 12 inches in diameter.

City officials in Eagle Point hope that if they receive federal
stimulus money they will be able to update the city's water
system, part of which is run through asbestos-laden cement
pipes.

City officials are hoping to use the money to pay off a loan of
nearly US$3 million, which was used to retrofit a four million
gallon tank. The tank would effectively double the city's water
capacity.

According to city administrator David Hussell, if the city
receives the federal funds, they can afford to pay off the 40
year loan, and then tackle other water-related projects.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Somerset Local Gets GBP175T in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Ward, a 61-year-old resident of Somerset, England, received
GBP175,000 in compensation over his asbestos-related cancer, BBC
News reports.

Mr. Ward was exposed to asbestos while working in hospitals in
Wakefield between 1964 and 1972 and has cancer of the lung
lining. He was suing Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health
Authority. However, the settled before the case got to court.

Mr. Ward, a plumber, said he had never been warned of the danger
asbestos posed to his health. He said, "We just smashed off the
asbestos and carried on working."

Dave Prentis, general secretary of the union Unison, said, "Alan
is one of a growing number of workers whose health has been
fatally damaged just through going to work.

"Employers have to face up to their responsibilities to make
sure they don't put their workers at risk of injury or death."

A spokesperson for NHS Yorkshire and the Humber said: "Mr.
Ward's claim, which dates back to 1964, relates to a predecessor
NHS organization. When Mr. Ward's claim was presented, we
investigated his allegations and on the advice of our solicitors
admitted liability."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup to Commence at Bridge in Heuvelton
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Slate Hill Construction Co. will begin stripping asbestos
off State Street bridge in Heuvelton, N.Y., the Watertown Daily
Times reports.

Contractors have been erecting a canvas enclosure around the
bridge to ensure that the asbestos remains contained during the
removal process.

Michael R. Flick, a Region 7 spokesman for the state Department
of Transportation, said the removal process will take about four
weeks, after which crews will begin taking apart the bridge.

Single-lane alternating traffic will continue on the bridge as
the asbestos is removed. Once deconstruction of the bridge
begins, a temporary bridge will bypass the construction site,
running parallel with the stone bridge along the eastern side.
It also will support single-lane traffic.

Slate Hill also has addressed safety issues related to emergency
services, by rigging the traffic signals with a device that
allows firefighters to stop traffic when necessary.

The US$5.5 million project is expected to be completed by
November 2009.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona Memorial Closed July 15 Over Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Workers of Indianapolis, Ind., on July 15, 2009, boarded up and
sealed off the old Winona Memorial Hospital over asbestos and
safety concerns, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center
reports.

The building has been vacant since 2004, when the hospital went
bankrupt. In 2008, the facility was declared a hazard to public
health.

The property is owned by the city, but all efforts to secure the
building against unauthorized entry have been unsuccessful.
Despite signs that warn of the presence of asbestos, "No
Trespassing" signs were nowhere to be seen.

City workers have now sealed up the windows and doors, and the
local police will be watching the property closely. Captain
Robert Holt said, "I've assigned an officer to check the
building regularly to ensure that it isn't open to someone who
is just wandering in."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Removed From Bridgewater Elementary
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2009, contractors removed asbestos from the
Bridgewater Elementary Center in Kanawha County, W.Va.,
WiredPRNews.com reports.

The work was one of several asbestos-abatement projects to be
completed during the summer within Kanawha County schools. As
noted in a report, 85,000 square feet of space total will be the
focus of the projects.

Maintenance director of the county, Terry Hollandsworth, said,
"It's mostly floor tiles, and we do a little bit of ceiling work
as well. And we're removing the asbestos chalkboards while we're
there, too."

Mr. Hollandsworth also stated of the Bridgewater project, "I
can't tell you exactly what we're doing right now at
Bridgeview." However, it is said to be one of the smaller
assignments.

Mr. Hollandsworth further stated, "We hire contractors to come
in and do the asbestos abatement, and they have to be licensed
and certified. Asbestos abatement is heavily regulated."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BAVSG Seeks Probes for Schools in Bradford
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bradford Asbestos Victim Support Group is calling for
district-wide checks on the management and cleanup of asbestos
in schools across Bradford, England, the Telegraph & Argus
reports.

BAVSG wants to see a comprehensive audit of schools to find out
whether asbestos is being safely managed and is calling for the
removal of the lethal material. The group has backed national
plans to carry out independent tests for asbestos.

MPs, leaders of the teaching unions and families of teachers,
who died of asbestos-related diseases, have arranged tests on
100 schools across the country.

Jane Howie, a development worker for BAVSG said, "There is
evidence that often the standard of asbestos management, in
schools all over the country, was not satisfactory and very
dangerous. We are very concerned about the levels of asbestos
the children of the Bradford district are being exposed to and
we need to have a comprehensive audit of all the schools in
Bradford."

Six teaching unions have backed the need for more checks and the
Bradford Area Safety Reps Association is planning to look at the
management of asbestos in schools.

Earlier in 2009, the Telegraph & Argus revealed that 500 public
buildings, including more than 200 schools, had been found to
contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Library in Glasgow
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was found at the Govanhill and Crosshill Public Library
in Glasgow, Scotland, forcing library bosses to close the
building until 2010, the Evening Times reports.

The library has moved into Govanhill Neighbourhood Centre in
Daisy Street until repairs are completed. In June 2009, the
library was closed when plaster crashed through a false ceiling
into the children's section. It was the second time in five
years the Victorian building has been shut for repairs.

Staff from City Building had thought the library would have to
stay closed for a week. However, a detailed inspection found the
problem was worse than expected. As a result, Culture and Sport
Glasgow, which runs the city's libraries, announced the building
would shut for 12 weeks.

Now, it has now been revealed that workmen have discovered
asbestos in the ceiling meaning specialist contractors will have
to be called in.

A Culture and Sport spokesman said, "Libraries staff have pulled
out all the stops to set up a temporary home at the Govanhill
Neighbourhood Centre, thus maintaining a facility in the heart
of the community."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Darrah Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Jefferson
County, affirmed the judgment of the Jefferson County Court of
Common Pleas, which granted Duane Darrah's motion in an asbestos
case filed against various defendants.

The case is styled Duane Darrah, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
A-Best Products Co., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Gene Donofrio, Joseph J. Vukovich, and Cheryl L. Waite
entered judgment in Case No. 06 JE 47 on June 30, 2009.

