CAR_Public/090821.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 165
  
                           Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Dec. 7 Hearing Set for Fla. DPPA Suit Settlement
AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over Miss. Collision Incident Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Policyholders' Lawsuit Over Madoff Fraud
BE LLC: Showbiz Parents File Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
BEMIS CO: Seeks Court Approval for Pa. Antitrust Suit Settlement

CARDTRONICS INC: Proposal to Modify Deal Under Consideration
CARTER-REED: Court Denies Class Certification in Relacore Suit
DUKE ENERGY: Bid to Alter Dismissal of Suit v. Ohio Unit Pending
DUKE ENERGY: Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit Remains on Appeal
DUKE ENERGY: No Trial Date Yet for ERISA Violations Lawsuit

DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Merged Price Reporting Suits Pending
HOME STATE: Faces Tex. Over Suit Discriminatory Rate Pricing
HUGHES COMMS: Defends Complaint Over Service Misrepresentation
JOE (J.J.) DETWEILER: Faces $13.5M Consumer Fraud Suit in Tenn.
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Faces $95M Bond in Katrina-Related Lawsuit

MARYLAND: Settlement Reached in Litigation Over Jail Conditions
PETROLEUM DEV'T: "Droegemueller" Deal Distributions Made in July
QC HOLDINGS: Appealing Ruling in "Ferrell" Suit to 4th Circuit
QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Remains Stayed
QC HOLDINGS: Plaintiff Files Unsecured Loans Suit in Arbitration

QC HOLDINGS: "Winters" Customer Suit v. Calif. Unit in Discovery
R.L. POLK & CO: Dec. 7 Hearing Set for Fla. DPPA Suit Settlement
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Appeal to Approved "Kessler" Deal Pending
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Appealing Damage Awards in "Mitchell" Suit
ST. PETERSBURG: Ordered to Repay $1.5M to Former Police Officers

UNITED PARCEL: Employee Files $100M FLSA Litigation in Calif.
UNITED STATES: Alaskans Sue Over Federal Moratorium on Medicaid
WACHOVIA CORP: Settles Suits Over 1031 Tax Group Fraud for $45M
WARNER CHILCOTT: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed in July 2009
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Lines of Credit

* Get Free Pacer Dockets at Courtport's FreeCourtDockets.com

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MGM MIRAGE: Abraham Fruchter Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MGM MIRAGE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
MGM MIRAGE: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.

MGM MIRAGE: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing
TEXTRON INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing

                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Records $5.4M Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Steel Holding Still Has Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Energy Future Records $875M ARO at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $320.27M Long-Term Liability

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Colfax Drop to 29,279 at July 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $348.5Mil Reserves at July 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Still Party to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Facing 100 Steam Main Rupture Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Still Party to Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Has Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MLIC Receives 1,726 New Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Automotive Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court Upholds Ruling in Clemens Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 130,500 U.S. Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Cites $25.9M Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler U.K. Units Facing 363 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Still Party to Sealed Air Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Party to Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Liability Stays at $8.8M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 600 Stearns Lawsuits Ongoing v. RBS Global
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Still Has 1 Lawsuit (3.7T Claimants)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Facing 180 Lawsuits (1,400 Claimants)
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zurn Involved in 5,750 Lawsuits at June 27

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has $272.5M Insurance at June 27
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Facing 103T Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has 24,000 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Party to 20 Hilco Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Supply Faces 13 Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RAL Supply Still Facing 1 Action at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sangamon County Local Gets $2MM in Damages
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $119.8M Adjustments at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tektoniks Fined $2.4T for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former BP Worker's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Vermont Firms Fined for CAA/NESHAP Breach
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gilkison Cleared in CSX Transportation Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Former Deena Facility Cost $400T
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collier Lawsuit Filed v. 7 Firms on Aug. 5
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Morin Action Scheduled for Oct. 5

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cotgrave Resident's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rossendale Local's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colne Navy Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bracknell Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heanor Resident's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sarjeant Action Against Woolworths Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Ltd. Still Has Lawsuits in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,056 Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Facing Cases in Miss.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 270 Actions Ongoing v. Park-Ohio at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Pending v. Katy Industries in Ala.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Still Has 2,700 Sterling Fluid Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LaBour Pump Has 100 Active Cases at July 3
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Involved in ACE Insurance Action
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Accrues $375T in Allstate at June 30

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $6.8MM for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Facing 289 Pending Actions at June 30
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Cites $41.625M Receivable at June 30

                           *********

ACXIOM CORP: Dec. 7 Hearing Set for Fla. DPPA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 7, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the proposed settlement in Fresco, et al. v. R.L.
Polk & Co. and Acxiom Corp., Case No. 07-60695 (S.D. Fla.).

The suit alleges that R.L. Polk & Co. and Acxiom Corp. knowingly
obtained, used, or disclosed personal information from motor
vehicle records in violation of a federal law, the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act DPPA.

The Garden City Group, Inc., has established a Web site at
http://www.dppasettlement2.com/to provide more information  
about the litigation and the proposed settlement.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243
         E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

             - and -

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

             - and -

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208
         E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com

             - and -

        James Kellogg Green, Esq.
        222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
        West Palm Beach, FL 33401
        Phone: 561-659-2029
        Fax: 561-655-1357
        E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net

R.L. Polk & Co. is represented by:

        Christopher M. Mason, Esq.
        Nixon Peabody, LLP
        437 Madison Avenue
        New York, NY 10022

             - and -

        Scott J. Frank, Esq.
        Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP
        One South Harbour Island Boulevard
        Tampa, FL 33602

Acxicom is represented by:

        Juan C. Enjamio, Esq.
        Hunton & Williams, LLP
        Mellon Financial Center
        1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500
        Miami, FL 33131


AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Suits Over Miss. Collision Incident Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Commercial Lines, Inc., and its indirect wholly owned
subsidiary, American Commercial Lines LLC, continue to face
putative class action lawsuits over a collision incident at Mile
Marker 97 of the Mississippi River near New Orleans.  

ACLInc, ACLLLC, or both, have been named as defendants in three
putative class action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana:

     -- Austin Sicard, et al., on behalf of themselves and
        others similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America)
        Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
        Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the
        New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association,
        Case No. 08-4012, filed on July 24, 2008;

     -- Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on
        behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.    
        Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co.
        Limited, D.R.D. Towing  Company, LLC, American
        Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge
        Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007, filed
        on July 24, 2008; and

     -- Alvin McBride, on behalf of himself and all others
        similarly situated v. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.;
        Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.; D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC;
        American Commercial Lines Inc.; The New Orleans-Baton
        Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No.
        09-cv-04494  B, filed on July 24, 2009.

The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from the incident
on July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was
being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C., an independent towing
contractor.  

The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel
Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the
Mississippi River in the New Orleans area.

The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of #6
oil, of which approximately two-thirds was released.  The tank
barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.  There
was no damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor
damage.

The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of adverse
health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources,
and seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages
for claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class
Action Lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome of the Limitation
Actions, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is
a marine transportation and service company.  ACL provides barge
transportation and related services, and manufactures barges,
towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tank
barges.  Barge transportation accounts for the majority of the
Company's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal,
steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S.  ACL operates
in two primary business segments: transportation and
manufacturing.  ACL's transportation segment includes barge
transportation operations in North America, and domestic
fleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaning
and repair services at various locations along the inland
waterways.  The manufacturing segment constructs marine
equipment for external customers, as well as for the company's
transportation segment.


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Policyholders' Lawsuit Over Madoff Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., faces a purported class-
action suit filed by two California residents who claim that
their homeowner insurance policies entitled them to coverage on
losses from Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme, Jonathan Stempel and
Lilla Zuill at Reuters reports.

The lawsuit, Horowitz, et al. v. AIG, et al., Case No. 09-07312
(S.D.N.Y.), was filed on Aug. 19, 2009, by Robert and Harlene
Horowitz, who said they lost $8.5 million in the Madoff scandal.
It seeks class-action status on behalf of potentially thousands
of policyholders.

The Horowitzes alleged that AIG refused to honor AIG Fraud
SafeGuard coverage in policies they obtained from subsidiaries
of the insurer, even though the coverage insures against losses
resulting "directly from fraud, embezzlement, or forgery,"
according to Reuters.

According to the lawsuit, the Horowitz Family Trust had a more
than $8.5 million balance on its Nov. 30, 2008, account
statement from Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.  

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of Madoff
investors who also had policies with the Fraud SafeGuard
coverage.  

The Horowitzes are represented by:

          Brad Nelson Friedman, Esq.
          Joshua Evan Keller, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th floor
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: 212-594-5300
          Fax: 212-868-1229
          E-mail: bfriedman@milberg.com


BE LLC: Showbiz Parents File Consumer Fraud Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two parents filed a purported class-action lawsuit against Be,
LLC, claiming that the talent agency unlawfully charges for its
services, publishes misleading information on its brochures and
Web site, and, did not make their kids into stars, Anna McCarthy
at SF Weekly reports.

The suit, DuFour, et al. v. Be, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-03770
(N.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 17, 2009, by Timothy DuFour and
Kenneth Tanner.

In addition to Be, LLC, others listed as defendants in the case
are: Dynamic Showcases, LLC, Monterey Financial Services, Inc.,
MTS Holdings Group, Inc., 1901 Co., Be Marketing Limited, Erik
DeSando, Barry Falck, Jacob Steinback, and Vitaly Rashkovan.

The complaint claims that Be is an unregistered, advance-fee
talent agency (i.e., pay now, fame later) that has been
violating the Advance Fee Talent Service Act by referring
members to acting classes and other services with financial
links to Be Productions (thus directly profiting from their
referrals), among other transgressions, reports Ms. McCarthy.  

The company has been quoted in the media claiming that it does
not fall under AFTSA because it is only a referral service and
doesn't offer classes or other services of its own.

However, the lawsuit claims otherwise.  According to court
documents, Mr. Tanner paid Be $2,520 for the "Guest Star"
package, and Mr. Dufour purchased the "Movie Star" package for
$3,000, SF Weekly reported.  

Both claim they made installment payments for three months, and
then canceled their payments when they could not reach the
talent director assigned to manage their kids' careers.

The plaintiffs claim that the company still insisted they pay
the full amount and essentially threatened to ruin their credit
if they did not pay, according to SF Weekly.


BEMIS CO: Seeks Court Approval for Pa. Antitrust Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Bemis Co., Inc., is currently seeking approval of a
settlement the national class-action lawsuit captioned In Re:
Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1556; Master Docket No. 03-MDL-1556 (M.D. Pa.) (Vanaskie, C.J.),
which claims that between 1996 and 2003, Bemis Company; its
"MACtac" subsidiary, properly known as Morgan Adhesives Company;
and key competitors Avery Dennison Corporation, Raflatac, Inc.,
and UPM-Kymmene, "conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
prices for self-adhesive labels stock sold in the United
States."

Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- is a manufacturer of  
flexible packaging products and pressure sensitive materials.  
The company sells its products to customers throughout the
United States, Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific.  It operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and
Pressure Sensitive Materials.


CARDTRONICS INC: Proposal to Modify Deal Under Consideration
------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics, Inc.'s proposal to modify the settlement agreement
in Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al. v. E*Trade Access,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-cv-11206 (D. Mass.), is still under
consideration by the parties.

In connection with the company's acquisition of the E*TRADE
Access, Inc. (ETA) ATM portfolio, the company assumed ETA's
interests and liability for a lawsuit instituted by:

     -- the National Federation of the Blind,
     -- the NFB's Massachusetts chapter, and
     -- several individual blind persons, as well as
     -- the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

with respect to claims relating to the alleged inaccessibility
of ATMs for those persons who are visually-impaired.  

After the acquisition of the ETA ATM portfolio, the Private
Plaintiffs named Cardtronics as a co-defendant with ETA and
ETA's parent, E*Trade Bank, and the scope of the lawsuit has
expanded to include both ETA's ATMs as well as the company's
pre-existing ATM portfolio.

In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs have sought to require ETA and
Cardtronics to make all of the ATMs "voice-enabled," or capable
of providing audible instructions to a visually impaired person
upon that person inserting a headset plug into an outlet at the
ATM.  

The court has ruled twice, in February 2005 and February 2006
that the NFB is not entitled to a "voice-enabled" remedy.

Nonetheless, in response to an order to describe the relief they
seek, the Private Plaintiffs have subsequently stated that they
demand either:

      -- voice-guidance technology on each ATM;

      -- "Braille" instructions on each ATM that allow
         individuals who are blind to understand every screen
         (which, the company assumes, may imply a dynamic
         Braille pad); or

      -- a telephone on each ATM so the user could speak with a
         remote operator who can either see the screen on the
         ATM or can enter information for the user.

Cardtronics has asserted numerous defenses to the lawsuit.  One
defense is that, for ATMs owned by third parties, the company
arguably does not have the right to make changes to the ATMs
without the consent of the third parties.  

Another defense is that the Americans with Disabilities Act
arguably do not require the company to make changes to ATMs if
the changes are not feasible or achievable, or if the costs
outweigh the benefits.

The costs of retrofitting or replacing existing ATMs with voice
technology, dynamic Braille keypads, or telephones and
interactive data lines would be significant.  

Additionally, in situations in which third parties own the ATMs
and Cardtronics provides processing services, the costs are
extremely disproportionate to the company's interests in the
ATMs.

Cardtronics has also challenged the plaintiffs' standing to file
this lawsuit.  

In response to the company's challenge, the plaintiffs have
requested the court's permission to:

      -- amend their complaint to name additional individual
         plaintiffs; and

      -- certify the lawsuit as a class action under the Federal
         Rules of Civil Procedure.

Cardtronics has objected to the motion, on the grounds that the
plaintiffs who initially filed the lawsuit lacked standing and
amending the complaint cannot cure this deficiency.

Hearings on both the standing issue and Cardtronics' motion for
summary judgment are scheduled to occur during the second
quarter of 2007.

                       Settlement Terms

Cardtronics has agreed to settle the case by, among other
things, ensuring that most ATMs it wons will offer voice
guidance through a standard headphone jack located on the face
of an ATM by no later than Dec. 31, 2007.

The company will also sell or otherwise make available to
merchants or other third parties who won ATMs currently serviced
by Cardtronics ATMs that are voice-guided and provide audible
instructions to ATM patrons through a standard headphone jack
located on the face of the ATM.

Finally, the company has committed that by July 1, 2010 at least
90% of all transactions at ATMs shall occur on ATMs that are
voice-guided or otherwise accessible to blind people.

In addition, Cardtronics has agreed to make a contribution of
$100,000 to the Massachusetts Attorney General's local consumer
aid fund of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and subject to
court approval, to pay the amount of $900,000 in attorneys' fees
to attorneys representing the class.

The Court approved the settlement in December 2007.

The company has requested a modification to the settlement
agreement so as to permit it to upgrade or replace approximately
2,200 non-voice guided ATMs that it acquired in July 2007 over a
period of time longer than originally contemplated by the 2007
settlement agreement.  

The Commonwealth and NFB are considering the company's proposal,
but as of this date have not yet indicated whether they will
accept it.  If they demand a quicker conversion of these ATMs to
voice-guidance and the company agrees (or is ordered by the
Court to comply with such demands), the company's capital budget
for 2009 and 2010 may have to be increased, according to its
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         Patricia Correa
         Attorney General's Office
         One Ashburton Place, Room 2019
         Boston, MA 02108-1698
         Phone: 617-727-2200 ext. 2919
         Fax: 617-727-5762
         E-mail: patty.correa@ago.state.ma.us

              - and -

         Daniel F. Goldstein, Esq.
         Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP
         120 E. Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Phone: (410) 962-1030
         Fax: (410) 385-0869
         E-mail: dfg@browngold.com

              - and -

         Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
         Cooley Godward Kronish LLP
         One Freedom Square, Reston Town Ctr.
         11951 Freedom Dr. Reston, VA 20190
         Phone: (703) 456-8019
         Fax: (703) 456-8100
         E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com


CARTER-REED: Court Denies Class Certification in Relacore Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey appeals court ruled that a suit alleging that
Carter-Reed Co., the maker of the dietary supplement Relacore,
fraudulently marketed it for use in cutting belly fat and stress
is not right for class-action treatment, Mary Pat Gallagher at
The New Jersey Law Journal reports.

According to the court, there are too many possible variables to
satisfy the requirement that questions of law or fact common to
the class predominate over questions affecting only individual
members.

The case, which originated as a putative nationwide class-action
lawsuit, was filed in Union County Superior Court on Nov. 10,
2004.  It was removed by the defendants to federal court in
March 2006, after the plaintiffs had narrowed the class to
include only New Jersey buyers, creating complete diversity,
writes Ms. Gallagher.

Judge Dennis Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey remanded the case to state court in
December 2006, because the removal was done more than a year
after the case was filed, outside the one-year statutory time
limit in 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b).

In general, lead plaintiff Melissa Lee alleges that she bought
Relacore in April 2004 based on advertised claims that it would
reduce belly fat, but that after 90 days of using the product as
directed -- at $39.99 for each month's supply -- her waistline
not only didn't shrink, but increased, the Law Journal reported.

Ms. Lee seeks certification of a class comprised of all New
Jersey residents who bought Relacore since its introduction in
2002.  Her original complaint included claims under the N.J.
Consumer Fraud Act and under common law for fraud, unjust
enrichment and breach of express and implied warranty.

On April 18, 2008, Judge Catherine Dupuis denied certification
after identifying 14 individual factors that would necessitate
an evidentiary hearing for each class member on the fraud
claims, Ms. Gallagher reports.

Those factors included the reason for buying Relacor, which
advertisements induced the purchase, whether buyers were
influenced by a personal recommendation, how the buyers'
underlying health might have affected the product's efficacy,
how much they paid and whether they sought or obtained a refund.

The judge identified additional issues on the other claims, such
as whether class members received any benefit, on the unjust
enrichment claim, and whether timely notice to the seller was
provided, on the express warranty.

In affirming Judge Dupuis' ruling, Judges Mary Catherine Cuff,
Clarkson Fisher, Jr., and Linda Baxter, acknowledged that the
relatively small losses suffered by putative class members,
roughly $40 to $120, made it unlikely they would sue
individually, relates Ms. Gallagher.

They also noted, in their per curiam, unpublished opinion, that
they were not aware of any New Jersey court that had certified a
class action in a mass media false advertising case, according
to the Law Journal.

Ms. Lee is represented by:

          Jeffrey Carton, Esq.
          Meiselman Denlea Packman Carton & Eberz
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Phone: (914) 517-5000
          Fax: (914) 517-5055
          Web site: http://www.mdpcelaw.com/


DUKE ENERGY: Bid to Alter Dismissal of Suit v. Ohio Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to alter or set aside the judgment dismissing
the purported class action lawsuit alleging antitrust violations
by Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., is pending, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Duke Energy Ohio, which is an Ohio corporation organized in
1837, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp., which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.  The
company is a combination electric and gas public utility company
that provides service in the southwestern portion of Ohio and
through Duke Energy Kentucky, in nearby areas of Kentucky.  Its
principal lines of business include generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity, the sale of and transportation of
natural gas, and energy marketing.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual,
industrial and non-profit customers, filed a lawsuit against
Duke Energy Ohio in federal court in the Southern District of
Ohio.

Plaintiffs allege that Duke Energy Ohio (then The Cincinnati Gas
& Electric Company (CG&E)), conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into non-public option agreements with such consumers
in exchange for their withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy
Ohio's (then CG&E's) pending RSP, which was implemented in early
2005.  Duke Energy Ohio denies the allegations made in the
lawsuit.

Following Duke Energy Ohio's filing of a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims, plaintiffs amended their complaint on May
30, 2008.  Plaintiffs now contend that the contracts at issue
were an illegal rebate which violate antitrust and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statutes.  

Defendants have again moved to dismiss the claims.  On March 31,
2009, the District Court granted Duke Energy Ohio's motion to
dismiss.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to alter or set aside
the judgment.  

Duke Energy Corporation -- http://www.duke-energy.com/-- is an  
energy company that provides its services through three business
segments.  The company's business segments are U.S. Franchised
Electric and Gas, Commercial Power and International Energy.  


DUKE ENERGY: Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit Remains on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. remains on appeal before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The suit names
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as a defendant, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.

Duke Energy Indiana, which is an Indiana corporation organized
in 1942, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cinergy Corp., which
itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp.

The company is a vertically integrated and regulated electric
utility that provides service in north central, central, and
southern Indiana.  Its primary line of business is generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity.

On April 19, 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy Corp. were named in a
third amended complaint of the purported class action suit,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy
and Cinergy, along with numerous other utilities, oil companies,
coal companies and chemical companies, are liable for damages
relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants' greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms
such as Hurricane Katrina.

In October 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were served with this
lawsuit.

On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs
have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

Oral argument was heard on Aug. 6, 2008.  Due to the late
recusal of one of the judges on the Fifth Circuit panel, the
court held a new oral argument on Nov. 3, 2008.

The underlying lawsuit is Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Co., Case No. 05-cv-00436 (S.D. Miss.).  The
appellate proceeding is Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, et al.,
No. 07-60756 (5th Cir.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com)
          Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
          (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com)
          F. Gerald Maples, PA
          902 Julia Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: 504-569-8732

              - and -

          Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net)
          Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com)
          Smith & Fawer
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-525-2200
          Fax: 504-525-2205


DUKE ENERGY: No Trial Date Yet for ERISA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act violations class action lawsuit filed against Duke
Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in South
Carolina against Duke Energy and the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan, alleging violations of ERISA and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.

