CAR_Public/090731.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 31, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 150

                           Headlines

AETNA INC: Firms File Lawsuit Over Post-Payment Audit Practices
AETNA INC: Opposes Interim Class Counsel Agreement in N.J. Suit
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Seeks Dimissal of Suits Over Shipping Ops
ARROWHEAD INVESTMENTS: Settles Wis. Lawsuit Over Loan Contracts
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Sept. 15 Hearing Set for $11M Suit Settlement

CALIFORNIA: State Contractor Files Litigation Over IOU Payments
E.I. DUPONT: Awaits Ruling on Appeal to Review Va. Smelter Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Defending Lawsuits Over Water Contamination in N.J.
E.I. DUPONT: Hearing on Quebec Consumers' Suit Set for 3Q 2009
E.I. DUPONT: Personal Injury Claims in "Leach" Lawsuit Pending

E.I. DUPONT: Still Opposes Public Nuisance Claim Certification
ENERNOC INC: Stipulation in Consolidated Suit Endorsed in July
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: EC Documents Sought in Pa. Antitrust Suit
HARMONY GOLD: American Depositary Receipt Holder's Suit Pending
HARMONY GOLD: Still Faces Lawsuit by ADR Purchasers and Sellers

HARTFORD INSURANCE: Faces Suit for Underpayment of Wilma Claims
HITACHI AMERICA: Calif. Judge Orders Turn Over of Sales Data
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Allen"
JML PORTFOLIO: Prossnitz Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline

NATIONAL ARBITRATION: Faces Minn. Suit Over Alleged Impartiality
NATIONAL ARBITRATION: Faces Minn. Suit Over Alleged Impartiality
NATIONAL ARBITRATION: Faces Minn. Suit Over Alleged Impartiality
OHIO: Federal Court Approves Settlement in IDEA Violations Suit
PARK POINTE: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Idaho Litigation

PPG INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Pa.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed
RADIOSHACK CORP: Reimbursements Lawsuit Set for Sept. 22 Trial
REGINA PUBLIC: Faces Suit in Saskatchewan Over Students' Fees
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing
GENZYME CORP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
GENZYME CORP: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Labaton Sucharow Files Colo. Stock Lawsuit


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Exposure Cases in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conley Action Filed v. 14 Firms on July 21
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worthley Gets $3.4M in Advocate Mines Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $8M for Bankruptcy in 2nd-Qtr.

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 67T Cases Ongoing v. CertainTeed at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Taylor Lawsuit v. 40 Firms Filed on July 16
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Affirms Ruling in Lubinski Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion for Remand in GE, BP Lawsuit Denied
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Issues Ruling in Fortier Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Vacates Ruling in Charlop Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Mandamus Bid in Garrison
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Upholds Ruling in Singh's Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Flips Crane's Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Remand in Unocal Claim

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Records 1,750 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has No Accruals on AMSF Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Gets $79M Payment in July 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus USA Inc. Still Has Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific's June 30 Liability at $208M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Records $50M Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mosaic Has $40M 2009 Retirement Obligations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Records $828M for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.557B Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Litigation Charges at $37M in 2Q

ASBESTOS LTIIGATION: Honeywell's NARCO Receivable Still at $873M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Upheld in Honeywell's Favor in 2nd-Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Has 51,110 Exposure Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO June 30 Liability at $1.728B
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Huber Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montpelier's Suit v. Morrison Clark Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Seeks Ban on Former Hardie Executives
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ricky May to Testify Against Former Lawyers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Jackson Flips Ruling in FACTS Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnviroTech Fined $1.2T for Handling Breach

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records $5M Litigation Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Has $425.3MM Liability at May 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Cites $5.7M for Cleanup at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Crane Drop to 71,420 at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. to Pursue Appeal in Baccus Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Bid in Woodard Case OK'd on June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $59.3M for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deal Signed w/ Employers Mutual on April 21

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Liability at $791Mil at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Issues Split Ruling in Newinski
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 17 Cases Filed in Madison During July 20-24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smith Lawsuit v. 10 Companies Filed July 24
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 3,128 of Korean Schools

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colleagues Sought in Barratt's Payout Claim
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Pays $49.4M for Claims in 2Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Robreno Allows 60 Days for Medical Reports
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR's Liability at $13.182Mil in June 28
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.997B Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Desnoyers Case
ASBESTOS ALERT: N.Y. Contractor Jailed for Cheating on $1.6M Pay


                           *********

AETNA INC: Firms File Lawsuit Over Post-Payment Audit Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP announced that it and
co-counsel Buttaci & Leardi, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit
against Aetna, Inc., and its various health insurance
subsidiaries on behalf of a putative nationwide class of health
care providers, the Association of New Jersey Chiropractors
(ANJC) and the New York Chiropractic Council (NYCC).

     The suit challenges Aetna's abusive practices in using
post-payment audits, with false allegations of fraud, to
pressure providers to repay substantial sums that have
previously properly been paid for providing services to Aetna
subscribers.

     The action alleges that Aetna's post-payment audit process
violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), in that its repayment demands are retroactive
determinations that particular services are not covered under
the terms of Aetna's health care plans, but without any of the
appeal or other protections otherwise available under ERISA for
both self-funded and fully insured health care plans offered
through private employers.  The complaint further alleges that
both the post-payment audit process and the pre-payment claim
review process employed by Aetna to strong-arm chiropractors
into unfavorable settlements violate the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  In addition to
challenging the process by which Aetna pursues and applies its
audits, the complaint also challenges numerous clinical policy
bulletins of Aetna, which are used to deny services
retroactively without adequate basis or clinical support.

     The ANJC and the NYCC are participating in the action in an
associational capacity on behalf of their members.  Four
chiropractors, Donna Restivo, D.C. and Christopher Foglia, D.C.,
of New York, Todd Carnucci, D.C., of New Jersey, and Peter Manz,
D.C., of Ohio, as well as one surgeon, Leon Egozi, M.D., of
Florida, have sued as the class representatives of the putative
class.  "These plaintiffs, all of whom have been egregiously
harmed by Aetna's improper practices, are standing up to
represent the interests of their profession," says D. Brian
Hufford of Pomerantz Haudek.  "We are seeking to add fairness
into the process, while protecting providers whom Aetna is
attacking for simply doing their jobs in providing medically
necessary health care services to their patients."

     In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that, as a means to
maximize its profits, Aetna is using its post-payment audit
process to pressure providers by claiming that they have been
overpaid in the past for services that are not deemed to be
covered under its health care policies, including because they
purportedly are experimental and investigational.  "Not only are
Aetna's policies invalid and contrary to acceptable medical
procedures," says Vincent N. Buttaci, of Buttaci & Leardi, "but
in making its demands Aetna fails to provide even minimal due
process, which is required under ERISA before Aetna can make an
adverse benefit determination."  The complaint further alleges
that, in making its recoupment demands, Aetna uses "statistical
extrapolations" from its purported review of just a handful of
claims, thereby issuing retrospective denials of numerous other
non-reviewed services.  In doing so, Aetna violates -- and
continues to violate -- the legal rights of providers, and the
patients they treat.

     Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek:

       -- to enjoin Aetna from continuing to engage in
          impermissible audit and recovery practices;

       -- to stop Aetna from enforcing clinical policies that
          are substantively baseless; and

       -- compensation for Providers who have been coerced into
          making payments to resolve or defend against Aetna's
          unlawful overpayment actions, or who otherwise have
          been denied reimbursement for validly provided
          healthcare services.

For more details, contact:

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq. (dbhufford@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: 614-410-6501

               - and -

          Vincent N. Buttaci, Esq. (vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com)
          Buttaci & Leardi, LLC
          Phone: 609-919-6312


AETNA INC: Opposes Interim Class Counsel Agreement in N.J. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. is complaining about an agreement by five competing
plaintiffs firms in the matter, "In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
Case No. 07-3541," wherein they agreed to share the role of
interim class counsel rather than pick one to take the lead,
Henry Gottlieb of New Jersey Law Journal reports.

Defense counsel Liza Walsh of Connell Foley in Roseland, N.J.,
complained to Judge Faith Hochberg of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey that a five-headed plaintiffs'
leadership would be unwieldy and worsen bickering among the
firms, according to New Jersey Law Journal.

It also would drive up litigation costs, which Judge Hochberg
sought to avoid when she warned in April against a feeding
frenzy for fees among class counsel.  The proposed structure
"would only cement the problems that have plagued this
litigation due to lack of cooperation among plaintiffs'
counsel," Ms. Walsh said in a July 14, 2009 letter to the judge.

Ms. Walsh wants Judge Hochberg to step in and appoint a lawyer
or firm with authority to bind all plaintiffs on discovery
matters in the suit, New Jersey Law Journal reprted.

The plaintiffs, the American Medical Association and individual
doctors and patients, allege that Aetna underpaid reimbursements
for out-of-network treatment by knowingly relying on a faulty
database used by several insurers to compute the usual,
customary and reasonable value of health care, and now it owes
additional payments.

The litigation consists of five cases that have been
consolidated before Hochberg by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, reports New Jersey Law Journal.

The law firms involved in the case include: Wilentz, Goldman &
Spitzer in Woodbridge, which sued Aetna in 2007 on behalf of
subscribers; two New York firms, Whatley Drake & Kallas and
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross, representing the American
Medical Association and individual providers, who filed their
lawsuits this year.  Those complaints have been consolidated
with the subscribers' suit.

Recently, New Jersey Law Journal reported that Wilentz Goldman
applied to be named interim lead counsel in the Aetna case, but
Pomerantz Haudek and its allies objected.  On April 7, 2009,
after warning the lawyers that the case was about the
plaintiffs, not them, Judge Hochberg asked the firms to reach an
understanding.

Their solution, filed on July 10, 2009 was the agreement that
Ms. Walsh complained about.  Under the agreement, three firms --
Seeger Weiss of New York, Carella, Byrne, Bain Gilfillan,
Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein of Roseland, and Wilentz Goldman --
would handle discovery for the subscribers.  Pomerantz Haudek
and Whatley Drake would represent the providers.  All five would
be co-interim class counsel.

New Jersey Law Journal reported that all firms would promise not
to settle without notifying the others.  If there is a dispute
over discovery, the firms would vote on how it should be
handled, but the pact doesn't say what happens if there's a tie,
Ms. Walsh notes.

Two other firms received roles below the co-interim counsel
rank.  Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint in Phoenix would be
designated counsel for non-physician providers and Scott+Scott
of New York would represent the interests of the subscribers on
issues arising from antitrust and state laws, according to New
Jersey Law Journal.


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Seeks Dimissal of Suits Over Shipping Ops
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., and its main subsidiary, Matson
Navigation Co., Inc., pursues dismissal of a consolidated class-
action complaint over their domestic shipping carrier
operations.

The company and Matson have been named as defendants in civil
lawsuits purporting to be class-action lawsuits alleging
violations of the antitrust laws and seeking treble damages and
injunctive relief.  As of Jan. 8, 2009, the company was aware of
26 such lawsuits.

All of the lawsuits have been or will be transferred and
consolidated into a civil lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington in Seattle purporting to be a
class-action case.

Another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and
Guam trades, Horizon Lines, Inc., has also been named as a
defendant in the consolidated civil lawsuit.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
Feb. 2, 2009.

The company and Matson filed their motion to dismiss the
complaint on March 20, 2009, according to the company's July 24,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. -- http://www.alexanderbaldwin.com/--
is a diversified corporation with most of its operations
centered in Hawaii.  The business industries of the company
constitute transportation, real estate and agribusiness.  The
Company's ocean transportation operations, related shore side
operations in Hawaii, related intermodal, truck brokerage and
logistics services are conducted by its wholly owned subsidiary,
Matson Navigation Company, Inc. and two Matson subsidiaries.
Its property development and agribusiness operations are
conducted by A&B and certain other subsidiaries of A&B.


ARROWHEAD INVESTMENTS: Settles Wis. Lawsuit Over Loan Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Investments LLC agreed to zero-out all loans to
Wisconsin customers and pay $180,000 in restitution and costs to
settle a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of state
consumer laws, The Business Journal of Milwaukee reports.

The company, a provider of pay day loans over the Internet,
reached the preliminary agreement with the Consumer Law
Litigation Clinic at the University of Wisconsin Law School and
the Wisconsin Department of Justice, on behalf of the Wisconsin
Department of Financial Institutions, according to The Business
Journal of Milwaukee.

The lawsuit was filed in Dane County Circuit Court by the
Consumer Law Litigation Clinic, which alleged that Arrowhead's
loan contracts violated certain provisions of the Wisconsin
Consumer Act and Wisconsin common law unconscionability, reports
The Business Journal of Milwaukee.

The state Justice Department told The Business Journal of
Milwaukee that approximately 1,300 consumers could receive
relief.  The settlement covers Wisconsin consumers who received
a loan from Arrowhead Investments between Dec. 1, 2001, and Dec.
21, 2007, and who paid more than their principal loan amount to
Arrowhead.  They will receive a cash payment.

Arrowhead will also close all outstanding loans with a zero
balance, totaling more than $432,000 in loan, cost and fee
forgiveness, and also agreed to no longer solicit loans to
Wisconsin consumers for five years, among other settlement
provisions, The Business Journal of Milwaukee reported.


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Sept. 15 Hearing Set for $11M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 15, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. For
the proposed $11,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re
BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:2007-
cv-05101."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Saundra B.
Armstrong at the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street,
Courtroom 3, Oakland, CA 94612.

Todd Spangler of Multichannel News previously reported that
BigBand Networks, Inc. agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009).

The agreement, reached on Jan. 27, 2009, gives BigBand a full
release for all potential claims arising from the securities
laws alleged in the initial and consolidated complaints,
including claims for alleged violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, the company told Multichannel
News.

As a result of the settlement, BigBand said it would incur a
$1.5 million charge for litigation and related expenses to its
results of operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008,
according to Multichannel News.

                         Case Background

Since Oct. 3, 2007, several purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.  One of these suits was subsequently dismissed
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 16, 2008).

The lawsuits allege that the company officers and directors made
false or misleading statements to investors in connection with
the company's initial public offering and that its registration
statement and prospectus contained false or misleading
statements regarding its business prospects.

The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who purchased the
company's common stock in the initial public offering, or
purchased the company's common stock between March 14, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007.

The lawsuits assert causes of action for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

In February 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the Court.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, the directors and officers who signed the
Company's IPO registration statement, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's IPO
prospectus contained false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business strategy and prospects, and the prospects
of the Company's CMTS division in particular.

The lead plaintiff purports to represent anyone who purchased
the Company's common stock in the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The suit is "In re BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:2007cv05101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

               - and -

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com)
          Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA  70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Carl Tu, Esq. (mtu@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St., Ste 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020
          Fax: 213-612-2499


CALIFORNIA: State Contractor Files Litigation Over IOU Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California vendor who provided 1,200 embroidered polo shirts
and uniforms to a state-run youth camp and got paid with an IOU
is suing the cash-strapped state, The Associated Press reports.

Nancy Baird filed a lawsuit against state Controller John Chiang
and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer in the U.S. District for the
Northern District of California, according to The Associated
Press.