A-Best Products, Co. is one of 83 named defendants in a personal
injury case involving claims of asbestos-related injury. The
defendants included Westinghouse Electric Corporation, General
Electric Company, Uniroyal Rubber Company, Pfizer, Inc., Union
Carbide Chemical and Plastics Co., Inc., Mobil Oil Corp., Owens-
Illinois Corporation, Inc., CertainTeed Corp., and Amchem
Products, Inc.

The allegations included negligence, negligent installation,
strict liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment,
and conspiracy. The particular ruling at issue in this appeal
granted a motion filed by the plaintiffs requesting a
declaration that changes in R.C. Chapter 2307 that became
effective after the filing of this lawsuit should not be applied
retroactively.

Appellees argued that the retroactive application of H.B. 292
was unconstitutional. The trial court granted Appellees' motion.
This appeal followed on Nov. 15, 2006.

Richard E. Reverman, Esq., Kelly W. Thye, Esq., of Young,
Reverman & Mazzei Co., LPA in Cincinnati, Ohio, Vincent L.
Greene, Esq., of Motley Rice LLC in Providence, R.I.,
represented Duane Darrah.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Bugosh Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, which
favored Judith R. Bugosh (on behalf of Edward J. Bugosh) in an
asbestos case filed against various defendants.

This was an appeal filed by I.U. North America, Inc. Appeal
dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

Judges Ronald D. Castille, Thomas G. Saylor, J. Michael Eakin,
Max Baer, Debra Todd, Seamus P. McCaffery, and Jane Cutler
Greenspan entered judgment in the case on June 15, 2009. Judge
Saylor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Castille
joined.

Jennifer E. Watson, Esq., Robert B. Lawler, Esq., of Willbraham,
Lawler & Buba, P.C. in Philadelphia, Susan Regrut Mitchell,
Esq., of Willbraham, Lawler & Buba, P.C. in Pittsburgh,
represented I.U. North America, Inc.

Janice Marie Savinis, Esq., of Savinis, D'Amico & Kane, L.L.C.
in Pittsburgh, Clifford Alan Rieders, Esq., Pamela L. Shipman,
Esq., of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris, Waters &
Waffenschmidt in Williamsport, Pa., represented Judith R.
Bugosh.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in James Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning County,
affirmed the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning
County, Ohio, which favored plaintiffs in the case styled
Charles James, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. A-Best Products
Co., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Judges Gene Donofrio, Joseph J. Vukovich, and Cheryl L. Waite
entered judgment in Case Nos. 07-MA-42, 07-MA-43, 07-MA-44, 07-
MA-45, 07-MA-46, 07-MA-47, 07-MA-48, 07-MA-49, 07-MA-50, 07-MA-
51 on June 30, 2009.

Defendants-appellants, A-Best Products Co. and other defendants
appealed the trial court's decisions, allowing plaintiffs-
appellees' (Charles James, et al.) claims of asbestos-related
injuries to move forward based on its determination that each
appellee had submitted sufficient evidence to establish a prima-
facie case in compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2307.

The central issue of this appeal concerned appellees' ability to
recover for asbestos-related injuries and whether recent
legislation enacted governing asbestos litigation was
unconstitutionally retroactive.

This case involved 109 plaintiffs-appellees in 10 cases that
brought asbestos-related claims against numerous defendants-
appellants. In 10 separate judgment entries, the trial court
found that appellees had submitted evidence demonstrating a
prima facie case complying with the requirements of R.C. 2307,
thereby allowing the claims to move forward. This appeal
followed.

Richard E. Reverman, Esq., Kelly Thye, Esq., of Young, Reverman
& Mazzei in Cincinnati, Ohio, represented plaintiffs-appellees.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Federal Ins. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division,
issued split rulings in the case involving asbestos styled
Federal Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Appellee v.
Binney & Smith, Inc., a subsidiary of Hallmark Cards, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Judges Wolfson, Gordon, and Hall entered judgment in Case No. 1-
08-0843 on June 30, 2009.

Federal Insurance Co. filed a declaratory judgment action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County against Binney & Smith, Inc.,
seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or
indemnify Binney in connection with a class action lawsuit filed
against Binney in 2000.

On May 23, 2000, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported finding
asbestos in three major brands of crayons, including the Crayola
brand crayons manufactured by Binney. The asbestos was believed
to be found in the talc used by crayon manufacturers as a
binding agent.

In June 2000, Steven Schwab, individually and as a parent and
guardian of Anne Elise Schwab, filed a national class action
complaint against Binney in the Chancery Division of the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Ill. The putative class consisted of all
individuals who ever purchased Binney's Crayola brand crayons.

The class plaintiffs alleged test results showed the presence of
asbestos fibers. The class plaintiffs in the Schwab action
brought three causes of action against Binney: breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, violation of the Illinois' Consumer
Fraud Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and breach
of express warranty. The damages sought had to do with the
purchase price of the crayons.

Between 1969 and 1996, Federal issued Binney comprehensive
general liability insurance policies. Three of the policies
provided Binney with broad defense and indemnity coverage
against claims arising out of "advertising injury." The limit
for advertising injury coverage under each of the policies was
US$500,000.

Six months after the Schwab action was filed, Binney and the
class plaintiffs reached a settlement. On June 15, 2001, the
Cook County Chancery Court approved the settlement after
conducting a fairness hearing.

On Sept. 19, 2000, Federal filed a complaint for declaratory
judgment, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or
indemnify Binney in the Schwab action.

Binney filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging breach of
contract against Federal in connection with the Schwab action
and three similar putative class actions. Binney also filed a
third party complaint against Royal Insurance Company of
America, seeking defense and indemnification for the Schwab
action and two other asbestos-related lawsuits.

Binney's third party complaint was dismissed after it entered
into a confidential settlement with Royal. Binney sought the
full amount of its Schwab-related settlement costs and
prejudgment interest at the rate of five percent from Federal.

Following a bench trial, the trial court found in Binney's
favor. The trial court denied Binney's request for prejudgment
interest. Federal appealed. Binney cross-appealed.

The Appellate Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded the cause for proceedings consistent with its opinion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court to Reverse Ruling in Nationwide Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, will reverse the
ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, in a case involving asbestos styled Nationwide
Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant v. George V. Hamilton,
Inc., Appellee.

Judges Fuentes, Jordan, and Nygaard entered judgment in Case No.
08-4733 on July 6, 2009.

