CAR_Public/090807.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 7, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 155
  
                           Headlines

AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholders' Suits Over Merger Deal
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mass. Suit Over Payment Option Mortgages
BAXTER INT'L: Defending Lawsuits Over Anti-Hemophilic Factor
BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Suit Over Heparin Recall Ongoing

BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Faces Customer Suit Over Plasma-Derived Therapies
BAXTER INT'L: Final Approval of AWP Suit Deal Expected in 2009
CAR CREDIT: Judge Orders Release of Information in "Perry" Case
CERADYNE INC: Expects August 2009 Trial on Motion for Approval

FIRST STUDENT: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
FRESH DEL MONTE: Aug. 24 Conference Set for Consumer Fraud Suit
FRESH DEL MONTE: Buyer's Suit Over Pineapples Pending in Florida
FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Granted in Hawaii Suit in June
FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Still Defends Pineapple Suit in New York

KILLINGTON LTD: Vt. Judge Wants to See Documents in "Post" Case
MERCK & CO: Settles Lawsuits Over Zetia, Vytorin for $41.5M
MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Del. Shareholder Suit Settlement Pending
MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Pevgonen Plaintiffs Agree to Bid Dismissal
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Workers to Sue Over Health Care Co-Payments

RPM INTERNATIONAL: 1,705 Claims in "Posey" Lawsuit v. Unit Paid
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Investors File Consolidated Fraud Lawsuit
U.S. GOVERNMENT: Judge Allows Suit Over MGRO Flooding to Proceed
U.S. GOVERNMENT: Pa. Judge Hears Oral Arguments in "Alli" Case
U.S. STEEL: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Products in Illinois

VARIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement
WELLS FARGO: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over Payment Option Mortgages

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Howard G. Smith Files Mich. Stock Lawsuit
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing
GENZYME CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing

HURON CONSULTING: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
HURON CONSULTING: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit
HURON CONSULTING: Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing

HURON CONSULTING: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing

                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $793M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Mine Safety
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing Against Olin
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,173 Cases Ongoing v. RPM Units at May 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 415 Cases Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Lincoln Drop to 17,582 at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Flowserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Has Cases in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1.4T Injury Claims Remain v. Chicago Bridge

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Fin'l. Records 10.7 Survival Ratio
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos in 20-30 Kabel Deutschland Sites
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 555 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Dean Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Has 24T Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Still Party to CNA Lawsuit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Has 10,300 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Still Ongoing v. Inactive Quaker Unit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8T Claims Still Pending v. Cytec at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,700 Claims at June 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $2.79B Net Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 96.6T Claims Ongoing v. Goodyear at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Inc. Facing 25 Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Lorillard Filter Actions Set for Trial
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Facing 10,700 Cases at June 26
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Morton Lawsuit

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities at $19.64Mil in June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong $178.7M Tax Refund OK'd July 2009
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Spends $4.027M for Claims at July 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Cites $14.3M Expenses at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gladstone Accrues No Liabilities at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Against Pride Int'l. Ongoing in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Has 25,000 Cases in 7 States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Award Ruling in Case v. Scapa
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Pensioner Denied GBP155T Compensation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potsdam Civic Center Asbestos Probe Ongoing

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Cites $2.7Mil Recoveries at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingsteignton Man's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waterlooville Man's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEM Handling Breach Case Ongoing v. Hicks
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Upholds Ruling in Cross Action

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rexnord Has $90M Claims Reserve at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler June 30 Liability at $336.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrued Liability at $24.39M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abshire Lawsuit Filed v. DuPont on July 31
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drennan Action v. 24 Firms Filed on July 31

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armistead Files Injury Case v. BAE Systems
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyers Move to Oppose Subpoena on Segarra
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chairamonte Convicted for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glass Decorator's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS ALERT: Lebanon Hardboard Fined $63T for Safety Breaches

                           *********

AMERICAN INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., is seeking dismissal of the
consolidated securities fraud class-action litigation filed
against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Law360 reports.

AIG, along with several other defendants, including
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, recently filed a motion to dismiss
lead plaintiff State of Michigan Retirement Systems' first
consolidated complaint, claiming that it along with other
plaintiffs are trying to spin a tale of fraud while ignoring the
greatest downturn since the Great Depression, according to
Law360.


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholders' Suits Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axsys Technologies, Inc., says it is currently engaged in
discovery and has not yet responded to any of the shareholders'
class action complaints pending in the Superior Court of
Connecticut and the Delaware Chancery Court.

On June 4, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems,
Inc., and Vision Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
General Dynamics' parent.

Following the June 4, 2009, announcement of the plan of merger,
three shareholder class actions were filed in the Superior Court
of Connecticut and the Delaware Chancery Court seeking to enjoin
the merger or, in the alternative, post-merger monetary relief
in unspecified amounts.

The actions generally allege that Axsys' board of directors
violated its fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by
entering into the proposed merger on unfair terms, and by
failing to accurately disclose all material information in the
proxy statement distributed to shareholders in advance of their
vote on the merger.

No date had been set for a trial of or a hearing on a
preliminary injunction motion, according to the company's July
28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009.

Axsys Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.axsys.com/-- is a  
designer and manufacturer of precision optical solutions for
defense, aerospace, homeland security and commercial
applications. The company operates in two business segments: the
Surveillance Systems Group and the Imaging Systems Group.  The
Surveillance Systems Group designs, manufactures and sells
highly precise camera systems for deployment on ground, marine
and aerial vehicles.  The products are used in surveillance,
reconnaissance, tracking and targeting applications.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mass. Suit Over Payment Option Mortgages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Home Loans, Inc., is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit claiming they knew -- or should have known --
their mortgage loans that can grow bigger over time were
unaffordable to borrowers, Jenifer B. McKim at The Boston Globe
reports.

The lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by Jerome Hart.  It is
captioned Hart v. Bank of America Home Loans, Inc., Case No.
1:2009-cv-11096.

Gary Klein, Esq., of the law firm Roddy, Klein and Ryan, sought
class-action status for the case, saying that hundreds of
Massachusetts borrowers ultimately will be unable to afford
their mortgages.  A decision on class-action status is pending,
reports Ms. McKim.

The suit focuses on so-called "payment option" mortgages, which
allow borrowers to make minimum monthly payments on home loans.  
From the day the paperwork is signed, any unpaid interest is
added to the balance.  Eventually, the day of reckoning comes --
usually after five years -- and a borrower is required to make
payments that cover the full mortgage interest and swelling
principal, according to The Boston Globe.

Mr. Hart is represented by:

          Gary Klein, Esq.
          Roddy, Klein & Ryan
          727 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-357-5500 ext. 15
          Fax: 617-357-5030
          E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com
          Web site: http://www.roddykleinryan.com/


BAXTER INT'L: Defending Lawsuits Over Anti-Hemophilic Factor
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. remains a defendant in a number of
lawsuits and subject to additional claims brought by individuals
who have hemophilia and their families.

The lawsuits all seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by
anti-hemophilic factor concentrates VIII or IX derived from
human blood plasma (factor concentrates) processed by the
company and other acquired entities from the late 1970s to the
mid-1980s.

The typical case or claim alleges that the individual was
infected with the HIV or HCV virus by factor concentrates that
contained one or both viruses.

None of these cases involves factor concentrates currently
processed by the company, according to its July 28, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery in Suit Over Heparin Recall Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in lawsuits, including purported class actions,
against Baxter International Inc. over the recall of heparin
products is ongoing.

In connection with the recall of heparin products in the United
States, approximately 165 lawsuits, some of which are purported
class actions, have been filed alleging that plaintiffs suffered
various reactions to a heparin contaminant, in some cases
resulting in fatalities.

In June 2008, a number of these federal cases were consolidated
before the Honorable James G. Carr in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (Master Docket No. 08-60000;
MDL No. 1953) for pretrial case management under the Multi
District Litigation rules.  

In September 2008, a number of state court cases were
consolidated in Cook County, Illinois for pretrial case
management.

Discovery is ongoing and a trial date is scheduled for October
2010, according to the company's July 28, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Discovery Continues in ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is ongoing in a purported class action against
Baxter International Inc. pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

In October 2004, the class action was filed against Baxter and
its current Chief Executive Officer and then current Chief
Financial Officer and their predecessors for alleged violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended.

The Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the company's 401(k)
plans, breached their fiduciary duties to the plan participants
by offering Baxter common stock as an investment option in each
of the plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.

In March 2006, the trial court certified a class of plan
participants who elected to acquire Baxter common stock through
the plans between January 2001 and the present.

In April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
denied Baxter's interlocutory appeal and upheld the trial
court's denial of Baxter's motion to dismiss.  

Baxter has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Fact discovery has been completed in this matter and expert
discovery is proceeding, according to the company's July 28,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Faces Customer Suit Over Plasma-Derived Therapies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. faces a hospital customer's suit
stating a class action claim in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On July 15, 2009, a hospital customer filed suit alleging that
Baxter and a competitor conspired to restrict output and
artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies
since late 2004.

The complaint attempts to state a claim for class action relief
and demands treble damages, according to the company's July 28,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


BAXTER INT'L: Final Approval of AWP Suit Deal Expected in 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the class settlement in a consolidated action
against Baxter International Inc. over alleged inflation of
average wholesale prices is expected later in 2009.

The company is a defendant, along with others, in over 50
lawsuits brought in various state and U.S. federal courts, which
allege that Baxter and other defendants reported artificially
inflated average wholesale prices for Medicare and Medicaid
eligible drugs.

These cases have been brought by private parties on behalf of
various purported classes of purchasers of Medicare and Medicaid
eligible drugs, as well as by state attorneys general.

A number of these cases were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Master Docket No. 01-
CV-12257; MDL No. 1456) for pretrial case management under Multi
District Litigation rules.

In April 2008, the court preliminarily approved a class
settlement resolving Medicare Part B claims and independent
health plan claims against Baxter and others, which had
previously been reserved for by the company.

Remaining lawsuits against Baxter include a number of cases
brought by state attorneys general and New York entities, which
seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties,
disgorgement, forfeiture and restitution.  

Various state and federal agencies are conducting civil
investigations into the marketing and pricing practices of
Baxter and others with respect to Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement.  These investigations may result in additional
cases being filed by various state attorneys general, according
to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

Baxter International Inc. -- http://www.baxter.com/-- develops,  
manufactures and markets products that save and sustain the
lives of people with hemophilia, immune disorders, infectious
diseases, kidney disease, trauma and other chronic and acute
medical conditions.  As a diversified healthcare company, Baxter
applies a combination of expertise in medical devices,
pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to create products that
advance patient care worldwide.


CAR CREDIT: Judge Orders Release of Information in "Perry" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ortrie Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri ordered several local car dealers to
release the names and addresses of every customer who bought
vehicles from them since Dec. 11, 2003, Dan Margolies at The
Kansas City Star reports.

The order was issued in a class-action lawsuit challenging the
dealers' right to charge customers for document preparation
fees.

The suit was filed on Apr. 3, 2009, by Louis Perry against Car
Credity City, LLC, and Lovergreen Ford Mercury.  It is captioned
Perry v. Car Credit City, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:2009-cv-06034,
and alleges that the document preparation process constitutes
the unlawful practice of law.  Originally filed in December 2008
in Sullivan County Circuit Court, the lawsuit was transferred to
federal court in Kansas City, Mr. Margolies reports.

The case is one of many filed in Missouri after the Missouri
Supreme Court ruled last year that a bank that had charged
document preparation fees for completing mortgage documents had
engaged in the unlawful practice of law, according to The Kansas
City Star.

Just a month after the dealer case was filed in Sullivan County,
the court certified the suit as a class-action case and defined
the defendant class as all Missouri dealerships that had sold
motor vehicles and charged fees for document processing.

After one of the car dealers, Car Credit City, removed the case
to federal court, Judge Smith directed the dealers to produce a
listing of every purchaser and their addresses since Dec. 11,
2003 -- or five years before the lawsuit was filed.  The judge
did so because he needed to determine whether at least a third
of the dealers' sales were made outside of Missouri, a threshold
requirement of the federal Class Action Fairness Act, the basis
for federal jurisdiction in the case, reports Mr. Margolies.

The dealers objected, protesting that the information was
sensitive and proprietary, and asked Judge Smith to enter a
protective order limiting the use of the information by the
plaintiffs' lawyers.

In a one-paragraph order entered last week, Judge Smith denied
the dealers' motion without explanation, The Kansas City Star
reported.

Mr. Perry is represented by:

          Danieal H. Miller, Esq.
          Danieal H. Miller, P.C.
          720 West Sexton Road
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Phone: (573)443-1645
          Fax: (573) 874-3159
          E-mail: dhm@daniealhmiller.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Shumaker, Esq.
          Law Office of Seth Shumaker
          716 South Baltimore
          Kirksville, MO 63501
          Phone: (660) 665-7700
          Fax: (660) 665-7878
          E-mail: shumaker@cableone.net

Car Credit is represented by:

          Mark G. Arnold, Esq.
          Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3441
          Phone: (314) 480-1802
          Fax: (314) 480-1505
          E-mail: mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com


CERADYNE INC: Expects August 2009 Trial on Motion for Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for approval of the settlement of a purported class-
action lawsuit against Ceradyne, Inc., which alleged that the
representative plaintiff, a former Ceradyne employee, and the
putative class members, were not paid overtime at an appropriate
overtime rate, is expected to be heard in August 2009.