Ms. Baird owns an EmbroidMe franchise in Paso Robles.  She
received an IOU for nearly $28,000 on July 23, 2009, reports The
Associated Press.

Her lawsuit argues that the thousands of IOUs the state has
given contractors and vendors are unconstitutional and violate
contract laws.  She is seeking class-action status, The
Associated Press reported.


E.I. DUPONT: Awaits Ruling on Appeal to Review Va. Smelter Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A decision on the appeal seeking review of a number of issues in
a class-action lawsuit against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
is expected after the West Virginia state court reconvenes in
September 2009.

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a
class-action suit against DuPont that seeks relief including the
provision of remediation services and property value diminution
damages for 7,000 residential properties in the vicinity of a
closed zinc smelter in Spelter, West Virginia.

The action also seeks medical monitoring for an undetermined
number of residents in the class area.

The smelter was owned and operated by at least three companies
between 1910 and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950.

DuPont performed remedial measures at the request of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the late 1990s and in
2001 repurchased the site to facilitate and complete the
remediation.

The fall 2007 trial was conducted in four phases: liability,
medical monitoring, property and punitive damages.  The jury
found against DuPont in all four phases awarding $55.5 million
for property remediation and $196.2 million in punitive damages.
In post trial motions, the court adopted the plaintiffs' forty-
year medical monitoring plan estimated by plaintiffs to cost
$130 million and granted plaintiffs' attorneys legal fees of
$127 million plus $8 million in expenses based on and included
in the total jury award.

In June 2008, DuPont filed its petitions for appeal with the
West Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of a number of issues
associated with the trial court's decisions before, during and
after the trial.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the Court decided to accept the case and
consider the parties' appeal on the merits.  The oral argument
was heard on April 7, 2009.  The Court recessed on June 25, 2009
without ruling on the appeal.  A decision is expected in due
course after the Court reconvenes in September 2009.

Effective with DuPont posting a bond, the execution of judgment
against the company is stayed pending final disposition of
DuPont's appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.

As of June 30, 2009, the company had recorded accruals of $55
million, according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


E.I. DUPONT: Defending Lawsuits Over Water Contamination in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. is defending against purported
class action lawsuits alleging contamination of drinking water
sources in New Jersey, according to the company's July 27, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In the second quarter 2006, two purported class actions were
filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA
in excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain
DuPont plants.

The two purported class actions were filed in New Jersey.

One was filed in federal court on behalf of individuals who
allegedly drank water contaminated by releases from DuPont's
Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey.

The second was filed in state court on behalf of customers
serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township Water Department
and was removed to New Jersey federal district court on DuPont's
motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of
discovery and the complaints have been amended to allege that
drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04
ppb.

In December 2008, the court denied class action status in both
cases, but ordered additional briefing on certain issues.  The
Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the leave sought by one of
the plaintiffs to appeal the ruling on class certification.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


E.I. DUPONT: Hearing on Quebec Consumers' Suit Set for 3Q 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a class action by Quebec consumers against E. I. Du
Pont de Nemours and Co. has been scheduled for the third quarter
2009.

In the second quarter 2009, plaintiffs' counsel dismissed 22
purported class actions that were filed against DuPont on behalf
of consumers who purchased cookware with Teflon(R) non-stick
coating in federal district courts.

In December 2005, a motion was filed by a single named plaintiff
in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, Canada seeking
authorization to institute a class action on behalf of all
Quebec consumers who have purchased or used kitchen items,
household appliances or food-packaging containing Teflon(R) or
Zonyl(R) non-stick coatings.

This matter has been inactive since filing.

The parties have agreed to jointly seek court approval to
dismiss it at a hearing scheduled during the third quarter 2009,
according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


E.I. DUPONT: Personal Injury Claims in "Leach" Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Personal injury claims in a class action, captioned, "Leach v.
DuPont," remain pending, according to E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co.'s July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

In August 2001, the class action was filed in West Virginia
state court against DuPont and the Lubeck Public Service
District.

DuPont uses PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt) as a processing aid to
manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions at various
sites around the world including its Washington Works plant in
West Virginia.

The complaint alleged that residents living near the Washington
Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health
effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.

The relief sought included damages for medical monitoring,
diminution of property values and punitive damages plus
injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement
agreement in 2004 and as a result, the company established
accruals of $108 million in 2004.  The agreement was approved by
the Wood County Circuit Court on Feb. 28, 2005 after a fairness
hearing.  The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000
residents.  As defined by the court, the class includes those
individuals who have consumed, for at least one year, water
containing 0.05 ppb or greater of PFOA from any of six
designated public water sources or from sole source private
wells.

In July 2005, the company paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million,
which class counsel has designated to fund a community health
project.  The company is also funding a series of health studies
by an independent science panel of experts in the communities
exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on
whether any probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.  The company expects the independent science
panel to complete these health studies between 2009 and year-end
2011 at a total estimated cost of $26 million, of which $5
million was originally placed in an interest-bearing escrow
account.  In addition, the company is providing state-of-the art
water treatment systems designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking
Water Association (LHWA), until the science panel determines
that PFOA does not cause disease or until applicable water
standards can be met without such treatment.  All of the water
treatment systems are operating.  The estimated cost of
constructing, operating and maintaining these systems is about
$22 million of which $10 million was originally placed in an
interest-bearing escrow account.  At June 30, 2009, the accrual
balance relating to the funding of the independent science panel
health study and the water treatment systems was $13 million,
including $7 million in interest bearing escrow accounts.

The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted
in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims.  If the
independent science panel concludes that no probable link exists
between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement
would also resolve personal injury claims.  If it concludes that
a probable link does exist between exposure to PFOA and any
diseases, then DuPont would also fund up to $235 million for a
medical monitoring program to pay for such medical testing.  In
this event, plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue
personal injury claims.  All other claims in the lawsuit would
remain dismissed by the settlement.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


E.I. DUPONT: Still Opposes Public Nuisance Claim Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. continues to oppose class
certification of a public nuisance claim against the company,
according to its July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

In the second quarter 2006, a purported class action was filed
alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by PFOA in
excess of 0.05 ppb due to alleged releases from certain DuPont
plants.

The case was filed in West Virginia state court on behalf of
customers of the Parkersburg City Water District, but was
removed on DuPont's motion to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia.

In September 2008, the U.S. District Court ruled that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs' appeal of the
ruling was denied.  The plaintiff has filed a case based on
their individual claims.

In the second quarter 2009, the plaintiff added a claim based on
public nuisance and moved for class certification on that claim.

Wilmington, Delaware-based E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(NYSE: DD) -- http://www.dupont.com/-- operates globally,
manufacturing a range of products for distribution and sale to
many different markets, including the transportation, safety and
protection, construction, motor vehicle, agriculture, home
furnishings, medical, electronics, communications, protective
apparel, and the nutrition and health markets.


ENERNOC INC: Stipulation in Consolidated Suit Endorsed in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
June 9, 2009, endorsed a joint stipulation in which the lead
plaintiff abandoned any right of appeal to the dismissal of the
amended consolidated class action complaint against EnerNOC,
Inc.

In March 2008, three purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the Court against the company, several of its officers and
directors (the individual defendants), and certain of the
underwriters of its November 2007 follow-on public offering of
its common stock.

The three class action complaints were consolidated by the Court
into a single action and an amended consolidated complaint was
filed on Sept. 24, 2008.

The lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action claimed to
represent two purported classes: (i) an "Exchange Act Class"
consisting of persons who purchased shares of the Company's
common stock from November 1, 2007 through February 27, 2008 and
(ii) a "Securities Act Class" consisting of persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the follow-on public offering.

The lead plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information in various SEC filings and other
public statements.

The amended consolidated class action complaint asserted, on
behalf of the purported Securities Act Class, various claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against all
defendants and, on behalf of the purported Exchange Act Class,
various claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the individual
defendants.

The amended consolidated class action complaint sought, among
other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees,
and such other relief as the Court may have deemed just and
proper.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on Oct. 27, 2008 and a hearing on the
motion was held on Jan. 8, 2009.  The Court took defendants'
motion under advisement following the hearing.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all
claims against the underwriter defendants.

On May 13, 2009, the Court granted the company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the lead
plaintiff's remaining claims without leave to replead.

On June 9, 2009, the Court endorsed a joint stipulation in which
the lead plaintiff abandoned any right of appeal and the parties
agreed not to pursue sanctions in connection with the suit,
according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

EnerNOC, Inc. -- http://www.enernoc.com-- is a leading
developer and provider of clean and intelligent energy solutions
to commercial, institutional, and industrial customers, as well
as electric power grid operators and utilities.  EnerNOC's
technology-enabled demand response and energy management
solutions help optimize the balance of electric supply and
demand.  The Company uses its Network Operations Center, or NOC,
to remotely manage and reduce electricity consumption across a
network of commercial, institutional, and industrial customer
sites and make demand response capacity and energy available to
grid operators and utilities on demand.


GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: EC Documents Sought in Pa. Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class-action suit alleging that several
glass manufacturers engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices have
filed a motion to compel Guardian Industries Corp. to provide
several documents to the court that were produced in the
European Commission (EC) investigation, The USGlass News Network
reports.

In the suit, captioned, "In Re: Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation
(II), Master Docket Misc. No. 08-180 (DWA), MDL No. 1942," the
plaintiffs generally allege that the manufacturers agreed to
raise and fix prices "through a combination of collusive energy
surcharges and price increases."

In addition to Guardian, among the other defendants are
Pilkington North America, Inc. and PPG Industries.  The
manufacturers previously had motioned for the judge to dismiss
the suit.  The motion was denied in February, according to The
USGlass News Network.

The plaintiffs' most recent motion was filed recently in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
but the court has not yet made a ruling on the motion.

The memorandum in support of the motion reads, "Production of EC
documents will not violate principles of comity, and, at a
minimum, Guardian should be required to produce all pre-existing
documents it produced to the EC.  Plaintiffs are entitled to
broad discovery where, as here, the requests are relevant to the
ongoing litigation," reports The USGlass News Network.

The plaintiffs, which include a range of glass shop
representatives across the United States, note that the only
document related to the EC decision that Guardian has produced
is the decision itself.

"Although Guardian acknowledged having other responsive
documents, it unilaterally ended the parties' discovery
conferences and told Plaintiffs that they must bring a motion to
compel," continues the memo, The USGlass News Network reported.

In November 2007, the EC had levied fines against Guardian
Industries, Pilkington Holding Inc., Saint-Gobain and AGC Flat
Glass Europe for alleged price-fixing practices in the European
flat glass market.

Though the investigations leading up to the fines are now
complete, the plaintiffs claim that when the EC was gathering
information, it "had to seize Guardian's documents in an
official raid based on information from another company,"
according to The USGlass News Network.

The plaintiffs argue that the information relevant to the EC
investigation also is relevant to the lawsuit, and that broad
information, including that regarding the company's European
operations, is necessary for discovery in such a case.

"Because direct evidence of an antitrust conspiracy is often
unavailable, courts take a liberal view of relevance and permit
broad discovery," continues the memo.  "Here, Defendants were
involved in parallel cartels during the class period.  Their
pricing behavior in the United States did not change until the
EC raided Defendants' European counterparts.  Plaintiffs need
not allege a global conspiracy for the EC documents to be
discoverable."

Finally, the plaintiffs' claim that the production of documents
related to the EC investigation would be simple.  "Guardian has
already collected, segregated and reviewed the documents" reads
the memo.  "Guardian can make these documents available to
Plaintiffs in short order and with virtually no additional
effort," The USGlass News Network reported.

A copy of the recent motion is available free of charge at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4052


HARMONY GOLD: American Depositary Receipt Holder's Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Co. continues to face a pending class-action
suit in the U.S. whereby certain American Depositary Receipt
(ADR) holders are seeking damages against the company pertaining
to its business practices.

The suit is over the company's alleged failure to disclose or
its misrepresentation of costs and production problems during
2007.

The company has retained local legal counsel to advise on the
matter, according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 20-F/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

Harmony Gold Mining Co., Ltd. -- http://www.harmony.co.za/-- is
a gold producer.  The company's operations are located primarily
on the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa, including 10
underground operations, an open-pit mine and surface operations
that includes four provinces, Gauteng, North West Province,
Mpumalanga and the Free State.  Harmony's exploration portfolio
is focused on highly prospective areas in Papua New Guinea
(PNG), including the Wafi-Golpu project, although renewed
exploration activity has begun in South Africa.


HARMONY GOLD: Still Faces Lawsuit by ADR Purchasers and Sellers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Co. still faces a class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of certain purchasers and sellers of Harmony's
American Depository Receipts ("ADRs").

On April 18, 2008, the company was made aware that it has been
named or may be named as a defendant in the lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York.

Harmony has retained legal counsel, who will advise the company
on further developments in the U.S.

It is currently too early in the proceedings to estimate if
there will be a financial effect, or what the effect might be,
according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 20-F/A filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008.

Harmony Gold Mining Co., Ltd. -- http://www.harmony.co.za/-- is
a gold producer.  The company's operations are located primarily
on the Witwatersrand Basin in South Africa, including 10
underground operations, an open-pit mine and surface operations
that includes four provinces, Gauteng, North West Province,
Mpumalanga and the Free State.  Harmony's exploration portfolio
is focused on highly prospective areas in Papua New Guinea
(PNG), including the Wafi-Golpu project, although renewed
exploration activity has begun in South Africa.


HARTFORD INSURANCE: Faces Suit for Underpayment of Wilma Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Steven R. Simon, P.A. announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest
in Broward County Circuit Court.

     The lawsuit alleges that The Hartford refused to pay
replacement cost coverage on Hurricane Wilma claims on policies
it issued with replacement cost coverage unless and until the
insured actually replaced the property.

     The lawsuit alleges that this is in violation of Florida
law, specifically Florida Statute Section 627.7011(3) which was
passed prior to Hurricane Wilma.  This law requires insurers to
pay their policyholders on policies issued with replacement cost
coverage, the replacement cost, irrespective of whether the
policyholder actually replaced the property.

     The lawsuit alleges that The Hartford saved millions of
dollars in claim payments by failing to comply with this
statute.  The Hartford was given an opportunity to pay
replacement cost coverage to the named plaintiff's but refused
to do so.

     "We were surprised by The Hartford's refusal to pay the
claims based on replacement cost coverage as required by the
statute. The policyholders had purchased replacement cost
coverage, but Hartford refused to comply with the statute,"
stated Steven R. Simon, Managing Attorney of Steven R. Simon,
P.A.

     "We felt this was wrong and filed the class action to
protect Hartford's insureds who may not have knowledge that they
are entitled to payment based on replacement cost coverage
without having to first replace the damaged or destroyed
property," Mr. Simon stated.

     "We hope that the court will recognize that The Hartford is
required to pay its insureds replacement cost coverage for
Hurricane Wilma claims without hold back for depreciation."