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed the order of
the District Court granting George V. Hamilton, Inc. summary
judgment and dismissing Nationwide's motion to compel
arbitration.

Nationwide issued a single policy of liability insurance to
Hamilton, which provided Hamilton with coverage from Jan. 30,
1985 to Jan. 30, 1986. During the policy period, Hamilton, an
installer of commercial and industrial insulation, received
claims for asbestos-related injuries allegedly caused by
products it had installed.

In 1992, Hamilton and Nationwide, along with other carriers,
including Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance
Company (PMA), entered into an Interim Claim Handling and
Settlement Agreement.

Nationwide participated in the Settlement Agreement until early
1996, when it claimed to have exhausted its policy limits and
provided proof of exhaustion to both Hamilton and its fellow
carriers.

On Jan. 5, 2005, PMA filed a complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Pa., seeking a declaratory judgment
against Hamilton and several insurers other than Nationwide.

On May 20, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas issued an order
sustaining PMA's objections. On May 30, 2007, Hamilton responded
by sending to Nationwide and the other Settlement Agreement
signatories notice of its intent to withdraw from the Agreement.

The Court of Common Pleas, on June 22, 2007, granted Hamilton's
motion to vacate and overruled PMA's objections to the
counterclaims.

On Dec. 7, 2005, a second Hamilton insurer, ACE Property &
Casualty Co., though it was not a party to the Settlement
Agreement, also filed an action against Hamilton and other
insurers seeking declaratory relief regarding its duty to defend
and indemnify Hamilton. Again, Nationwide was not made a party.

The court in Philadelphia transferred the case to the Court of
Common Pleas in Allegheny County on July 25, 2006. The ACE
action has since been coordinated with the PMA Action and both
cases remain pending.

On June 7, 2007, a co-insurer defendant in the ACE Action filed
a third-party complaint against Nationwide, which filed its
answer to the third-party complaint on Aug. 10, 2007. On Sept.
28, 2007, Hamilton filed an answer, new matter counterclaim and
crossclaims.

On Oct. 19, 2007, Hamilton tendered new asbestos-related claims
to Nationwide and other insurers seeking indemnity and defense.
On Feb. 4, 2008, Hamilton filed amended crossclaims in the ACE
Action.

However, under the Settlement Agreement, Nationwide served
Hamilton with an arbitration demand on April 1, 2008. Hamilton
denied the demand, and Nationwide then filed this action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to
compel arbitration. Hamilton moved to dismiss or for summary
judgment and, on Nov. 8, 2008, the District Court granted the
summary judgment motion.

Peter B. Skeel, Esq., of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie &
Skeel, LLP in Pittsburgh, Rolf E. Gilbertson, Esq., Eric E.
Caugh, Esq., Christopher R. Paar, Esq., Kathryn M. Hoffman,
Esq., of Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP in Minneapolis,
represented Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

Frederick J. Francis, Esq., Joseph E. Linehan, Esq., Richard T.
Victoria, Esq., of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP, in Pittsburgh,
represented George V. Hamilton, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Langone's Claim v. Beloit City Filed July 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Langone, a business owner, filed a lawsuit involving
asbestos and environmental matters against the City of Beloit,
Wis., on July 6, 2009 in the Rock County Circuit Court, the
Beloit Daily News reports.

Mr. Langone assumed the City completed its contractual
responsibilities before selling him property. Eleven years
later, he sued the municipality for allegedly failing to fix
environmental hazards.

Mr. Langone, president of Belcoat Corporation, hired a company
to inspect his property at 1515 Yates Ave., earlier in 2009.
After spending 10 hours collecting 70 samples, the company's
determined the building's roofs, windows, steam pipes and water
pipes contained asbestos and needed to be removed and replaced
at an estimated cost of US$750,000.

City Attorney Tom Casper, Esq., confirmed the City received the
paperwork. City Manager Larry Arft confirmed the City's
relationship with Belcoat, an industrial warehouse.

Mr. Langone purchased the property, formerly the Department of
Public Works, in 1998 with an agreement that the City would
correct all environmental hazards, he said. He had no reason to
question whether the work had been completed until he sought to
demolish a wing last October 2008.

The Department of Natural Resources asked for the building's
environmental certificate before the razing. Mr. Langone found
none, leading him to believe the work promised to him had not
been done.

In November 2008, the City sent a contractor to the site who
confirmed the presence of asbestos. However, Mr. Langone said,
the City told him it could not pay for the work under the 2008
budget and that the project would be bid out in 2009.

A survey was taken of the property early in 2009, but Mr.
Langone would not let the City proceed with improvements once he
learned it planned to only address a portion of what his
inspector found. After trying to contact the City further about
the issue, Mr. Langone decided going to court was the next step.

Mr. Casper said the city has about 20 days since the case was
filed to respond.

The asbestos abatement has stalled his plan of selling about
US$80,000 worth of brick and wood from the wing he wanted to
demolish. With it, Mr. Langone's ability to financially survive
for 12 to 18 months before having to find new tenants has
disappeared.

Mr. Langone said, "My attorneys have advised me not to lease out
space to anyone based on the liability I might face. I'm in
default of my loan because I can't generate any money. It puts
at risk my mortgage and second mortgage. It's basically
destroying me."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citro Action v. Kraft Foods, Inc. Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Citro, on July 20, 2009, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against Kraft Foods, Inc., alleging he was exposed to
asbestos at a Nabisco bakery, Chicago Now reports.

Mr. Citro, who worked for nine years at the Bakery, also alleged
that he developed a serious medical condition as a result.

Mr. Citro filed a petition for discovery, asking Kraft to turn
over records concerning asbestos-containing materials or any
asbestos removal that occurred between 1950 and 1979 at Kraft's
Nabisco north bakery in Chicago.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus Dispute on CAD175,280 Bill Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Prince George, in British Columbia, Canada, and the
prior owners of the Columbus Hotel are still in dispute over who
should pay a CAD175,280 bill for demolition of the building last
September 2008, a total that would have been lower if not for
the asbestos found in the structure, the Prince George Citizen
reports.

When the City sought bids on the job, bidders were asked not to
provide an estimate for the cost of removing hazardous material,
just the basic effort to level the building.

Western Thermal Contractors won the contract with a low bid of
CAD46,800. However, by the time the work was done, the company
had earned more than three and a half times as much.

Scott Bone, city supply and services manager, says that bids in
those cases are for basic demolition only may be surprising, but
there are good reasons for the approach.