The suit, styled Daniel Vargas, Jr. v. Ceradyne, Inc., Orange
County Superior Court, Civil Action No. 07CC01232, was filed in
the California Superior Court for Orange County, on March 23,
2007.

The suit alleges that the purportedly affected employees should
have had their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime, adjusted to reflect the payment of a bonus to them for
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

The complaint further alleges that a waiting time penalty should
be assessed for the failure to timely pay the correct overtime
payment.  

Ceradyne has filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.  

A motion for class certification was filed on or about Aug. 11,
2008.  Ceradyne has filed an opposition claiming that there are
no common questions of fact that can be generalized across the
class.  It has also opposed the motion on the basis that the
Plaintiff has not established his suitability as a class
representative, particularly because he is a former employee
whose interests conflict with the current employees.  

The motion for class certification was heard on Nov. 13, 2008,
and class certification was granted.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the court entered an order certifying the
class.  Ceradyne contends that the lawsuit is without merit on
the basis that the bonuses that have been paid are discretionary
and not of the type that are subject to inclusion in the regular
hourly rate for purposes of calculating overtime.

After a request for review by the Court of Appeal of the
decision to grant class certification, a day-long mediation
before a third-party neutral mediator, and an evaluation of the
cost of litigation and the financial exposure in the case,
Ceradyne agreed to provide a settlement fund of $1.25 million to
resolve all issues in the litigation.  The settlement
specifically states that neither party is admitting to liability
or lack thereof.  The plaintiff's counsel is preparing a motion
for approval of the settlement by the court and such motion is
expected to be heard in August 2009.  The settlement provides
for reversion of any unclaimed amounts from the settlement fund
back to Ceradyne, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Ceradyne, Inc. -- http://www.ceradyne.com/-- develops,   
manufactures and markets advanced technical ceramic products,
ceramic powders and components for defense, industrial,
automotive/diesel and commercial applications.  It operates
through six segments: Advanced Ceramic Operations, ESK Ceramics,
Semicon Associates, Thermo Materials, Ceradyne Canada and
Ceradyne Boron Products.  The company's products include
lightweight ceramic armor for soldiers and other military
applications; ceramic industrial components for erosion and
corrosion resistant applications; ceramic powders, including
boron carbide, boron nitride, titanium diboride, calcium
hexaboride, and zirconium diboride, which are used in
manufacture of armor and a range of industrial products;
BORONEIGE boron nitride powder for cosmetic products, and
evaporation boats for metallization of materials for food
packaging and other products.  Its products are sold into four
principal markets: defense, industrial, automotive/diesel and
commercial.


FIRST STUDENT: Faces Suit in Arkansas Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
     A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of bus
drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. at its
terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The lawsuit, entitled
Douglas, et al. v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No.
4:09-cv-00652, was filed on Friday, July 31, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, on
behalf of all persons employed by First Student, Inc., as
drivers or dispatchers at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas,
at any time from August 1, 2006, to the present.

     This is the second class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc.,
which describes itself on its website as "North America's
leading school bus transportation services company and
responsible for safely transporting 4 million students to and
from school every day."  Another class action lawsuit, entitled
Hoffman v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1882, is
currently pending against First Student, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.  The Hoffman
case, which also alleges claims of unpaid wages and unpaid
overtime on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers in Maryland,
has already been approved by the court as a class action and
will go to trial soon.

     The lawsuit that was just filed on behalf of bus drivers
and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. in Arkansas
alleges that First Student, Inc. violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and Arkansas state laws by failing to pay its bus
drivers and dispatchers for all hours and overtime worked.  For
example, the Complaint alleges that drivers are paid for two and
a half hours for their morning route and two and a half hours
for their afternoon route regardless of how many hours it
actually takes them to complete their routes and complete other
work associated with their routes such as pre-trip and post-trip
inspections.  Similarly, the bus drivers allege that they are
not paid for all of their work time for field trips and athletic
events.  First Student, Inc.'s website states that it maintains
a fleet of more than 60,000 school buses and 68,000 drivers
nationwide.

     "First Student, Inc. appears to be engaging in violations
of the federal and state overtime laws by requiring its bus
drivers and dispatchers to spend numerous hours working off-the-
clock and without compensation.  The plaintiffs have filed this
lawsuit to ask that First Student, Inc. be held accountable for
failing to pay its employees wages they have legitimately
earned," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of
the attorneys for the plaintiffs.  Another attorney for the
plaintiffs in both cases, C. Christopher Brown of Brown,
Goldstein & Levy, LLP, states, "The conduct we have seen in
these cases and across First Student, Inc.'s terminals, whether
in Baltimore, Maryland or Little Rock, Arkansas, is similar, and
it is important that it be addressed by the courts and that a
remedy is fashioned that will ensure that First Student, Inc.
changes its policies to ensure that workers are paid for all of
their time spent working."

For more details, contact:

          Shanon Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          Phone: (215) 875-3053 or (215) 875-4656
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


FRESH DEL MONTE: Aug. 24 Conference Set for Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference in a purported consumer fraud
class-action suit against Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., over
its pineapple products is scheduled for Aug. 24, 2009.  

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class-action
complaints against the company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold pineapples
between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.

The complaints allege violations of the Cartwright Act, common
law monopolization, unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professional Code, unjust enrichment and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  

On April 19, 2004, the company removed these actions to federal
court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to the state
court of California, which remand request was granted separately
by the court in July 2004.  These actions were allowed to
proceed in the state court of California.

In one of the three actions, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  This dismissal request was
granted in part and denied in part.  

On Nov. 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this one remaining claim,
which was denied by the court on Jan. 6, 2006.  The appellate
court denied the request for an interlocutory appeal on March 2,
2006.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class-action suit, which the company and its subsidiaries intend
to oppose.

The company and its subsidiaries filed an opposition on Feb. 13,
2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.  At the
hearing held on May 20, 2009, the court issued a tentative
opinion granting certification based on a California Supreme
Court decision issued on May 19, 2009, but requested further
briefing.  The company and plaintiffs have served supplemental
briefs in response, according to the company's July 28, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/  
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Buyer's Suit Over Pineapples Pending in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action suit filed by a buyer of Fresh Del
Monte Produce, Inc.'s pineapple products remains pending in
Florida, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 26, 2009.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a
putative class-action complaint against the company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold
pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.

The complaint alleges fraudulent concealment (and tolling of the
statute of limitations), violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment.  

On May 11, 2004, the subsidiaries removed this action to federal
court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to state court
and the company's subsidiaries opposed that motion.  The court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand.  The case now proceeds
in the state court of Florida.  

On Oct. 27, 2004, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, which motion was granted on
Jan. 23, 2006, with leave for plaintiffs to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Feb. 13, 2006.

On March 10, 2006, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in part.  On Sept. 27, 2006, the
state court granted this motion and dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment and for violation of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating to
pineapples purchased before April 19, 2000.

The subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claims of the
amended complaint on Oct. 12, 2006.

On Aug. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class-
action lawsuit.

The company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on Jan. 22, 2009,
to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/  
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Summary Judgment Granted in Hawaii Suit in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summary judgment was granted in June 2009 in favor of Fresh Del
Monte Produce, Inc.'s remaining U.S. subsidiaries in a purported
class-action suit in Hawaii, according to the company's July 28,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain
of the company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action
in Hawaii.  

The action was dismissed by a federal district court on grounds
of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of the
plaintiffs' home countries and the plaintiffs appealed this
decision.  On April 22, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal, thereby remanding the
action to the Hawaiian state court.

On April 27, 2007, the company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the
action, which do not have ties to Hawaii, filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed these subsidiaries from the action on June
28, 2007.

On Feb. 19, 2008, plaintiffs moved to certify a worldwide class
of farm workers allegedly injured from exposure to DBCP, which
motion was denied on July 15, 2008.

At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of the company's remaining U.S. subsidiaries
with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of the remaining
plaintiffs are time barred.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/  
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Units Still Defends Pineapple Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. continues to
face a purported class-action lawsuit pending in New York over
Del Monte Gold pineapples, according to the company's July 28,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009.

The consolidated complaint was filed against the company's units
on Aug. 2, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  It is brought as a putative class-action
lawsuit on behalf of all direct and indirect purchasers of Del
Monte Gold pineapples from March 1, 1996, through the present
and merges four actions brought by fruit wholesalers and two
actions brought by individual consumers.

The complaint alleges claims for:

       -- monopolization and attempted monopolization;
    
       -- restraint of trade;

       -- unfair and deceptive trade practices; and

       -- unjust enrichment.

On May 27, 2005, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for unjust
enrichment.

On June 29, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for class
certification.  On Feb. 20, 2008, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect
purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct
purchasers' claims for monopolization and attempted
monopolization which were uncontested by the company's
subsidiaries.

Also, on Feb. 20, 2008, the Court granted the motion of the
company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct purchasers' claims
for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the motion to dismiss
the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the basis of the
Court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class certification of
the indirect purchasers.

On Aug. 13, 2008, the company's subsidiaries filed a motion for
summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims.  The
plaintiffs opposed that summary judgment motion on Oct. 6, 2008,
and the Subsidiaries filed replies on Dec. 8, 2008.

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. -- http://www.freshdelmonte.com/  
-- is a vertically integrated producer, marketer and distributor
of fresh and fresh-cut fruit and vegetables, as well as producer
and distributor of prepared fruit and vegetables, juices,
beverages and snacks.  The company's global business, conducted
through subsidiaries, is primarily the worldwide sourcing,
transportation and marketing of fresh and fresh-cut produce
together with prepared food products in Europe, the Middle East
and Africa.  Fresh Del Monte sources its products (bananas,
pineapples, melons, tomatoes, grapes, apples, pears, peaches,
plums, nectarines, cherries, kiwi) primarily from Central and
South America, Africa, and the Philippines.  It also source
products from North America, Africa and Europe.  The company
distributes its products in North America, Europe, Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and South America.  Fresh Del Monte
markets its products worldwide under the DEL MONTE brand.


KILLINGTON LTD: Vt. Judge Wants to See Documents in "Post" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John Conroy of the U.S District Court for the
District of Vermont ordered SP Land Co. to produce documents in
connection with a class-action lawsuit concerning the
cancellation of lifetime investor ski passes at Killington
Resort, Bruce Edwards at The Rutland Herald reports.

SP Land Co. and a related entity, SP II Resort, were ordered to
produce certain e-mail communications dated prior to the
acquisition of the ski resort from American Skiing Co. in May
2007.  The documents relate to e-mail correspondence between SP
Land Co., SP II Resort and, other entities, including American
Skiing Co., reports Mr. Edwards.

The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2007, by Martin Post, Jill Post,
Judith A. Dark, and William Langlais.  It is captioned Post, et
al. v. Killington, Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00252-WKS-JMC,
and named as defendants SP Land Co., SP II Resort and
Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners and former owners Killington
Ltd., American Skiing Co., and S-K-I Ltd.

The Herald reported that the lawsuit was filed several months
after the resort was purchased by Powdr Corp. and SP Land Co.,
which operate the ski area under Killington/Pico Ski Resort
Partners.  Powdr Corp. is not named in the lawsuit.  It was
later certified by the court as a class-action case.

According to court documents, the class includes 1,243 investor
pass holders.  The passes were issued between 1958 and 1965 as
an incentive to invest in the new ski area.  Over the years,
some of the passes have been sold and then re-sold.

Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners and SP Land Co. informed the
investor pass holders that what they considered lifetime passes
would no longer be honored after the 2008-09 ski season.  In
canceling the passes, Killington's new owners explained that
they purchased the ski area's assets and not the company itself,
which they said ceased to exist after the 2007 purchase,
according to the newspaper.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erin Miller Heins, Esq.
          Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP
          210 College Street
          P.O. Box 721
          Burlington, VT 05402-0721
          Phone: (802) 864-0217
          E-mail: eheins@langrock.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Carol E. Farquhar, Esq.
          Loewinsohn Flegle Deary, LLP
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Phone: (214) 572-1700
          E-mail: carolf@lfdlaw.com

          Alexandra H. Bolanis, Esq.
          Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC
          150 South Champlain Street
          P.O. Box 1489
          Burlington, VT 05402-1489
          Phone: (802) 864-0880
          E-mail: abolanis@ppeclaw.com

               - and -

          Angela R. Clark, Esq.
          Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C.
          209 Battery Street
          P.O. Box 988
          Burlington, VT 05402-0988
          Phone: (802) 864-5751
          E-mail: aclark@dinse.com


MERCK & CO: Settles Lawsuits Over Zetia, Vytorin for $41.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., and Schering-Plough Corp. will pay $41.5 million to
settle class-action lawsuits over their shared cholesterol drugs
Vytorin and Zetia, Lewis Krauskopf at Reuters reports.

The suits involved allegations arising from the Enhance clinical
trial, whose results released in January 2008 raised questions
about the worth of Zetia and Vytorin.