These allegations arise out of the conversion of the Duke Energy
Company Employees' Retirement Plan into the Duke Energy
Retirement Cash Balance Plan.

The case also raises some Plan administration issues, alleging
errors in the application of Plan provisions (i.e., the
calculation of interest rate credits in 1997 and 1998 and the
calculation of lump-sum distributions).

The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan.  This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.  The
plaintiffs also seek to divide the putative class into sub-
classes based on age.

Six causes of action are alleged, ranging from age
discrimination, to various alleged ERISA violations, to
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs seek a broad array of remedies, including a
retroactive reformation of the Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan and a recalculation of participants'/
beneficiaries' benefits under the revised and reformed plan.  
Duke Energy filed its answer in March 2006.  

A portion of this contingent liability was assigned to Spectra
Energy in connection with the spin-off in January 2007.  

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to
add an additional age discrimination claim, defendant's motion
to dismiss and the respective motions for summary judgment was
held in December 2007.

On June 2, 2008, the court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs'
motion to add the additional claim and dismissing a number of
plaintiffs' claims, including the claims for ERISA age
discrimination.  Since that date, plaintiffs have notified Duke
Energy that they are withdrawing their ADEA claim.  

At mediation, plaintiffs quantified their claims as being in
excess of $150 million, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Duke Energy Corporation -- http://www.duke-energy.com/-- is an  
energy company that provides its services through three business
segments.  The company's business segments are U.S. Franchised
Electric and Gas, Commercial Power and International Energy.  


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Merged Price Reporting Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
against Duke Energy Corporation over price reporting violations
is pending court approval.

A total of thirteen lawsuits have been filed against Duke Energy
affiliates and other energy companies.  Ten of these cases have
been consolidated into a single proceeding, including the case
originally filed in Wisconsin state court in March 2009.  

In February 2008, the judge in this proceeding granted a motion
to dismiss one of the cases and entered judgment in favor of
Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC.  Plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider was, in large part, denied and on Jan. 9, 2009, the
court ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their
remaining claims and granted certain defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

In February 2009, the same judge dismissed Duke Energy Carolinas
from that case as well as four other of the consolidated cases.
One case was filed in Tennessee state court, which dismissed the
case on filed rate and preemption grounds.  That case was
appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, where oral argument
was heard in November 2007.  The Tennessee Court of Appeals
reversed this lower court ruling in October 2008, and
defendants' application for permission to appeal to the
Tennessee Supreme Court was granted in April 2009.

On Jan. 13, 2009, another case pending in Missouri state court,
was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing
to bring the case and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal.  

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective
plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed
by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas
markets by various means, including providing false information
to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful
arrangements and agreements in violation of the antitrust laws
of the respective states.

Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

In October 2008, a settlement in principle was reached with the
class plaintiffs in five of the eleven consolidated cases.  A
settlement agreement has been executed by the parties and awaits
approval by the court.  The settlement, as currently structured,
will not have a material adverse effect on Duke Energy's
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial
position, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Duke Energy Corporation -- http://www.duke-energy.com/-- is an  
energy company that provides its services through three business
segments.  The company's business segments are U.S. Franchised
Electric and Gas, Commercial Power and International Energy.   


HOME STATE: Faces Tex. Over Suit Discriminatory Rate Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------
Home State Mutual Insurance Co. along with several other Texas
county mutual insurance companies face a purported class-action
suit that accuses them of violating the anti-discrimination
provisions of the Texas Insurance Code by charging consumers
higher policy fees on similar automobile insurance, Michelle
Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The lawsuit, Hollinger, et al. v. Home State Mutual Insurance
Company, et al., Case No. 09-00118 (E.D. Tex.), was filed on
Aug. 17, 2009, by Toni Hollinger, Bertha Johnson, Fernando
DeLuna, Norma Holder, Sandra Duplant, and Patricia Randolph.

In addition to Home State, others listed as defendants in the
case are: Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Co.,
Consumers County Mutual Insurance Co., Southern County Mutual
Insurance Co., Affirmative Insurance Co., Alea North America
Insurance Co., American Century Casualty Co., American Hallmark
Insurance Company of Texas, American International Insurance
Co., Carolina Casualty Insurance Co., Direct General Insurance
Co., Dorinco Re-insurance Co., Esurance Insurance Co., First
Acceptance Insurance Co., General Insurance Company of America,
Germania Insurance Co., Illinois National Insurance Co.,
Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., Integon National
Insurance Co., Loya Insurance Co., Mendota Insurance Co., Middle
States Insurance Co., National General Insurance Co., Odyssey
America Reinsurance Corp., Republic Underwriters Insurance Co.,
Standard Fire Insurance Co., Titan Indemnity Co., Transatlantic
Re-insurance Co., United Automobile Insurance Co., and Young
America Insurance Co.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants charged some consumers
higher policy fees for automobile insurance than they charged
others of the same class and hazard, writes Ms. Massey.

The plaintiffs argue that they are suffering price
discrimination, and actual damages.  They propose a class that
will include all persons who purchased automobile insurance
policies in Texas from Home State County Mutual Insurance, Old
American Mutual Fire Insurance, Consumers County Mutual
Insurance, Southern County Mutual Insurance, and those policies
were in effect on or after Aug. 17, 2008, according to Ms.
Massey.

Questions of law include "whether the defendants have engaged in
unfair price discrimination between individuals of the same
class and of essentially the same hazard, what individuals are
of the same class, what individuals are of essentially the same
hazard, whether a defendant's price discrimination is based upon
sound actuarial principles, and whether the price discrimination
was done knowingly."

Arguing they are suffering price discrimination and actual
damages, the proposed class is seeking damages that "vastly
exceed" $5 million, the Texas Record reported.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Monroe Clearman, Esq.
          The Clearman Law Firm PLLC
          815 Walker, Suite 1040
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-223-7070
          Fax: 713-223-7071
          E-mail: scott@clearmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan Bernard Rich, Esq.
          Law Office of Alan B. Rich
          1401 Elm Street, Suite 4620
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Phone: 214-744-5100
          Fax: 214-744-5101 (fax)
          E-mail: ecf@alanrichlaw.com


HUGHES COMMS: Defends Complaint Over Service Misrepresentation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hughes Communications, Inc. and its subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, continue to defend a purported class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

On May 18, 2009, the company and HNS received notification of a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California by two consumers on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons for, among others, breach of
warranties, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs are seeking to have the case be certified as a
class action.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
misrepresented the speed of the HughesNet service in its
advertising.

The company has not yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate
the substance of the claims and its available defenses.

On June 4, 2009, the company and HCI received notice of a
similar complaint filed by another HughesNet subscriber in the
Superior Court of San Diego County, California.  

The plaintiff in this case also seeks to pursue his claims as a
class action on behalf of other California subscribers,
according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

Hughes Communications, Inc., -- http://www.hughes.com/--
operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC, a telecommunications company.  The company is a
provider of broadband satellite network services and systems to
the enterprise market.  It is also the satellite Internet access
provider to North American consumers and small and medium sized
businesses, such as small office and home office users.  In
addition, the company provides managed services to large
enterprises that combine the use of satellite and terrestrial
alternatives.  The company operates in four business segments:
the North America very small aperture terminal (VSAT) segment,
the International VSAT segment, the Telecom Systems segment and
the Corporate and other segment.  Its subsidiaries include
Hughes Systique Corporation, Hughes Network Systems, LLC and
SkyTerra Communications, Inc. and Electronic System Products,
Inc.


JOE (J.J.) DETWEILER: Faces $13.5M Consumer Fraud Suit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
But lately the problems of Joe (J.J.) Detweiler, the Ohio-based
developer of Sequatchie Pointe, the stalled luxury housing
development on Sand Mountain faces a purported class-action
lawsuit by a group of lot buyers on the Tennessee side of the
development, which straddles the state border between Marion and
Dade counties, Robin Ford Wallace at The Dade County Sentinel
reports.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in Marion County Chancery
Court on Jan. 28, 2009, by clients who say they were misled when
they purchased property in the development.  Since then Georgia-
side buyers have flocked to join the suit.  

Other defendants in the $13.5 million class-action suit are:
Sequatchie Mountain, LLC, J.J. Detweiler Enterprises, Inc.,
Bradley L. Watson, Dan Graber, and John Barrack (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 19, 2009).

Jasper attorney Bill Killian, Esq., along with Chattanooga
attorney Valerie Epstein, Esq., filed the suit.  Mr. Killian
said that the case represents about six to eight people from
Florida and Mississippi who bought property in the development.  
He explains, "They put $20,000 on a down payment and they show
up and for closing and they couldn't close."

According to the lawsuit, "The Plaintiffs entered into various
purchase agreements, installment land contracts, land contrives,
contracts for the purchase of land, deed and other transactions
with the Defendants, for the purchase of certain real estate in
Marion County."

"After entering into the contracts, the Plaintiffs learned, at
varying times and through various means that Sequatchie Pointe
was not, in fact, a development under county and state law as
required," states the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by
The Jasper Journal.

The suit further states, "This 'development' did not have the
required final approval of the Marion County Planning
Commission, the Marion County Road Superintendent, the Marion
County Health Department, and other regulatory agencies."

"Furthermore, the 'development' does not now, nor did it ever,
have water service.  In fact, a contract for the provision of
water to this development has been executed by the owners of
said development, but no action has been taken by them to
fulfill their obligations under the contracts," according to the
suit.

The suit also alleges the defendants target elderly who were not
from the area.  It states, "The Defendants wrongfully targeted
out of state elderly persons.  Specifically holding home
'parties' in Land O' Lakes, Fla. and offering a 'mini vacation'
as an incentive.  Defendants failed to mention that no water, no
roads and no final approval had been granted to the
'development' in violation of the Tennessee Elder Protection
Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 13-3-101, et seq."

The lawsuit goes on the say the lots were overpriced, pointing
out, "The fraudulent misrepresentation of the price of the lots
purchased by the Plaintiffs caused the Plaintiffs to grossly
overpay for said lots, based upon the actual fair market value
of lots, not in an approved development."

Finally, the suit states, "The Plaintiffs possess no other
legitimate or feasible way to secure their losses, other than a
lien lis pendens on the Defendants' real property, currently
owned by the Defendants in the 'development.'"

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          William C. (Bill) Killian, Esq.
          Number 1 Oak Avenue
          Jasper, TN  37347
          Phone: (423) 942 5801
          Fax: (423) 942 5816
          E-mail: bill@wcklaw.net
          Web site: http://www.wcklaw.net/

               - and -

          Valerie W. Epstein, Esq.
          Berke, Berke & Berke Attorneys at Law
          420 Frazier Ave.
          P.O. Box 4747
          Chattanooga, TN 37405
          Phone: (423) 266-5171
          Fax: (423) 265-5307
          Web site: http://www.berkeattys.com/


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Faces $95M Bond in Katrina-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the state-backed
insurance company has until Aug. 24, 2009, must post a $95
million bond after losing a class-action lawsuit that said the
company took too long to settle Hurricane Katrina claims, The
Associated Press reports.  