They begin with the fact that no one knows how much hazardous
material needs to be removed until one has entered the building,
and one cannot enter until the building has been made safe, and
that cannot occur until the demolition starts.

After that, the contractor earns additional money to remove the
material, but Mr. Bone stressed the amount is based on how much
was bid to win the contract.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Concord Steam Charged $22,000 for Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a
penalty of US$22,000 to Concord Steam Corporation for asbestos
accumulation over a leaking boiler incident in Concord, N.H.,
the Union Leader reports.

OSHA proposed total fines of US$104,200 against Concord Steam in
connection with a Jan. 22, 2009 fire in which a worker was
injured.

In the incident, pressurized oil ignited after leaking from a
boiler, OSHA said. A subsequent investigation resulted in 73
allegations of willful, serious and other than serious
violations of safety standards. OSHA also identified various
chemical, electrical, mechanical, asbestos and other fire-
related hazards in the plant.

Aside from the asbestos citation, OSHA also issued 65 serious
citations with US$79,800 in fines. The Company also faces seven
citations, with US$2,400 in fines, chiefly for inadequate or
incomplete injury and illness recording, OSHA said.

Concord Steam was notified of the alleged violations on July 20,
2009. The Company has scheduled an informal conference with OSHA
for Aug. 10, 2009. Concord Steam vice president Mark Salzman
said the Company is still reviewing the citations.

OSHA said its inspection found that the boiler's doors were
bulging and cracked and not properly secured against the escape
of embers and fire, posing a fire and explosion hazard.

Rosemarie Ohar, OSHA's area director in Concord, said, "The
conditions found in this plant expose its employees to the risks
of fire, explosion, lacerations, crushing injuries, falls,
hazardous chemicals, electrocution, suffocation, lung disease
and being unable to promptly exit the plant in a fire or other
emergency."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chilwell Resident's Death Linked to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 68-year-old Edward Clark, of
Westbury Close, Chilwell, England, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

Mr. Clarke died at Nottingham's City Hospital on July 13, 2009.
He suffered from mesothelioma.

Mr. Clarke previously worked as a brake drum cleaner, which
exposed him to asbestos dust.

The inquest, at Nottingham Coroner's Court, was opened and
adjourned until a later date.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Marcy, N.Y. Center to Cost $420T
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos abatement project at the Central New York
Psychiatric Center in Marcy, N.Y., is estimated at US$420,462,
the Rome Sentinel reports.

Sunshine Environmental Services of Waterville, N.Y., is the
lowest bidder for the project.

Contracts are expected to be awarded to apparent low bidders
following the regular review and approval process via the state
Comptroller's Office.

A total of 18 firms bid on the Central New York Psychiatric
Center project, which involves a "contract to abate asbestos
containing pipe insulation in the basement of Building No. 39,"
according to a state announcement.

Sunshine was the primary contractor for the asbestos removal and
demolition at the former Rome Free Academy that was completed in
2008, receiving over US$2 million in work for the project that
still faces some complications.

Sunshine is involved in legal disputes with the Rome school
district involving additional payment claims for services on the
project, while the Environmental Protection Agency has a pending
complaint against the school district and Sunshine.

The Central New York Psychiatric Center work was one of six
contracts statewide for which the state Office of General
Services announced low bidders. The bids represented more than
US$8 million in new construction involving sites in six
counties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Korean Gov't. to Tighten Hazard Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The administration of South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak,
will mandate stricter regulations on how asbestos-contaminated
tiles are handled, The Korea Times reports.

A revised legislation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act,
which was deliberated in a Cabinet meeting on July 21, 2009,
will update safe work measures and procedures to minimize the
potential hazards of asbestos.

Building owners and officials will be required to hire
demolition experts to tear down structures if the asbestos used
in the construction materials is more than one percent of the
total within a floor space of 50 square meters or larger.

In April 2009, the government confirmed that asbestos was found
near the former Samsung Group headquarters in central Seoul. The
latest discovery at the site of the Samsung building raised the
need for tighter regulations overseeing construction work
procedure, as many of the country's older buildings facing
renovation have been built with slate and heat insulators made
out of asbestos.

Aside from setting stricter standards on construction sites, the
revision also details the qualifications required to be a
licensed asbestos inspection agency and reasons a license can be
revoked.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hampshire Locals Still Waiting for Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of people in Hampshire, England, who suffer from
various asbestos-related conditions, will have to wait a few
more months to hear if they will get compensation,
ThisIsHampshire.net reports.

Jack Straw, the Secretary of State for Justice, who was expected
to announce a final decision on July 22, 2009, told the Commons
he would instead give "further consideration" to the issue
before making a statement in autumn.

Those diagnosed with pleural plaques had hoped Mr. Straw would
agree to meet their requests for payments following a two-year
campaign. Their battle began when a House of Lords decision
removed their right to compensation which had existed for 20
years.

The Ministry of Justice was expected to announce whether it
would reverse that landmark judgment following a consultation
held on the issue last summer.

The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT)
had said earlier it believed the Government would propose to pay
GBP5,000 to the 6,500 pleural plaques victims whose cases are on
hold.

The summer recess, which begins on July 22, 2009, runs until
Oct. 9, 2009.

Campaigners, seeking between GBP5,000 and GBP15,000 compensation
for victims, estimate that thousands of people across Hampshire
are affected by pleural plaques.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dunfermline Local Gets Payout for Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Young, a 60-year-old former shipyard worker from
Dunfermline, Scotland, received an undisclosed amount of
compensation for his asbestos-related injuries, The Courier
reports.

Mr. Young's former employers, the Ministry of Defence and the
Coal Board, both admitted negligently exposing him to asbestos.
However, they argued that his breathing difficulties were caused
by an unrelated condition called cryptogenic fibrosing
alveolitis (CFA).

The Court of Session accepted medical evidence that Mr. Young
would already be dead if he had CFA (its victims have a life
expectancy of less than five years) and awarded him undisclosed
compensation.

Bruce Shields, of Thompsons Solicitors, the firm which
represented Mr. Young, said the case had important implications
for other asbestosis sufferers where there are conflicting
opinions from medical experts.

During his career, Mr. Young spent a decade as a fitter at
Rosyth dockyard working on the refit of naval vessels, where he
had frequent contact with dust from asbestos lagging on pipes
being stripped and renewed. He later worked at Comrie Colliery
in Fife as a fitter and was exposed to more asbestos dust
working on steam boilers and valves.