Merck and Schering-Plough, which have agreed to merge, sell the
blockbuster medicines through a joint venture.  Vytorin combines
Zetia and an older statin drug, Zocor, into one pill, reports
Mr. Krauskopf.

The settlement will resolve all the class-action lawsuits that
seek economic damages related to the purchase of the two drugs,
according to the companies, who have disclosed about 145 such
lawsuits pending in federal court in New Jersey.

The deal involves two settlements: one with consumers and other
entities that purchased the drugs, and one with health plans.
The settlement with consumers is subject to court approval,
while the other is not, according to Reuters.

Mr. Krauskopf reported that a study found Vytorin was no more
effective in reducing plaque in the carotid arteries than an
inexpensive generic form of Zocor (simvastatin).  Sales of
Vytorin and Zetia, which had become blockbuster products,
plunged when results of the trial became known.


MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Del. Shareholder Suit Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a consolidated putative shareholder
class action styled In re Monogram Biosciences, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 4703-CC, remains subject to the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware's approval.

On June 30, 2009, a single plaintiff, Tim Bleymeyer, initiated a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against Monogram, LabCorp,
Mastiff, and individual members of the company's board of
directors.  

That action, captioned Tim Bleymeyer v. Monogram Biosciences,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4703-CC, alleges that (i)
individual members of the company's board of directors violated
their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders, including
their duties to (a) fully inform themselves of the company's
market value before taking action, (b) act in the interests of
the equity owners, (c) maximize shareholder value, (d) obtain
the best financial and other terms when Monogram's existence
will be materially altered by the transaction, (e) act in
accordance with fundamental duties of loyalty, care and good
faith and (f) act independently in the best interest of the
corporation and its shareholders, and (ii) LabCorp and Monogram
aided and abetted the other defendants in the breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

Bleymeyer seeks to enjoin the acquisition of Monogram by Mastiff
and LabCorp and requests monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

On July 6, 2009, Bleymeyer amended his complaint to include
allegations stemming from alleged misstatements and omissions in
Monogram's Schedule 14D-9.

On July 7, 2009, a second complaint was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled Kurt Kvist v. Monogram
Biosciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4717-CC, asserting
allegations and claims identical to those set forth in the
Bleymeyer Action.

On July 9, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating the Bleymeyer and Kvist Actions into the Delaware
Action.

On July 9, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court heard a motion for
expedited proceedings submitted by the plaintiffs in the
Bleymeyer and Kvist Actions.

On July 13, 2009, the Delaware Plaintiffs submitted a renewed
motion for expedited proceedings raising only certain disclosure
issues.

On July 23, 2009, the Delaware Chancery Court scheduled a
preliminary injunction hearing for July 28, 2009, limited to the
disclosure issues identified in the renewed motion for expedited
proceedings and related letter submissions.  On July 23 and 24,
2009, Monogram produced a limited set of documents to Delaware
Plaintiffs.

On July 27, 2009, Defendants and Delaware Plaintiffs entered
into a memorandum of understanding contemplating the settlement
of all claims in the Delaware Action.  Under the MOU, subject to
court approval and further definitive documentation, Delaware
Plaintiffs and the putative class agreed to settle and release,
against Defendants and their affiliates and agents, any and all
claims in the Delaware Action and any potential claim related to
the Offer and the merger, the fiduciary obligations of the
Defendants, the negotiations in connection with the Offer, the
merger and the disclosure obligations of the Defendants in
connection with the Offer and the merger, the alleged aiding and
abetting of any breach of fiduciary duty, any alleged conflict
of interest of any remuneration or employment benefits to any
individual made in connection with the Offer and the merger and
all other allegations in the Delaware Action.  Pursuant to the
terms of the MOU, the company agreed to provide additional
supplemental disclosures to its Schedule 14D-9.  Defendants have
also agreed not to oppose any fee application by Plaintiffs'
counsel that does not exceed $215,000.  The settlement is
contingent upon, among other things, approval of the fee award
by the Chancery Court and the merger becoming effective under
Delaware law, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Monogram Biosciences, Inc. -- http://www.monogrambio.com/-- is  
a life sciences company engaged in the development of molecular
diagnostic products that guide and target the appropriate
treatments.  The company is developing molecular diagnostics and
laboratory services that are designed to enable physicians to
manage infectious diseases and cancers by providing the critical
information that helps them prescribe personalized treatments
for patients by matching the underlying molecular features of an
individual patient's disease to the drug expected to have
maximal therapeutic benefit, and enable pharmaceutical companies
to develop new and improved anti-viral therapeutics and targeted
cancer therapeutics by providing enhanced patient selection and
monitoring capabilities throughout the development process.


MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES: Pevgonen Plaintiffs Agree to Bid Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative shareholder class action complaint
styled Andrei Pevgonen v. William Young, et al., Case No. Civ.
485636, agreed to seek dismissal of the case, according to
Monogram Biosciences, Inc.'s July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

On June 26, 2009, a single plaintiff, Andrei Pevgonen, initiated
a putative shareholder class action in Superior Court of the
State of California, San Francisco County, against the
Defendants.

The action, styled Andrei Pevgonen v. William Young, et al.,
Case No. CGC-09-489866, alleged that (i) individual members of
the company's board of directors violated their fiduciary duties
to the company's stockholders, including their duties of
loyalty, good faith, independence and candor, and allegedly
failed to maximize value for the company's stockholders by
conducting an unfair sales process and entering into the Merger
Agreement, and (ii) LabCorp and Monogram aided and abetted the
other defendants in the breach of their fiduciary duties.
Pevgonen sought to enjoin the acquisition of Monogram by Mastiff
and LabCorp and requested monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

On July 2, 2009, Pevgonen filed an amended complaint, which
added allegations and a breach of fiduciary duty claim stemming
from alleged misstatements and omissions in Monogram's Schedule
14D-9, which was filed with the SEC on July 1, 2009.

On July 2, 2009, a second putative class action was initiated in
Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County,
styled Charulata Patel v. Monogram Biosciences, Inc., et al,
Case No. CGC-09-490059.  The complaint in the 2nd SF Action
alleged similar claims to those made in the 1st SF Action.

Both actions were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on
July 10 and July 7, 2009, respectively.

On July 7, 2009, Andrei Pevgonen filed a complaint in Superior
Court of California, San Mateo County, styled Andrei Pevgonen v.
William Young, et al., Case No. Civ. 485636, asserting the same
allegations and claims that he made in the 1st SF Action.

On July 8, 2009, Pevgonen filed an amended complaint, adding
named plaintiffs Charulata Patel and Rebecca Jordan.

On July 14, 2009, the San Mateo Superior Court stayed the
California Action for 90 days because a similar, parallel action
was proceeding in Delaware.

On July 23, 2009, California Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Case
Update, requesting a status conference to discuss whether the
Stay should be lifted.

Defendants opposed and, on July 24, 2009, the Court denied
California Plaintiffs' Request.

On July 28, 2009, Defendants and California Plaintiffs entered
into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which California
Plaintiffs agreed to request the Court to enter an Order to
dismiss the California Action with prejudice and to release,
against Defendants, and their affiliates and agents, any and all
claims in the California Action and any potential claim related
to the Offer and the merger, the fiduciary obligations of the
Defendants, the negotiations in connection with the Offer and
the merger, the disclosure obligations of the Defendants in
connection with the Offer and the merger, the alleged aiding and
abetting of any breach of fiduciary duty, any alleged conflict
of interest of any remuneration or employment benefits to any
individual made in connection with the Offer and the merger, and
all other allegations in the California Action.  Defendants
agreed not to oppose any fee application to be submitted by
California Plaintiffs' counsel that does not exceed $65,000.

Monogram Biosciences, Inc. -- http://www.monogrambio.com/-- is  
a life sciences company engaged in the development of molecular
diagnostic products that guide and target the appropriate
treatments.  The company is developing molecular diagnostics and
laboratory services that are designed to enable physicians to
manage infectious diseases and cancers by providing the critical
information that helps them prescribe personalized treatments
for patients by matching the underlying molecular features of an
individual patient's disease to the drug expected to have
maximal therapeutic benefit, and enable pharmaceutical companies
to develop new and improved anti-viral therapeutics and targeted
cancer therapeutics by providing enhanced patient selection and
monitoring capabilities throughout the development process.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Workers to Sue Over Health Care Co-Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
Retired state employees plan to file a purported class-action
lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire, claiming that a
provision of the new state budget requiring young retirees to
pay $65 a month for their formerly free, state-provided health
care is unconstitutional, Lauren R. Dorgan at The Concord
Monitor reports.

The heart of the complaint centers on the way the state is
taking the insurance premium, rather than the premium itself.
Starting last week, a charge of $65 per single retiree or $130
per couple was deducted directly from the pension checks of
hundreds of retired state employees who are under the age of 65.

The retirees claim that the deduction is an "illegal
'encumbrance' and 'diversion'" because the retirees' rights to a
full pension payment is "contractually vested," according to a
draft version of the lawsuit provided to the Monitor.

"The federal and New Hampshire Constitutions clearly forbid
legislation that impairs vested rights.  It is well-settled law
in New Hampshire that State retirees enjoy a contractually
vested right to receive their pension checks," the proposed
lawsuit reads.

According to attorney Glenn Milner, Esq., who is representing
the State Employees' Association and several individual
employees who seek class-action status, "If the state believes
that the state employee retirees should pay for their health
insurance, they certainly shouldn't deduct that amount from
their pension check."  

He adds, "What they've done is liened the pension check, which
we believe, and our national law firm partners firmly believe,
is unconstitutional."

The petitioners, who are set to file in Merrimack County
Superior Court, plan to ask a judge to render an injunction to
stop the pension deductions.  

Representing the petitioners are:

          Glenn R. Milner, Esq.
          Molan Milner and Krupski, PLLC
          100 Hall Street Suite 101
          Concord, NH 03301
          Phone: 603.410.6011
          Fax: 603.410.6031
          E-mail: glenn@molanmilner.com
          Web site: http://molanmilner.com

               - and -

          Stember Feinstein Doyle and Payne, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue, Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412.281.8400
          Fax: 412.281.1007
          E-mail: info@stemberfeinstein.com
          Web site: http://www.stemberfeinstein.com/


RPM INTERNATIONAL: 1,705 Claims in "Posey" Lawsuit v. Unit Paid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dryvit Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International
Inc., has paid a total of 1,705 claims in a class action over
its residential exterior insulated finish systems product line
for a total of approximately $14.1 million.

Dryvit is a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed on Nov.
14, 2000, in Jefferson County, Tennessee, styled Bobby R. Posey,
et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. (formerly styled William J.
Humphrey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.), Case No. 17,715-IV),
which was finally certified by court order on Sept. 15, 2005.

The deadline for filing claims in the Posey class action expired
on June 5, 2004, and claims have been processed during the
pendency of the various appeals.

As of June 30, 2009, a cumulative total of 1,705 claims have
been paid over the term of the settlement agreement for a total
of approximately $14.1 million.  Although additional payments
have and will continue to be made under the terms of the
settlement agreement, which include inspection costs, third
party warranties and class counsel attorneys' fees, the company
does not expect these payments to be material in future periods,
according to the company's July 28, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2009.  

RPM International Inc. -- http://www.rpminc.com/-- through its  
subsidiaries, manufactures, markets and sells various specialty
chemical product lines, including specialty paints, protective
coatings, roofing systems, sealants and adhesives, focusing on
the maintenance and improvement needs of both the industrial and
consumer markets.  The company's family of products includes
those marketed under brand names, such as Carboline, DAP, Day-
Glo, Dryvit, EUCO, Fibergrate, Flecto, illbruck, Rust-Oleum,
Stonhard, Tremco, Watco and Zinsser.  RPM's business is divided
into two segments.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Investors File Consolidated Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Spectranetics Corp. investors filed a consolidated
class-action suit that accuses the medical devices company of
defrauding its shareholders by illegally and secretly marketing
one of its products for procedures not approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, Law360 reports.

Spectranetics Investor Group sued nine of the company's highest
officials, including its president, vice president, chief
operating officer and board of directors chairman, according to
Law360.


U.S. GOVERNMENT: Judge Allows Suit Over MGRO Flooding to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Braden of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled
that plaintiffs can proceed with a lawsuit charging the federal
government with "taking" the value of their land in St. Bernard
and the Lower 9th Ward through flooding caused by the building
the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Mark Schleifstein at The
Times-Picayune reports.

On Aug. 3, 2009, Judge Braden refused to dismiss the lawsuit,
which federal attorneys contended was filed too long after the
six-year statute of limitations in such cases should have run
its course.

The class-action case, filed a month and a half after Hurricane
Katrina flooded both areas in August 2005, contends that
continuing environmental damage resulting from construction of
the MRGO by the Army Corps of Engineers left the plaintiffs --
including the St. Bernard Parish government and the owners of
Rocky & Carlo's Restaurant in Chalmette -- vulnerable to
flooding, Mr. Schleifstein reported.

The MRGO opened in 1965 and was quickly criticized for
destroying wetlands on the eastern edge of St. Bernard.

The lawsuit stems from the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment,
which provides "private property (shall not) be taken for public
purpose, without just compensation," according to the report.