Though the company is appealing, it must still post the bond.  
The legal bill could force Citizens to impose a new fee, or
"assessment," on all homeowners in the state.  Money raised by
the existing 5 percent assessment goes to pay off debt incurred
in paying off Katrina claims, according to the AP report.


MARYLAND: Settlement Reached in Litigation Over Jail Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a class-action suit over conditions at the Baltimore
City Detention Center and the Central Booking and Intake Center
reached a proposed settlement for the matter, The Associated
Press reports.

The original lawsuit was filed in 1971, when the jails were
still operated by the city.  The state took them over in 1991,
and the parties entered into a consent decree in 1993.  But that
did not stop litigation in the case, reports the AP.

Among the allegations over the years was that detainees at the
women's jail were subjected to temperatures of 110 degrees in
the summer and that toilets routinely backed up, contaminating
the facilities with sewage.

The parties were not able to reach a settlement on the issue of
heat dangers in the aging high-security cells at the men's jail,
which are not air-conditioned.  Inmates there are monitored
carefully for signs of heat-related distress and are given ice
and taken to air-conditioned areas for breaks from the heat,
according to Richard Rosenblatt, assistant secretary for
treatment services with the corrections department.

However, the extreme heat problem in the women's jail has been
resolved, Mr. Rosenblatt said.

Under the settlement, detainees receive necessary medications
that were prescribed to them before being jailed.  It also
requires that an on-site psychiatrist be available five days a
week and that detainees who complain of feeling ill receive a
response within three days, according to the AP report.

The agreement details more than 100 ways in which the state must
improve medical care and upgrade facilities at the Baltimore
City Detention Center and the Central Booking and Intake Center.

Elizabeth Alexander, Esq., director of the American Civil
Liberties Union's National Prison Project, and a lawyer for the
detainees told AP she was optimistic that the settlement would
lead to improved conditions for city detainees.

The AP reported that the settlement agreement must be approved
by Judge J. Frederick Motz of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  If plaintiffs' attorneys do not file a
motion to reopen the case within two years after the settlement
is approved, the lawsuit will be dismissed.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4253

The inmates are represented by:

          Elizabeth Alexander, Esq.
          National Prison Project of ACLU
          733 15th Street, NW.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 393-4930

               - and -

          Wendy Hess, Esq.
          Public Justice Center
          One N. Charles St., Suite 200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: 410-625-9409 X 222
          Fax: 410-625-9423
          E-mail: hessw@publicjustice.org


PETROLEUM DEV'T: "Droegemueller" Deal Distributions Made in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Distributions from the escrow to royalty owners in the class-
action suit captioned Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development
Corporation, Case No. 07-cv-01362 (D. Colo.) (Kane, J.), were
made on
July 10, 2009.

The consolidated class-action lawsuit alleges that the company
underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from wells it
operated in the State of Colorado.

Initially, the class-action lawsuit was filed with the U.S.
District Court in Weld County, Colorado, on May 29, 2007, by
Glen Droegemueller, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Petroleum Development, alleging that
the company underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from
wells it operated in the State of Colorado.  The plaintiff
sought declaratory relief and recovery of an unspecified amount
of compensation for underpayment of royalties paid by Petroleum
Development pursuant to leases.

Petroleum Development removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on June 28, 2007, and later filed its
responses and affirmative defenses.

A second similar Colorado class-action lawsuit was filed against
Petroleum Development in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on December 2007 by Ted Amsbaugh.  In 2008,
the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to consolidate Mr.
Amsbaugh's action with the Droegemueller Action.

Based on the mediation held in May 2008, and subsequent
negotiations, $24,108 had previously been accrued by the
Partnership for this litigation at June 30, 2008, which
represented the expected settlement related to all periods
through June 30, 2008.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the court issued preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.  Although the Partnership was not named as
a party in the suit, the lawsuit states that it relates to all
wells operated by the Managing General Partner, which includes
the Partnership's 63 wells in the Wattenberg field subject to
the settlement.  The portion of the proposed settlement related
to the Partnership's wells through all periods prior to Sept.
30, 2008 is $129,640.

During the third quarter of 2008, an additional amount of
$105,532 plus legal costs of $4,711 was recorded to fully accrue
for the settlement which the Managing General Partner expects to
pay into an escrow account for the Partnership in the fourth
quarter of 2008.

Final approval and distribution is expected around March 1,
2009.  These amounts will be deducted from future Partnership
distributions (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2008).

Notice of the settlement was mailed to members of the class
action suit in the fourth quarter of 2008.  The final settlement
was approved by the court on April 7, 2009, according to PDC
2004-A Limited Partnership's Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          George A. Barton, Esq. (bartonlaw3@birch.net)
          The Law Offices of George A. Barton
          800 West 47th Street, #700
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: 816-300-6250
          Fax: 816-300-6259

               - and -

          Patrick M. Groom, Esq. (pgroom@wobjlaw.com)
          Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Johnson, LLP
          822 7th Street, #760
          Greeley, CO 80631
          Phone: 970-352-3161

               - and -

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq. (lmoffett@danielcoker.com)
          Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1396
          265 North Lamar Boulevard #R
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: 662-232-8979
          Fax: 662-232-8940

Representing the defendants is:

          Gale Timothy Miller, Esq. (gale.miller@dgslaw.com)
          Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP
          1550 17th Street, #500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-892-9400
          Fax: 303-893-1379


QC HOLDINGS: Appealing Ruling in "Ferrell" Suit to 4th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., is appealing a district court ruling
remanding a putative class action lawsuit filed by Carl G.
Ferrell against a subsidiary of the company to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On Oct. 30, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the
Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina
in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Ferrell, a
customer of the South Carolina subsidiary.

Mr. Ferrell alleges that the subsidiary violated the South
Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act by including an
arbitration provision and class action waiver in its loan
agreements.  Mr. Ferrell alleges further that the subsidiary did
not appropriately take into account his ability to repay his
loan with the subsidiary, and it is his contention that this
alleged failure violates the South Carolina Deferred Presentment
Services Act, is negligent, breaches the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and serves as the basis for a civil
conspiracy.  Mr. Ferrell makes the same allegations in the same
case against several other lenders.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the company removed the case from state court
to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
based upon the diversity of citizenship between the subsidiary
and the proposed class.  In March 2009, the federal court ruled
against the company's efforts to remove the case to federal
court and remanded the case to a putative class action lawsuit
filed by Carl G. Ferrell.  In May 2009, the federal court issued
its written ruling.  The company has appealed this decision to
the Fourth Circuit, according to its Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.  

On Dec. 18, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case
based upon the parties' arbitration agreement.  Mr. Ferrell has
challenged both the removal of the case to federal court and the
company's motion to dismiss.  The court has not ruled on the
company's motion to dismiss.

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides  
short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, against QC
Holdings, Inc., remains stayed.

On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including
its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early,
the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer,
were named defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in
the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, by
James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline.

The plaintiffs were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank
for whom the company provided certain services in connection
with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina,
prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in
fourth quarter 2005.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North
Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance
Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina
Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and
the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by
the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail
locations in North Carolina.

The suit also alleges that the company is not viewed as the
"actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans and its services
to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina
statutes.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified
monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under
specified North Carolina statutes.

The plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have
specifically stated in the complaint that they do not challenge
the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North
Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may
permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law.
This case is in preliminary stages.

                       Similar Litigation

There are three similar purported class action complaints filed
in North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to QC
Holdings.

In December 2005, the judge in those three cases:

       -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported
          class action lawsuits and to compel arbitration in
          accordance with the terms of the arbitration
          provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts

       -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer
          loan contracts are valid, and

       -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications.

The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the
same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the
company, have appealed that ruling.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the company is the same
judge who issued these three orders in December 2005.

In January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the
appeal in the three companion cases.  In May 2008, the appellate
court remanded the three companion cases to the state court to
review its ruling in light of a recent North Carolina Supreme
court's decision.

The trial court will hear additional evidence in the three
companion cases before issuing its new ruling.  That ruling is
not expected before 2009.

While the three companion cases are pending until the trial
court's decision, it is expected that the company's case will
remain stayed.  The judge handling the lawsuit against the
company in North Carolina is the same judge who is handing the
three companion cases.  The company has not had a ruling on the
similar pending motions by the plaintiffs and the company in its
North Carolina case.  There is a stay in the North Carolina
lawsuit, pending the final outcome in the other three North
Carolina cases concerning the enforceability of the arbitration
provision in the consumer contracts.  Accordingly, there will be
no ruling on the company's motion to enforce arbitration in
North Carolina during the pendency of that issue in the three
companion cases.

In June 2009, the trial court denied defendants' motion to
compel arbitration and granted each of the respective
plaintiffs' motions for class certification.  It is expected
that defendants will appeal these rulings, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.  

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides  
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: Plaintiff Files Unsecured Loans Suit in Arbitration  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class-action suit filed against QC
Holdings, Inc., over unsecured loans filed her action in
arbitration in July 2009.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006, by one of the company's
Missouri customers as a purported class action.  It alleges
violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans
under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not
enforceable on a variety of theories.

The company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel
arbitration of this matter.  The plaintiff secured the right to
have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision,
however, prior to the court's ruling on the company's motion.

The court heard oral arguments on the company's motion in June
2007.  On Dec. 31, 2007, the court entered an order striking the
class action waiver provision in the company's customer
arbitration agreement, ordered the case to arbitration and
dismissed the lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.

In July 2008, the company filed its appeal of the court's order
before the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals heard arguments on Nov. 4, 2008.  On
Dec. 23, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court. It ordered the case to arbitration, but struck the
class action waiver provision.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the company asked the Court of Appeals to
rehear the matter or, in the alternative, transfer it to the
Missouri Supreme Court for rehearing.  In February 2009, the
Court of Appeals denied this request.  The company petitioned
the Missouri Supreme Court for rehearing of this matter.  In May
2009, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the Company's request.

In June 2009, plaintiff filed her action in arbitration.  After
the company files its answer, the case will move to the class
discovery stage, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended June 30, 2009.  

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides
short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


QC HOLDINGS: "Winters" Customer Suit v. Calif. Unit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class-action lawsuit filed by Jennifer M. Winters
against a QC Holdings, Inc. subsidiary is in discovery.

On Sept. 5, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County in a putative
class-action lawsuit filed by Jennifer M. Winters, a customer of
the California subsidiary.