Five years ago, Mr. Young noticed he was becoming increasingly
short of breath and doctors at Queen Margaret Hospital found
evidence of lung disease, attributing it to his former
employment.

Temporary Judge Morag Wise QC heard conflicting evidence from
two expert chest physicians before ruling that Mr. Young's
illness was indeed asbestosis and awarding damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MoD Notes GBP770T Paid to Civilian in 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------
New figures have shown that, in 2008, the largest amount paid by
the Ministry of Defence to a British civilian was GBP770,000 to
an elderly victim of asbestos poisoning from working in a
Portsmouth, England, naval shipyard, the Telegraph reports.

In 2008, civil compensation claims have cost the MoD GBP84
million.

The highest single claim was paid to a Royal Navy surgeon who
received GBP3.6 million for severe spinal injuries following a
helicopter crash during an exercise in Northern Ireland.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling in Vicknair Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of North Dakota, reversed the ruling of the
District Court, Morton County, South Central Judicial District,
which dismissed 15 plaintiffs' (including Joseph M. Vicknair)
asbestos claims against various defendants.

Judges Gerald W. Vande Walle, William F. Hodny, Ronald E.
Goodman, Kirk Smith, and Dale v. Sandstrom entered judgment in
Case No. 20080139 on June 29, 2009. Judges Hodny, Goodman,
Smith, Crothers, and Kapsner disqualified.

Mr. Vicknair and 14 other plaintiffs appealed from the judgment
severing them from two lawsuits and dismissing without prejudice
on the ground of forum non conveniens their asbestos-related
product liability action against Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc.,
and numerous other defendants.

Although the defendants cross-appealed, they abandoned the
cross-appeal by failing to raise any cross-appeal issues in
their brief or argument.

The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in granting
the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens,
because the defendants had not shown an adequate alternative
forum existed in another jurisdiction to entertain the
plaintiffs' claims.

The judgment was reversed and remanded.

David C. Thompson, Esq., of David C. Thompson, P.C. in Grand
Forks, N.D., and Jeanette Boechler, Esq., of Boechler Law Firm
in Fargo, N.D., represented the plaintiffs and appellants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in PWA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the ruling of the
District Court, Ramsey County, which denied Paul W. Abbott
Company, Inc.'s (PWA) motion for a protective order in a case
involving asbestos.

The case is styled In re Paul W. Abbott Company, Inc.,
Appellant, In re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation.

Judges Alan Page, Eric J. Magnuson, and Lorie Skjerven Gildea
entered judgment in Case No. A08-1105 on June 18, 2009.

PWA, a corporation that was involuntarily dissolved under
Minnesota law in 1997, is a defendant in the asbestos
litigation. The respondents in this appeal are the plaintiffs in
that litigation. One of the insurance companies defending PWA's
interests in the asbestos litigation is TIG Insurance Company.

At issue was whether respondents may depose an attorney who, as
part of PWA's defense strategy in the asbestos litigation,
assisted PWA in obtaining a certificate of voluntary dissolution
from the Minnesota Secretary of State.

The district court denied PWA's motion for a protective order,
and PWA petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of
prohibition and for discretionary review. The court of appeals
denied both petitions.

The Supreme Court affirmed.

Richard J. Leighton, Esq., of Johnson, Killen & Seiler, P.A. in
Duluth, Minn., represented Paul W. Abbott Company, Inc.

Michael S. Polk, Esq., Michael R. Strom, Esq., Chad C.
Alexander, Esq., Shauna M. Verheyen, Esq., of Sieben Polk, P.A.
in Hastings, Minn., represented respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Parkland Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, issued
split rulings in the case styled Parkland Environmental Group,
Inc., an Illinois corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
v. Laborers' International Union of North America, Laborers'
Local #477, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

U.S. District Judge Jeanne E. Scott entered judgment in Case No.
No. 06-3238 on July 8, 2009.

This matter came before the Court on cross motions for summary
judgment. Laborers' Local 477's Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Parkland's Complaint to Vacate the Arbitration Award and as
to Laborer's Local 477's Counterclaim to Confirm the Arbitration
Award (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment); Motion for
Summary Judgment (Parkland's Motion for Summary Judgment).

Parkland Environmental Group, Inc. filed the pending Complaint
in October 2006, under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA)
and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), seeking to vacate an
arbitration award that was issued on July 18, 2006.

In June 2007, Laborers' International Union of North America,
Laborers' Local 477 filed a Counterclaim, seeking confirmation
of the award.

Parkland's request to vacate the arbitration award was denied
and the Union's request for confirmation of the award was
allowed.

Parkland provides asbestos abatement and other services.
Parkland typically employs three to four full-time employees.
The Union is a labor organization with its principal place of
business in Springfield, Ill.

The parties disputed whether a collective bargaining agreement
between them existed covering the work upon which the July 18,
2006 arbitration award was based.

Matthew J. Cate, Esq., R. Kurt Wilke, Esq., Randy S. Paswater,
Esq., of Barber Segatto Hoffee Wilke & Cate in Springfield,
Ill., represented Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant.

John T. Long, Esq., of Cavanagh & O'Hara in Springfield, Ill.,
represented Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Enters Ruling in Bailey Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States entered rulings in the
case styled Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., Petitioners v.
Pearlie Bailey et al.

Judges Souter, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and
Alito entered judgment in Case Nos. 08-295 and 08-307 on June
18, 2009. Judges Stevens and Ginsburg dissented.

As part of the 1986 reorganization plan of the Johns-Manville
Corporation, an asbestos supplier and manufacturer of asbestos-
containing products, the Bankruptcy Court approved a settlement
providing that Manville's insurers, including The Travelers
Indemnity Company and related companies, would contribute to the
corpus of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and
releasing those insurers from any "Policy Claims," which were
channeled to the Trust.

The settlement agreement and reorganization plan were approved
by the Bankruptcy Court (1986 Orders) and were affirmed by the
District Court and the Second Circuit. Over a decade later,
plaintiffs began filing asbestos actions against Travelers in
state courts (Direct Actions), often seeking to recover from
Travelers not for Manville's wrongdoing but for Travelers' own
alleged violations of state consumer-protection statutes or of
common law duties.

Invoking the 1986 Orders, Travelers asked the Bankruptcy
Court to enjoin 26 Direct Actions. Ultimately, a settlement was
reached, in which Travelers agreed to make payments to
compensate the Direct Action claimants, contingent on the
court's order clarifying that the Direct Actions were, and
remained, prohibited by the 1986 Orders.