According to Judge Braden, evidence of severe flooding in 2005
and other flooding since then showed the plaintiffs are entitled
to ask the court for compensation, reports The Times-Picayune.


U.S. GOVERNMENT: Pa. Judge Hears Oral Arguments in "Alli" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John E. Jones, III, of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania recently hear oral arguments in
the case, Alli v. Decker, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00698-JEJ-SF,
Paula Reed Ward at The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Alexander Alli and Elliot Grenade, who are being held on
immigration charges, filed the lawsuit, claiming that they --
and more than 1,000 people like them across Pennsylvania -- are
being detained indefinitely with no chance to make bond.  The
suit was filed on their behalf by the American Civil Liberties
Union.

According to the suit, Mr. Alli, moved to the U.S. from Ghana in
1990, while Mr. Grenade, came to the U.S. from Trinidad and
Tobago in 1981 as a lawful permanent resident, the newspaper
reported.

Court filings obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette indicated
that Mr. Alli, who became a lawful permanent resident in 1996
and is married to an American citizen, was convicted in federal
court in New York for obtaining 1,900 credit reports with
individuals' private financial information resulting in a
monetary loss of $70,000.

He was sentenced to 24 months in prison and completed his
sentence in August 2008.  However, while still incarcerated,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement took custody of Mr. Alli and
moved him to the York County Prison, pending his possible
removal from the U.S.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Alli contends that he has improperly been
held for nearly a year with no hearing to determine if he could
be released on bond pending the outcome of his case.

Mr. Grenade was convicted of selling cocaine in New York in 1995
and was ordered to a drug treatment program.  He failed to
complete the treatment and was re-sentenced in 2006 to two to
four years in prison.  He was released from his term in
September 2007, but while he was still incarcerated, the
Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings.

He claims that he has been held for more than 18 months with no
detention hearing.

The government though says that neither man is being improperly
-- or indefinitely -- detained.  Instead, they are being held
pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status to represent all
similarly situated people in Pennsylvania, stresses that
"petitioners do not seek an order granting their release, but
merely a hearing where the government bears the burden of
demonstrating that their prolonged detention is justified,"
reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Messrs. Alli and Grenade are represented by:

          Farrin R. Anello, Esq.
          American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
          125 Broad St. 18th Fl.
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-284-7303
          E-mail: fanello@aclu.org

               - and -

          Stanley J. Ellenberg, Esq.
          Law Offices of Stanley J. Ellenberg, PC
          1518 Walnut St., Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 215.790.1682
          E-mail: ebergs@aol.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Theodore W. Atkinson, Esq.
          U.S. Department of Justice
          450 5th Street, NW, Room 6048
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: 202.532.4135
          E-mail: theodore.atkinson@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Stephen Cerutti, Esq.
          Department of Justice/United States Attorney's Office
          228 Walnut Street, Suite 220
          Harrisburg, PA 17108
          Phone: 717-221-4482
          E-mail: Stephen.Cerutti@usdoj.gov


U.S. STEEL: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Products in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Steel Corp. continues to face several purported antitrust
class-action lawsuits in Illinois over steel products, according
to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

In a series of lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois beginning Sept. 12, 2008,
individual direct or indirect buyers of steel products have
asserted that eight steel manufacturers, including U. S. Steel,
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict the
domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States.

The cases are filed as class-action lawsuits and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.

U.S. Steel Corp. -- http://www.ussteel.com-- is an integrated   
steel producer with production operations in North America and
Central Europe.  The company has an annual raw steel production
capability of 24.3 million net tons (tons) in the North America
and 7.4 million tons in Central Europe.  U. S. Steel is also
engaged in several other business activities, most of which are
related to steel manufacturing.  These include the production of
coke in both in North America and Central Europe, and the
production of iron ore pellets from taconite, transportation
services (railroad and barge operations), real estate operations
and engineering and consulting services in North America.  
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the company had three
operating segments: Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S.
Steel Europe (USSE) and Tubular Products (Tubular).


VARIAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in California State Court challenging the proposed
acquisition of Varian, Inc. (NASDAQ: VARI).

     The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Varian
stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Agilent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: A).  Under the proposed
agreement, Varian shareholders will receive $52.00 in cash for
each share of Varian they own for a total transaction value of
approximately $1.5 billion.  The transaction appears unfair
given that Varian shares traded close to $70.00 per share in
2008.  In addition, the Varian Board agreed to a no-solicitation
provision and a $46 million termination fee that will all but
ensure that no superior offer will ever be forthcoming.

     The companies expect to consummate the transaction before
the end of 2009, subject to customary closing conditions,
including all necessary regulatory and stockholder approvals.

For more details, contact:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Web site: http://www.zlk.com/vari1.html


WELLS FARGO: Faces Mass. Lawsuit Over Payment Option Mortgages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. is facing a purported class-
action lawsuit claiming they knew -- or should have known --
their mortgage loans that can grow bigger over time were
unaffordable to borrowers, Jenifer B. McKim at The Boston Globe
reports.

The lawsuit was filed on June 23, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by Bernardo Bettinelli
and Carol G. Bettinelli.  It is captioned, Bettinelli, et al. v.
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:2009-cv-11079.

Gary Klein, Esq., of the law firm Roddy, Klein and Ryan, sought
class-action status for the case, saying that hundreds of
Massachusetts borrowers ultimately will be unable to afford
their mortgages.  A decision on class-action status is pending,
reports Ms. McKim.

The suit focuses on so-called "payment option" mortgages, which
allow borrowers to make minimum monthly payments on home loans.  
From the day the paperwork is signed, any unpaid interest is
added to the balance.  Eventually, the day of reckoning comes --
usually after five years -- and a borrower is required to make
payments that cover the full mortgage interest and swelling
principal, according to The Boston Globe.

The Bettinellis are represented by:

          Gary Klein, Esq.
          Roddy, Klein & Ryan
          727 Atlantic Avenue
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: 617-357-5500 ext. 15
          Fax: 617-357-5030
          E-mail: klein@roddykleinryan.com
          Web site: http://www.roddykleinryan.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Accuray Incorporated (NASDAQ: ARAY) between
February 7, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive.  Also included
are purchasers of Accuray common stock pursuant or traceable to
the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about February 7,
2007.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning
Accuray's financial performance, but failed to disclose that:
Accuray amended its definition of backlog to include both
contingent and non-contingent contracts; that a considerable
percentage of contingent and non-contingent orders for the
CyberKnife system that did not have a high probability of being
booked as revenue were reported as backlog; Accuray's backlog
was overstated by at least $127 million; Accuray sales personnel
entered into contingent contracts for CyberKnife systems that
did not have a high probability of being booked as revenue; the
Company lacked adequate internal controls and procedures to
ensure that potential orders reported as backlog had a
substantially high probability of being booked as revenue; and
that based on the foregoing, defendants did not have a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about Accuray,
its backlog, earnings, operations and prospects.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com


ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
US Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: MDRX) for
investors who purchased stock that was artificially inflated
between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008.

     According to the complaint, filed in the Northern District
of Illinois, Allscripts and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws when the Company
issued the newest version of Touchworks.  Defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that they lacked the
necessary resources to install the V-11 software at customer
sites and that they had no historical basis to estimate the
completion of V-11 or the impact that the sales would have on
their 2007 revenues and earnings.  Defendants also failed to
disclose that the complexity of V-11 had materially and
adversely lengthened the sales cycle and the revenue recognition
cycle for the Company's V-11 sales contracts.  They had no
reasonable basis for their statements and opinions concerning
future financial performance and projections, as they were
experiencing adverse and continuing delays in the installation
of V-11 software systems.

     On February 13, 2008, Allscripts released its actual 2007
financial results, reporting 2007 revenue of $281.9 million or
$18 million below the Company's $300 million guidance confirmed
in August 2007 and $5 million short of their November earnings
guidance revision.  During a conference call with investors that
same day, Allscripts finally admitted to V-11 installation
delays that were likely to negatively impact sales and earnings
well into 2008.  In response to those announcements, the price
of Allscripts common shares fell $4.12 per share, closing at
$11.27 on February 14, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Howard G. Smith Files Mich. Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors
of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX:CPD), has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Caraco between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009,
inclusive.

     The Complaint charges Caraco and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
Caraco develops, manufactures, markets and distributes generic
and private-label pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, distributors,
warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores, and managed
care providers throughout the United States.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants' public statements were false and misleading or
failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, that:

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

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

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

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

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

     On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had
seized drug products manufactured by Caraco from the Company's
facilities. According to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's
continued failure to meet the FDA's cGMP requirements, which
assure the quality of manufactured drugs.

     In response to this news, shares of Caraco declined $1.79
per share, or approximately 43%, to close on June 25, 2009, at
$2.39 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX:
CPD) between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive.  The
lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan against Caraco; Daniel H. Movens,
Caraco's Chief Executive Officer, and a director; and Mukul
Rathi, the Company's Interim Chief Financial Officer.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts.  
More specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants
failed to disclose:

       -- that Caraco failed to meet the FDA's current Good
          Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements;

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

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

       -- that as a result of the foregoing, Caraco's ability to
          gain FDA approval of pending new drug applications was
          considerably jeopardized; and

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

     According to the complaint, on June 25, 2009, the FDA
announced that because Caraco failed to meet the FDA's cGMP
requirements, U.S. Marshalls seized drug products Caraco
manufactured from several of the Company's facilities.  
Following this announcement, Caraco's stock fell significantly.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com


GENZYME CORP: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Genzyme Corporation (Nasdaq:
GENZ), between June 26, 2008 and July 21, 2009, inclusive.

     The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

     The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Genzyme's business, operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Genzyme securities.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Sept. 28, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


HURON CONSULTING: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a class-action lawsuit
today in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Huron Consulting Group, Inc.
(Nasdaq: HURN) claiming the company and executives violated
federal securities laws by issuing false financial statements,
misleading investors and by sharing inaccurate financial
statements with the public and Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).

     The lawsuit seeks to represent all shareholders who
purchased Huron shares between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009.

     The suit alleges that the company and executives made false
and misleading statements to investors, causing stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices.  The company's financial
statements did not comply with GAAP rules and failed to present
an accurate assessment of Huron's operations due to improper
accounting and false disclosure of revenues, the suit claims.

     Specifically, the suit claims the company wrongly accounted
for payments made as part of acquisitions.

     The suit alleges Huron shocked investors on July 31 when it
announced the company's financial statements for fiscal years
2006, 2007, 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 were unreliable
and would be restated due to accounting errors.  In the same
announcement, the company announced the CEO, CFO and CAO had
resigned because of the accounting scandal.

     Huron shares declined precipitously upon the announcement,
falling $30.66 to $13.69 per share - a 69 percent drop on
exceptionally heavy trading volume.

     The suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors.

For more information, contact:

          Peter Borkon, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: huron@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/huron


HURON CONSULTING: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who
purchased the common stock of Huron Consulting Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009.

     The Complaint charges that Huron and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements regarding Huron's financial
results.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
misaccounted for payments made as part of acquisitions.

     On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would restate its
financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the first three
months of 2009 due to its failure to properly account for earn-
out payments made in connection with four of its acquisitions.  
As a result, Huron expected to dramatically reduce its revenue
reported for the period by 48% from $120 million on an aggregate
basis to $63 million.  Huron further announced that the SEC had
commenced an inquiry into the Company's allocation of chargeable
hours related to its recognition of revenue.  On this news,
Huron's stock fell $30.66 per share to close at $13.69 per share
on August 3, 2009, a decline of approximately 69%.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/huronconsulting


HURON CONSULTING: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, against Huron Consulting Group, Inc
(Nasdaq: HURN) and certain of its top officials.  The class
action (1:09-cv-04734) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Company between April 27, 2006 and July 31,
2009 inclusive.  The Complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

     Huron provides consulting services in the United States to
help clients in diverse industries improve performance, comply
with complex regulations, resolve disputes, recover from
distress, leverage technology and stimulate growth.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements concerning Huron's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges the defendants made
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose:

       -- that shareholders of four businesses that Huron
          acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of
          their acquisition-related payments among themselves
          and to certain Huron employees;

       -- that, as a result, the Company understated its non-
          cash compensation expenses;

       -- that the Company's financial statements were not
          prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
          Accounting Principles (GAAP);

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that the Company's
financial statements for the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and
the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should no longer be relied
upon and will have to be restated as a result of the Company's
accounting for certain acquisition-related payments received by
the sellers in connection with the sale of certain acquired
businesses that were subsequently redistributed among themselves
and to other select Huron employees, which under accounting
rules should have been classified as non-cash compensation
expenses.

     In response to this news, on the next trading day, August
3, 2009, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%,
to close at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq.
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-5516
          Phone: 888-476-6529
          E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/


HURON CONSULTING: Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that a class action
lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of Huron
Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) between April 27, 2006 and
July 31, 2009.