For more details, contact:

          Steve Simon, Esq.
          Steven R. Simon, P.A.
          1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2110
          Miami, FL 33131

          Phone: 305-358-6033
          Fax: 305-358-7822
          Web site: http://stevenrsimonpa.com


HITACHI AMERICA: Calif. Judge Orders Turn Over of Sales Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California ordered Hitachi America Ltd., Samsung
Electronics Co. Ltd., and other defendants in a consolidated
antitrust class-action lawsuit against makers of flash memory
chips to turn over non-U.S. sales data for the products, Law360
reports.

In an order issued on July 27, 2009, the judge said that the
defendants must turn over the data by Aug. 31, 2009, according
to Law360.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Automotive Filters Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to face purported
class-action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over allegations
that 12 filter manufacturers engaged in a conspiracy to fix
prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers for after-market
automotive filters, according to the company's July 27, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Initially, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 31, 2008, by S&E Quick Lube, a
filter distributor, under the caption, "S&E Quick Lube
Distributors Inc. v. Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:2008-cv-00475."  It is a purported class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of direct purchasers who bought filters from
the defendants.

Parallel purported class-action lawsuits, including those on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the U.S., and
Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-
district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) is
also investigating the allegations raised in these suits.  The
company continues to cooperate with the DOJ investigation.

The consolidated lawsuit is "S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Labortories, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-00475,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq. (krcallahan@uks.com)
          Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Phone: 860-548-2600


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Allen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining claims in the class-action suit captioned, "Allen,
et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan," have not yet been
considered by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims
alleged by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were
dismissed with prejudice in exchange for approximately $35
million and the maximum aggregate liability for the remaining
three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the
pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity
when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate
benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at
$500 million.

Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or
will be paid from the company's pension plan.

The company continues to expect to prevail on the remaining
claims in light of applicable law and our substantial
affirmative defenses, which have not yet been considered by the
Court.

Honeywell International Inc. -- http://www51.honeywell.com/--
is a diversified technology and manufacturing company, serving
customers globally with aerospace products and services,
control, sensing and security technologies for buildings, homes
and industry, turbochargers, automotive products, specialty
chemicals, electronic and advanced materials, and process
technology for refining and petrochemicals and energy efficient
products and solutions for homes, business and transportation.
The company operates in four business segments: aerospace,
automation and control solutions, specialty materials, and
transportation systems.


JML PORTFOLIO: Prossnitz Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard Prossnitz corrects its June 8,
2009 press release concerning the deadline for filing a motion
to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action that was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of variable
annuities offered by JML Portfolio Management, LTD ("JML") and
issued by Capital Leben, now known as Swiss Life Holding AG
(Swiss Life) which was invested with Nomura Holding, Inc.'s
(Nomura) All Weather Fund.

     The deadline for filing a motion to serve as lead plaintiff
is 60 days from June 8, 2009 or August 7, 2009, not 60 days from
May 29, 2009.  The Nomura All Weather Fund was heavily invested
with Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff").  This
class action is being brought on behalf of all victims who were
sold Swiss Life variable annuities through JML from January 3,
2006 to December 10, 2008.

     The complaint charges the Defendants violated various
federal securities laws, and also alleges breach of fiduciary
duty, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Florida state securities law.  Plaintiffs allege that JML, Swiss
Life and Nomura collectively engaged in unlawful practices by
misrepresentations and omissions to investors who purchased the
Swiss Life annuity through JML.  Plaintiffs allege Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by investing
Plaintiffs money with Madoff while failing to perform adequate
due diligence, despite many red flags.  As a result of
Defendants' many violations, purchasers of the annuities lost a
significant portion of their investment when the Madoff Ponzi
scheme collapsed.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Swiss Life annuities offered through JML from
January 3, 2006 to December 10, 2008.  The plaintiff is
represented by The Law Offices of Howard Prossnitz with the firm
of Sonn & Erez serving as local counsel.

For more details, contact:

          Howard Prossnitz, Esq. (howard@prossnitzlaw.com)
          The Law Offices of Howard Prossnitz
          200 West Madison Street
          Suite 2670
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312)-960-1800


NATIONAL ARBITRATION: Faces Minn. Suit Over Alleged Impartiality
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit, alleging that the company hid its ties to
credit-card companies and handed down unfair rulings, Annie
Baxter of Minnesota Public Radio reports.

NAF is one of the nation's largest arbitration service
providers.  It presents itself as a neutral arbiter between
companies and the consumers who owe them money.

Minnesota Public Radio reported that earlier this month, the
Minnesota Attorney General's office sued the NAF, saying it's
not a neutral body because of financial ties to the Debt
collection industry.

NAF did not admit wrongdoing, but it settled the suit and agreed
immediately to cease consumer arbitrations, citing mounting
legal costs.  In effect, NAF agreed to exit the consumer
arbitration business.

The class-action suit addresses the company's neutrality.  The
plaintiffs say they suffered damages due to the company's
alleged impartiality, according to Minnesota Public Radio.

The suit was filed on July 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota by Rebecca Kuntz, under the
caption, "Kuntz v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc. et al, Case
No. 0:2009-cv-01949."

Listed as defendants are National Arbitration Forum, Inc.,
National Arbitration Forum, LLC, Accretive, LLC, Agora, Axiant,
LLC, American Express, Bank of America, MBNA Corporation, Wells
Fargo, Wachovia, Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., Capital One, N.A., J.P. Morganchase,
Citigroup, Inc. and Discover Card.

For more details, contact:

          Karla M. Gluek, Esq. (kgluek@gustafsongluek.com)
          Gustafson Gluek PLLC
          608 2nd Ave S Ste 650
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-333-8844
          Fax: 612-339-6622


NATIONAL ARBITRATION: Faces Minn. Suit Over Alleged Impartiality
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit, alleging that the company hid its ties to
credit-card companies and handed down unfair rulings, Annie
Baxter of Minnesota Public Radio reports.

NAF is one of the nation's largest arbitration service
providers.  It presents itself as a neutral arbiter between
companies and the consumers who owe them money, according to
Minnesota Public Radio.

Earlier this month, the Minnesota Attorney General's office sued
the NAF, saying it's not a neutral body because of financial
ties to the Debt collection industry, Minnesota Public Radio
reported.

NAF did not admit wrongdoing, but it settled the suit and agreed
immediately to cease consumer arbitrations, citing mounting
legal costs.  In effect, NAF agreed to exit the consumer
arbitration business.

The class-action suit addresses the company's neutrality.  The
plaintiffs say they suffered damages due to the company's
alleged impartiality, reports Minnesota Public Radio.

The suit was filed on July 28, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota by Kelly Marquis, under the
caption, "Marquis v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc. et al,
Case No. 0:2009-cv-01971."

Listed as ational Arbitration Forum, Inc., National Arbitration
Forum, LLC, Dispute Management Services, LLC, Agora, Axiant,
LLC, American Express, Bank of America, MBNA Corporation, Wells
Fargo, Wachovia, Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., Capital One, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase,
Citigroup, Inc. and Discover Card.

For more details, contact:

          Karla M. Gluek, Esq. (kgluek@gustafsongluek.com)
          Gustafson Gluek PLLC
          608 2nd Ave S Ste 650
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-333-8844
          Fax: 612-339-6622


NATIONAL ARBITRATION: Faces Minn. Suit Over Alleged Impartiality
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) is facing a purported
class-action lawsuit, alleging that the company hid its ties to
credit-card companies and handed down unfair rulings, Annie
Baxter of Minnesota Public Radio reports.

NAF is one of the nation's largest arbitration service
providers.  It presents itself as a neutral arbiter between
companies and the consumers who owe them money, reports
Minnesota Public Radio.

Earlier this month, the Minnesota Attorney General's office sued
the NAF, saying it's not a neutral body because of financial
ties to the Debt collection industry, according to Minnesota
Public Radio.

NAF did not admit wrongdoing, but it settled the suit and agreed
immediately to cease consumer arbitrations, citing mounting
legal costs.  In effect, NAF agreed to exit the consumer
arbitration business.

The class-action suit addresses the company's neutrality.  The
plaintiffs say they suffered damages due to the company's
alleged impartiality, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

The suit was filed on July 24, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota by Kerry S. Sydnes, under the
caption, "Sydnes v. National Arbitration Forum, Inc. et al, Case
No. 0:2009-cv-01939."

Listed as defendants are National Arbitration Forum, Inc.,
National Arbitration Forum, LLC, Dispute Management Services,
LLC, Accretive, LLC, Agora, Axiant, LLC, American Express, Bank
of America, MBNA Corporation, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, Capital One
Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Capital
One, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Inc. and Discover Card.

For more details, contact:

          Karla M. Gluek, Esq. (kgluek@gustafsongluek.com)
          Gustafson Gluek PLLC
          608 2nd Ave S Ste 650
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-333-8844
          Fax: 612-339-6622


OHIO: Federal Court Approves Settlement in IDEA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
July 2, 2009 granted the parties' second joint motion for
preliminary approval of partial class-action settlement in the
case of "John Doe, et al., v. State of Ohio, et al., Case No.
2:91-cv-464," The Aurora Advocate reports.

The partial settlement, which is reflected in a consent order,
concerns certain claims regarding the state's procedures for
implementing the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), according to the Aurora
Advocate.

Ohio students with disabilities and their parents or guardians
have the right to submit written comments or objections
regarding the consent order by Sept. 16, 2009 to: Clerks of
Courts, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Joseph P. Kinneary U.S. Courthouse, 85 Marconi Blvd., Columbus
43215; Attn: Judge Holschuh's docket, reports the Aurora
Advocate.

The Aurora Advocate reported that the court has scheduled a
hearing at Oct. 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. to determine whether the
proposed partial settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate,
and whether it should receive the court's final approval.

The consent order can be found at http://www.education.ohio.gov
under features or keyword search "special education consent
order," according to the Aurora Advocate.


PARK POINTE: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Idaho Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the matter, "Merrithew/Howell et al v. Park Pointe
Realty, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00061-BLW," Law360 reports.

The suit was filed on Feb. 8, 2006 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Idaho.  It is claiming that real estate
companies ran afoul of antitrust laws by tying the sale of
undeveloped lots to agents' services and commissions for
developed property, according to Law360.

In an opinion issued on July 27, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision in the matter that
favored the real estate companies, Law360 reported.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda J. Beane, Esq.
          Perkins Coie LLP
          1201 Third Ave #4800
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 359-8000
          Fax: abeane@perkinscoie.com

          Bruce S. Bistline, Esq., Esq.
          (bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com)
          Gordon Law Offices
          623 W Hays
          Boise, ID 83702-5512
          Phone: (208) 345-7100
          Fax: 1-208-345-0050

          Rex Blackburn, Esq. (rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com)
          Blackburn & Jones
          POB 7808
          Boise, ID 83707
          Phone: (208) 489-8989

               - and -

          Craig R. Spiegel, Esq. (craig@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 268-9328
          Fax: 206-623-0594


PPG INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
purported class-action lawsuit alleging antitrust violations in
Pittsburgh, Pa.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass
producers as defendants in purported antitrust class actions.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and
conditions of sale of flat glass in the United States in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into one federal
court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Many allegations in the complaints are similar to those raised
in ongoing proceedings by the European Commission in which fines
were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of
alleged antitrust violations.  PPG is not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe.  PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998.

A complaint containing allegations substantially similar to the
U.S. litigation was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor,
Ontario, Canada in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass
in Canada.

PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or conduct on its part in the
operation of its flat glass businesses that violated any
antitrust laws, according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global
supplier of protective and decorative coatings.  The company
operates in six segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial
Coatings, Architectural Coatings, Optical and Specialty
Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass.  The Performance
Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural Coatings
segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers
in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment,
appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions
and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment;
automotive original equipment, and other industrial and consumer
products.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the class decertification ruling in
the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Brookler v. RadioShack
Corp.," remains stayed.

The litigation involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision
of meal periods.

In February 2006, a California State Court certified a class of
approximately 23,000 members in the wage and hour suit.  The
company moved to decertify this class in July 2007, based upon
recent case authority dealing with the standard of liability for
meal and rest period actions.

RadioShack's motion to decertify was denied by the trial court,
and its petition for review to the California Supreme Court was
denied on Jan. 3, 2008.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
RadioShack's Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit.  RadioShack's Motion for Decertification of the
class initially was denied on Aug. 29, 2007.  However, after the
California Appellate Court's favorable decision on similar facts
in "Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court,"
RadioShack again sought class decertification.  The court
granted RadioShack's Motion for Class Decertification based on
the California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker, and the
plaintiffs in Brookler have appealed this ruling.  Following the
Brinker decision, the Brinker plaintiffs appealed the California
Appellate Court's decision in that case to the Supreme Court of
California.  Due to the continuing unsettled nature of
California state law regarding the standard of liability for
meal period violations, RadioShack and the Brookler plaintiffs
agreed to a stay with respect to the plaintiff's appeal of the
class decertification ruling, pending the outcome of the appeal
of the California Appellate court's decision in Brinker.  The
outcome of this action is uncertain, according to the company's
July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Reimbursements Lawsuit Set for Sept. 22 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial is set for Sept. 22, 2009, in a purported class-action
lawsuit captioned, "Richard Stuart v. RadioShack Corporation, et
al."

On June 7, 2007, the class-action lawsuit was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

This action alleges that the company failed to properly
reimburse employees in California for mileage expenses
associated with the use of their personal vehicles to make
transfers of merchandise between Radioshack's stores.

The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, and on
Feb. 9, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion,
according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


REGINA PUBLIC: Faces Suit in Saskatchewan Over Students' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Public School Board is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit filed by parent Jacky Atkinson, who claims the school
board wrongly has charged her about CAD$475 in fees pertaining
to her high-school-aged son's education during the past two
school years, Canwest News Service reports.

The law firm behind the case may take the lawsuit across
Saskatchewan and into British Columbia, according to Canwest
News Service.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend an antitrust
class action complaint filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division.  The action alleges violations of
federal antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic
mattress products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain
distributors.

The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and
seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June
25, 2007 based on a motion filed by the company.  Then,
following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin
Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts
of the complaint on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Commenting on the recent ruling, Anita Nesser, Vice President
and Corporate Counsel of Tempur Pedic, stated, "We are quite
pleased that the court agreed completely with our view that the
plaintiff's allegations were without merit, and dismissed this
case in its entirety," (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 14, 2007).

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed.  On May 1, 2008,
that motion was denied.  The Jacobs appealed the dismissal of
their claims, and the parties argued the appeal before the U.S.
Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec. 11, 2008.

The matter has been taken under advisement by the court,
according to the company's July 27, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
Case Number: 4:2007cv00002," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Robert L.
Vining Jr.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BARE ESCENTUALS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Bare Escentuals, Inc.
Nasdaq: BARE), between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Bare Escentuals, Inc. develops, markets and sells cosmetics,
skin-care and body-care products worldwide under the
bareMinerals, RareMinerals, Buxom and md formulations brands.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Bare Escentuals' business and prospects
were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose material adverse
information, including that:

       -- the Company's infomercial business was not performing
          according to internal expectations;

       -- the Company's new infomercial had led to an immediate
          decrease in sales and was not performing to internal
          expectations; and

       -- as a result, the Company's growth rate would be
          slowing from historical growth rates.