The court made extensive factual findings, concluding that
Travelers derived its knowledge of asbestos from its insurance
relationship with Manville and that the Direct Actions are based
on acts or omissions by Travelers arising from or related to the
insurance policies.

It then approved the settlement and entered an order (Clarifying
Order), which provided that the 1986 Orders barred the pending
Direct Actions and various other claims. Objectors to the
settlement appealed.

The District Court affirmed, but the Second Circuit reversed.
Agreeing that the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to interpret
and enforce the 1986 Orders, the Circuit nevertheless held that
the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the Direct
Actions because those actions sought not to recover based on
Manville's conduct, but to recover directly from Travelers for
its own conduct. The judgment was reversed and remanded.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Velto's Motion for Default Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at
Tacoma, denied without prejudice Christopher Velto's Motion for
Entry of Default Judgment against Salus Surgical Group, LLC.

The case is styled Christopher Velto, a Washington Citizen,
Plaintiff v. Draeger Medical, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation,
and Salus Surgical Group, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton entered judgment in Case
No. C06-5190RBL on June 12, 2009.

Mr. Velto is a resident of Washington and an employee of Draeger
Medical. Draeger Medical was hired by Century City Doctors
Hospital, LLC (CCDH) to build the Century City Doctor's Hospital
in California. CCDH is a limited partnership and defendant Salus
is the managing member of that partnership.

Draeger Medical placed Mr. Velto in charge of building the
Century City Doctor's Hospital. Mr. Velto originally worked on
the Hospital from an on site office. He claimed he suffered
adverse health consequences resulting from his exposure to
excessive heat, smoke and fume-clogged air, and asbestos dust
while working on site.

Mr. Velto allegedly asked his employer multiple times to move
him and his staff, or provide filtration and air conditioning
systems for the office. Mr. Velto claimed these concerns were
not sufficiently addressed until late into the project.

Mr. Velto then filed a worker's compensation claim on April 29,
2005 for physical symptoms he was experiencing as a result of
working on site. Around April 2005, his treating physician
recommended he change occupations and refrain from returning to
the Hospital worksite.

Mr. Velto lived and maintained a home office in Vancouver, Wash.
While working at home, he participated in numerous conference
calls with CCDH management. He claimed that CCDH verbally
harassed him on the telephone, and this harassment constituted
the tort of Outrage. He alleged that CCDH demanded that he
return to the unsafe worksite, and blamed him for delays in the
installation of an information and monitoring system. Draeger
Medical then terminated Mr. Velto on Oct. 6, 2005, citing
communication issues.

Mr. Velto brought this suit against Draeger Medical, Salus, and
CCDH. He claimed that Salus was responsible for emotional
distress resulting from this harassment, in addition to the
physical effects of being forced to work on-site.

Salus had not appeared or answered, and had not responded to Mr.
Velto's motion. He filed a Motion for Default Judgment on April
27, 2009. He sought a Default Judgment of US$85,000 for lost
wages, emotional distress and gastrointestinal distress
resulting from Salus' actions.

Christopher G. Lundberg, Esq., Matthew E. Malmsheimer, Esq.,
Shay S. Scott, Esq., of Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder
LLP in Portland, Ore., represented Christopher Velto.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Lockheed Martin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin Corporation is still a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into its premises and certain historical products,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009.

The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any currently manufactured products.

The Company has been successful in having a substantial number
of these claims dismissed without payment. The remaining
resolved claims have settled for amounts that are not material
individually or in the aggregate. Most of the asbestos-related
claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of
indemnity.

Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corporation is a global
security company that researches, designs, develops,
manufactures, integrates, and sustains advanced technology
systems and products. The Company provides management,
engineering, technical, scientific, logistic, and information
services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cohen Claim Filed Against Nashua on March 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nashua Corporation, on March 3, 2009, was served papers on March
3, 2009 relative to the asbestos action styled Shlomo Cohen and
Roni Cohen vs. American Standard, Inc. et al. (including Nashua
Corporation), according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2009.

There are 53 defendants in this case. The suit alleges that the
Company engaged in the sale and distribution of materials and
products containing asbestos.

The action claims that Mr. Cohen, for a period of many years,
worked with or came in contact with or was exposed to asbestos
products while working in various shipyards, steel mills,
refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, industrial sites and
facilities, construction sites and other facilities or was
exposed to the defendants' products through the normal use of
these products.

The case alleges Mr. Cohen's exposure to asbestos products has
resulted in his sickness. Subsequently, the Company has learned
that Mr. Cohen worked in a press room, which used Nashua papers
and glue.

The Company is in the process of obtaining part numbers.

Nashua, N.H.-based Nashua Corporation's Specialty Paper Products
segment coats, converts, prints, and sells papers and films for
use in package identification systems, gaming and airline
ticketing systems, and fax machines. Its Label Products segment
makes pressure-sensitive labels for merchants, radio frequency
identification (RFID) labels, and retail shelf tags.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Still Has Multi-Party Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter, Inc. is still a defendant in multi-claimant/multi-
defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and
integrated into or sold with a very limited number of the
Company's products.

No claimant has demonstrated exposure to products manufactured
or sold by the Company and a number of cases have been
voluntarily dismissed, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
22, 2009.

Milwaukee-based Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets
products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control
technologies developed both internally and in conjunction with
other technology companies. Company products are used in
applications to measure and control the flow of liquids,
primarily water.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Filed During July 13 to 17 in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of July 13, 2009 through July 17, 2009, a total
of 11 asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-728) Barbara R. Brobst of Pennsylvania claims
   her deceased husband, Ernest F. Brobst, developed
   mesothelioma after he served in the U.S. Air Force and after
   his work as a home remodeler. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., represent Mrs. Brobst.

-- (Case No. 09-L-740) Jesse W. and Mollie Clements claim Mr.
   Clements developed mesothelioma after his work as a furnace
   installer at Red Boyer, as a carpenter's helper and
   carpenter, as a missionary and social worker at various
   private churches, as a missionary and social worker
   performing home construction and repair work, as a
   maintenance and carpentry man, as a carpenter for a non-
   profit center, and as a home remodeler and repairman for his
   home. Randi L. Gori of Gori, Esq., of Julian and Associates
   in Alton, Ill., represents the Clements couple. W. Mark
   Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg,
   Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., and
   Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will
   serve of counsel.