     The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

     The complaint charges Huron and certain of its former
officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that defendants made false or
misleading statements because:

       -- shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired
          during 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their
          acquisition-related payments among themselves and to
          certain Huron employees and consequently Huron
          understated its non-cash compensation expenses;

       -- the Huron's financial statements filed with the SEC
          did not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles; and

       -- Huron lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

     When this adverse information was disclosed to the market,
the complaint asserts that the Huron announced that the
company's financial statements for fiscal 2006 through the first
quarter of 2009 should no longer be relied upon and will have to
be restated.  In response to this news, shares of Huron declined
$30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to close at $13.69 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more information, contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212-686-1060
         Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/


HURON CONSULTING: Sarraf Gentile Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Sarraf Gentile LLP announces that on August 4, 2009, a
class action lawsuit was filed against Huron Consulting Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) and its top officers.  The complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and seeks damages for violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
Huron stock between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, inclusive.

     According to the complaint, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that their public statements concerning Huron's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that:

       -- shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired
          between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their
          acquisition-related payments among themselves and to
          certain Huron employees;

       -- the company understated its non-cash compensation
          expenses;

       -- the company's financial statements were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

       -- the company lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     According to the complaint, on July 31, 2009, Huron
announced that the company's financial statements for fiscal
2006 through the first quarter of 2009 should no longer be
relied upon and will have to be restated.  In response to this
news, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to
close at $13.69 per share, on heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the action.

For more information, contact:

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Sarraf Gentile LLP
          116 John Street, Suite 2310
          New York, NY 10038
          Phone: 212-868-3610
          Fax: 212-918-7967
          E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com
          Web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/


HURON CONSULTING: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Huron Consulting Group Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN)
between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, inclusive.  The
lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Huron and certain of its
officers and directors.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts.  According to the complaint,
the defendants made false statements concerning Huron's
financial performance and its compliance with General Accepted
Accounting Principles.

     Specifically, Huron misaccounted for payments made as part
of acquisitions. Because the defendants deceived the public by
overstating Huron's income and business prospects, the Company's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices.  On July 31, 2009,
Huron announced that its financial results from 2006 through
2008 and the first quarter of 2009 would have to be restated.  
In response to this announcement, the price of Huron's stock
fell more than 69%.

For more details, contact:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com


                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Has $793M Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$793 million as of June 30, 2009, compared
with US$824 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 30, 2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos liabilities were US$800
million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8,
2009)

Non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$627
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$658 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivables were
US$657 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May
8, 2009)

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company is a
diversified chemical company that delivers products and services
to customers in about 160 countries. In 2008, the Company had
annual sales of US$57.5 billion and employed about 46,000 people
worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Mine Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits and claims (including asbestos exposure claims)
arising in the normal course of business are pending against
Mine Safety Appliances Company.

These lawsuits are primarily product liability claims. The
Company is presently named as a defendant in about 2,500
lawsuits, primarily involving respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company.

Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 11,900
plaintiffs. About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve
plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis, with the
remainder alleging they suffer from other or combined injuries,
including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted
in part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company makes protective
equipment for workers in the military and miners, as well as the
fire service, construction, and homeland security industries.
The Company produces air-purifying respiratory equipment, gas
masks, and head protection gear, much of which carries the MSA
Safety Works brand.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing Against Olin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to be defendants
in various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current
business activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009.

Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corporation makes chemicals used to make
bleach, water purification and swimming pool chemicals, pulp and
paper processing agents, and PVC plastics. The Company also
makes Winchester-branded ammunition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,173 Cases Ongoing v. RPM Units at May 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International, Inc.'s subsidiaries faced a total of 10,173
active asbestos cases as of May 31, 2009, compared with a total
of 11,202 cases as of May 31, 2008, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 28, 2009.

Certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries, principally
Bondex International, Inc., are defendants in various asbestos-
related bodily injury lawsuits filed in various state courts
with the vast majority of current claims pending in six states:
Texas, Florida, Mississippi, Maryland, Illinois and Ohio.

These cases generally seek unspecified damages for asbestos-
related diseases based on alleged exposures to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the subsidiaries
or others.

The subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of 751 cases
for the fourth quarter ended May 31, 2009, compared to a total
of 664 cases dismissed and settled for the quarter ended May 31,
2008. The subsidiaries secured dismissals and settlements of
3,004 cases for the year ended May 31, 2009, compared to a total
of 1,546 cases dismissed and settled for the year ended May 31,
2008.

Of the 3,004 cases that were dismissed during the year ended May
31, 2009, 1,420 were non-malignancies or unknown disease cases
that had been maintained on an inactive docket in Ohio and were
administratively dismissed by the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas during our second fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30,
2008.

For the fourth quarter ended May 31, 2009, the subsidiaries made
total payments of US$17.2 million relating to asbestos cases,
which included defense-related payments paid during the quarter
of US$6.5 million, compared to total payments of US$15 million
relating to asbestos cases during the quarter ended May 31,
2008, which included defense-related payments paid during the
quarter of US$7.7 million.

For the year ended May 31, 2009, the subsidiaries made total
payments of US$69.4 million relating to asbestos cases, which
included defense-related payments paid during the year of
US$26.2 million, compared to total payments of US$82.6 million
relating to asbestos cases during the year ended May 31, 2008,
which included defense-related payments paid during the year of
US$39.7 million.

During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, one payment totaling
US$3.6 million was made to satisfy an adverse judgment in a
previous trial that occurred in calendar 2006 in California.
This payment, which included a significant amount of accrued
pre-judgment interest as required by California law, was made on
Dec. 8, 2008, about two and a half years after the adverse
verdict and after all post-trial and appellate remedies had been
exhausted.

During fiscal 2008, the subsidiaries incurred higher year-over-
year, defense-related payments as a result of implementing
various changes to the Company's management and defense of
asbestos claims, including a transition to a new claims intake
and database service provider. The Company incurred duplicate
defense-related payments about US$3 million during the second
quarter of fiscal 2008. The transition was completed during the
third quarter of fiscal 2008.

Excluding defense-related payments, the average payment made to
settle or dismiss a case was about US$14,000 for the quarter
ended May 31, 2009 and US$11,000 for the quarter 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: 415 Cases Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2009, was a
defendant in 415 active cases involving 3,015 plaintiffs
(claims), according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in 450 active
cases involving 3,050 plaintiffs.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company faced 425 active asbestos
cases involving about 3,025 plaintiffs. (Class Action Reporter,
May 1, 2009)

About 2,600 of the claims as of June 30, 2009, or about 86
percent, of these claims are pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Of these
claims, about 1,550 are pending in Mississippi and about 1,050
are pending in Texas.

During the period ended June 30, 2009, the Company noted 145
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 110 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolved claims were US$6 million.

During the period ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company noted 400
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 450 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolved claims were US$13 million.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation produces and
sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular, in
North America and Central Europe. Operations in North America
also include real estate management and development,
transportation services and engineering and consulting services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Lincoln Drop to 17,582 at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at June 30, 2009, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 17,582 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of
3,241 claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 28, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by 21,020
plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 6,095 claims from those
previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

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

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 37,992 of
those claims were dismissed, 11 were tried to defense verdicts,
four were tried to plaintiff verdicts, one was resolved by
agreement for an immaterial amount and 559 were decided in favor
of the Company following summary judgment motions.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.
manufactures welding and cutting products, including arc welding
power sources, consumable electrodes, fluxes, fume extraction
equipment, robotic welding systems, and wire feeders. Other
welding products include regulators and torches.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Flowserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is still a defendant in a number of
pending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple
claimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and distributed by the Company in the past.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such
products were primarily encapsulated and used as components of
process equipment, and the Company says it does not believe that
any significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment.

Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corporation manufactures pumps,
valves, seals, automation and aftermarket services in support of
global infrastructure industries, including oil and gas,
chemical, power generation and water management, as well as
general industrial markets where its products add value.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Tidewater Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to be party to various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009.

New Orleans-based Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service
vessels and equipment to the global offshore energy industry
through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service
vessels.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Diamond Offshore Has Cases in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. continues to be one of several
unrelated defendants in asbestos lawsuits filed in the Circuit
Courts of the State of Mississippi, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2009.

The suits allege that defendants manufactured, distributed or
utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the Company's
case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its
offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek an award of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of
the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Houston-based Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides contract
drilling services to the worldwide energy industry. With the
addition of the 10,000 foot, dynamically positioned,
semisubmersible Ocean Courage in June 2009, the Company now has
a fleet of 46 offshore rigs consisting of 31 semisubmersibles,
14 jack-ups and one drillship.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1.4T Injury Claims Remain v. Chicago Bridge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., as of June 30, 2009, still
faced 1,400 asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2009.

At March 31, 2009, the Company continued to be a defendant in
1,400 claims wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due
to work it may had performed at various locations. (Class Action
Reporter, May 1, 2009)

Through June 30, 2009, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,700
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 3,300 have been closed
through dismissals or settlements.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work it may have performed at
various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through June 30, 2009, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

At June 30, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$1.9 million
for liability and related expenses.

Based in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is an integrated engineering, procurement and
construction (EPC) provider and process technology licensor. The
Company provides conceptual design, technology, engineering,
procurement, fabrication, construction, commissioning and
associated maintenance services to customers in the energy and
natural resource industries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other insurers, The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc., continues to be joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009.

The plaintiffs assert that insurers had a duty to protect the
public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed
unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their
policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases.

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: American Fin'l. Records 10.7 Survival Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s three year survival ratio, at
June 30, 2009, was 10.7 times paid losses for asbestos reserves
and 9.9 times paid losses for total asbestos and environmental
reserves, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009.

These ratios compare favorably with industry data published by
Conning Research and Consulting, Inc. in June 2009, which
indicate that A&E survival ratios were 8.1 for asbestos reserves
and 7.6 for total industry A&E reserves at Dec. 31, 2008.

Cincinnati, Ohio-based American Financial Group, Inc. is an
insurance holding company with assets in excess of US$25
billion. Through the operations of Great American Insurance
Group, the Company is engaged in property and casualty
insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos in 20-30 Kabel Deutschland Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-containing materials and polychlorinated biphenyls have
been identified at about 20 to 30 of the facilities which Kabel
Deutschland GmbH leases from Deutsche Telekom AG under Service
Level Agreements.

The Company said it believes these facilities have been
refurbished by DTAG in accordance with applicable law.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Kabel Deutschland GmbH
Betastrasse 6-8
85774 Unterfoehring
Germany
Tel. No.: +49-89-960-100

Description:
The Company provides digital TV and radio, Internet, and
telephone connections via cable to more than a dozen of
Germany's 16 states serving about 15 million homes. The Company
also offers mobile phone service in conjunction with partner 02
(Germany).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Units Facing 555 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiaries, Celanese Ltd. and CNA
Holdings, LLC, as of June 30, 2009, are defendants in about 555
asbestos cases, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29,
2009.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, 38 new cases were
filed against the Company and 42 cases were resolved.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings faced 549 asbestos cases as of
March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2009)

Dallas-based Celanese Corporation is an integrated chemical and
advanced materials company. The Company's business involves
processing chemical raw materials, such as methanol, carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood
pulp, into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and
other chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Ruling in Dean Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California,
upheld the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
which favored the defense in a case involving asbestos filed by
Michael and Valerie Dean.

The case is styled Michael Dean et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Vedanta Society of Southern California et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Frances Rothschild, Robert M. Mallano, and Ferns entered
judgment in Case No. B204227 on June 25, 2009.

The Deans filed suit against the owner (the Vedanta Society of
Southern California) and the property managers (Angel City West
Property Management Services and Sandra Clark) of a home that
they had leased and occupied for several years.

The Deans claimed that mold and asbestos in the home had caused
them to suffer various illnesses. After a jury returned a
special verdict rejecting the Deans' claims, the superior court
entered judgment for the defense, and the Deans timely appealed.

The judgment was affirmed.

Michael Dean, pro per, Valerie Dean, pro per; Gittler & Bradford
(Stephen H. Marcus, Esq., and Joel S. Freeman, Esq.) represented
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Del Mar Law Group (Christopher J. Workman, Esq., and Grace E.
Jo, Esq., represented Defendants and Respondents.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Has 24T Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of June 30, 2009, continues to be a
defendant in 24,000 asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2009.

The Company faced about 24,000 pending asbestos product
liability claims as of March 31, 2009, compared with 27,000
claims as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Of the 24,000 outstanding claims at June 30, 2009, about 13,000
were pending in three jurisdictions where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.

In the first six months of 2009, of about 3,400 claims resolved,
only 104 (3.1 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In 2008, of about
17,500 claims resolved, only 210 (1.2 percent) resulted in any
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

To date, the Company has paid US$63 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
US$15.4 million in cash from insurers. The outstanding balance
of US$47.6 million is expected to be fully recovered. Timing of
the recovery is dependent on final resolution of a declaratory
judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2008, insurers owed US$35.9 million
in association with these claims.

At June 30, 2009, the Company has an estimated liability of
US$40.3 million for future claims resolutions, with a related
asset of US$40.3 million to recognize the insurance proceeds
receivable by the Company for estimated losses related to claims
that have yet to be resolved.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in a declaratory judgment action. At
Dec. 31, 2008, the comparable value of the insurance receivable
and accrued liability was US$34.7 million.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light
vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, cross-
over vehicles, vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Inc. Still Party to CNA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. and certain of its other historical general
liability insurers continue to be parties to a declaratory
judgment action filed on January 2004 in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and related
companies (CNA).