     On August 1, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced that its
infomercial sales were weakening, causing the price of Bare
Escentuals common stock to fall approximately 13% on extremely
heavy trading volume.

     On October 31, 2007, Bare Escentuals held a conference call
to discuss the Company's third-quarter 2007 financial
performance.  During the call it was revealed that the Company
was continuing to experience weakness in its infomercial
business.

     Then, on November 26, 2007, the Company announced the
resignation of its President of Wholesale and International
Sales, "effective immediately."  As a result of this news,
shares of the Company's stock fell $3.42 per share over the next
two trading days, to close at $19.75 per share on November 28,
2007, significantly below the Class Period high of $42.99 per
share.

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

For more details, contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
          e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Kendall Law Group Announces Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group has filed a lawsuit against Caraco
Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AMEX: CPD) on behalf of investors
who purchased CPD stock that was artificially inflated between
May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009.

     According to the complaint, filed in the Eastern District
of Michigan, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- Caraco failed to meet the United States Food and Drug
          Administration's ("FDA") current Good Manufacturing
          Practice ("cGMP") requirements;

       -- Caraco failed to take corrective measures in order to
          have its manufacturing facilities comply with the
          FDA's cGMP requirements;

       -- Caraco had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA
          regulations previously observed and documented by the
          FDA;

       -- that the foregoing significantly jeopardized the
          Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new
          drug applications; and

       -- as a result of the above, Caraco would have to recall
          certain products.

     On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had
seized drug products from the Company's facilities.  According
to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's continued failure to
meet the FDA's cGMP requirements.  On this news, shares of
Caraco fell approximately 43% to $2.39 per share.

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

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


GENZYME CORP: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Genzyme Corporation (Nasdaq: GENZ) common
stock between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009.

     The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, and charges defendants
Genzyme and Henri A. Termeer (President and CEO) with issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

     The complaint alleges that defendants concealed
deficiencies at two of its manufacturing facilities, which
caused a shortage in one of its top-selling products (a drug
called Myozyme) and delayed approval of a new formulation of
that product (a drug known as Lumizyme).  The manufacturing
problems also forced Genzyme to halt production of two other
top-selling products (drugs called Cerezyme and Fabrazyme) due
to contamination at one of the manufacturing facilities.

     On July 22, 2009, Genzyme slashed its earnings and revenue
forecasts for 2009, including its revenue projections for
Myozyme, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme, due to the impact of the
facility shutdown. During the class period, Genzyme's stock has
fallen over 35%, resulting in a loss of over $8 billion to
investors.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased
Genzyme securities between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009,
excluding defendants and their affiliates.

For more information, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


GENZYME CORP: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and U.S.
Attorney, announces that a securities class action was filed
against Genzyme Corp. (NASDAQ: GENZ) and a company executive.
The lawsuit seeks damages for shareholders who purchased
artificially inflated Genzyme stock between June 26, 2008 and
July 21, 2009.

     The complaint, filed in the District of Massachusetts,
states that defendants concealed problems at two of its
facilities.  Those problems led to contamination of two of the
pharmaceutical company's top selling products.  This then led to
a shortage in one of the company's top-selling drugs -- Myozyme.
The lack of internal controls in the company even delayed
approval of a new formulation of that drug.

     On July 22, 2009, Genzyme slashed its earnings and revenue
forecasts for 2009, including its revenue projections for those
drugs listed above, due to the impact of the facility shutdown.
Since June 2008, Genzyme's stock has fallen over 35%, resulting
in a loss of over $8 billion.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 25, 2009.

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


OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Labaton Sucharow Files Colo. Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on July
28, 2009 in the United States District Court for District of
Colorado, on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Oppenheimer AMT-Free New York Municipals (Nasdaq:
OPNYX) (Nasdaq: ONYBX) (Nasdaq: ONYCX) between May 21, 2006 and
October 21, 2008, inclusive.

     The complaint names the Fund, Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., John
V. Murphy, Clayton K. Yeutter, Brian W. Wixted, Matthew P. Fink,
Robert G. Galt, Phillip A. Griffiths, Mary F. Miller, Joel W.
Motley, Kenneth A. Randall, Russel S. Reynolds, Jr., Joseph M.
Wikler, Peter I. Wold, Brian F. Wruble, Ronald H. Fielding,
Daniel G. Loughran, Scott Cottier and Troy E. Willis as
defendants.

     The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by failing to disclose in the Fund's
prospectus that the Fund employed strategies designed to enhance
its reported returns while, at the same time, these strategies
exposed the Fund to much greater risk of price decline in the
value of its portfolio securities in the event of illiquidity in
the market for municipal securities.

     The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose that these strategies exposed the Fund to greater risk
of loss should the Fund be forced to sell large blocks of its
portfolio at disadvantageous times at prices reduced from those
at which the securities were previously carried on the Fund's
books.  The Fund's shares declined significantly when these
risks materialized.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 7, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Alan I. Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com)
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries are still
defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at the
Company's facilities, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
23, 2009.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time
of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec
Industries Inc.

At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were defendants in a
significant number of personal injury claims relating to alleged
asbestos-containing products sold by those subsidiaries prior to
the Company's ownership. It is possible that asbestos-related
claims might be asserted against the Company on the theory that
it has some responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities
of EnPro, Coltec or its subsidiaries.

A limited number of asbestos-related claims have been asserted
against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one of its
subsidiaries.

The Company said it believes that it has substantial legal
defenses against these and other such claims. In addition, the
agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to
effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace
components, systems and services to the commercial and general
aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies systems and
products to the global defense and space markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ENSCO Still Facing Exposure Cases in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENSCO International Incorporated and certain current and former
subsidiaries are still defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits
filed in Mississippi courts.

In August 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County (Second
Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial District),
Miss.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death,
primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims. As a
result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual
plaintiffs.

Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in
Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

The Mississippi state court cases are under an informal stay of
discovery issued by a Special Master presiding over these
matters while discovery is conducted for a designated group of
plaintiffs, several of which involve the Company.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in seven cases pending against the Company. No further
activity will occur in these cases until they are selected for
trial. Currently, none of the cases pending against the Company
in Mississippi have been set for trial.

Plaintiffs and defendants have until Aug. 15, 2009 to select
plaintiffs to fill five trial settings during 2010.

The three cases pending in federal court were consolidated with
441 other lawsuits filed by a Houston law firm. These cases were
referred to a Magistrate Judge, who ordered parties to conduct
general discovery in these matters. Discovery specific to each
plaintiff will take place at a later designated time, if deemed
necessary by the parties and the court.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
eight other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in various other jurisdictions.

Dallas-based ENSCO International Incorporated is an offshore
drilling contractor. The Company owns 46 offshore rigs,
including 43 jack-ups, one barge rig, and two ultra-deepwater
semi-submersibles capable of drilling in up to 8,500 feet of
water.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conley Action Filed v. 14 Firms on July 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrill and Carolyn Conley, on July 21, 2009, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 14 defendant corporations in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The Conleys claim Mr. Conley developed an asbestos-related
disease during the course of his work as an instrument
technician, systems craftsman and supervisor.

Defendants include A.O. Smith Corp., A.W. Chesterton Co.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., CBS Corporation, Crane Co., Foster Wheeler
AG, Garlock, General Electric Company, Goulds Pumps Inc.,
Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited, John Crane Inc., Owens-Illinois
Inc., and Union Carbide Corporation.

The Conleys allege the defending companies failed to adequately
warn Mr. Conley of the dangers of asbestos exposure. They claim
the companies also negligently failed to test the products to
determine hazards associated with them and failed to remove
their products from the market.

The Conleys seek unspecified actual and exemplary damages, plus
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which
they are entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of
Provost Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent the
Conleys.

Case No. D184-535 case has been assigned to Judge Milton
Shuffield, 136th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worthley Gets $3.4M in Advocate Mines Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Richard Worthley Sr., on July 22, 2009, was
awarded US$3.4 million in compensation, in an asbestos case
filed against Advocate Mines Limited, an asbestos mine in Baie
Verte, Newfoundland Canada, according to a Brayton Purcell, LLP
press release dated July 23, 2009.

Mr. Worthley, a former Johns-Manville Corporation Transite plant
worker from Beaumont, Calif., was exposed to raw asbestos
supplied by Advocate Mines. Due to his occupational asbestos
exposure, he ultimately developed and succumbed to mesothelioma.

The trial began on June 10, 2009 and was presided over by Judge
Tomar Mason in Department 606 of the San Francisco Superior
Court. The jury was empaneled and heard all the evidence.
Closing arguments were presented on July 21, 2009 and the jury
reached its verdict the next day.

After determining that Advocate Mines exposed Mr. Worthley to
its asbestos fiber, and determining that Advocate Mines was
negligent, it asbestos product was defective, and it failed to
warn of the hazards, the jury assessed US$877,750 in economic
damages, and US$2.5 million in non-economic damages, due to
Advocate Mines' contribution in causing Mr. Worthley's
mesothelioma and death.

Mr. Worthley served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the San
Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Calif., and Vietnam from 1963 to
1967. In May 1968, he began his career at the Johns-Manville,
Waukegan, Ill., plant, first as a painter, then as a production
planner, and then as a millwright.

When the plant closed down in 1984, Mr. Worthley worked as a
maintenance mechanic and service technician throughout Southern
California until 2004 when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Advocate Mines supplied asbestos fiber to the Johns-Manville,
Waukegan, Ill., plant from December 1963 to April 1967. During
his career at the plant from May 1968 to November 1984, Mr.
Worthley was exposed to dust from the raw asbestos fiber used to
make Transite asbestos-cement pipe, including asbestos fiber
that had been reentrained and resuspended from when Advocate
Mines supplied asbestos fiber to the plant.

One of Mr. Worthley's jobs was to clean and repair the Transite
manufacturing equipment, including the willows, and clean and
repair the dust collection equipment, including the bag houses,
ventilators, and cyclones. All these activities exposed Mr.
Worthley to asbestos dust, including from Advocate Mines, which
mined, manufactured, and supplied asbestos fiber to various
Johns-Manville plants from 1963 to 1981.

The jury assigned five percent of the liability to Advocate
Mines Limited.

James P. Nevin, Esq., counsel for Mr. Worthley, said, "We
demonstrated to the jury that it was the total dose of asbestos
that Mr. Worthley was exposed to at the Johns-Manville plant,
including resuspended asbestos fiber from Advocate Mines
Limited, that contributed together to cause his mesothelioma and
death."

John Graniez, Esq., and Suzanne Golden, Esq., of Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP represented Advocate Mines Limited.

The case styled Mickie Worthley et al. v. Advocate Mines Limited
et al. was filed in San Francisco Superior Court (Case No.
432308).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Spends $8M for Bankruptcy in 2nd-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that expenses related to its Chapter 11
proceedings, net of filing entity interest income, were US$8
million in the second quarter of 2009, compared with US$18
million in the second quarter 2008, according to a Company press
release dated July 23, 2009.

Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of
filing entity interest income, were US$10 million in the first
quarter of 2009, compared with US$18.4 million in the prior year
quarter. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)

Asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million as of June 30,
2009, the same as for the period ended Dec. 31, 2008. Asbestos-
related contingencies were US$1.7 billion, the same as for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S.
operating subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware in order to resolve the Company's asbestos-related
liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of
Reorganization as well as several associated documents,
including a disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court. The
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are co-
proponents of the Plan.

The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants and the
Representative for Future Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are
not co-proponents of the Plan.

The Plan is consistent with the terms of the previously
announced settlements of the Company's asbestos personal injury
liability and claims related to its former attic insulation
product. The Plan requires the establishment of two asbestos
trusts under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to which
all present and future asbestos-related claims would be
channeled. Confirmation hearings on the Plan were held in June
2009 and will continue in September 2009.

Most of the Company's non-core liabilities and contingencies
(including asbestos-related litigation, environmental claims and
other obligations) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 67T Cases Ongoing v. CertainTeed at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain's subsidiary in the United States,
CertainTeed Corporation, faced 67,000 outstanding asbestos
claims at June 30, 2009, compared with 68,000 claims at Dec. 31,
2008, according to a Company press release dated July 23, 2009.

CertainTeed faced 70,000 asbestos-related claims at Sept. 30,
2008, compared with 73,000 claims at June 30, 2008 and 74,000
claims at Dec. 31, 2007. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2008)

Some 2,000 claims were filed against CertainTeed in the first
half of 2009, compared with 3,000 in first-half 2008. Over the
period, 3,000 claims were settled (4,000 in first-half 2008).

A total of US$61 million in indemnity payments were made over
the 12 months to June 30, 2009, compared with US$71 million over
the 12 months to Dec. 31, 2008.

Non-operating costs totaled EUR264 million compared with EUR79
million in first-half 2008, as the Group stepped up adjustments
and restructuring measures to tackle the crisis. Non-operating
costs include a charge of EUR37.5 million for asbestos-related
litigation involving CertainTeed in the United States (amount
unchanged from first-half 2008).

Courbevoie, France-based Compagnie de Saint-Gobain develops,
manufactures, and distributes products for construction,
transportation, industrial, food storage, and solar energy
usage. The Company operates in five sectors: Construction
Products, Building Distribution, Flat Glass, High-Performance
Materials, and Packaging.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Taylor Lawsuit v. 40 Firms Filed on July 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed on behalf of Atwood Taylor was filed
in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., on July 16, 2009, The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The case is styled Linda Duke et al vs. AO Smith Corp.

Ms. Duke is suing 40 corporate defendants, alleging the
companies were responsible for inflicting her benefactor with an
asbestos illness. Mr. Taylor, who already sued once and received
a claim, worked as a pipefitter in Jefferson County.

The suit alleges the defendants knew about the dangers of
asbestos products but concealed the danger and conspired to
sell, manufacture and use asbestos products.

The plaintiffs are seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

Bryan Blevins, Esq., represents the plaintiffs.

Judge Milton Shuffield presides over Case No. D184-508.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Affirms Ruling in Lubinski Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota upheld the ruling of the
Winona County District Court, which favored Elizabeth Lubinski
and two of her children (Rick Lubinski and Susan Gallas) in a
case involving asbestos.

The case is styled Elizabeth Lubinski, et al., Respondents v.
Paula Bourne, Appellant, Douglas Bourne, Appellant.

Judges Heidi S. Schellhas, Harriet Lansing, and Thomas J.
Kalitowski entered judgment in Case No. A08-1552 on June 16,
2009.

Mrs. Lubinski, a widow, conveyed a remainder interest in her
Winona, Minn., home in 1996 to her three adult children: Mr.
Lubinski, Mrs. Gallas, and Paula Bourne. She retained a life
estate.

Mrs. Lubinski continued to live in the home until health and
mobility issues required her to move to an assisted-living
residence. Both before and after her move to assisted living,
Mr. Lubinski and Mrs. Gallas provided their mother with personal
and financial assistance in maintaining the home.

When they were unable to continue the assistance, and Mrs.
Lubinski could not afford to maintain the home, she, Mr.
Lubinski, and Mrs. Gallas attempted to persuade Mrs. Bourne to
agree to sell the home.