Ms. Winters alleges that the subsidiary violated California's
Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, Unfair Competition Law, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Ms. Winters alleges that the company's subsidiary improperly
charged California consumers a fee to extend or "roll over"
their loan transactions, that the subsidiary did not have
authority to deduct funds electronically, and that the
subsidiary's use of a class action waiver in its loan agreements
is unconscionable.

On Oct. 29, 2008, the Company's California subsidiary filed its
answer, denying all allegations.  It also filed a claim against
Ms. Winters for failing to pay her final loan.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery on plaintiff's
class action allegations.  Because this case is in its
preliminary stages, it is unlikely any ruling on the merits of
the claims will occur until early 2010 or later, according to
the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.  

QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides  
short-term  consumer loans, known as payday loans.  The company
also provides other consumer financial products and services,
such as check cashing services and money orders.


R.L. POLK & CO: Dec. 7 Hearing Set for Fla. DPPA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is scheduled for Dec. 7, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the proposed settlement in Fresco, et al. v. R.L.
Polk & Co. and Acxiom Corp., Case No. 07-60695 (S.D. Fla.).

The suit alleges that R.L. Polk & Co. and Acxiom Corp. knowingly
obtained, used, or disclosed personal information from motor
vehicle records in violation of a federal law, the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act DPPA.

The Garden City Group, Inc., has established a Web site at
http://www.dppasettlement2.com/to provide more information  
about the litigation and the proposed settlement.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243
         E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

             - and -

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

             - and -

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208
         E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com

             - and -

        James Kellogg Green, Esq.
        222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
        West Palm Beach, FL 33401
        Phone: 561-659-2029
        Fax: 561-655-1357
        E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net

R.L. Polk & Co. is represented by:

        Christopher M. Mason, Esq.
        Nixon Peabody, LLP
        437 Madison Avenue
        New York, NY 10022

             - and -

        Scott J. Frank, Esq.
        Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP
        One South Harbour Island Boulevard
        Tampa, FL 33602

Acxicom is represented by:

        Juan C. Enjamio, Esq.
        Hunton & Williams, LLP
        Mellon Financial Center
        1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500
        Miami, FL 33131


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Appeal to Approved "Kessler" Deal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania's final approval to the settlement in a
purported class-action lawsuit known as "Kessler," which was
filed against Residential Capital, LLC, remains pending.

ResCap is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC,
which itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.

This putative class action lawsuit was consolidated for
settlement purposes with five other cases, all alleging that the
plaintiffs obtained second-lien mortgage loans from either
Community Bank of Northern Virginia or Guaranty National Bank of
Tallahassee and that they were charged interest rates and fees
violating the Pennsylvania Secondary Mortgage Loan Act.

The plaintiffs additionally claim that the banks were not the
actual lenders, but rather that the banks "rented" their banking
charters to affiliates for the purpose of facilitating the
assessment of "illegal" fees.  They further allege that the
affiliates either split the fees or kicked back the fees in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The plaintiffs sought to hold the company's subsidiary liable
primarily on the basis that the subsidiary was an assignee of
the mortgage loans.

In December 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania gave its final approval to a proposed
$41.1-million settlement for all six cases, inclusive of
attorneys' fees.  The settlement contemplated payment to
approximately 44,000 borrowers nationwide.

A group of seven plaintiffs' class action counsel appealed the
settlement in part on the grounds that the underlying litigation
did not address possible Truth in Lending Act or Home Ownership
and Equity Protection Act claims.

In August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the district court's approval of the settlement and
remanded the matter to the district court to determine whether
such claims were viable.

The parties and the Objectors then briefed the issue of the
"viability" of the TILA and HOEPA claims within this particular
litigation.

In July 2006, the parties amended the proposed settlement to
address the Third Circuit's concerns, and in October 2006, the
trial court held that the purported TILA and HOEPA claims were
not viable.

In November 2006, the parties filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement, as amended.

In late March 2007, the parties and the Objectors attended a
hearing before a court-appointed magistrate to present arguments
pertaining to the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed
amended settlement.

On July 5, 2007, the magistrate issued an advisory opinion
ruling that the proposed modified settlement is "fair,
reasonable, and adequate."

Following an Oct. 9, 2007 hearing, the trial court, on Jan. 25,
2008, entered an order:

       -- certifying the nationwide settlement class;

       -- preliminarily approving the modified settlement; and

       -- ordering that the settling parties give notice of the
          modified settlement to the settlement class, along
          with a new right of opt-out.

Following the dissemination of new notice to the class, the
court held a final fairness hearing on June 30, 2008.  The court
entered its order granting final approval to the settlement on
Aug. 15, 2008.  The objectors filed their notice of appeal with
the Third Circuit on Aug. 21, 2008, which remains pending,
according to Residential Capital, LLC's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Appealing Damage Awards in "Mitchell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Capital, LLC's subsidiary continues to contest the
compensatory and punitive damage awards in the "Mitchell" class
action suit through the appeals process, according to the
company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2009.

This putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
subsidiary on July 29, 2003 in state court in Kansas City,
Missouri. Plaintiffs assert violations of the Missouri Second
Mortgage Loan Act, Mo.R.S. Section 408.233, based on the
lenders' charging or contracting for payment of allegedly
unlawful closing costs and fees.

The relief sought includes a refund of all allegedly illegal
fees, the refund of interest paid, and the discounted present
value of interest to be paid in the future on active loans.

The plaintiffs also seek prejudgment interest and punitive
damages.

ResCap's Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation subsidiary is an
assignee, and the plaintiffs contend that it is strictly liable
for the alleged SMLA violations pursuant to the assignee
provisions of HOEPA.

The Mitchell case involves approximately 258 Missouri second
mortgage loans made by Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation
and assigned to a subsidiary.  The Plaintiffs and the class
sought approximately $6.7 million in actual and statutory
damages plus prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and expenses.  
The plaintiff's counsel sought a contingent fee of approximately
40% plus litigation expenses.  In addition plaintiffs will seek
prejudgment interest and punitive damages.

The parties participated in mediation in August 2007, without
success.  

Mortgage Capital Resources Corporation is currently in the
process of being liquidated in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The
company's subsidiary terminated its relationship with Mortgage
Capital Resources Corporation in early May 2000.  

The case went to trial in state court in Kansas City, Missouri
beginning on Dec. 3, 2007.  On Jan. 4, 2008, a jury verdict was
returned saying that the subsidiary should pay $4.3 million in
compensatory damages and $92 million in punitive damages.  On
Oct. 6, 2008, the trial court denied all post-trial motions
filed by defendants, including motions for new trial, judgment
not withstanding the verdicts and remittitur, denied the
defendants' motion to set aside the judgment and to decertify
the plaintiff class, and granted in part and denied in part the
plaintiffs' to amend judgment and entered a judgment dated as of
June 24, 2008.  The trial court allocated the prejudgment
interest and attorney's fees awards such that the subsidiary was
assessed pre-judgment interest in the amount of $642,066.00 and
statutory attorney's fees in the amount of $2,680,001.09.  In
addition, on Oct. 6, 2008, the trial court ordered the
defendants to post supersedeas bonds in the total amount of
approximately $127.5 million, thereby denying the company's
subsidiary's motion insofar as it requested that the court apply
the Missouri statutory appeals bond cap and further denying its
subsidiary's motion insofar as it requested application of the
limitation of damages set forth in HOEPA.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company's subsidiary filed its Notice of
Appeal and an application with the Missouri Court of Appeals to
limit the amount of the appellate bond to fifty million dollars
for all defendants, in accordance with the Missouri statutory
appeals bond cap.  The trial court reviewed the amount of the
bond, as directed by the Court of Appeals, but refused to change
the amount.  On Nov. 3, 2008, the company's subsidiary posted
the required appeals bond.

All parties have filed Notices of Intent to Appeal to the
Missouri Court of Appeals.  The Record on Appeal was filed with
the Court on Jan. 28, 2009.  Appellant's Initial Brief was due
March 30, 2009.  All parties have filed motions regarding the
order of briefing, which has not yet been ruled upon by the
Court.  This will affect the timing of filing of briefs.

The Court of Appeals has designated the Defendants including the
subsidiary as the Appellants.  Pursuant to the order of the
Court of Appeals, Appellants' opening briefs were filed May 20,
2009.  Appellees' responsive briefs are due Aug. 18, 2009.

Residential Capital, LLC -- https://www.rescapholdings.com/ --
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage Group, LLC, which
is a wholly owned subsidiary of GMAC LLC.  The company is real
estate finance company focused primarily on the residential real
estate market.  Its businesses include the origination,
purchase, service, sale and securitization of residential
mortgage loans.  The company conducts its operations primarily
through three operating business segments: Residential Finance
Group, Business Capital Group and International Business Group.


ST. PETERSBURG: Ordered to Repay $1.5M to Former Police Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge's ruling in a class-action lawsuit could force the City
of St. Petersburg, Florida, to pay about $1.5 million to
hundreds of former police officers, Jamal Thalji at Tampabay.com  
reports.

On Aug. 13, 2009, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Linda R. Allan
ruled that the former officers are entitled to be refunded what
they paid into the pension fund when they served as St.
Petersburg police officers.

Those officers left before working the 10 years required to be
eligible to receive pension benefits, according to Mr. Thalji.

The original plaintiffs were six officers who filed suit in
2006.  But when it was granted class-action status, according to
the plaintiffs' attorney, about 350 to 400 former officers hired
after March 12, 1999, became eligible to join in, according to
attorney Jean Kwall, Esq., of the suit's six original clients.

The city, however, said it will appeal the ruling to the Second
District Court of Appeals, Tampabay.com reported.

The police officers are represented by:

          Jean Hayden Kwall, Esq.
          Kwall, Showers & Barack, P.A.
          133 N. Ft. Harrison Ave.
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Phone: (727) 441-4947 or (813) 855-6098
          Fax: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: jkwall@ksblaw.com
          Web site: http://www.ksblaw.com/


UNITED PARCEL: Employee Files $100M FLSA Litigation in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An employee at United Parcel Service, Inc., filed a class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
MarketWatch reports.

The suit, Meza v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 09-01798
(S.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 19, 2009, by Laura Meza, a UPS
account manager in Fullerton, Calif.  It is seeking $100 million
in back pay and damages.

The suit alleges that UPS requires "thousands" of members of its
345,000-employee work force to stay on the job up to sixty hours
a week, but claims that these workers do not deserve to get
overtime pay, according to MarketWatch.

Ms. Meza is represented by:

          Jill M. Sullivan, Esq.
          Chapin Wheeler
          550 West C. Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 241-4810
          Fax: (619) 955-5318
          E-mail: jill@chapinwheeler.com


UNITED STATES: Alaskans Sue Over Federal Moratorium on Medicaid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some disabled, ill, and elderly Alaskans filed a purported
class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and the state Department of Health and Social
Services over a temporary ban that prevents them from getting
help in their home through Medicaid.