-- (Case No. 09-L-730) Fred L. Hall Sr. and Betty D. Hall of
   South Carolina claim Mr. Hall developed mesothelioma after
   serving in the U.S. Navy and after working at the Charleston
   Naval Shipyard and at the Naval Weapons Station. Elizabeth V.
   Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill.,
   represent Mrs. Hall.

-- (Case No. 09-L-727) Daniel Haun of Tennessee, a mechanic,
   laborer and exterminator, claims mesothelioma. Brian J.
   Cooke, Esq. of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents
   Mr. Haun.

-- (Case No. 09-L-738) Curtis and Alice Hines of Indiana claim
   Mr. Hines developed mesothelioma after his work as a janitor
   from and as a boatswain's mate. Donald M. Flack, Esq., of
   Flack Law Office in Wood River, Ill., represents the Hines
   couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-729) Mary J. Hultgren of Florida claims her
   deceased husband, Roy C. Hultgren, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a machine operator, carpenter's apprentice,
   carpenter and contractor. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and
   Jackalyn A. Olinger, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis
   represent Mrs. Hultgren.

-- (Case No. 09-L-731) Wilbert and Joyce Jones of Missouri claim
   Mr. Jones developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer
   in Jeanerette, La., as a laborer for Blue Line Chemical
   Company and Switzer Candy Company, and as a laborer at
   Independent Packing House and at Anheuser-Busch Brewery.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., represent the Jones couple.

-- (Case No. 09-L-735) Thomas and Virginia Kersting of Missouri
   allege Mr. Kersting developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a sheet metal worker. John A. Barnerd, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
   in East Alton, Ill., represent the Kerstings.

-- (Case No. 09-L-733) Orville and Sylvia Mueth of Illinois
   allege Mr. Mueth developed esophageal cancer after his work
   as a manager, electrician and plumber. Christopher R. Guinn,
   Esq., and Christopher J. Levy, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent the Mueths.

-- (Case No. 09-L-739) Charles W. Welden Jr. of Alabama, a
   sheetrock and drywall installer, a carpenter, a brake worker,
   and an airport mechanic, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Welden.

-- (Case No. 09-L-732) Joshua J. Wise of Illinois claims a
   deceased man, Eddy Lee Grady, developed lung cancer after his
   work as a laborer at International Vermiculite Co., as a
   butcher at Girard Meat Locker, as a carpenter at Gulf, Mobile
   and Ohio Railroad, as a carpenter at National Homes, as a
   laborer at Hulcher Train Wrecking, and as a laborer for
   Springfield Plastics. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert
   Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland
   in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Wise.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 7 Actions Filed During July 6-10 in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of July 6, 2009 through July 10, 2009, a total
of seven new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison
County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-716) Luther Gibson of Wisconsin, a field
   worker, laborer and machinist, claims mesothelioma. Nicholas
   J. Angelides, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represents Mr. Gibson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-720) Beverly Grinko of Illinois claims her
   deceased husband, Donald Grinko, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a sheet metal worker. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represents Mrs. Grinko.

-- (Case No. 09-L-721) David Hicks of California, a
   quartermaster, machinist and repair man, claims mesothelioma.
   Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represents Mr. Hicks.

-- (Case No. 09-L-705) James L. McClain Jr. and Dianne McClain
   of Mississippi claim Mr. McClain developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a machinist, as a plumber's helper, and as a
   laborer, cementer and supervisor. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
   and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli
   and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the McClains.

-- (Case No. 09-L-703) Sheryl McClary of Illinois claims
   deceased William Burke developed lung cancer after his work
   as a mold maker at Owens-Illinois Glass in Alton, Ill. Randy
   L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Ms. McClary.

-- (Case No. 09-L704) Paul and Genevieve Padalino claims Mr.
   Padalino developed mesothelioma after his work as a heating
   and furnace repair worker, sheet metal worker, power plant
   operator and pipefitter, and operator. He also performed home
   remodeling and construction. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori,
   Julian and Associates in Alton, Ill., represents the
   Padalinos. W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq.,
   Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Esq., Bridget B.
   Truxillo, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law
   Firm in Houston will serve of counsel.

-- (Case No. 08-L-715) Joseph Zembala of Indiana claims his
   deceased wife, Bernadette Zembala, developed mesothelioma
   after she was secondarily exposed to asbestos through her
   husband, who worked as a millwright. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
   Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Zembala.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tax Benefits Not Assured on Hardie Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. says that there can be no guarantee
a proposed move to Ireland will deliver tax benefits to
shareholders or the Company, The West Australian reports.

In June 2009, the Company announced that it would shift to
Ireland in order to improve the chances of qualifying for tax
benefits in the United States, where a majority of its
operations are conducted. The proposed move could cost the
Company as much as AUD71 million.

The Company has said the move would not affect its commitment to
contribute to the asbestos diseases fund, but may reduce
payments in the short-term.

These factors could result in adverse reaction from the
Australian government or state and territory governments, as
well as unions and asbestos disease groups, the Company said.

Shareholders will vote on the first stage of the proposal on
Aug. 21, 2009. If both stages receive approval, the move is
expected to be finalized by the end of January 2010.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Schmidheiny, Cartier Ordered to Stand Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Italian judge, on July 22, 2009, ordered Stephan Schmidheiny
of Switzerland and Jean-Louis de Cartier of Belgium to stand
trial for alleged negligence leading to hundreds of deaths
linked to asbestos plants, The Associated Press reports.

Prosecutors say Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. de Cartier were key
shareholders in Eternit N.V. Prosecutors allege the two were
ultimately responsible for the death of some 2,000 workers and
residents from asbestos-related diseases. Most of the cases
occurred around an Eternit plant in Casale Monferrato, a town
near Turin, Italy.

Lawyers and prosecutors said Mr. Cartier and Mr. Schmidheiny are
charged with causing an environmental disaster and failing to
take proper precautions. Their trial is set to begin Dec. 10,
2009 in Turin.

Eternit closed its Italian operation in 1986. However, people
continue to become sick as a result of the contamination,
prosecutor Raffaele Guariniello said.

Mr. Guariniello alleged that Eternit spread asbestos fibers over
wide areas by allowing powder left over from the production of
roof coverings and pipes to spread in the air. They also sold
asbestos locally for the construction of roads and houses, he
told The Associated Press.