They believed that Mrs. Lubinski needed the proceeds from the
life estate to remain in her assisted-living residence and they
also believed that the unoccupied house would deteriorate and
the lack of assets to maintain the home would result in tax
forfeiture. Mrs. Bourne would not agree to the sale.

Mr. Lubinski and Mrs. Gallas joined Mrs. Lubinski in a partition
action that also named Mrs. Bourne as a party. Bourne's husband,
Douglas, joined the litigation as a party in interest, and the
Bournes defended the action pro se in the district court and in
the prosecution of the appeal.

The case was tried to the court and the Bournes opposed the
partition and sale of the property. The Bournes claimed that the
home was hazardous because asbestos and lead paint had been used
in its construction and that selling the house in this condition
would violate the Bournes' freedom of conscience.

At the end of the trial, the district court found that the sale
of the house would benefit all parties, particularly Mrs.
Lubinski, and that not selling the house would cause waste and
risk tax forfeiture.

The district court also found that the Bournes' claim of
potential harm to future purchasers and the purchasers' children
was speculative and the claim was undermined by the co-tenants'
assurances that the listing agreement would disclose the
possibility of asbestos and lead paint in the home.

The district court's order also provided that the proceeds would
first be used to compensate Mrs. Lubinski for her life estate.
The remaining proceeds would be divided equally among Mrs.
Lubinski's three children.

Finally, the order provided that Mrs. Bourne's obligation for
costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees would be deducted from
her one-third interest before it was distributed to her. The
Bournes appealed from the judgment.

Lee Ann Riehle, Esq., of Streater & Murphy, P.A. in Winona,
Minn., represented Elizabeth Lubinski and other respondents.

Paula Bourne and Douglas Bourne of Rosemount, Minn., were pro se
appellants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion for Remand in GE, BP Lawsuit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, denied
plaintiffs' Motion to Remand an asbestos case filed against
Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (BP) and General Electric Company (GE).

The case is styled Beverly Murphy, et al., Plaintiffs v. General
Electric Company, et al., Defendants.

Senior District Judge Warren W. Eginton entered judgment in Case
No. 3:09-cv-00217 (WWE) on July 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs are Beverly Murphy as executrix for the estate of
Paul Murphy and individually, Bertrand Gardiner, David Bridge as
executor for the estate of Herbert Bridge, Betty Bridge, Ralph
Hallquist, Richard Belanger, Pasquale Cantone, Carl Mitchell,
Richard Archer, Michael W. Smith, Martin Altbergs, Joseph
Riddick, Thomas Kohler, Alfred Demuth, Louis Cardillo, Frank
Clay, Stephen Kokosky and Ronald Raymond (collectively
"plaintiffs").

On Jan. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed an action for asbestos
personal injury, wrongful death and loss of consortium in the
Connecticut Superior Court. Plaintiffs complained that
defendants failed to warn of the dangerous characteristics of
asbestos and failed to provide knowledge regarding known safety
precautions to avoid harmful exposure to asbestos.

BP filed a Notice of Removal on Feb. 4, 2009. One day later, GE
joined in the removal petition. Both parties timely filed their
notice of removal.

Plaintiffs now moved to remand this case to state court, arguing
that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs'
motion to remand was denied.

J. Teresa Kmiec, Esq., Melissa M. Olson, Esq., Stephen C. Embry,
Esq., of Embry & Neusner in Groton, Conn., represented
Plaintiffs.

Dan E. Labelle, Esq., Joshua M. Auxier, Esq., of Halloran & Sage
in Westport, Conn., Bryna Rosen Misiura, Esq., of Governo Law
Firm LLC in Boston, Geoffrey Lane Squitiero, Esq., of Maher &
Murtha in Bridgeport, Conn., represented BP and GE.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Issues Ruling in Fortier Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of
Fairfield, issued ruling over compensation in the case styled
David Fortier et al. v. A.O. Smith Corp. et al.

Judge David R. Tobin entered judgment in Case Nos.
FBTBA0650005849S, FBTBA0650005848S on May 21, 2009.

On March 10, 2009, the jury returned Gail Fortier's verdict
against defendant, Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust. The
jury found that Mrs. Fortier's decedent, David Fortier, had
contracted mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos while on his
active duty with the U.S. Navy on board U.S.S. Forrestal.

On March 24, 2009, Allis Chalmers filed a motion for reduction
of the award of economic damages by the amount of collateral
source payments made toward Mr. Fortier's hospital and medical
bills. On April 23, 2009 and April 24, 2009, the court heard
arguments from counsel defendant's motion.

On April 30, 2009, Allis Chalmers submitted a schedule claiming
that the verdict must be reduced by US$293,820.26. In an
objection dated May 7, 2009, Mrs. Fortier claimed that the
parties now agreed that payments totaling US$214,236.93 had been
made toward hospital and medical bills and that "insurance
adjustments" totaled US$54,188.15.

The court concluded that Allis Chalmers was entitled to a
collateral source reduction in the amount of US$268,425.08. The
court has already addressed on the record, and denied, other
post-trial motions filed by the defendants. Judgment may enter
in favor Mrs. Fortier.

Judgment may also enter in favor of Mrs. Fortier on her loss of
consortium claim in the amount of US$525,000. Costs were also
awarded to Mrs. Fortier.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Vacates Ruling in Charlop Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New
York, granted a Motion to Vacate, in an action styled Eugene
Charlop, Plaintiff-Respondent v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et
al., Defendants, Kohler Co., Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Peter Tom, David Friedman, Catterson, Karla Moskowitz,
and Rosalyn H. Richter entered judgment in the case on July 21,
2009.

On May 20, 2008, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted Mr.
Charlop's motion to vacate defendant Kohler's "no opposition
summary judgment" motion on the ground that the summary judgment
motion was inadvertently signed by Mr. Charlop's counsel,
unanimously reversed without costs and the motion denied.

In this case alleging asbestos-related mesothelioma, the court
improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the motion to
vacate.

Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP (Windy R. Kagan,
Esq., of counsel) in New York, represented Kohler Co.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. (Alani Golanski, Esq., of counsel) in
New York, represented Eugene Charlop.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Mandamus Bid in Garrison
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County,
granted Robert J. Garrison's request for the Court to issue a
writ of mandamus in the case styled State of Ohio ex rel. Robert
J. Garrison, Relator v. The Industrial Commission of Ohio and
Coit Services of Ohio, Inc., Respondents.

Judges Susan Brown, William A. Klatt, and John A. Connor entered
judgment in Case No. 08AP-419 on June 18, 2009.

Mr. Garrison filed an original action requesting that the
Appeals Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering Industrial
Commission of Ohio to vacate its order denying his application
for permanent total disability (PTD) compensation and to enter a
new order granting said application.

The commission filed objections to the magistrate's decision. In
its objections, the commission argued that there was evidence to
support the finding of its staff hearing officer (SHO) that Mr.
Garrison voluntarily abandoned his employment with Coit Services
of Ohio, Inc.

The commission argued Mr. Garrison's own actions led to his job
termination with Coit, and that there is was no causal
connection between Mr. Garrison's industrial injuries (including
asbestos-related) and his subsequent departure from the work
force.

Following an examination of the magistrate's decision, as well
as an independent review of the record, the Appeals Court
overruled the commission's objections to the magistrate's
decision.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court adopted the magistrate's decision
as its own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of
law contained therein, and granted Mr. Garrison's request for a
writ of mandamus to the extent the commission was ordered to
vacate the SHO's order of Jan. 24, 2008, and to issue a new
order adjudicating the application.

Shapiro, Marnecheck & Reimer (Philip A. Marnecheck, Esq., and
Matthew Palnik, Esq.) represented Relator.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Rema A. Ina, Esq., and
Stephen D. Plymale, Esq., represented Industrial Commission of
Ohio.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Upholds Ruling in Singh's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Connecticut affirmed the ruling of the
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, which favored the
City of Hartford, Conn., in a case involving asbestos filed by
Harbajan Singh.

The case is styled Harbajan Singh v. City of Hartford. Judges
Thomas A. Bishop, Robert E. Beach Jr., and Foti entered judgment
in Case No. 30228.

Mr. Singh claimed the trial court improperly granted the motion
filed by the City of Harford to open the record after the close
of evidence. The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's
ruling.

On June 13, 2002, Mr. Singh was the high bidder at a tax lien
sale for a property located at 233 Capen Street in Hartford. On
that date, he entered into a contract for the sale of real
estate in which he agreed to pay the sum of US$45,547.86 for the
property.

On Sept. 29, 2003, Mr. Singh filed a complaint in Superior Court
in which he alleged that at the time of the transfer of the
property on Dec. 13, 2002, the City was aware that the property
contained asbestos and other hazardous material.

Furthermore, Mr. Singh alleged the City's failure to disclose to
Mr. Singh that the property contained asbestos and other
hazardous material required him to remove and to abate those
materials at a considerable cost to him and that their presence
also reduced the property's value substantially. As a result,
Mr. Singh sought damages.

On March 3, 2006, the City filed an answer that included a
special defense alleging that Mr. Singh was estopped from
claiming any liability on the part of the City that resulted
from the transfer of the property because of the "as is" clause
included in the contract for sale.

The trial was held before the court on April 16, 2006. The court
ordered the parties to submit briefs and reply briefs on the
remaining issue and left open the option for there to be oral
argument.

On May 12, 2006, the City filed a motion to open the record to
allow additional testimony and evidence that it alleged was
material and had been omitted by mistake or inadvertence. The
City filed a memorandum of law in support of its motion, and Mr.
Singh filed two memoranda in opposition.

On July 12, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the matter
and granted the motion. A trial to the court thereafter
commenced that resulted in a mistrial.

On June 11, 2008, Mr. Singh filed an amended complaint alleging
that the City breached the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing and an express warranty in the deed to the
property. A subsequent trial to the court, in which the
stipulation of facts at issue here was not admitted into
evidence, resulted in judgment in favor of the City. This appeal
followed.

Wesley S. Spears, Esq., represented Harbajan Singh.

Jonathan H. Beamon, Esq., assistant corporation counsel,
represented the City of Hartford.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Flips Crane's Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of
the Superior Court of District of Columbia, which granted
summary judgment in favor of Crane Co., in an asbestos case
filed by Mildred Debnam on behalf of her husband Plummber
Debnam.

The case is styled Mildred Debnam, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Plummer Debnam, Appellant v.
Crane Co. Appellee.

Judges Eric T. Washington, Stephen H. Glickman, and Warren R.
King entered judgment in Case No. 06-CV-952 on July 23, 2009.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Crane Co.
in this wrongful death lawsuit brought by Mrs. Debnam for
injuries suffered by Mr. Debnam as a result of asbestos
poisoning that was allegedly caused by boilers that were
manufactured by National-U.S. Radiator Corporation, a company
that had sold its property and assets to Crane as part of an
asset purchase agreement.

Mr. Debnam died of lung cancer and asbestosis. While employed
with the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) from 1964
through 1998, Mr. Debnam worked with and around boilers that
contained, and were covered with, asbestos materials.

Among these boilers were two Pacific brand boilers that were
acquired from National in 1948. In 1959, Crane and National
executed a Purchase Agreement (1959 Agreement), whereby Crane
purchased virtually all of National's property and assets, and
assumed National's warranty liabilities with respect to its
products, including warranties associated with the boilers that
were sold to DCPS.

On Oct. 11, 1961, Crane and National entered into a second
agreement (1961 Agreement).

In December 2003, Mr. Debnam first asserted his claim against
Crane, as well as defendants AVCO, Thos. Somerville Co., and Sid
Harvey Industries, Inc.

The complaint alleged that Mr. Debnam was in frequent contact
with the defendants' asbestos products and that this exposure
caused Mr. Debnam to contract asbestosis, lung cancer, and other
pulmonary-related problems. On the eve of trial, Mr. Debnam,
AVCO, Thos. Somerville Co., and Sid Harvey Industries, Inc.
agreed to submit their controversy to binding arbitration.

Soon after the arbitration took place, Mr. Debnam passed away
and Mrs. Debnam filed a wrongful death and survival complaint
against Crane, the only party to the original complaint that did
not participate in the arbitration.

Crane moved for summary judgment asserting that its agreement to
assume National's liability for "warranties of product" did not
encompass the claims presented in this case. The trial court
granted Crane's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Peter T. Enslein, Esq., and Daniel A. Brown, Esq., represented
Mrs. Debnam.

David T. Case, Esq., and Brendon Fowler, Esq., represented Crane
Co.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Affirms Remand in Unocal Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Court of Appeals, Division A, remanded a class
action case involving asbestos, filed against Unocal
Corporation, Unocal Pipeline Company, and Union Oil Company of
California (collectively Unocal).

The case is styled Richard Jackson, Mary Jackson, Thomas
Fehringer, Robert Hradecky, Deborah Hradecky, Dean Lousberg, and
Lousberg Partnership, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Unocal Corporation,
Unocal Oil Company of California, and Unocal Pipeline Compaany,
Defendants-Appellants.

Judges John R. Webb, Dennis Graham, and Richard L. Gabriel
entered judgment in Case No. 09CA0610 on July 23, 2009.

This land damages class action arose from the release of
asbestos during removal of an underground oil pipeline
previously owned by Unocal.

The Appeals Court granted Unocal's petition for interlocutory
review of the Logan County District Court's order certifying two
classes represented by named plaintiffs, Richard and Mary
Jackson, Robert and Deborah Hradecky, Thomas Fehringer, Dean
Lousberg, and the Lousberg Partnership.

The Appeals Court rejected Unocal's request for reversal of the
order certifying the two classes. The order certifying the two
plaintiff classes was vacated and the case was remanded for
further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Burlington Records 1,750 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,750 asbestos
claims during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with 1,800 claims during the three and six months ended
June 30, 2008.

The Company faced 1,822 unresolved asbestos claims at March 31,
2009, compared with 1,827 claims at March 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)

During the three months ended June 30, 2009, the Company had 57
claims filed and 129 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. During the three months ended June 30, 2008, the
Company had 109 claims filed and 136 claims settled, dismissed
or otherwise resolved.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company had 147
claims filed and 230 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company
had 272 claims filed and 253 claims settled, dismissed, or
otherwise resolved.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos. The heaviest exposure for these employees was due to
work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines
that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

The Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos matters was US$244 million during the three
and six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$261 million
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008.

Of the June 30, 2009 obligation, US$202 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$42 million was related to asserted
claims. At June 30, 2009, US$17 million was included in current
liabilities.

It is reasonably possible that future costs to settle asbestos
claims may range from about US$220 million to US$265 million.
However, the Company said it bbelieves that the US$244 million
recorded is the best estimate of the Company's future obligation
for the settlement of asbestos claims.

Fort Worth, Tex.-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation,
through its subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company, is a railroad
operator. BNSF makes tracks through 28 states in the West,
Midwest, and Sunbelt regions of the United States and in two
Canadian provinces.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has No Accruals on AMSF Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company says that, as of June 30, 2009, the Company
had not accrued any amounts related to a matter (involving
asbestos liabilities) concerning the Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF).

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in
connection with its change in accounting for revenue on long-
term construction projects and related disclosures. In the weeks
that followed, about 20 similar class actions were filed against
the Company.