The suit, Meyers, et al. v. Sebelius, et al., Case No. 09-00175
(D. Alaska), was filed on Aug. 18, 2009, by Doreen Meyers,
Juanita Gielarowski, Barbara Olsen, and Alice Callahan.

The complaint targets a federal moratorium that bars new people
from being admitted to certain Medicaid programs that offer help
including nursing care in the home.  The programs were started
so that people don't have to live in nursing homes or be stuck
in a hospital, but according to the suit, thats what is
happening as a result of the moratorium.

The suit accuses Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, of overstepping her
authority in imposing the ban.  It also says Bill Hogan,
commissioner of the state Department of Health and Social
Services, never should have gone along with the moratorium.

The Disability Law Center of Alaska and the Northern Justice
Project filed the suit on behalf of the four named individuals,
and others like them.  They want the ban to be lifted
immediately so that everyone who qualifies gets help.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Davis, Jr., Esq.
          Northern Justice Project
          645 G. Street, Suite 100, Box 835
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Phone: 907-351-5096
          Fax: 866-813-8645
          E-mail: jjdjr2001@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Holly J. Johanknecht
          Disability Law Center of Alaska
          3330 Arctic Blvd., Suite 103
          Anchorage, AK 99503
          Phone: 907-565-1002
          Fax: 907-565-1000
          E-mail: hollyj@dlcak.org

               - and -

          Vance A. Sanders, Esq.
          Law Office of Vance A. Sanders, LLC
          P.O. Box 240090
          Douglas, AK 99824
          Phone: 907-586-1648
          Fax: 907-586-1649
          E-mail: vsanders@gci.net


WACHOVIA CORP: Settles Suits Over 1031 Tax Group Fraud for $45M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corp. agreed to pay $45 million to settle lawsuits
related to its work for the tax-deferral firm 1031 Tax Group,
LLC, whose customers were defrauded of more than $126 million by
imprisoned founder Edward Okun, Erik Larson at Bloomberg
reports.

The deal was disclosed in bankruptcy court papers filed last
week in Manhattan by the trustee liquidating 1031 Tax Group.  
The suits claim that the bank allegedly ignored Mr. Okun's fraud
in order to profit by managing 1031 Tax Group's accounts.

In one of the lawsuits, trustee Gerard McHale, sought $140
million, accusing Wachovia of helping Okun by transferring 1031
Tax Group funds to "inappropriate" accounts before the firm's
collapse in 2007.  

The settlement, which needs court approval, will also resolve a
parallel class-action suit by customers, according to Bloomberg.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed in July 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities fraud class-action lawsuit entitled Angelo
Albano, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited, et al., Case No.
06-cv-11515 (S.D.N.Y.) (Pauley, J.), was dismissed with
prejudice in July 2009.  

In November 2006, the company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in the matter.  Similar purported class
action lawsuits followed.  (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 17,
2008).  The complaints asserted claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 on behalf of a class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in connection with its IPO between Sept. 20, 2006, and
Sept. 26, 2006.

All of the cases were eventually consolidated.  A consolidated
amended complaint, which added as defendants the lead
underwriters for the IPO, was filed on May 4, 2007.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company omitted and misstated certain facts concerning its
planned transition from the sale of OVCON 35 to the sale of its
new patented product, OVCON 35 FE (now FEMCON FE).

The company and the individual defendants answered the complaint
on June 18, 2007.  The District Court certified the plaintiff
class on Feb. 4, 2008.

On April 25, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the class-action lawsuit.  The terms of the
settlement, which are subject to negotiation of definitive
documentation and must be approved by the court, include a cash
payment of $16,500,000, which is expected to be made to the
plaintiffs during 2008.  The majority of the settlement will be
funded by insurance proceeds and it will not have a material
adverse impact on the company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

The settlement was submitted to the District Court for approval
at a fairness hearing held on April 30, 2009.  No shareholder
objected to or opted out of the settlement.  On July 14, 2009,
the District Court issued a final judgment and order of
dismissal with prejudice that resolved all claims asserted
against the company and the other defendants in this case,
according to its Aug. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30,
2009.    

Representing the plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Lawrence Donald Levit, Esq. (llevit@aftlaw.com)
          Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-279-5050
          Fax: 212-279-3655

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel Shay Kirschbaum, Esq.
          (dkirschbaum@paulweiss.com)
          Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-373-3000 x3072
          Fax: 212-492-0072

               - and -

          Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. (maosdny@willkie.com)
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Lines of Credit
----------------------------------------------------------
     A class-action lawsuit accuses Wells Fargo (NYSE:WFC) of
fraud saying the bank froze millions of dollars in home equity
loans by falsely claiming that its customers' home property
values had declined significantly.

     The suit, which was filed in the Northern District of
Illinois, alleges that Wells Fargo unlawfully failed to
accurately assess the value of customers' homes before
concluding that there had been a significant decline in property
value.

     "Even putting aside the fact that what they are doing is
illegal, there's no justification for denying people these
secured credit lines in favor of unsecured high-interest credit
cards," says attorney Jay Edelson, whose law firm, KamberEdelson
LLC, filed the suit and has previously filed similar class
action lawsuits against JPMorgan Chase, WAMU and Citibank over
their respective HELOC account suspension practices.  "This is
the type of greed that lead to taxpayers having to bail out
banks like Wells Fargo in the first place."

     The class action suit is filed on behalf of Michael
Hickman, 46, of Westmont, Ill. who alleges that the credit limit
on his HELOC account was reduced due to a supposed substantial
decline in the value of his home.

     In reality, the complaint alleges, Mr. Hickman's home and
the homes of thousands of other class members did not
substantially decline in value; rather, Wells Fargo used a
variety of unreliable computer models to produce artificially
deflated values.  The suit further alleges that Wells Fargo
failed to provide customers with proper notice of the reductions
and that the bank improperly required customers to seek
reinstatement by paying upfront for their own property
appraisals.

     Adding insult to injury, following the reduction of Mr.
Hickman's HELOC credit limit, Wells Fargo offered to raise the
limit available on one of his higher-interest credit cards.

     "In this economy, what Wells Fargo and other lenders are
doing to everyday customers like Michael Hickman is simply
unconscionable," says Mr. Edelson.

     Mr. Edelson is joined on the suit by KamberEdelson
attorneys Steven Lezell, Esq., and Evan Meyers, Esq.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?424f

For more details, contact:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Steven Lezell, Esq.
          Evan Meyers, Esq.
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          350 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: 1-312-589-6370 or 1-866-354-3015
          Fax: 1-312-589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@kamberedelson.com
                  slezell@kamberedelson.com
                  emeyers@kamberedelson.com
          Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com/


* Get Free Pacer Dockets at Courtport's FreeCourtDockets.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtport, LLC, a legal research and technology company, has
launched its free federal court docket retrieval site at
http://www.FreeCourtDockets.com/to enable anyone to retrieve  
full court dockets from any U.S. district civil, criminal, or
bankruptcy court, as well as from the U.S. Supreme Court, the
U.S. Court of Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

"The public has been voicing their displeasure with the federal
government's unwillingness to provide free access to court
dockets for quite some time, and with the support of sponsors,
advertisers, and donations, we are happy to provide a solution
to this problem," said Paul Bush, CEO and founder of Courtport.

                      Free Really Means Free

To manage its data costs the site may at times limit how many
dockets a user can retrieve in a single day, but no paid
subscription or credit card information is required.  As
advertising revenue continues to increase this limitation will
be increased or eliminated.  At this time access is granted by
invitation only, and anyone can quickly apply for an invitation
on the site.

During this current economic downturn, law firms, businesses,
and private citizens are looking to reduce costs and save every
penny possible.  "If you can get a docket from Pacer, you can
get the same docket from FreeCourtDockets 100% free," Mr. Bush
adds.

                   Integrated Business Solutions

The site allows dockets to be retrieved and updated using a
simple interface, but customers who need greater volumes of
court record access with more sophistication, can do so using
Courtport's customized software.  

"In making FreeCourtDockets for the general public, we now have
the software, knowledge, and expertise to continue developing
automated aggregating, searching, tracking, and alerting
services for larger volume users including law firms, the media,
and data resellers," said Gigi Kizhakkechethipuzha, CTO of
Courtport.

                        About Courtport

Courtport, LLC, is a privately owned New York-based company,
focused on being a leading provider of inexpensive public record
research and retrieval services for professional researchers and
the general public, owns several research sites including
http://www.Courtport.com/and http://www.LegalDockets.com/and  
is actively seeking investors to expand their operations.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACCURAY INC: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Accuray,
Inc. (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/


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE:
FTK) who purchased shares between May 8, 2007 and January 23,
2008, inclusive.

     The lawsuit alleges Flotek misrepresented demand for its
product during the Class Period.  The complaint also alleges
that Flotek did not have a reasonable basis to make certain
positive statements regarding Company's business prospects.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, Georgia 30338
          Phone: (888) 508-6832 or (770) 392-0090
          Fax: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com


MGM MIRAGE: Abraham Fruchter Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP announced that a class
action law suit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of MGM
Mirage (NYSE: MGM) common stock between August 2, 2007 and March
5, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint charges MGM and certain of its officers and
directors with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements concerning MGM's financial strength, liquidity and
the prospects for the development of MGM's CityCenter.

     This caused MGM's common stock price to be artificially
inflated, allowing MGM insiders to sell close to $90 million
worth of MGM stock at higher prices than they would otherwise
have obtained.  As the true facts about MGM's deteriorating
financial condition and the Company's inability to fund the
CityCenter project leaked into the market, the inflation in the
price of MGM stock was removed, causing plaintiff and the
members of the Class damages.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of MGM common stock during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 18, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
          Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, N.Y. 10119
          Phone: (212) 279-5050
          Fax: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com


MGM MIRAGE: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of MGM
Mirage (NYSE: MGM) common stock between August 2, 2007 and March
5, 2009, inclusive.

     The complaint charges MGM and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  MGM primarily owns and operates casino resorts and offers
gaming, hotel, dining, entertainment, retail and other resort
amenities.

     During the Class Period, defendants made positive
statements about the Company's revenues and earnings.  The
complaint alleges that, at the same time, defendants made a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
MGM's liquidity and the prospects for the development of MGM's
CityCenter.  Prior to the disclosures of the true facts, MGM
insiders sold close to $90 million worth of their personally
held MGM stock to the unsuspecting public.  As the true facts
about MGM and the CityCenter leaked into the market, the
inflation in the price of MGM stock was removed, causing
plaintiff and the members of the Class damages.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of MGM's common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Fax: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/mgm/


MGM MIRAGE: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit in Nev.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     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 District of Nevada on behalf of those who purchased the
common stock of MGM Mirage (NYSE: MGM) between August 2, 2007
and March 5, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that MGM and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants made a series of materially
false and misleading statements concerning MGM's liquidity and
the prospects for the development of MGM's CityCenter.  Prior to
the disclosures of the true facts, MGM insiders sold close to
$90 million worth of their personally held MGM stock to the
public.  As the true facts about MGM and the CityCenter leaked
into the market, the price of MGM stock declined.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 19, 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/mgm/


MGM MIRAGE: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
MGM Mirage (NYSE: MGM) for securities violations related to
public statements made by the company between August 2, 2007 and
March 5, 2009.