CNA provided the Company with both primary and additional layer
insurance, and, in conjunction with other insurers, is currently
defending and indemnifying the Company in its pending asbestos-
related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding
the apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of
making insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs
pro rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold
the insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable
coverage.

Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.

In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related
product claims.

Auburn Hills, Mich.-based BorgWarner Inc. supplies highly
engineered systems and components primarily for powertrain
applications. Products are manufactured and sold worldwide,
primarily to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light
vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, cross-
over vehicles, vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Has 10,300 Lawsuits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Inc., as of June 30, 2009, is involved in about 10,300
asbestos (about 42,800 claims), which are not-related to
Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC), alleging injuries from
asbestos.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of PCC. Over a period of more than two decades,
PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection,
there were about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in
state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability
based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically
requesting monetary damages in excess of US$1 million per claim.

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

The 2003 Plan would have required the Company to relinquish its
equity interest in PCC, contribute its equity interest in
Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation,
contribute 25 million shares of Corning common stock, and pay a
total of US$140 million in six annual installments (present
value US$131 million at March 2003), beginning one year after
the plan's effective date, with 5.5 percent interest from June
2004.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan. Several parties, including the
Company, filed motions for reconsideration. These motions were
argued on March 5, 2007, and the Bankruptcy Court reserved
decision.

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 and that would therefore make it unnecessary
for the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion for
reconsideration.

On March 27, 2008 and May 22, 2008, the parties further informed
the Bankruptcy Court on the progress toward the Amended PCC
Plan. The parties filed a partial tentative plan on Aug. 8,
2008. The parties continued to inform the Bankruptcy Court of
the status of their discussions on the Amended PCC Plan. The
complete proposed Amended PCC Plan and its ancillary documents
were filed with the Bankruptcy Court on Jan. 29, 2009.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the non-PCC asbestos
claims was estimated to be US$671 million at June 30, 2009,
compared with an estimate of liability of US$662 million at Dec.
31, 2008.

In the first quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a credit to
asbestos settlement expense of US$327 million as a result of the
increase in likelihood of a settlement under the Amended PCC
Plan and a corresponding decrease in the likelihood of a
settlement under the 2003 Plan.

In the second quarter of 2008, the Company recorded a charge of
US$9 million to reflect the change in value of the estimated
liability under an Amended PCC Plan.

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: Hercules Offshore Still Party to Aaron Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. continues to be involved in asbestos
litigation styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66 Company
et al., which was filed in Circuit Court, Second Judicial
District, Jones County, in Mississippi.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name as defendants certain of TODCO's
subsidiaries and certain subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent
(to whom TODCO may owe indemnity), and other unaffiliated
defendant companies, including companies that allegedly
manufactured drilling-related products containing asbestos that
are the subject of the complaints. The number of unaffiliated
defendant companies involved in each complaint ranges from about
20 to 70.

The complaints allege that the defendant drilling contractors
used asbestos-containing products in offshore drilling
operations, land based drilling operations and in drilling
structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment and
assert claims based on negligence and strict liability, and
claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed
by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served
against specific defendants.

As of July 29, 2009, about 700 questionnaires were returned and
the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a questionnaire
reply, have had their suits dismissed without prejudice. Of the
respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by TODCO and
its former parent which could lead to claims against either
company.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct
claim as identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation.

To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as a defendant in their
amended complaints. The Company continues to monitor a small
group of these other cases.

Houston-based Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas
exploration and production industry in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico
and internationally. The Company serves major integrated energy
companies, independent oil and natural gas operators and
national oil companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Still Ongoing v. Inactive Quaker Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation's unnamed inactive subsidiary
continues to be a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging injury
due to exposure to asbestos.

Acquired in 1978, this subsidiary sold certain products
containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received. To date, the majority of these claims have
been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse
judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US$12.2 million (excluding costs of
defense).

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of
their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged
the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought
against the subsidiary.

In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late
2005 for US$15 million and in the first quarter of 2007 for
US$20 million.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
are structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the first of which was
received early in the second quarter of 2007, the second of
which was received in the first quarter of 2008, and the third
of which was received in the first quarter of 2009.

Conshohocken, Pa.-based Quaker Chemical Corporation provides
process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and technical
expertise to industries like steel, automotive, mining,
aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and construction materials.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 8T Claims Still Pending v. Cytec at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the six
months ended June 30, 2009, the same as for the three months
ended March 31, 2009.

The Company faced 8,100 claims asbestos during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

In the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company noted 100
closed claims. In the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company
noted 200 closed claims and 100 claims opened.

The aggregate self-insured and insured contingent liability was
US$65.1 million as of June 30, 2009 and US$66.2 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The related insurance recovery receivable for the liability as
well as claims for past payments was US$32.1 million at June 30,
2009 and US$33.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The asbestos liability included in the above amounts was US$50.1
million at June 30, 2009 and US$51.1 million at Dec. 31, 2008.
The insurance receivable related to the liability as well as
claims for past payments was US$30.7 million at June 30, 2009
and US$32 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Woodland Park, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company, which sells products
to diverse major markets for aerospace, adhesives, automotive
and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates, inks, mining
and plastics.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Int'l. Facing 4,700 Claims at June 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of June 26, 2009, faced about 4,700
asbestos cases pending against it and its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009.

About 4,700 asbestos liability cases were pending against the
Company and its subsidiaries as of March 27, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, May 8, 2009)

The Company and some of its subsidiaries are named as defendants
in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials. A limited number of the cases
allege premises liability, based on claims that individuals were
exposed to asbestos while on a subsidiary's property.

A majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
on allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial
products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of
industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets
or packing.

Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2008, the
Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case
returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million,
which included both compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company has appealed the verdict and said it believes that
it will ultimately be overturned.

Schaffhausen, Switzerland-based Tyco International Ltd. operates
in the following business segments: ADT Worldwide, Flow Control,
Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal Products, and
Safety Products. In addition, Safety Products manufactures
products installed and serviced by ADT Worldwide and Fire
Protection Services.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Still Party to Insurance Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. (TPC), is still involved in asbestos-related
insurance lawsuits filed in various courts.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies,
Inc. (SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other
cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into
a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by
inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The
plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers.

Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of
asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts (collectively, Statutory and Hawaii Actions).

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia
state court amended their complaint to include TPC as a
defendant, alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products.

The plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages.
Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations
(Common Law Claims) have also been asserted in various state
courts against TPC and SPC.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the
bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville
Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the
prosecution of the Statutory Actions, the Common Law Claims and
an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in
Texas and Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any
further lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar
future Common Law Claims against TPC. Among the contingencies
for each of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy
court clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future
asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders
entered by the bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and
substantially all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the
Clarifying Order).

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all
future direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the
bankruptcy court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc,
requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which
were denied. TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for
Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the
Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
Company, reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision.

SPC is a party to pending direct action cases in Texas state
court asserting common law claims. All those cases that are
still pending and in which SPC has been served are currently on
the inactive docket in Texas state court.

SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio
State court. Those actions have all been dismissed following
favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts.

Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc.
provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation,
marine, and general and financial liability coverage to
companies in North America and the United Kingdom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Has $2.79B Net Reserve at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves amounted
to US$2.791 billion at and for the six months ended June 30,
2009, compared with US$3.596 billion at and for the three months
ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$2.853 billion at and
for the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$3.672 billion at and for the three months ended March 31,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid in the first six months of
2009 were US$123 million, compared with US$138 million in the
same period of 2008. About 20 percent of total net paid asbestos
losses in the first six months of 2009 (19 percent in the first
six months of 2008) related to policyholders with whom the
Company had entered into settlement agreements limiting the
Company's liability.

In December 2008, the Company completed the sale of
Unionamerica, which comprised its United Kingdom-based runoff
insurance and reinsurance businesses. Included in the claims and
claim adjustment expense reserves transferred to the purchaser
were gross asbestos reserves of US$330 million and net asbestos
reserves of US$232 million.

Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc.
provides commercial auto, property, workers' compensation,
marine, and general and financial liability coverage to
companies in North America and the United Kingdom.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 96.6T Claims Ongoing v. Goodyear at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 96,600 pending asbestos
claims during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with
99,000 pending claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company faced 98,400 pending asbestos claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May
8, 2009)

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by
the Company or present in certain of its facilities.

These lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in
state and Federal courts. To date, the Company has disposed of
about 75,200 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal
thereof or by entering into a settlement.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
800 new claims filed and 3,200 claims settled or dismissed.
Asbestos payments were US$10 million.

The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related liability and
gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled US$339
million through June 30, 2009 and US$325 million through Dec.
31, 2008. The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both
asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs,
totaling US$136 million at June 30, 2009 and US$132 million at
Dec. 31, 2008.

The portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$73 million at June 30,
2009 and US$71 million at Dec. 31, 2008. Its liability with
respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was US$63
million at June 30, 2009 and US$61 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

At June 30, 2009, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its liabilities, net of its estimate for probable
insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts by US$10
million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$68 million at June 30, 2009, compared with US$65 million at
Dec. 31, 2008. Of these amounts, US$9 million at June 30, 2009
and US$10 million at Dec. 31, 2008 were included in Current
Assets as part of Accounts Receivable.

The Company said it believes that at June 30, 2009, it had at
least US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level
policies potentially applicable to indemnity payments for
asbestos products claims, in addition to limits of available
primary insurance policies. A portion of the availability of the
excess level policies is included in the US$68 million insurance
receivable recorded at June 30, 2009.

The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at June
30, 2009.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires. Organized into four geographic segments, the
Company operates a combined 60 plants worldwide, and has about
1,600 retail tire and auto centers. The Company sells tires for
the replacement market as well as to the world's automakers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Inc. Facing 25 Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently faces 25 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2009.

The Company faced 26 pending asbestos cases. (Class Action
Reporter, May 1, 2009)

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
asbestos containing materials.

To date, four asbestos cases have been dismissed. One new
asbestos case was filed in the second quarter of 2009. The
Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
asbestos and silica cases was about US$100,000, the majority of
which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of
certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992.

New York-based Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and
technology-based company that develops, produces and markets
specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products
and supporting systems and services. The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Six Lorillard Filter Actions Set for Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of July 27, 2009, six asbestos-
related Filter Cases are scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009.

As of April 27, 2009, eight asbestos-related Filter Cases were
scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary
Lorillard Tobacco Company by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that
were incorporated into filter material used in one brand of
cigarettes manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited
period of time ending more than 50 years ago.

Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 33 such cases. The Company
is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also
name Lorillard Tobacco.

Since Jan. 1, 2007, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of about US$17.4 million in
settlements to finally resolve 75 claims.

The related expense was recorded in selling, general and
administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of
income.

In the single case tried since Jan. 1, 2007, a jury in the
District Court of Bexar County, Tex., returned a verdict for
Lorillard Tobacco during September 2008 in the case of Young v.
Lorillard Tobacco Company.

Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard, Inc. manufactures cigarettes
in the United States. Brands include Newport, Kent, True,
Maverick, Old Gold, and Max.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eastman Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company and its operations continue to be
parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and
proceedings related to exposure to asbestos.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009.

Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company produces
chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Its products go into items like
food and medical packaging, films, and toothbrushes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mallinckrodt Facing 10,700 Cases at June 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company's subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc.,
faced about 10,700 pending asbestos liability cases as of June
26, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009.

As of March 27, 2009, Mallinckrodt faced about 10,600 pending
asbestos liability cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Most
of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally
on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating
asbestos.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based
on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.

The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal
injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to
products containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims were never substantiated and have been dismissed by
the courts.

The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims.

Dublin, Ireland-based Covidien Public Limited Company
manufactures and sells healthcare products for use in clinical
and home settings. The Company operates its business through
four segments: Medical Devices, Imaging Solutions,
Pharmaceutical Products, and Medical Supplies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Morton Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, issued split rulings in the case involving
asbestos styled Robert A. Morton, Plaintiff v. Sheet Metal
Workers' National Pension Fund, Defendant.

U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema entered judgment in Case
No. 1:08cv942 (LMB/TRJ) on June 23, 2009.

In this action brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Robert Morton appealed the
decision of Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, to
suspend his pension payments based on its finding that he
engaged in disqualifying employment while receiving his pension.

Mr. Morton worked for over 38 years in the sheet metal industry
before officially retiring in 2004. According to the
administrative record, he initially inquired about his pension
rights with the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund
(Pension Fund), on Aug. 9, 1999.

On Sept. 22, 1999, Mr. Morton was notified that he was vested
and was credited with 34 years and eight months of service, and
33 years and seven months of Future Service.

Nearly five years later, Mr. Morton notified the Fund that he
intended to retire in September 2004. On Sept. 20, 2004, the
Pension Fund advised Mr. Morton that he had been credited with
38 years of pension credit between August 1965 and May 2003, of
which 36 years and 11 months was future service credit.