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of
the Company's present or former officers and directors. The
class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et
al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon
the Company in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is
now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund v.
Halliburton Company, et al. The Company settled with the SEC in
the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that the Company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006,
AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled.

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March
2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive
Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against
the CEO and the Company.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.

AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
requesting permission to appeal the district court's order
denying class certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's
motion and the order denying class certification is currently on
appeal. The case will remain stayed in the district court
pending the outcome of the appeal.

Houston-based Halliburton Company provides products and services
to the energy industry. The Company serves the upstream oil and
gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir, from
locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling
and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and
optimizing production through the life of the field.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Gets $79M Payment in July 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton received payment of US$79 million for its asbestos-
related insurance settlements in July 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 24, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter
11 proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC,
and the Company's other affected subsidiaries that had
previously been named as defendants in a large number of
asbestos- and silica-related lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

At June 30, 2009, the Company had not recorded any liability
associated with these indemnifications.

Houston-based Halliburton Company provides products and services
to the energy industry. The Company serves the upstream oil and
gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir, from
locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling
and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and
optimizing production through the life of the field.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sensus USA Inc. Still Has Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus USA Inc. (f/k/a Sensus Metering Systems Inc.) continues
to face several lawsuits filed related to illnesses from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products, and because the cases are
in initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have
asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company's products,
much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of the Company's product or whether
such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to
the alleged illness.

Although it is entitled to indemnification for legal and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products
from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc under the stock
purchase agreement under which the Company acquired Invensys
Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated with all
other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price paid
by the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys
Metering Systems.

The Company is unable to estimate the amount of its exposure, if
any, related to these claims at this time.

Raleigh, N.C.-based Sensus USA Inc. provides advanced metering
and related communications solutions to the worldwide utility
industry. The Company manufactures water, gas, heat and electric
meters including comprehensive metering communications system
solutions that include both automatic meter reading and advanced
metering infrastructure systems.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific's June 30 Liability at $208M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was
US$208 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$258 million during the six months ended June
30, 2008.

Current asbestos liability was US$12 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$11 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2008.

Asbestos-related payments were US$5 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$7 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$210 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$261 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, May 1, 2009)

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure
to asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for
asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases,
the claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures. Additionally,
most claims filed against the Company do not specify an amount
of alleged damages.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and it has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at June
30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's subsidiary, Union
Pacific Railroad Company, is a rail freight carrier that
transports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and other
freight over a system of more than 32,000 route miles in 23
states in the western two-thirds of the United States.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Generation Records $50M Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, an Exelon Corporation
subsidiary, reserved US$50 million at June 30, 2009 for asbestos
bodily injury claims, compared with US$52 million at Dec. 31,
2008.

Generation Company, LLC, at March 31, 2009, had reserved US$52
million in total for asbestos bodily injury claims. (Class
Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)

As of June 30, 2009, about US$12 million of the US$50 million
related to 144 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2050.

Chicago-based Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding
company engaged in the generation and energy delivery
businesses. The generation business consists of the electric
generating facilities, the wholesale energy marketing operations
and competitive retail supply operations of Exelon Generation
Company, LLC.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mosaic Has $40M 2009 Retirement Obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company, in 2009, recorded about US$40 million in
asset retirement obligations (ARO), which generally include the
removal and disposition of non-friable asbestos, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 24, 2009.

The Company has not recorded a liability for these conditional
AROs at May 31, 2009 because it says it does not currently
believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating a date or
range of dates for demolition of these facilities.


COMPANY PROFILE:

The Mosaic Company
3033 Campus Drive
Suite E490
Plymouth, Minn. 55441
Tel. No.: (800) 918-8270

Description:
The Mosaic Company produces and markets concentrated phosphate
and potash crop nutrients for the global agriculture industry.
The Company mines phosphate rock in Florida and process rock
into finished phosphate products at facilities in Florida and
Louisiana. The Company mines potash in Saskatchewan, New Mexico
and Michigan.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Records $828M for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$828
million at June 30, 2009, compared with US$530 million at June
30, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos-litigation reserve was US$796
million at March 31, 2009, compared with US$539 million at March
31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$464
million at June 30, 2009, compared with US$438 million at June
30, 2008.

The non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$440 million
at March 31, 2009, compared with US$443 million at March 31,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical
products, services and solutions. Serving customers in more than
100 countries, it operates through five commercial units:
Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules Water
Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland Consumer
Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.557B Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.557 billion as of June 30, 2009, compared
with US$1.538 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.550 billion as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
May 1, 2009)

Long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities
were US$1.036 billion as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$1.029 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-
related liabilities were US$1.034 billion as of March 31, 2009.
(Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with automation/control
products and aerospace offerings its biggest lines of business.
Sales to the United States government account for about 12
percent of the Company's revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Litigation Charges at $37M in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, were US$37 million during the three
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$34 million during
the three months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, amounted to US$36 million during the three months
ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$28 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May
1, 2009)

Asbestos-related litigation charges, net of insurance, were
US$73 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$62 million during the six months ended June 30,
2008.

The Company is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. The Company did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did
it make or sell insulation products or other construction
materials that have been identified as the primary cause of
asbestos related disease in the vast majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into
two general categories: refractory products and friction
products.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with automation/control
products and aerospace offerings its biggest lines of business.
Sales to the United States government account for about 12
percent of the Company's revenues.


ASBESTOS LTIIGATION: Honeywell's NARCO Receivable Still at $873M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos insurance receivable for
its former North American Refractories Company (NARCO)
subsidiary was US$873 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$877 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflected an
insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims
of US$873 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
May 1, 2009)

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest.
Less than two percent of NARCO's products contained asbestos.

When it sold NARCO in 1986, the Company agreed to indemnify
NARCO on personal injury claims for products that had been
discontinued prior to the sale. NARCO retained all liability for
all other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

All of the claims pending against NARCO are automatically stayed
pending the reorganization of NARCO. The bankruptcy court also
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in
effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company. In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of
the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oral
argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter has been
submitted for decision.

The liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-related
asbestos claims was US$1.1 billion as of June 30, 2009 and Dec.
31, 2008.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims have been made. About US$100 million of payments due
under these settlements is due upon establishment of the NARCO
trust.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with automation/control
products and aerospace offerings its biggest lines of business.
Sales to the United States government account for about 12
percent of the Company's revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling Upheld in Honeywell's Favor in 2nd-Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court, during the second quarter of 2009, upheld
the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York's ruling in
favor of Honeywell International Inc.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance
Company filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance
carriers, disputing obligations for North American Refractories
Company (NARCO)-related asbestos claims under high excess
insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance
carriers.

About US$340 million of coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
June 30, 2009.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a
critical choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method
of allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered
policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court upheld
the ruling.

A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been
dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been
preserved in the New York action.

The Company said it believes that the amount due from Travelers
and other insurance carriers (US$340 million at June 30, 2009)
is probable of recovery.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with automation/control
products and aerospace offerings its biggest lines of business.
Sales to the United States government account for about 12
percent of the Company's revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix Has 51,110 Exposure Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials
business faced 51,110 asbestos-related claims as of June 30,
2009, compared with 51,951 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Bendix faced 51,791 unresolved asbestos claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 1,
2009)

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, Bendix had 1,353
claims filed during the period and 2,194 claims resolved during
the period.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Bendix had 4,003 claims
filed during the period and 3,710 claims resolved during the
period.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through June 30, 2009, the Company resolved about
119,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 15 trials resulting
in adverse verdicts. Two of these adverse verdicts were reversed
on appeal, three verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions,
three claims were settled and the remaining has been or will be
appealed.

About 45 percent of about 51,000 pending claims at June 30, 2009
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment. The pending claims also include claims filed in
jurisdictions like Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi that
historically allowed for consolidated filings.

In these jurisdictions, plaintiffs were permitted to file
complaints against a pre-determined master list of defendants,
regardless of whether they have claims against each individual
defendant.

The Company's estimated liability for resolution of pending and
future Bendix related asbestos claims was US$596 million at June
30, 2009 and US$578 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$167 million at June
30, 2009 and US$156 million at Dec. 31, 2008 are reflected as
receivables in its consolidated balance sheet.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with automation/control
products and aerospace offerings its biggest lines of business.
Sales to the United States government account for about 12
percent of the Company's revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bendix, NARCO June 30 Liability at $1.728B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos liabilities for its
Bendix friction materials business and its former North American
Refractories Company (NARCO) unit were US$1.728 billion as of
June 30, 2009.

Of this amount during the six months ended June 30, 2009, US$596
million related to Bendix and US$1.132 billion related to NARCO.

Insurance recoveries for Bendix and NARCO asbestos liabilities
were US$1.040 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2009.
Of this amount, US$167 million related to Bendix and US$873
million related to NARCO.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. is a
diverse industrial conglomerate, with automation/control
products and aerospace offerings its biggest lines of business.
Sales to the United States government account for about 12
percent of the Company's revenues.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Huber Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania,
issued split decisions in a case involving asbestos, in which
Ronald L. Huber is one of the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab entered judgment in Case
No. 02cv304 on June 19, 2009.

This breach of fiduciary duty case centered around allegations
by plaintiffs, who were asbestos litigants from Pennsylvania,
Indiana and Ohio, who received settlements in class action
litigation pending in Mississippi. All eight plaintiffs were
exposed to asbestos during their work, but none have developed
malignant asbestos-related disease.

Plaintiffs signed contingent fee agreements with several non-
party local attorneys from their respective home states, who had
previously entered into co-counsel agreements with Robert G.
Taylor, II, a Texas attorney, who, in turn, entered into
"upstream co-counsel arrangements" with several attorneys, the
other defendants, who were lead counsel in asbestos class action
litigation primarily pending in Texas and Mississippi
(collectively referred to as "Lead Counsel" or simply
"defendants").

Plaintiffs alleged that Lead Counsel breached fiduciary duties
owed to them by the failure of the non-party local attorneys to
adequately disclose certain information surrounding settlement
of their asbestos claims.

The civil complaint was filed in this case in February 2002. On
June 6, Judge Schwab was assigned this case. The Court promptly
held an Initial Case Management Conference.

On May 3, 2004, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On
Feb. 7, 2005, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of
defendants and against plaintiffs, and closed the case.

Plaintiffs appealed. On Oct. 31, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit vacated this Court's Opinion and Order on
Summary Judgment, and its denial of class certification, and
remanded for further proceedings.

On April 27, 2007, this Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss, defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to join an
indispensable party, and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint. This Court denied the other pending motions as
moot. On May 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal
and on Aug. 4, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit issued its Opinion and Order reversing the decision of
this Court and remanding for further consideration by this
Court.

On May 6, 2009, this Court entered an Order dismissing the case
for failure to prosecute.

Currently pending before this Court was plaintiffs' motion to
reinstate this civil action, for recusal by the Court, and for
Other Relief, a response by defendants opposing such relief
(including a declaration), and plaintiff's reply.

This Court will grant said motion, will reopen this case based
upon good cause shown, and the Court will grant defendant's
motion for recusal.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Montpelier's Suit v. Morrison Clark Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Montpelier School District's lawsuit against flooring
company Morrison-Clark, Inc., over asbestos handling and cleanup
breaches during the summer of 2008 at the Main Street Middle
School in Montpelier, Vt., is ongoing, the Times Argus reports.

The amount the district hopes to recover through the legal
action is not disclosed, but would be a minimum of US$88,379.87,
which is the total additional fees and costs incurred by the
district as a direct result of Morrison-Clark's handling or
mishandling of the asbestos tile removal during a school
renovation project.

The Company will deny any liability in the case, said South
Burlington attorney David Bond, Esq., of Fead Construction Law.

On July 28, 2008, the Main Street Middle School was closed to
the public by the Department of Health after an engineer with
the department observed workers of Morrison-Clark using
mechanical chippers to remove asbestos tiles and failing to
provide ventilation protection in violation of state protocol.

The concern is that using the chipper could release asbestos
particles into the air and potentially create health problems.
Although appropriate measures were taken to allow work to
proceed, the situation delayed the start of the school year from
Aug. 28, 2008 to Sept. 2, 2008.

The list of additional expenses linked to the asbestos situation
included: US$23,900 to a contractor for asbestos removal and
decontamination; US$26,400 to another contractor for asbestos
abatement work; and other smaller fees that all totaled more
than US$88,000.

"What we think we can clearly prove is minimally the US$88,000,"
said Montpelier attorney Bernie Lambek, Esq., with the firm
Zalinger Cameron & Lambek, representing the district.

Morrison-Clark faces additional action related to this project,
including VOSHA fines, a possible administrative action by the
Department of Health, and an Environmental Protection Agency
action that Mr. Bond has responded to but not heard back from
agency attorneys.

In addition, the Barre Town School District declined to pay
Morrison-Clark for work there after asbestos dust was found in a
ventilation duct, Mr. Bond said. He said he hoped the district's
action, which was filed on July 23, 2009, could be settled out
of court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ASIC Seeks Ban on Former Hardie Executives
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
wants seven non-executive directors and three former executives
of James Hardie Industries N.V. banned from Company directorship
for at least five year each and fined a total of AUD2.8 million
to AUD3.4 million, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The New South Wales Supreme Court, on July 27, 2009, heard that
no penalty "over and above what they have been through in this
litigation" was needed to deter the former Hardie directors from
future misconduct.

Tom Bathurst, QC, representing four of seven directors found to
have breached their duty to the company, said his clients had
suffered enough "as a result of expressing a press release too
strongly."

Mr. Bathurst and other defense lawyers argued on July 27, 2009
that careers had already been affected by adverse publicity,
that the contravention was an "isolated aberration," and that no
one suffered any loss or damage from the February 2001 release,
which said a new asbestos compensation trust would be "fully
funded."

In April 2009, Justice Ian Gzell found that the seven directors
had breached their duties to Hardie because the press release
they approved was "too emphatic" about the trust's funding. He
ruled that the three executives breached their duties by failing
to advise the board of the release's shortcomings.

ASIC's barrister, Tony Bannon, SC, said the defendants were
ignoring "the evidence and Your Honor's findings" that the
emphatic wording of the release was crucial to the success of
"separating" Hardie's asbestos liabilities into the new trust.

A 2004 special commission of inquiry found the trust was grossly
underfunded. Hardie has since agreed to meet the shortfall,
estimated in March 2009 to be AUD1.8 billion over 40 years. The
former managing director Peter Macdonald was the sole defendant
to concede the seriousness of his breaches of duty.

Mr. Macdonald's barrister, David Studdy, SC, said Mr. Macdonald
accepted that he should be banned from company directorship for
five to seven years and fined "in the range of AUD200,000 to
AUD250,000."

ASIC wants Justice Gzell to disqualify Mr. Macdonald for 12 to
16 years and to impose a fine between AUD1.47 million and
AUD1.81 million.

ASIC seeks bans of at least five years and fines of AUD120,000
to AUD130,000 for former non-executive directors Michael Brown,
Michael Gillfillan, Meredith Hellicar, Martin Koffel, Dan
O'Brien, Greg Terry and Peter Willcox.