     The complaint, filed in the District of Nevada, charges MGM
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
federal securities laws concerning a series of false and
misleading statements concerning MGM's liquidity and the
prospects for the development of MGM's CityCenter.  MGM
primarily owns and operates casino resorts.

     Company insiders sold almost $90 million worth of their
personally held MGM stock just before the true facts about MGM
and the CityCenter leaked into the market.  At that time, the
inflation in the price of MGM stock was removed, causing damage
to the shareholders.


     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 18, 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


TEXTRON INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud 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 District of Rhode Island on behalf of those who purchased
the securities of Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT) between July 17,
2007 and January 29, 2009, inclusive.

     The Complaint charges that Textron and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following materially adverse facts:

       -- Textron was accepting orders for business jets from a
          growing number of customers that were mere startup
          and/or financially distressed fleet operators who
          neither intended nor possessed the financial resources
          to pay for or take delivery of aircraft during 2008-09
          and beyond, which materially inflated Textron's
          "backlog" of unfilled orders for the Company's Cessna
          Aircraft ("Cessna") segment, which in turn materially
          overstated Textron's current financial condition and
          future prospects;

       -- that hundreds of orders reported as "backlog" at
          Cessna for future business-jet production were subject
          to deferral and cancellation causing the Company to
          overstate its projected fiscal 2008-09 business-jet
          production and to initiate production cutbacks and
          worker reduction programs, which eroded Textron's
          revenues and earnings;

       -- Textron's Finance segment had incurred material losses
          in the fair market value of its finance receivables
          and other financial assets, which were omitted from or
          misrepresented in the Company's periodic reports of
          earnings and income; and

       -- in light of its Finance segment's losses and the
          additional debt the Company would incur, Textron's
          credit ratings were deteriorating.

     On January 29, 2009, Textron announced that an estimated
$30 million in "restructuring" costs would be incurred by
Textron's Cessna segment due to production cutbacks and worker
layoffs planned for the first quarter of 2009.  On this news,
Textron's common stock fell to a close of $9.09 per share, or
31%.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 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/textron/



                        Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rockwell Automation Still Has Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) is still
a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of the
Company's products many years ago.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as a defendant, together with hundreds of other
companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by the
Company's former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors
and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture
by the Company, which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC) divested measurement
and flow control business.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast
majority of these claims with no payment to claimants.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it
believes covers indemnity and defense costs (over and above
self-insured retentions) for claims arising from the Company's
former Allen-Bradley subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance
carriers to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and
future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper
buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay
the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds
are depleted.

The Company said it believes that these arrangements will
continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims
throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability.

Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation, Inc. provides industrial
automation power, control and information solutions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Skilled Healthcare Records $5.4M Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement
liability was US$5,451,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$5,372,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos abatement liability was
US$5,419,000 as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May
15, 2009)

Foothill Ranch, Calif.-based Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
operates long-term care facilities and provides post-acute care
services, with an emphasis on sub-acute specialty medical care.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Steel Holding Still Has Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.),
since 1990, has been facing numerous lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who
claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the
premises of a current or former AK Steel facility.

About 40 percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of
exposure at a facility in Houston that has been closed since
1984. When an asbestos lawsuit initially is filed, the complaint
typically does not include a specific dollar claim for damages.  

Since the onset of asbestos claims against the Company in 1990,
five asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of
the Company.

West Chester, Ohio-based AK Steel Holding Corporation makes
carbon, stainless, and electrical steel. It sells hot- and cold-
rolled carbon steel to construction companies, steel
distributors and service centers, and automotive and industrial
machinery producers. The Company also sells cold-rolled and
aluminum-coated stainless steel to automakers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Energy Future Records $875M ARO at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement liability at
June 30, 2009 was US$875 million, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 4, 2009.

The Company's asset retirement liability at March 31, 2009 was
US$867 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

Dallas-based Energy Future Holdings Corp. is a holding company
conducting operations principally through its Texas Competitive
Electric Holdings Company LLC and its TCEH and Oncor Electric
Delivery Company LLC subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $320.27M Long-Term Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$320,271,000 as of July 3, 2009, compared with US$328,684,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4,
2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$324,905,000 as
of April 3, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,260,000 as of July 3, 2009, compared with US$28,574,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was
US$217,390,000 as of July 3, 2009, compared with US$277,542,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance asset was US$26,178,000
as of July 3, 2009, compared with US$26,473,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$35,351,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

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: Claims v. Colfax Drop to 29,279 at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 29,279 unresolved asbestos claims
during the six months ended July 3, 2009, compared with 36,620
unresolved claims during the six months ended June 27, 2008,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2009.

The Company had 34,421 unresolved asbestos claims during the
three months ended April 3, 2009, compared with 37,632 claims
during the three months ended March 28, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, June 5, 2009)

During the six months ended July 3, 2009, the Company recorded
1,776 claims filed and 7,854 claims resolved. During the six
months ended June 27, 2009, the Company recorded 2,390 claims
filed and 3,324 claims resolved.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many
defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products
manufactured with components that are alleged to have contained
asbestos. Those components were acquired from third-party
suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries
nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of
asbestos.

The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained
asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of
the subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

Of the 29,279 pending claims, about 7,500 of those claims have
been brought in various federal and state courts in Mississippi;
about 3,000 of those claims have been brought in the Supreme
Court of New York County, N.Y.; about 200 of those claims have
been brought in the Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and
about 1,600 claims have been filed in state courts in Michigan
and the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of
Michigan.

The remaining pending claims have been filed in state and
federal courts in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Washington.

To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for
no payment.

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: Colfax Records $348.5Mil Reserves at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established reserves of US$348.5 million
as of July 3, 2009 and US$357.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008 for
the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability
cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15
years.

The Company had established reserves of US$353.3 million as of
April 3, 2009 for the probable and reasonably estimable
asbestos-related liability cost it believes the subsidiaries
will pay through the next 15 years. (Class Action Reporter, June
5, 2009)

The Company has also established recoverables of US$297.6
million as of July 3, 2009 and US$304 million as of Dec. 31,
2008 for the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable
during the same time period.

Net of these recoverables, the Company's expected cash outlay on
a non-discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims
over the next 15 years was US$51 million as of July 3, 2009 and
US$53.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

In addition the Company has recorded a receivable for liability
and defense costs it had previously paid in the amount of
US$35.4 million as of July 3, 2009 and US$36.4 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008, for which insurance recovery is deemed probable.

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: ConEd, Units Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suits are brought in New York State and federal courts against
Consolidated Edison, Inc. subsidiaries, wherein plaintiffs
sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for
deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at
various premises of the Utilities.

These Utilities are Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. and
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

The suits that have been resolved have been resolved without any
payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the
aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the
remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars.

However, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly
exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

In 2008, Con Edison of New York estimated that its aggregate
undiscounted potential liability for these suits and additional
suits that may be brought over the next 15 years is US$9
million.

The Company's accrued liability for asbestos suits was US$10
million at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Its regulatory
assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million at June 30, 2009
and Dec. 31, 2008. Accrued liability for workers' compensation
was US$114 million at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.
Regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$38 million
at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

Con Edison of New York's accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$9 million at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Its
regulatory assets for asbestos suits were US$9 million at June
30, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. Accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$108 million at June 30, 2009 and US$109
million at Dec. 31, 2008. Regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$38 million at June 30, 2009 and Dec. 31,
2008.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City. It also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more
than 427,000 electric and gas customers in three states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Facing 100 Steam Main Rupture Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 lawsuits are pending against Consolidated Edison, Inc.
concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York's steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July 2007.

Over 90 lawsuits are pending against Con Ed of New York, over
the steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July 2007. (Class
Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

It has been reported that one person died and others were
injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and
mud containing asbestos.

The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods. The pending suits
seek unspecified compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages, for personal injury, property damage and business
interruption.

The Company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The
Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said it
believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident
will cover most of the Company's costs.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to more than 3.2 million residential and business customers in
New York City. It also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million
customers. Subsidiary Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more
than 427,000 electric and gas customers in three states.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Graham Corp. Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation is still a defendant in certain lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos contained in
products made by the Company, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 4, 2009.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits. The claims are similar to previous asbestos
suits that named the Company as defendant, which either were
dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied
products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for
minimal amounts below the expected defense costs.

The outcome of these lawsuits cannot be determined at this time.

Batavia, N.Y.-based Graham Corporation designs and manufactures
custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum systems, condensers, liquid
ring pump packages and heat exchangers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Has Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is still a defendant in various
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene while working at refineries located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma.

These refineries were previously owned by predecessors of
acquired companies, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 4,
2009.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation is an independent oil and natural gas exploration
and production company. The Company explores for, develops,
produces, gathers, processes, and markets natural gas, crude
oil, condensate and natural gas liquids (NGLs).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MLIC Receives 1,726 New Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC), received 1,726 new asbestos-related claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 2,863 claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2008.

MLIC received 981 new asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2009, compared with 2,005 new claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May
22, 2009)

As reported in the 2008 Annual Report, MLIC received 5,063
asbestos-related claims in 2008.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek
both actual and punitive damages.

MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing,
producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-
containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers'
compensation insurance to companies in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with
respect to certain research, publication and other activities of
one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s
through approximately the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or
should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos
and improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks.

During 1998, MLIC paid US$878 million in premiums for excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims. The excess
insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provided for
recovery of losses up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a US$400
million self-insured retention.

The Company's initial option to commute the excess insurance
policies for asbestos-related claims would have arisen at the
end of 2008. On Sept. 29, 2008, MLIC entered into agreements
commuting the excess insurance policies at Sept. 30, 2008.

As a result of the commutation of the policies, MLIC received
cash and securities totaling US$632 million. Of this total, MLIC
received US$115 million in fixed maturity securities on Sept.
26, 2008, US$200 million in cash on Oct. 29, 2008, and US$317
million in cash on Jan. 29, 2009.

MLIC recognized a loss on commutation of the policies in the
amount of US$35.3 million during 2008.

New York-based MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, employee
benefits and financial services with operations throughout the
United States and the Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific
regions.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Faces 1,183 Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of June 30, 2009, of the
3,313 asbestos cases brought against subsidiary Central Hudson
Gas & Electric Corporation, 1,183 remain pending.