Mr. Morton did not respond to the Sept. 20, 2004 letter, and on
Nov. 1, 2004, the Pension Fund wrote Morton again. On Jan. 31,
2005, the Pension Fund again notified him that it had not
received the forms and that his file would be deactivated if he
did not return the forms. Mr. Morton was notified that his file
had been deactivated on April 8, 2005.

On May 3, 2005, Mr. Morton wrote the Pension Fund regarding his
eligibility for the 55/30 Pension.

Mr. Morton received his pension without incident for the next
two years. During that time, however, he began working for
Champion Environmental Services, Inc., a company that provided
asbestos abatement services. On Aug. 27, 2007, he received a
letter from the Pension Fund requesting that he sign a Social
Security release to confirm that he was still eligible for
pension payments. He signed the release on Sept. 13, 2007.

On Oct. 16, 2007, Mr. Morton was notified that his December 2007
pension payment was being suspended because his employment with
Champion constituted disqualifying employment under the Plan.
Specifically, the Pension Fund found that because the abatement
services work done by Champion was also being done by
contributing employers, it was disqualifying employment.

On April 3, 2008, Mr. Morton gave notice to the Fund that he was
appealing its decision to suspend his pension benefits because
of his employment with Champion.

Mr. Morton's counsel filed his formal notice of appeal on June
12, 2008. The appeal letter repeated that Mr. Morton was no
longer employed by Champion and was eligible for his pension and
also made substantive objections to the suspension.

On June 26, 2008, the Appeals Committee of the Pension Fund met
and considered Mr. Morton's appeal. On July 1, 2008, the Appeals
Committee informed Mr. Morton's counsel that the committee had
denied Mr. Morton's appeal of his suspension.

On Sept. 11, 2008, Mr. Morton timely filed for judicial review
of that decision, seeking a judgment declaring that the Pension
Fund must provide benefits under the Plan, back pay and pre-
judgment interest from the denial date of Dec. 1, 2007,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

Both parties have moved for judgment on the basis of the
administrative record.

Accordingly, the parties' motions for summary judgment was
granted in part and denied in part.

Richard Dennis Carter, Esq., of Carter & Lay PLLC in Alexandria,
Va., represented Robert A. Morton.

Stephen Mark Rosenblatt, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension
Fund, Alexandria, Va., represented the Sheet Metal Workers'
National Pension Fund.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities at $19.64Mil in June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,644,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos liabilities were at
US$19,644,000 at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 8,
2009)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$4,632,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$19,416,000 at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$4,632,000
at June 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Rogers, Conn.-based Rogers Corporation develops and manufactures
high performance, specialty-material-based products for
applications including: portable communications, communications
infrastructure, computer and office equipment, consumer
products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong $178.7M Tax Refund OK'd July 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. says that, in July 2009, the
Joint Committee on Taxation of the U.S. Congress approved the
tax refund, received in October 2007, of US$178.7 million for
federal income taxes paid over the preceding 10 years.

The refunds resulted from the carryback of a portion of net
operating losses created by the funding of the Asbestos PI Trust
in October 2006.

Therefore, in the third quarter of 2009, a reduction to income
tax expense of US$10 million and a decrease in non-current
deferred tax assets of US$144.6 million will be recorded.

A corresponding decrease in the liability for previously
unrecognized tax benefits of US$154.6 million will also be
recorded, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2009.

Lancaster, Pa.-based Armstrong World Industries, Inc. designs
and manufactures floors, ceilings, and cabinets. In 2008, the
Company's consolidated net sales totaled US$3.4 billion.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Spends $4.027M for Claims at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation recorded asbestos coverage litigation
expenses of US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3,
2009, compared with US$3,970,000 during the three months ended
June 27, 2008.

The Company recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$4.6 million
during the three months ended April 3, 2009, compared with
US$3.4 million during the three months ended March 28, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$6,993,000 during
the six months ended July 31, 2008, compared with US$7,109,000
during the six months ended June 27, 2008.

During the three months ended July 3, 2009, asbestos liability
and defense costs were US$1,482,000. During the three months
ended June 27, 2009, asbestos liability and defense income was
US$715,000.

During the six months ended July 3, 2009, asbestos liability and
defense costs were US$3,127,000. During the six months ended
June 27, 2008, asbestos liability and defense income was
US$437,000.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation makes fluid-handling
products and technologies. Through its global operating
subsidiaries, the Company makes positive displacement industrial
pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial
marine, global naval and general industrial markets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Cites $14.3M Expenses at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s asbestos-related expenses were US$14.3
million during the quarter ended June 30, 2009, compared with
US$12.2 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Asbestos-related expenses were US$27.9 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$24.3 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$76.1 million as
of June 30, 2009, compared with US$85.3 million as of Dec. 31,
2008. Its long-term asbestos liability was US$358.6 million as
of June 30, 2009, compared with US$380.2 million as of Dec. 31,
2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$65.3
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$67.9 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable was US$203.1 million as of June 30, 2009, compared
with US$239.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Payments of asbestos claims and expenses, net of insurance
receipts, were US$19.8 million in the first half of 2009,
compared with US$1.8 million in the first half of 2008.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, compressor
systems and components, diesel and dual-fuel engines and other
engineered products for use in critical applications by
industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gladstone Accrues No Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone Commercial Corporation, during the six months ended
June 30, 2009, did not accrue any asbestos-related liability,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009.

The Company has accrued a liability and corresponding increase
to the cost of the related properties for disposal related to
all properties constructed prior to 1985 that have, or may have,
asbestos present in the building.

The Company accrued a liability during the six months ended June
30, 2008 of US$245,199 related to properties acquired during the
period, which reflected the present value of the future asset
retirement obligation.

The Company also recorded expense, including discontinued
operations, of US$35,476 during the three months ended June 30,
2009 (US$70,845 during the six months ended June 30, 2009) and
US$32,764 during the three months ended June 30, 2008 ($63,232
during the six months ended June 30, 2008) related to the
cumulative accretion of the obligation.


COMPANY PROFILE:
Gladstone Commercial Corporation
1521 Westbreach Drive, Suite 200
McLean, Va. 22102
United States
Tel. No.: (703) 287-5800

Description:
The Company was incorporated for the purpose of investing in and
owning net leased industrial and commercial real property and
selectively making long-term industrial and commercial mortgage
loans. At June 30, 2009, the Company owned 65 properties
totaling 6.3 million square feet, and had one mortgage loan
outstanding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Against Pride Int'l. Ongoing in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cases against Pride International Inc. are still
ongoing in the Circuit Court of the State of Mississippi,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2009.

Since 2004, certain of the Company's subsidiaries have been
named, along with numerous other defendants, in several
complaints that have been filed in Mississippi by several
hundred individuals that allege that they were employed by some
of the named defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints allege that certain drilling contractors used
products containing asbestos in their operations and seek an
award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

Nine individuals of the many plaintiffs in these suits have been
identified as allegedly having worked for the Company.

Houston-based Pride International, Inc. is an offshore drilling
contractor. As of July 29, 2009, the Company operated a fleet of
44 rigs, consisting of two deepwater drillships, 12
semisubmersible rigs, 27 jackups and three managed deepwater
drilling rigs. It also has four deepwater drillships under
construction.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairmont Still Has 25,000 Cases in 7 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary Fairmont Supply Company, a
distributor of industrial supplies, still is a defendant in
25,000 asbestos claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey and Illinois.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by
third parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have
contained asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of
mass complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a
hundred or more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont
to determine how many of the cases actually involve valid claims
or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing
products supplied by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some
of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have
sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these
asbestos cases. For the six months ended June 30, 2009 and June
30, 2008, payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases
have not been material.

Canonsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining
company with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves, mainly in
northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and
produces about 65 million tons of coal annually. The Company
mines high BTU coal, which burns cleaner than lower grades.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Affirms Award Ruling in Case v. Scapa
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey appellate court upheld the Civil Division of
Superior Court's ruling, which awarded monetary damages in favor
of Walter L. Patton, the estate of Harry H. Wilson and the
estate of Walter W. Grube in an asbestos case filed against
Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., myCentralJersey.com reports.

The jury awarded Mr. Patton US$514,220, the estate Mr. Wilson
US$76,102 and the estate of Mr. Grube US$259,045.

Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., the manufacturer of the felts that
dried the wet rolls of paper on Riegel Paper Mills' paper
machines, appealed the awards because of their size, the jury's
failure to apportion liability to the other defendants in the
complex litigation and cumulative errors in the trial.

Mr. Patton, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Grube were former employees at
the mill. Mr. Patton was a millwright between 1956 and 1994, Mr.
Wilson operated paper machines for two decades starting in the
late 1970s, and Mr. Grube was a lathe operator from 1939 to
1982.

According to court papers, Scapa made and sold dryer felts
containing asbestos from the 1950s through the late 1970s.

Although Scapa knew asbestos fibers could be released from the
felts, the Company did not place warnings on the felts,
according to court papers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Pensioner Denied GBP155T Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terence Charles Abraham, a pensioner from Wellingborough,
Northamptonshire, England, was denied GBP155,000 in asbestos
compensation, the Evening Telegraph reports.

Mr. Abraham suffers from mesothelioma, which he attributed to
his years as an apprentice plumber in the early 1960s. He later
switched careers to become a lorry driver, retired four years
ago but soon afterwards began suffering intermittent chest pain.
He was diagnosed with cancer in July 2008.

Mrs. Justice Swift, who dismissed Mr. Abraham's damages claim
against two of his former employers, said he remained in
"reasonable health" despite his condition, giving composed and
articulate evidence from the witness box.

The 68-year-old Mr. Abraham sued the two Wellingborough
businesses for whom he worked between 1956 and 1961. They were
G. Ireson and Son (Properties) Ltd between 1956 and 1961 and
Stanley Reynolds, trading as Reynolds & Spademan, between about
1962 and 1965.

His QC claimed Mr. Abraham was exposed to asbestos while
carrying out tasks such as soldering pipes, during which an
"asbestos scorch pad" was used.

On July 31, 2009, Mrs. Justice Swift said that asbestos material
was the "invariable" cause of mesothelioma and, although the
amount of exposure was "modest" in his case, the "overwhelming
likelihood" was that asbestos was the cause.

Mr. Abraham's use of the scorch pads was restricted to his time
with Reynolds & Spademan, the judge ruled, and his exposure
there was "modest and infrequent." She added that any asbestos
exposure while he was working for G. Ireson and Son was very
light.

The judge said, "While I have the greatest sympathy for Mr.
Abraham who, as I have found, contracted the deadly condition of
mesothelioma decades ago as a result of asbestos exposure at
work, I find that his claim against both defendants must fail."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Potsdam Civic Center Asbestos Probe Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York law firm of Belluck and Fox LLP investigates the
connection between Sharon M. LaDuke and the Potsdam Civic Center
in Potsdam, N.Y., in an asbestos suit filed Ms. LaDuke's family,
the Watertown Daily Times reports.

Ms. LaDuke, a longtime village employee, died of mesothelioma.

The firm is checking whether an old boiler and asbestos-wrapped
pipes were properly removed from the Potsdam Civic Center in
1999 and 2000.

Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., a partner in the law firm, represents
the LaDuke family. In a 54-page lawsuit filed in State Supreme
Court, Belluck and Fox names 68 defendants it alleges are
responsible for the death of Ms. LaDuke.

Among the companies named in the suit are Cleaver-Brooks Co., a
boiler manufacturing firm in Wisconsin.

The suit does not name the village of Potsdam, but Mr. Belluck
said he expects the village to be added later. He said his firm
is investigating possible ways that Ms. LaDuke could have been
exposed to asbestos fibers, including through her father's job
at Alcoa Inc. in Massena, N.Y., and at her place of work at the
Potsdam Civic Center.

According to information provided by village officials, a new
Cleaver-Brooks boiler was installed in the Civic Center in 1977.
Cleaver-Brooks, which in the past also did business under the
name of Aqua-Chem, has been at the center of asbestos-related
lawsuits across the country for years.

However, village Trustee Steven W. Yurgartis said he does not
believe the unit installed at the Civic Center in 1977 contained
asbestos. He said, "A service technician from JW Stevens, the
company who sold the boiler originally, when contacted by phone,
thought that none of the boiler parts used asbestos."

Mr. Yurgartis said that asbestos insulation in several
downstairs locations, including the boiler room, was removed in
1999 and in 2000 the old boiler itself was taken out by village
work crews.

Trustees soon will decide whether to spend US$20,000 to remove
more asbestos from the village courtroom. The room is currently
sealed off from the public.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NL Ind. Cites $2.7Mil Recoveries at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., in the first six months of 2009, recorded
asbestos- and lead-related recoveries of US$2.7 million (US$1.8
million or US$0.04 per diluted share, net of income taxes),
according to a Company press release dated Aug. 4, 2009.

Insurance recoveries relate to amounts the Company received from
certain of its former insurance carriers, and relate principally
to the recovery of prior lead pigment and asbestos litigation
defense costs incurred by the Company.

These recoveries aggregated US$1.7 million in the first six
months of 2008 (US$1.1 million, or US$0.02 per diluted share,
net of income taxes).