Mr. Schmidheiny and Mr. de Cartier do not deny that the deaths
were caused by asbestos, but claim they did everything they
could to limit the risks and inform the public, said Astolfo Di
Amato, a lawyer for Mr. Schmidheiny.

Mr. Schmidheiny's spokesman, Peter Schuermann, said in an e-mail
that Mr. Schmidheiny "was never the owner of the Italian
factory, but the biggest shareholder of the Swiss Eternit Group
for just a few years. Before, Italian owners steered the company
and afterward Belgians."

Aside from the dead, some 800 residents and former workers are
still suffering from illnesses including asbestosis and
mesothelioma, said Bruno Pesce, the head of a victims
association. Up to 50 new cases are diagnosed each year in
Casale alone.

Some 3,000 victims and family members have joined in a civil
lawsuit attached to the criminal proceedings in Turin. Many were
in the courtroom on July 22, 2009 and cried and applauded after
the ruling, Mr. Pesce said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in 17 Products in South Korea
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Korean Agency for Technology and Standards and the Ministry
of Knowledge, on July 22, 2009, released a list of 17 products
(including bicycles, refrigerators, electric ovens, and
balloons) in six categories confirmed as containing asbestos,
Joong Ang Daily.

The list came from the study of 524 products in 46 categories
suspected of containing the material. The study was conducted in
three stages between April 2009 and June 2009. Almost all
products found to contain asbestos have been recalled and banned
by the government.

A Korean-made balloon and refrigerator were confirmed to contain
asbestos. Bicycles had the largest number of cases among
asbestos-containing products. A total of 11 bicycles were found
to contain asbestos, including bicycles manufactured primarily
in China and bicycles manufactured by Donggrami Utopia, a Korean
company.

Motorcycle brake pads manufactured by two companies in China and
Vietnam were also found to contain asbestos. The brake pads
entered the country via small manufacturers the government said
it could not identify.

Song Jae-bin, the standards agency's product safety bureau
general, said, "From September, asbestos fibers will be banned
from all products for children and products that come into
contact with the skin. Asbestos content in all manufactured
goods will have to be under 0.1 percent."

The government exempted a wallpaper company from the sales ban
and recall because it said the amount of asbestos found in its
product was miniscule.

In addition, the surface of the wallpaper was coated, making it
unlikely the material would enter the air, the standards agency
said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Devoy's Widow Gets GBP500T in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2009, Carol Devoy, a 65-year-old widow of of West
Rainton, Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham, England, won
GBP500,726 in asbestos-related damages, The Northern Echo
reports.

The Chronicle had reported that Mrs. Devoy sued for a record
GBP1 million in damages over her husband's, Alexander Devoy,
death from asbestos disease. (Class Action Reporter, June 19,
2009)

Mrs. Devoy told the High Court in London she lost far more than
a spouse when Mr. Devoy died from mesothelioma in 2007.

Judge Michael Reddighough said that had Mr. Devoy - a former
chief engineer - lived, he would have shouldered the main burden
of caring for his wife, who needs support due to her Parkinson's
disease and a painful spinal condition.

The North-East has one of highest death rates in the United
Kingdom for mesothelioma and many similar claims from people who
worked in shipyards, mines and factories, where asbestos was
widely used, are now going through the courts.

Mrs. Devoy had to give up her career as secretary when she was
diagnosed with Parkinson's disease 13 years ago. According to
her counsel, Christopher Melton QC, Mr. Devoy was his wife's
constant and devoted companion and carer.

Mrs. Devoy sued shipbuilders, William Doxford Ltd, for whom her
husband worked as a fitter between 1955 and 1959, and Stuntbrand
Line Ltd, for whose predecessors, Clan Line Steamers Ltd, he
worked between 1960 and 1970.

During both periods of employment, Mr. Devoy was exposed to
asbestos or asbestos dust and neither defendant contested
liability in the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Site Cleanup to Commence on August 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin, Minn., city engineer Jon Erichson said that the
environmental portion of the cleanup (mostly asbestos removal)
at a fire-damaged site in downtown Austin, Minn., will begin at
around Aug. 24, 2009, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The fire at the Austin site occurred on Jan. 15, 2009.

Mr. Erichson said that the area may finally be clean by October
2009.

Demolition at the site would take place after the asbestos
removal is completed. Officials believe that demolition will
probably start around Sept. 7, 2009 and would be completed by
the beginning of October 2009.

Bids for the environmental and demolition work will be accepted
starting July 28, 2009 and the bids will be awarded by the city
council at the beginning of August 2009.

The project will be financed by Maria Leon, who owns the Mia
Tierra properties that cover most of the area. This is due to a
legal settlement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pa. DEP Issues NOV at Ambler Ex-Boiler Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a
Notice of Violation for asbestos-related demolition work done at
the Ambler boiler house in Ambler, Pa., the Ambler Gazette
reports.

According to a 2007 report from the Center for Public
Environmental Oversight, the boiler house is located in a
brownfield site on South Maple Street. The brownfield site was
owned by Keasbey and Mattison and consists of two facilities: a
former asbestos manufacturing factory and the boiler house,
which is also contaminated after being used as an asbestos
disposal site.

According to the notice of violation, the DEP investigated the
site on May 29, 2009 and discovered roofing materials were being
removed. The property owners had not submitted an Asbestos
Abatement and Demolition/Renovation Notification Form, violating
the DEP's Air Pollution Rules and Regulations.

Lale Byers, an environmental trainee in the Montgomery County
air quality division, issued a notice of violation June 9, 2009
to Ronald Hamilton of Hatfield, one of the members of Ambler
Smokestack LLC, which owns the property.

Mr. Hamilton was given until June 18, 2009 to submit "an
abatement plan that details what [he] will do to assure
compliance with this permit requirement in future projects that
incorporate the removal of regulated asbestos containing
materials," according to the notice.

Currently, there is partial fencing at the site that does not
prevent access to the site.

The boiler house, which had been abandoned for nearly 40 years,
came back into the public's attention last August 2008 when Gov.
Ed Rendell announced the property would receive a US$4 million
grant from the state's Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program
to help transform the brownfield site into a condominium and
office complex.

Strategic Realty Investments, Summit Realty Advisors and Westrum
Development Co. together planned to remediate the site and
create 42,500 square feet of office space at the boiler house,
with 288 condominiums to be built adjacent.

The construction has been postponed due to current economic
conditions.


                            *********

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, 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  * * *