ASIC wants the former general counsel Peter Shafron to be banned
for at least eight years and fined AUD320,000 to AUD450,000 and
the former chief financial officer Phillip Morley to be banned
for a minimum of six years and fined AUD150,000 to AUD200,000.
All defendants other than Mr. Macdonald asked to be excused from
any penalty.

Since the April 2009 judgment, Ms. Hellicar has resigned from
the boards of AMP, Amalgamated Holdings, the Sydney Institute
and the Garvan Research Foundation.

Mr. Willcox, who had been touted as a chairman of Telstra, will
leave that board in November 2009. He resigned as chairman of
the CSIRO when ASIC launched its suit in 2007.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ricky May to Testify Against Former Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation Inc. worker, Ricky May, has agreed to testify
against his former lawyers, The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. May had received US$8,000 from CSX to settle an asbestos
exposure suit that he filed with an X-ray of another man's
chest. He also agreed to pay the railroad back.

CSX attorney Marc Williams, Esq., reported the agreement to U.S.
District Judge Frederick Stamp on July 16, 2009 in a motion to
exclude testimony about it at an upcoming civil trial.

Mr. Williams wrote that CSX worker Daniel Jayne, who sat for the
X-ray, has agreed to testify but would not make any payment to
the railroad.

Judge Stamp plans to start trial on Aug. 11, 2009 on CSX's claim
that Robert Peirce's law firm in Pittsburgh conspired with
Bridgeport radiologist Ray Harron to fabricate asbestos suits.

Jurors will hear about the body switch between Mr. May and CSX
worker Daniel Jayne, but Mr. Williams does not want jurors to
hear about the settlement.

On the same date, Walter DeForest Esq., of Pittsburgh,
representing the Peirce firm, moved to preclude hearsay
testimony about a conversation between Mr. May and Mr. Jayne.
Mr. DeForest wrote that at a deposition, Mr. Jayne testified
that Mr. May said Robert Gilkison suggested switching bodies.

Mr. Gilkison recruited CSX workers as clients for the Peirce
firm.

Mr. Jayne had a motive to lie, Mr. DeForest wrote, and he
disclosed the evidence after he and Mr. May both had a motive to
lie about Mr. Gilkison.

Mr. DeForest also moved to preclude evidence that anyone in the
Peirce firm besides Mr. Gilkison knew about the fraud. Mr.
DeForest wrote, "Given the complete absence of evidence
supporting such allegation, to permit CSX to argue that any
individual at the Peirce firm, other than Mr. Gilkison, had
knowledge of the May fraud would be improper, unfairly
prejudicial to the Peirce firm and confusing to the jury."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judge Jackson Flips Ruling in FACTS Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson, on July 21, 2009, reversed
her own September 2008 asbestos-related ruling, which had
favored Families for Asbestos Compliance, Testing, and Safety
(FACTS), the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

In the September 2008 ruling, Judge Jackson ruled for FACTS,
saying that Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and
officials of the City of St. Louis had violated federal
regulations on 99 homes.

The federal civil suit began in 2005, when FACTS, a group of
Bridgeton, Mo., residents, sued the City and the airport,
claiming health threats from the improper demolition of
buildings containing asbestos.

Contractors had used the "wet method" to demolish about 250
commercial and residential buildings that contained asbestos,
essentially spraying them with water to keep asbestos fibers
from becoming airborne.

The wet method is faster, cheaper and had been approved by the
St. Louis County Health Department. However, it was against
federal regulations.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stopped the practice
after finding out about it, but then granted the City a
reprieve. The EPA stopped demolition again two weeks after a May
2004 Post-Dispatch article revealed its use.

After that ruling, lawyers for the city and the airport
challenged FACTS standing to even file suit. Judge Jackson
agreed.

In the July 21, 2009 ruling, Judge Jackson ruled that in order
to have standing, FACTS had to allege that violations were
occurring or imminent.

Judge Jackson also ruled that soil testing or remediation would
not shed any light on whether FACTS members were exposed to
asbestos or protect them in the future. She said that an
industrial hygienist had already testified that the asbestos was
not a danger to the community.

Jim Hecker, Esq., one of the lawyers representing FACTS, said
that no decision has been made about an appeal, but said that
the case already represented a "major victory" for residents.
The city stopped wet demolitions and the case stopped cities
elsewhere from using the method, he said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnviroTech Fined $1.2T for Handling Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a US$1,200
penalty to EnviroTech Remediation Services Inc. for
environmental violations, including improper handling, disposal
and notification of the removal of asbestos, according to the
Capitol Report.

EnviroTech is a licensed asbestos removal contractor based in
Blaine, Minn. It also has agreed to remove asbestos at Inver
Grove Heights schools at a cost to the Company of at least
US$12,000.

The cleanup must be completed by Dec. 24, 2009.

The MPCA is penalizing EnviroTech for failing to properly notify
the agency about the removal of 18,700 square feet of siding
from two barracks at the South St. Paul airport in January 2008;
it also removed the siding improperly, creating an airborne
health hazard, according to the agreement with the MPCA.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Records $5M Litigation Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporation, in the second quarter of 2009, recorded
charges of US$5 million (US$3 million after-tax) to adjust the
asbestos litigation liability for the change in value of the
components of the Amended Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC)
Plan of Reorganization.

In the first quarter of 2009, the Company recorded charges of
US$4 million (US$2 million after-tax) to adjust the asbestos
litigation liability for the change in value of the components
of an Amended PCC Plan. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against
Corning and PCC that might arise from PCC products or operations
(the 2003 Plan).

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the
parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they
had made substantial progress on an amended plan of
reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that resolved issues
raised by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003
Plan.

As a result of progress in the parties' continuing negotiations,
the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now represents
the most probable outcome of this matter and the probability
that the 2003 plan will become effective has diminished. The
proposed settlement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the
Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe, N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed series of
cash payments recorded at present value.

The Company will have the option to contribute shares rather
than cash, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not
number of shares. As a result, the estimated asbestos litigation
liability is no longer impacted by movements in the value of
Corning common stock.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include non-PCC asbestos claims
that may be or have been raised against the Company. The Company
has recorded an additional amount for those claims in its
estimated asbestos litigation liability.

Asbestos litigation charges were US$9 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2009. Asbestos litigation credit was
US$318 million during the six months ended June 30, 2008.

Corning, N.Y.-based Corning Incorporated produces specialty
glass and ceramics. Products include glass substrates for LCD
televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates
and filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber,
cable, hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks;
optical biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics
and specialty glass solutions for various industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Has $425.3MM Liability at May 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liabilities were
US$425,328,000 as of May 31, 2009, compared with US$494,745,000
as of May 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27,
2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$442,549,000 as of Feb. 28, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
April 17, 2009)

Current asbestos liabilities were US$65 million as of both May
31, 2009 and May 31, 2008.

Payments made for asbestos-related claims were US$69,417,000
during the year ended May 31, 2009, compared with US$82,623,000
during the year ended May 31, 2008.

Medina, Ohio-based RPM International, Inc. owns subsidiaries
that produce specialty coatings and sealants serving both
industrial and consumer markets. The Company's industrial
products include roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control
coatings, flooring coatings and specialty chemicals. Industrial
brands include Stonhard, Tremco, illbruck, Carboline, Day-Glo,
Euco and Dryvit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., for over 30 years, continues to be a
defendant in lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
27, 2009.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations
by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each
50 percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April
16, 2000 order, which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims
against it, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served
on the Company.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not
been aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos
claims.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
located in Pittsburgh.

Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, the Company recorded
an after-tax charge of US$35 million for the write-off of all of
its investment in PC.

As a consequence of the bankruptcy filing and various motions
and orders in that proceeding, the asbestos litigation against
the Company (as well as against PC) has been stayed and the
filing of additional asbestos suits against them has been
enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a confirmed
plan of reorganization for PC substantially in accordance with
the settlement arrangement among PPG and several other parties.

The stay may be terminated if the Bankruptcy Court determines
that such a plan will not be confirmed, or the settlement
arrangement set forth is not likely to be consummated.

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: Enbridge Cites $5.7M for Cleanup at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$5.7 million in
"Accounts payable and other" for asbestos and environmental
cleanup as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$5.5 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company recorded US$5.1 million in "Accounts payable and
other" for A&E cleanup as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, May 15, 2009)

The Company recorded US$2.5 million in "Other long-term
liabilities" for A&E cleanup as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

These amounts were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos-containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets, and penalties it has been or expects to be assessed.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-mile
United States portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum
pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and
operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans some 3,500
miles across North America.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Crane Drop to 71,420 at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos claims against Crane Co. dropped to 71,420 during the
three and six months ended June 30, 2009 from 81,979 claims
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company faced 75,266 asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2009, compared with 81,103 claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, April
24, 2009)

During the three months ended June 30, 2009, the Company had
1,356 new claims, 379 settlements, and 4,823 dismissals. During
the three months ended June 30, 2008, the Company had 1,608 new
claims, 303 settlements, and 429 dismissals.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company had 2,203
new claims, 544 settlements, and 5,111 dismissals. During the
six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company had 2,649 new
claims, 640 settlements, and 1,029 dismissals.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as
a result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 71,420 pending claims as of June 30, 2009, about 25,000
claims were pending in New York, about 15,300 claims were
pending in Mississippi, about 9,800 claims were pending in Texas
and about 2,000 claims were pending in Ohio.

To date, the Company has paid two judgments arising from adverse
jury verdicts in an asbestos matter. The first payment, in the
amount of US$2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, two years
after the adverse verdict, in the Joseph Norris matter in
California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies.

The second payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June
2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los
Angeles on April 21, 2009.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. to Pursue Appeal in Baccus Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that it intends to pursue all available rights to
appeal an asbestos verdict in favor of James Baccus, according
to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory
damages of US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9
million.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan.
5, 2009.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal over the verdict in the asbestos
case of Chief Brewer, according to a Company report, on Form 8-
K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28,
2009.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles. The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane's Bid in Woodard Case OK'd on June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that, on June 30, 2009, a California court
advised that the Company's motion in the Dennis Woodard claim
was granted.

Judgment was entered in favor of the Company.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5
percent) of plaintiffs' damages of US$16.925 million.

However, based on California court rules on allocation and
damages, judgment was entered against the Company in the amount
of US$1.65 million, plus costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict. The Court granted to motion.

The court has not yet entered a written judgment on its
decision.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $59.3M for Settlement, Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. were US$59.3
million during the six-month period ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$43.4 million during the six-month period ended
June 30, 2008.

The gross asbestos settlement and defense costs incurred (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company totaled
US$22.3 million in the three-month period ended March 31, 2009
and US$$22.5 million in the three-month period ended March 31,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, April 24, 2009)

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, in the six-month
periods ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 totaled a US$12.5 million
net payment, (reflecting the receipt of $14.5 million for full
policy buyout from Highlands Insurance Company) and a US$16.6
million net payment, respectively.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, pre-tax
cash payments were US$15.2 million. During the three and six
months ended June 30, 2008, pre-tax cash payments were US$14.6
million.

During the three months ended June 30, 2009,
settlement/indemnity costs incurred were US$23.2 million and
defense costs incurred were US$13.8 million, for a total of
US$37 million. During the three months ended June 30, 2008,
settlement/indemnity costs incurred were US$7.4 million and
defense costs incurred were US$13.5 million, for a total of
US$20.9 million.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, settlement/indemnity
costs incurred were US$32.1 million and defense costs incurred
were US$27.2 million, for a total of US$59.3 million. During the
six months ended June 30, 2008, settlement/indemnity costs
incurred were US$17.8 million and defense costs incurred were
US$25.6 million, for a total of US$43.4 million.

Through June 30, 2009, the Company has resolved (by settlement
or dismissal) about 56,000 claims. The related settlement cost
incurred by the Company and its insurance carriers is about
US$201 million, for an average cost per resolved claim of
US$3,614.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deal Signed w/ Employers Mutual on April 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. and Employers Mutual Casualty Company, by and through
its managing general agent and attorney-in-fact Mutual Marine
Office, Inc., entered into an asbestos-related "coverage-in-
place" agreement on April 21, 2009.

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company
for a portion of its settlement and defense costs as incurred.

To date, the Company has entered into agreements providing for
such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place," with 10 of
its excess insurer groups.

On March 3, 2008, the Company reached agreement with certain
London Market Insurance Companies, North River Insurance Company
and TIG Insurance Company, confirming the aggregate amount of
available coverage under certain London policies and setting
forth a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the
Company based on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made.

In addition, with four of its excess insurer groups, the Company
entered into policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and
other coverage obligations for an agreed sum, totaling US$61.3
million in aggregate. The most recent of these buyouts was
reached in October 2008 with Highlands Insurance Company, which
currently is in receivership in the State of Texas.

The settlement agreement with Highlands was formally approved by
the Texas receivership court on Dec. 8, 2008, and Highlands paid
the full settlement amount, US$14.5 million, to the Company on
Jan. 12, 2009.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co.'s Liability at $791Mil at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$791,187,000 as
of June 30, 2009, compared with US$839,496,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009.

Current asbestos liability was US$91 million as of both June 30,
2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$230,886,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$260,660,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$35.3 million as of
June 30, 2009, compared with US$41.3 million as of Dec. 31,
2008.

Asbestos payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$15,191,000 during the three months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$14,553,000 during the three months ended June
30, 2008.

Asbestos payments, net of insurance recoveries, were
US$12,535,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$16,614,000 during the six months ended June 30,
2008.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets. The Company has
five business segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered
Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid Handling, and Controls.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Issues Split Ruling in Newinski
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota issued split rulings in the
asbestos-related lawsuit styled Dennis Newinski, et al.,
Respondents v. John Crane, Inc., Appellant.

Judges Kevin G. Ross, Heidi S. Schellhas, and Michelle Ann
Larkin entered judgment in Case No. A08-1715 on June 23, 2009.

Dennis Newinski was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He and Sharon
Newinski sued John Crane, Inc., A.W. Chesterton Co., and Garlock
Sealing Technologies, Inc., alleging claims of negligence,
strict liability, and breach of warranty.

Prior to trial, the Newinskis settled with Chesterton and
Garlock. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury
returned a special verdict in favor of the Newinskis.

The district court filed its initial findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order for judgment on April 22, 2008;
amended findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for
judgment on May 28, 2008; and final findings of fact,
conclusions of law and order for judgment on Aug. 6, 2008.

The district court ultimately held that Crane was jointly and
severally liable for the whole damage award (US$4,611,492), but
deducted the Pierringer-released defendants' 20 percent share
(US$922,298).

The district court also concluded that the portion of the
judgment attributable to the fault of non-party entities (25
percent) was uncollectible and reallocated those damages to
Crane and the Pierringer-released defendants, thereby further
reducing the judgment against Crane. Final judgment against
Crane was for US$3,381,722. Crane appealed.

The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded.

Richard A. LaVerdiere, Esq., Michael R. Strom, Esq., Briana
Chatelle, Esq., of Sieben Polk, P.A. in Hastings, Minn.,
represented the Newinskis.