Dallas-based NL Industries, Inc. is engaged in the component
products (security products, furniture components and
performance marine components), chemicals (TiO2) and other
businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kingsteignton Man's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Torquay, England, heard that the death of Roy
Capener, a 72-year-old retired company director from
Kingsteignton, Devon, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, the Herald Express reports.

Mr. Capener was exposed to asbestos during his working life,
which included removing lagging from boilers. He died at home in
Rydon Acres on July 26, 2009.

A post mortem examination confirmed Mr. Capener from malignant
pleural mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Waterlooville Man's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Portsmouth Guildhall heard that the death of
John Fuller, an 80-year-old former dockyard from Waterlooville,
Hampshire, England, was linked to exposure to asbestos, The News
reports.

After 60 years of exposure to asbestos, Mr. Fuller died in
Havant War Memorial Hospital on Feb. 12, 2009. He left school at
the age of 15 and became an apprentice in Portsmouth dockyard.

The inquest heard that Mr. Fuller did "dogsbody work" in the
engine rooms of various ships. This included removing asbestos
from pipes.

A pathologist's report stated that Mr. Fuller had mesothelioma.
Coroner David Horsley said, "It follows the pattern of
mesothelioma, it lies dormant for many years before leading to a
very rapid death."

The inquest heard that Mr. Fuller fought successfully for
compensation before he died.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEM Handling Breach Case Ongoing v. Hicks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management's lawsuit
against Art Hicks Jr., over Mr. Hicks' failure to remove
asbestos from the American Lawnmower factory site prior to
demolition, is ongoing, the Star Press reports.

Mr. Hicks also allegedly failed to provide IDEM written
notification of the demolition.

In April 2009, the city of Muncie, Ind.'s Unsafe Building
Hearing Authority imposed US$10,000 in civil penalties against
Mr. Hicks for failing to meet cleanup deadlines at the abandoned
factory at 705 E. 18th St.

His next appearance before the authority is scheduled for Sept.
15, 2009.

After Mr. Hicks missed a deadline of Sept. 17, 2008 to tear down
the property, Circuit Court 5 Judge Chris Teagle in November
2008 gave him until the end of 2008 to finish the job.

Mr. Hicks' attorney, Bruce Munson, Esq., has said progress is
being made. City officials said recently that Mr. Hicks
continues to clean up the site.

Mr. Hicks recently cleaned up the former Car Doctors auto
salvage yard at 1004 S. Burlington Drive under the threat of a
US$229,000 fine and several weekends in jail. The threat was
made by Circuit Court 1 Judge Marianne Vorhees in a lawsuit
brought against Mr. Hicks by IDEM, whose cleanup order he had
ignored since 2006.

The city has identified the former American Lawnmower factory as
one of Muncie's 10 worst brownfields (abandoned or under-
utilized property that is not being reused because of hazardous
substances).

An environmental consultant hired by the city in 2008 reported
that the oldest of the three buildings remaining at the site was
a foundry built between 1896 and 1902.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Court Upholds Ruling in Cross Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County, Common Pleas Court,
which denied American Optical Corporation's motion to dismiss an
asbestos lawsuit filed by Milton B. Cross.

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

Judges James C. Sweeney, Melody J. Stewart, and Mary J. Boyle
entered judgment in Case No. 90388 on June 25, 2009.

This asbestos-related case was on appeal after the trial court
issued a supplemental clarifying journal entry on May 18, 2009,
based on the Appeal Court's limited remand ordered on April 29,
2009. The issue to be decided was whether the R.C. 2307.93(A)(3)
savings clause applied Mr. Cross' claim, thus allowing him to
maintain his asbestos-related action against American Optical
Corporation (AOC).

On Aug. 19, 2000, Mr. Cross sued AOC, a manufacturer of asbestos
containing protective clothing. On Aug. 10, 2007, AOC filed a
motion to dismiss Mr. Cross' claim. Mr. Cross counter argued
that retroactive application of Am.Sub.H.B. 292 was
unconstitutional as applied to him, citing R.C.
2307.93(A)(3)(a). On Sept. 7, 2007, the trial court summarily
denied AOC's motion to dismiss Cross's claim.

AOC appealed and the Appeals Court issued a limited remand with
instructions to the trial court to clarify its Sept. 7, 2007
dismissal. On May 18, 2009, the trial court issued a clarifying
entry.

The judgment was affirmed.

Susan M. Audey, Esq., Jeffrey A. Healy, Esq., of Tucker Ellis &
West, L.L.P. in Cleveland, Ohio, represented American Optical
Corporation.

Anthony Gallucci, Esq., Jaeson L. Taylor, Esq., Eric C.
Wiedemer, Esq., of Kelley & Ferraro, L.L.P. in Cleveland, Ohio,
represented Milton B. Cross and others.

Richard D. Schuster, Esq., Nina I. Webb-Lawton, Esq., Michael J.
Hendershot, Esq., of Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P. in
Columbus, Ohio, represented Dana Companies, LLC (f/k/a Dana
Corporation).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rexnord Has $90M Claims Reserve at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord LLC's long-term reserve for asbestos claims was US$90
million as of June 27, 2009, the same as for the period ended
March 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5,
2009.

The Company's long-term insurance receivable for asbestos claims
was US$90 million as of June 27, 2009, the same as for the
period ended March 31, 2009.

Milwaukee-based Rexnord LLC is an industrial company comprised
of two strategic platforms: Power Transmission and Water
Management, with about 5,800 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler June 30 Liability at $336.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos liability was
US$336,556,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$355,779,000
as of Dec. 26, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5,
2009.

Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$339,834,000 as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May
22, 2009)

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance recovery receivable
was US$276,060,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$281,540,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2009, the Company's net
asbestos-related provision was US$1,756,000. During the quarter
ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net asbestos-related gain was
US$18,275,000.

During the fiscal six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company's
net asbestos-related provision was US$3,506,000. During the
fiscal six months ended June 27, 2008, the Company's net
asbestos-related gain was US$32,463,000.

Zug, Switzerland-based Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering and
construction contractor and power equipment supplier. The
Company employs over 14,000 professionals.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Accrued Liability at $24.39M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability was
US$24,399,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$23,758,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release dated
Aug. 5, 2009.

The Company's accrued asbestos liabilities were US$23,673,000 as
of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

Long Island City, N.Y.-based Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes replacement parts for motor
vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Abshire Lawsuit Filed v. DuPont on July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Abshire and Richard Abshire, on July 31, 2009, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Albert Abshire against E.
I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit alleges that Albert Abshire died from mesothelioma and
pleural asbestosis after he was exposed to asbestos during the
course of his career.

Margaret Abshire and Richard Abshire blame DuPont for allowing
its employees to work around asbestos when it knew asbestos
could cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In addition,
DuPont failed to warn its employees of the dangers of asbestos.

Albert Abshire died on Dec. 23, 2008, the complaint says.

Margaret Abshire and Richard Abshire seek exemplary and punitive
damages, plus costs, interest at the legal rate and other relief
to which she may be entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and Darren Brown, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the
Abshires.

Case No. D184-598 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drennan Action v. 24 Firms Filed on July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delia M. Drennan, on behalf of Ricky Bob Drennan, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 24 defendant corporations in Jefferson
County District Court, Tex., on July 31, 2009, The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

Defendants include Armstrong International Inc., CBS Corp.,
Clark-Reliance Corp., Crane Co., Flowserve Inc., Ford Motor Co.,
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Garlock Sealing Technologies,
Goulds Pumps, Guard-Line Inc., Honeywell International, Icon
Management Systems, and IMO Industries.

Ms. Drennan alleges Mr. Drennan inhaled asbestos fibers during
his work at Burton Shipyard with products designed, manufactured
or distributed by the defendant companies.

Ms. Drennan blames the defendant companies for a number of
negligent acts, including their failure to warn Mr. Drennan of
the dangers associated with asbestos and their failure to
provide Mr. Drennan with instructions on what would be safe
apparel to wear while working around asbestos.

In addition, Ms. Drennan claims companies conspired to withhold
medical data from the public about the dangers of asbestos and
instead conspired to release misleading and incorrect
information.

The suit also alleges Burton Shipyard failed to provide safe
equipment for Mr. Drennan's use, failed to provide adequate
safety measures and protection against the asbestos dust, failed
to warn Mr. Drennan of the inherent dangers of asbestos
contamination, failed to maintain the environmental conditions
of its work site and failed to follow state and government
statutes.

Ms. Drennan seeks general damages, plus costs, interest at the
legal rate and other relief to which she may be entitled.

Jeffrey B. Simon, Esq., and Laura Cabutto, Esq., of Simon,
Eddins and Greenstone in Dallas and Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq.,
and Colin D. Moore, Esq., of Provost Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., will be representing the Drennans.

Case No. A184-595 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham of the
58th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armistead Files Injury Case v. BAE Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Armistead's lawsuit against BAE Systems Land, alleging
workplace exposure to asbestos, is ongoing, Asbestos.com
reports.

The 60-year-old Mr. Armistead was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
January 2008. In the suit, he seeks more than US$500,000 from
the global defense, security and aerospace company, stating he
was not provided proper protection from asbestos exposure or
warned of the dangers associated with the mineral while working
at BAE Systems' Barrow Shipyard.

Mr. Armistead began working at the Barrow Shipyard in 1965,
spending most of his time in the machine and engine shops. Both
shops had asbestos-lined roofs and cladding on the walls.

Mr. Armistead then worked on the construction of a submarine, in
close proximity to workers mixing and applying asbestos
covering.

The Barrow Shipyard is a 169-acre facility used to design,
build, test and commission large warships and submarines.

BAE Systems refers to the 130-year-old shipyard as "an
industrial success that is recognized worldwide." The shipyard
created the United Kingdom's first submarine.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawyers Move to Oppose Subpoena on Segarra
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos lawyers at Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., and
Provost Umphrey in Beaumont, Tex., are opposing a subpoena on
radiologist Jay Segarra, The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The firms have moved on behalf of clients to intervene in
national asbestos litigation so they can oppose the subpoena,
but they have not named the clients.

In Motley Rice's July 9, 2009 motion, John Herrick argued that
if Mr. Segarra obeys an order to produce X-ray records he will
violate his privilege as a consulting expert.

Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost Umphrey adopted and joined
the motion on June 23, 2009.

According to Union Carbide Corporation lawyer Marcy Croft, Esq.,
of Jackson, Miss., Motley Rice lawyers say they represent up to
10,000 clients who need to intervene.

On July 29, Ms. Croft asked U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno
to require names.

Judge Robreno presides over tens of thousands of asbestos cases
from around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multi District Litigation. He took charge of the docket in
2008 and began enforcing a rule requiring each plaintiff to file
separate suits instead of a single suit against many defendants.

Judge Robreno speeded up processes for settling and dismissing
cases, and reported in May 2009 that about 500,000 claims had
been resolved in four months.

In February 2009, Judge Robreno ordered Mr. Segarra and two
other radiologists to produce records of all plaintiffs who
relied on their diagnoses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chairamonte Convicted for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patrick J. Clifford of the Superior Court in Middletown,
Conn., on Aug. 4, 2009, sentenced Donald Chairamonte to 20
months in prison and ordered him to pay more than US$15,000 in
restitution, The Hartford Courant reports.

The 49-year-old Mr. Chairamonte pleaded guilty in June 2009 to
charges including illegal dumping, illegal disposal of asbestos,
reckless endangerment and criminal trespass.

In the most recent cases, Assistant State's Attorney Tamberlyn
E.C. Conopask said Mr. Chairamonte's dumping plagued a dozen
communities throughout Connecticut, including Waterbury,
Westbrook, Bethany and West Haven. The debris came from home
improvement jobs in Essex, New Haven, and East Haven.

Ms. Conopask said Mr. Chairamonte threatened the public's health
and the environment when he dumped roofing debris in November
2007 at a business on Spencer Plain Road in Westbrook next door
to the Saybrook Convalescent Hospital.

Most of the pile was made up of asbestos. Ms. Conopask told
Judge Clifford on Aug. 4, 2009 that the landowner spent more
than US$11,000 cleaning up the debris.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Glass Decorator's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
A July 23, 2009 inquest at Windsor, Berkshire, England, ruled
that the death of John Couzens, a 62-year-old glass decorator,
was linked to exposure to asbestos, getbracknell reports.

Mr. Couzens, of Quintilis in Hanworth, died in March 29, 2009
after developing cancer caused by long-term exposure to the
material during his work as a glass decorator, Coroner Peter
Bedford has ruled.

Mr. Couzens was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2007.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Lebanon Hardboard Fined $63T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in July 2009,
fined Lebanon Hardboard LLC US$63,562 for allowing the open
accumulation of asbestos-containing waste material at a
manufacturing facility that burned in October 2008, the Democrat
Herald reports.

According to the DEQ, Lebanon Hardboard's facility contained
106,000 square feet of asphalt roofing and burned on Oct. 6,
2008. The Company then failed to secure the waste in leak-tight
containers, keep it wet to reduce movement by air, or to dispose
of it. The material remains on the ground at the site.

If Lebanon Hardboard LLC has a licensed asbestos contractor
properly abate all of the openly accumulated waste at the
facility, the DEQ will consider recalculating the costs as
delayed rather than avoided and will reduce the civil penalty
accordingly.


                            *********

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  * * *