James R. Gray, Esq., William A. Celebrezze, Esq., of Aafedt,
Forde, Gray, Monson & Hager, P.A. in Minneapolis, and Michael A.
Pollard, Esq., of Baker & McKenzie LLP, in Chicago, represented
John Crane, Inc.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 17 Cases Filed in Madison During July 20-24
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of July 20, 2009 through July 24, 2009, a total
of 17 asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-771) Patrick Arthur of Florida claims his
   deceased father, Armand Arthur, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a laborer and cabinet maker. Brian J. Cooke,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., represents Patrick Arthur.

-- (Case No. 09-L-764) Jerome Brockmeyer, a chemical operator at
   National Lead and at Combustion Engineering, claims
   mesothelioma. James F. Kelly, Esq., and Jeffrey A.J. Millar,
   Esq., of Brent Coon and Associates in St. Louis, represent
   Mr. Brockmeyer.

-- (Case No. 09-L-742) Veronica Campbell of Texas claims a
   deceased man, James R. Campbell, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a laborer, high school teacher, high school
   vocational work study program coordinator, high school
   principal and associate principal and academy superintendent.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq., and Rosalind
   M. Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Ms. Campbell.

-- (Case No. 09-L-758) Steven H. Coody, an owner and mechanic at
   Steve Coody Trucking; a farmer and mechanic at Coody Farm;
   and a construction worker and shadetree mechanic, claims
   mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represents Mr. Coody. W.
   Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., C. Taylor
   Campbell, Esq., J.D. McMullen, Esq., and William H. Barfield,
   Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston will serve of
   counsel.

-- (Case No. 09-L-756) Mark Custance of California claims a
   deceased man, Howard Custance, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a laborer. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and
   Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Custance.

-- (Case No. 09-L-750) Edwardo J. Dorato and Barbara Dorato of
   Nevada allege Mr. Dorato developed mesothelioma after his
   work as an infantryman and maintenance man in the U.S. Army;
   as a produce packer at Arrow Packing Co.; as a surveyor's
   assistant at Jefferson Construction; as a position cook at
   Ice Cream Parlor; as a grill man at George's Restaurant; as a
   prep cook; and as a grill man at Dottie's Kitchen. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Doratos.

-- (Case No. 09-L-755) Patricia Fillmore of Missouri alleges the
   deceased David Fillmore developed mesothelioma after his work
   as a laborer. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A.
   Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Fillmore.

-- (Case No. 09-L-745) Stanley E. Fisher of Indiana, a
   bricklayer, switchman, laborer and forklift operator, claims
   colon cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., Perry J. Browder, Esq.,
   and Rosalind M. Robertson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Fisher.

-- (Case No. 09-L-763) Robert Flippin, a heavy construction
   worker; a large pipe insulation material installer and
   retriever from; a heavy construction worker; and a production
   and fabrication line worker, claims mesothelioma. James F.
   Kelly, Esq., and Jeffrey A.J. Millar, Esq., of Brent Coon and
   Associates in St. Louis, represent Mr. Flippin.

-- (Case No. 09-L-754) Gordon Hatcher Jr. of Alabama claims his
   deceased father, Gordon Hatcher Sr. developed mesothelioma
   after his work as an electrician and laborer. Richard L.
   Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Hatcher.

-- (Case No. 09-L-765) Florence Hudson of Missouri, a furnace
   repairman and truck driver, claims lung cancer. Andrew
   O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
   Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J.
   Fitzgerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, represent
   Mr. Hudson.

-- (Case No. 09-L-748) Wanda Kidd of Oklahoma claims her
   recently deceased husband, Kenneth M. Kidd, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a steamfitter, welder,
   pipefitter, plumber, engineer and shopfitter. Myles L.
   Epperson, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   represents Ms. Kidd.

-- (Case No. 09-L-741) Sophia and James Kirn of Illinois allege
   Mrs. Kirn developed mesothelioma after her work as a laborer
   at American Can Company and as an operator at Illinois Bell
   Telephone. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent
   the Kirns.

-- (Case No. 09-L-757) Lois M. Lane of Missouri claims she
   developed mesothelioma after her secondary exposure to
   asbestos fibers through her ex-husband, who worked as a cook
   in the U.S. Army; as a laborer at Continental Can; as a
   carpenter at Fruin-Colnon; as a laborer at Mitchell's Auto
   Salvage; and as a laborer at Sander's Auto Salvage. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Ms. Lane.

-- (Case No. 09-L-753) Patrick and Anna McGrath of Illinois
   claim Mr. McGrath developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   painter, laborer and computer consultant. Timothy F. Thompson
   Jr., Esq., and Ryan J. Kiwala, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent the McGraths.

-- (Case No. 09-L-752) Paul Myers of North Carolina, a laborer,
   welder and assembly and construction worker, claims
   mesothelioma. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., and Ryan J.
   Kiwala, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent
   Mr. Myers.

-- (Case No. 09-L-749) Richard L. Neathammer of Alabama claims
   his deceased father, Richard U. Neathammer, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a fireman, sales associate,
   manager and courier. Myles L. Epperson, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., represent Mr. Neathammer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Smith Lawsuit v. 10 Companies Filed July 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert and Betty Smith, on July 24, 2009, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 10 defendant corporations in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The lawsuit alleges the Smiths claim Mr. Smith developed an
asbestos-related disease during the course of his work as a
laborer, paper machine operator, lubricator, and vibration
analyst.

These 10 defendants include A.W. Chesterton Co., Asten Group,
CBS Corp., Cleaver Brooks, Crown Cork and Seal Co., General
Electric Company, Honeywell International Inc., Ingersoll-Rand
Company Limited, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., and
Union Carbide Corporation.

The Smiths allege the defending companies failed to adequately
warn Mr. Smith of the dangers of asbestos exposure. They claim
the companies also negligently failed to test the products to
determine hazards associated with them and failed to remove
their products from the market.

The Smiths seek unspecified actual and exemplary damages, plus
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which
they are entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of
Provost Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., represent the
Smiths.

Case No. D184-551 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in 3,128 of Korean Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to figures supplied by the South Korean Education
Ministry, asbestos was found in 99.1 percent (3,128 out of
3,158) of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high schools
inspected by the Ministry, The Korea Herald reports.

The Ministry finished its inspection of 3,158 schools out of a
total of 19,581 as of February 2009. In a previous inspection
conducted in 2007 on 100 schools, asbestos was found in 88
percent of them.

The data was released on July 29, 2009 Rep. Kim Choon-jin of the
Democratic Party, who belongs to the National Assembly's
Education, Science and Technology Committee.

An aide to Rep. Kim said the lawmaker will continue to work to
rid schools across the nation of such health hazards.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colleagues Sought in Barratt's Payout Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------

The family of rock star Shakin' Stevens' (a/k/a Michael Barratt)
brother has launched an appeal for evidence relating to his
asbestos-related death, WalesOnline.co.uk reports.

Kenneth Barratt, the singer's elder brother, died in 2002 from
mesothelioma. Mr. Barratt worked for years for steel giant Guest
Keen Nettlefold in Cardiff, Wales.

Now Mr. Barratt's daughter, Jane Green, is looking for other
former employees who may have known about her father's exposure
to asbestos or have been exposed themselves.

Mrs. Green said, "GKN was a major employer in Cardiff meaning
that many people, like my father, will have been exposed to the
asbestos." Mr. Barratt's job was to clean and maintain the
furnaces, which involved sweeping the dust from the inside of
the ovens and the pipework, bringing him into close contact with
the asbestos lagging.

Mr. Barratt worked at GKN between 1946 and 1992, initially at
the Tremorfa site then at East Moors Road and, finally, at the
Castle Rod Mill.

The family's solicitor Jeremy Brooke said, "It is tragic that
victims such as Mr. Barratt have not been able to claim the
compensation to which they are entitled."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens-Illinois Pays $49.4M for Claims in 2Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments during the
second quarter of 2009 were US$49.4 million, down from US$63.4
million during the second quarter of 2008, according to a
Company press release dated July 29, 2009.

The deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was
about US$32.2 million at the end of the second quarter and
comparable to the first quarter 2009 level.

Asbestos-related cash payments were US$34.8 million during the
first quarter of 2009, down from US$40.2 million during the
first quarter of 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first half of 2009 were
about 30 percent lower than the same period last year. The
number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims was about
7,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with about 11,000 at year
end 2008.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$175 million as of
both June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$236.1 million as of June 30, 2009, compared
with US$320.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Long-term asbestos liabilities were US$285.5 million as of March
31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactures
recyclable glass containers. The Company employs more than
23,000 people with 80 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Robreno Allows 60 Days for Medical Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno, of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on July 17, 2009, gave
plaintiffs 60 days to produce medical reports by qualified
experts in support of their claims or face dismissal,
withdrawing an earlier order that allowed an indefinite tolling
of the limitations period, FindLaw reports.

In 2002, the cases had been dismissed without prejudice to
address what the judge called a "mass filing of asymptomatic
asbestos cases."

The July 17, 2009 order returned the cases to the active docket
in an effort to enforce the provisions of a 2007 order that
required plaintiffs to submit a diagnosing report in support of
their claims, Judge Robreno said.

The 2002 order addressed what the court said were filings based
on mass screenings by asymptomatic plaintiffs that depleted
funds, "some already stretched to the limit, which would
otherwise be available for compensation to deserving
plaintiffs."

Now the court's docket is no longer clogged by problem of
massive filings that justified the 2002 order, Judge Robreno
said.

The order effectively prevents plaintiffs from tolling the
limitations period indefinitely pending evidence of an asbestos-
related malignancy, instead giving them 60 days to provide
medical reports on which their claims are based.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR's Liability at $13.182Mil in June 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability was
US$13,182,000 as of June 28, 2009, compared with US$9,310,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2009.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$13,297,000 as of
March 29, 2009, compared with US$9,310,000 as of March 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Long-term asbestos liability was US$11,836,000 as of June 28,
2009, compared with US$9,935,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Long-term asbestos liability was US$11,695,000 as of March 29,
2009, compared with US$9,935,000 as of March 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Asbestos charges were US$3,442,000 during the three months ended
June 28, 2009, compared with US$2,010,000 during the three
months ended June 29, 2008.

Asbestos charges were US$11,705,000 during the six months ended
June 28, 2009, compared with US$3,085,000 during the six months
ended June 29, 2008.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Cites $1.997B Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos
liability was US$1.997 billion during the three and six months
ended June 30, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2009.

Total gross asbestos reserves were US$2.662 billion as of June
30, 2009.

During the three months ended June 30, 2009, net paid losses and
loss adjustment expenses were US$37 million and net incurred
losses and LAE were US$189 million.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, net paid losses and
LAE were US$76 million and net incurred losses and LAE were
US$189 million.

The three months ended June 30, 2009 included net asbestos
reserve strengthening of US$90 million, after-tax, partially
offset by a decrease in the allowance for uncollectible
reinsurance of US$13 million, after-tax.

Based in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. offers personal and commercial insurance products,
including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. Through
its Hartford Life subsidiary, the Company offers individual and
group life insurance, annuities, asset management, retirement
plans, and mutual funds (managed both in-house and by other
groups including Wellington Management).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Desnoyers Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled United States
of America v. Mark Desnoyers, Defendant.

District Judge David N. Hurd entered judgment in Case No. 1:06-
CR-494-DNH on June 19, 2009.

Mark Desnoyers moved for a judgment of acquittal, or
alternatively, for a new trial for each of the charges of which
he was convicted. The United States of America (the
"Government") opposed.

Oral argument was heard on Feb. 12, 2009 in Utica, N.Y. Decision
was reserved.

Mr. Desnoyers was convicted on Sept. 18, 2008 of the following
offenses for his conduct while working as an asbestos abatement
air monitor:

-- Count one: Conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and to
   commit mail fraud;

-- Count five: Knowingly violating the Clean Air Act;

-- Count six: Knowingly committing mail fraud; and

-- Counts 12 and 13: Knowingly making material false statements
   to Special Agents of the United States Environmental
   Protection Agency.

Count 14 of the Third Superseding Indictment also charged Mr.
Desnoyers with making a material false statement to EPA agents,
but Mr. Desnoyers was acquitted of that charge at trial. All
remaining counts were redacted from the Indictment following the
guilty pleas of Mr. Desnoyers' co-defendants, John Wood and
Curtis Collins.

It was ordered that:

-- Mr. Desnoyers' motion for a judgment of acquittal of count
   one of the Indictment was granted;

-- The jury's verdict of guilty for count one of the Indictment
   was vacated;

-- Count one of the Indictment was dismissed;

-- Mr. Desnoyers' motion for a judgment of acquittal of count
   five, count six, count 12, and count 13 of the Indictment was
   denied; and

-- Mr. Desnoyers' motion for a new trial was denied.

Dreyer Boyajian LLP (William J. Dreyer, Esq., John B. Casey,
Esq.) in Albany, N.Y., represented Mr. Desnoyers.

Hon. Andrew T. Baxter, Office of the United States Attorney
(Craig A. Benedict, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney,
Colin L. Black, Esq., United States Department of Justice) in
Syracuse, N.Y., represented the United States of America.


ASBESTOS ALERT: N.Y. Contractor Jailed for Cheating on $1.6M Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecutors said on July 28, 2009 that Chong-mun Chae, the South
Korean owner of a Queens, N.Y.-based asbestos-removal company,
was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for failing to pay
US$1.6 million in required workers' compensation premiums by
saying that he had just one employee when he often had dozens,
The New York Times reports.

Andrew T. Baxter, the interim United States attorney for the
Northern District of New York, said Mr. Chae would be deported
after serving his sentence of 46 months because he was an
illegal immigrant.

Prosecutors said that when Mr. Chae applied for workers'
compensation policies, he often falsely claimed that he had one
employee, who worked as a receptionist. As a result, insurance
companies charged him far lower rates than if they had known the
true number of his employees and the hazardous nature of their
work.

Mr. Chae sought to avoid getting caught by repeatedly changing
the name of his company, prosecutors said. Its names included
Charlie Brown Services, Top Ace Services and K-One Service.

The 71-year-old Mr. Chae pleaded guilty to mail fraud and tax
fraud, and was sentenced on July 23, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court in Binghamton.

State officials said Mr. Chae worked on asbestos-removal
projects throughout the state and often used crews of Korean
immigrants. His lawyer, Edward M. Kratt, Esq., said, "He
accepted responsibility for his criminal actions."

In the investigation, which began in the Northern District,
federal officials and the Workers' Compensation Board accused
Mr. Chae of illegally misclassifying scores of asbestos-removal
workers as independent contractors rather than as his employees.
Employers generally do not have to pay workers' compensation
premiums for bona fide independent contractors.

The amount of employer-premium fraud in this case exceeded the
amount from all such cases that the Workers' Compensation Board
brought in 2008.

Under the plea agreement, Mr. Chae is to pay restitution for
unpaid premiums: US$1,067,265 to the New York State Insurance
Fund, US$345,904 to Zurich Insurance and US$238,187 to Princeton
Insurance.

Mr. Chae was sentenced by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, and
directed to pay all federal taxes he owed in an amount to be
determined by federal officials.


                            *********

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  * * *