Central Hudson, as of March 31, 2009, faced 1,184 asbestos cases
out of the 3,313 cases that had been filed against it. (Class
Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,978
have been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central
Hudson, and Central Hudson has settled 152 cases.

Central Hudson is presently unable to assess the validity of the
remaining asbestos lawsuits. Accordingly, it cannot determine
the ultimate liability relating to these cases.

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group, Inc. Central Hudson
Gas & Electric unit provides electricity to about 300,000
electric and 74,000 natural gas customers in eight counties of
New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers natural
gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service territory
that extends from New York to Albany.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Automotive Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. continue
to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2009.

These claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted
from exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the
Company's subsidiaries. The Company said it believes that the
majority of the claimants were assembly workers at the major
U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers
of various products allegedly containing asbestos.

Neither the Company's settlement costs in connection with
asbestos claims nor its annual legal fees to defend these claims
have been material in the past. The Company has been successful
in obtaining the dismissal of many cases without any payment
whatsoever.

Livonia, Mich.-based TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers and related aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mass. Court Upholds Ruling in Clemens Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed a trial court's
ruling, which upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of
Vermont Mutual Insurance Company and ServiceMaster by Gilmore
Brothers, Inc., in a case filed by Richard Clemens.

The case is styled Richard Clemens v. Vermont Mutual Insurance
Company & another (ServiceMaster by Gilmore Brothers, Inc.)

Judges R. Marc Kantrowitz, James McHugh and William J. Meade
entered judgment in Case No. 08-P-680 on July 2, 2009.

As the result of a boiler breach, subsequent clean-up efforts,
and the denial of his insurance claim, Mr. Clemens commenced
this action against ServiceMaster and Vermont Mutual.

On appeal, Mr. Clemens claimed error in the grant of summary
judgment to the defendants.

Mr. Clemens contended that the grant of summary judgment to
Servicemaster and Vermont Mutual on the negligence claims was
improper because the record permitted the inference that
ServiceMaster's use of high velocity fans during the cleanup
process broadcast asbestos throughout the basement of his East
Boston property.

The Appeals Court concluded that summary judgment was properly
entered.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 130,500 U.S. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United States faced
130,500 open asbestos claims during the fiscal quarter and
fiscal six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 130,740
claims during the fiscal quarter and fiscal six months ended
June 27, 2008.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United States faced 131,010
open asbestos claims during the fiscal three months ended March
31, 2009, compared with 130,810 during the fiscal three months
ended March 28, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

During the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009, the Company
recorded 1,040 new claims in the U.S. and 1,550 claims resolved
in the U.S. During the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2008, the
Company recorded 1,800 new claims in the U.S. and 1,870 claims
resolved in the U.S.

During the fiscal six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company
recorded 2,340 new claims in the U.S. and 2,600 claims resolved
in the U.S. During the fiscal six months ended June 27, 2009,
the Company recorded 2,820 new claims filed in the U.S. and
3,420 claims resolved in the U.S.

Total asbestos-related assets were US$269,200,000 as of June 30,
2009, compared with US$284,800,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008.

Total asbestos-related liabilities were US$356,100,000 as of
June 30, 2009, compared with US$385,300,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008.

The Company's estimated asbestos liability decreased during the
fiscal six months ended June 30, 2009 as a result of payments
amounting to about US$34 million, partially offset by an
increase of US$4.8 million related to the rolling 15-year
asbestos-related liability estimate.

As of June 30, 2009, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of $139,900 relating to open
(outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated liability of
$216,200 relating to future unasserted claims through the fiscal
second quarter of 2024.

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: Foster Wheeler Cites $25.9M Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG, as of June 30, 2009, estimated the value of
its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries'
insurers at US$25.9 million.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$25.9 million. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the subsidiaries' various insurers and its
subsidiaries as self-insurers.

Over the last several years, certain of the Company's
subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for
insurers to make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over
time, for use by the subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related
indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for
reimbursement for portions of out-of-pocket costs previously
incurred.

There were no settlements during the fiscal six months ended
June 30, 2009.

In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of
a New York state trial court decision that previously had held
that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the above
coverage litigation with its subsidiaries' insurers, and as a
result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$19.5 million.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On Oct.
11, 2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate
court decision in Foster Wheeler's favor.

The Company had net cash outflows of US$17.2 million as a result
of asbestos liability indemnity payments and defense costs in
excess of insurance settlement proceeds during the fiscal six
months ended June 30, 2009.

The Company expects to fund a total of US$26.5 million of the
asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs from its cash
flows in fiscal year 2009, net of the cash expected to be
received from existing insurance settlements.

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: Foster Wheeler U.K. Units Facing 363 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, as of
June 3, 2009, faced 363 claims alleging personal injury arising
from exposure to asbestos.

To date, 916 claims have been brought against the subsidiaries.

The Company's subsidiaries in the U.K., as of March 31, 2009,
faced 357 claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure
to asbestos. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

As of June 30, 2009, the Company had recorded total liabilities
of US$43.9 million comprised of an estimated liability relating
to open (outstanding) claims of US$9.1 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through the
fiscal second quarter of 2024 of US$34.8 million.

Of the total, US$3.2 million was recorded in accrued expenses
and US$40.7 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability
on the consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$3.2 million
was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$40.7
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.

If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$59.6 million.

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: Fresenius Still Party to Sealed Air Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA is engaged in litigation
with Sealed Air Corporation to confirm its entitlement to
indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses and expenses
incurred by the Company relating to pre-Merger tax liabilities
and Merger-related claims.

The Company was originally formed as a result of a series of
transactions it completed under the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between W. R.
Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE (Merger).

At the time of the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W. R.
Grace & Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant
liabilities arising out of product-liability related litigation
(including asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and
other claims unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC),
which was Grace's dialysis business prior to the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to
indemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of
Grace, whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations. Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
(Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings) on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace
and FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf
of the Grace bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, alleging among other things that the Merger was a
fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer
act and constituted a conspiracy. All those cases have been
stayed and transferred to or are pending before the U.S.
District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate
and Grace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and
tax claims against it and other claims related to the Company
that arise out of the bankruptcy of Grace.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total of
US$115 million without interest to the Grace bankruptcy estate,
or as otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation.
No admission of liability has been or will be made.

The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District
Court. Subsequent to the Merger, Grace was involved in a multi-
step transaction involving Sealed Air Corporation.

Under the Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that
satisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation,
the Sealed Air litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Bad Homburg, Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA
provides dialysis services and manufacturing and distributing
products and equipment for the treatment of end-stage renal
disease (ESRD). In the United States, the Company also performs
clinical laboratory testing.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Still Party to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (or its subsidiaries) is still facing
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due
to exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug.
5, 2009.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities
previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's subsidiaries. The
Company anticipates that additional claims like those received
may be asserted in the future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known
as NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas
LP, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
NRG Texas LP.

The Company has agreed to continue to defend those claims to the
extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the Company,
subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense from the
purchaser.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s operating subsidiaries
own and operate electric transmission and distribution
facilities, natural gas distribution facilities, interstate
pipelines and natural gas gathering, processing and treating
facilities. As of June 30, 2009, the Company's subsidiaries
included CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Columbus McKinnon Liability Stays at $8.8M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's asbestos-related liability
remains at US$8.8 million as of June 30, 2009.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability was about US$8.8 million, which had
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June
12, 2009)

The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate
liability including related legal costs through March 31, 2027
and March 31, 2039 to range between US$5.5 million and US$15.5
million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 18 to 30 years.

Of the US$8.8 million, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of about US$400,000 over the next 12 months.

Amherst, N.Y.-based Columbus McKinnon Corporation designs,
markets and manufactures material handling products, systems and
services, which efficiently and ergonomically move, lift,
position and secure material. Products include hoists, cranes,
rigging tools including chain and forged attachments, and
actuators.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 600 Stearns Lawsuits Ongoing v. RBS Global
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. is involved in 600 lawsuits (with 3,700
claimants) over alleged personal injuries due to asbestos in
certain brakes and clutches previously made by its Stearns
division and its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2009.

The Company faced 650 lawsuits with about 5,400 claimants over
alleged personal injuries due to asbestos in certain brakes and
clutches previously made by Stearns and its predecessor owners.
(Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and
Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prager Still Has 1 Lawsuit (3.7T Claimants)
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in a pending
multi-defendant lawsuit relating to alleged personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.

There are about 3,700 claimants in this Prager lawsuit. To date,
the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent of the
costs related to the Prager asbestos claims.

The Company said it believes that the combination of its
insurance coverage and the Invensys plc indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of this suit.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and
Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Falk Facing 180 Lawsuits (1,400 Claimants)
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit, through its successor entity,
faces about 180 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by Falk.

There are about 1,400 claimants in these suits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2009.

The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be
determined. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is defending the
Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date.

Falk faced 170 lawsuits (1,380 claimants) pending in state or
federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged
personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in
certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk.
(Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and
Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zurn Involved in 5,750 Lawsuits at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn subsidiary and about 100 other
companies, as of June 27, 2009, faced 5,750 asbestos-related
lawsuits representing about 33,750 claims.

Zurn and 100 unrelated companies, as of March 31, 2009, faced
about 5,800 asbestos lawsuits with about 39,500 claims. (Class
Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

The suits allege damages in an aggregate amount of about US$15.7
billion against all defendants. Plaintiffs' claims allege
personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos used primarily
in industrial boilers formerly manufactured by a segment of
Zurn.

Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or asbestos components.
Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers. These claims are
being handled pursuant to a defense strategy funded by insurers.

As of June 27, 2009, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as
well as the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to
be about US$90 million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$79
million in the next 10 years on those claims, with the balance
of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and
Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RBS Global Has $272.5M Insurance at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. estimates that its available insurance to cover
its potential asbestos liability as of June 27, 2009 is US$272.5
million, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2009.

The Company said its available insurance to cover its potential
asbestos liability as of March 31, 2009 was US$276 million.
(Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of
certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage
gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers have
paid the first US$196.5 million of aggregate liabilities. In
order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from
solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would
need to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims.

Layered within the final US$25 million of the total US$272.5
million of coverage, management estimates that it would need to
satisfy an additional US$80 million of asbestos claims.

As of June 27, 2009, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$90 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$272.5 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that
subsidiary Zurn's asbestos liabilities will not ultimately
exceed US$272.5 million.

Milwaukee-based RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial
company comprised of two key segments: Power Transmission and
Water Management.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ashland Inc. Facing 103T Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 103,000 open asbestos claims during the nine
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 115,000 during the
nine months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company faced 106,000 open asbestos claims during the six
months ended March 31, 2009, compared with 117,000 claims during
the six months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May
29, 2009)

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims
result primarily from indemnification obligations undertaken in
1990 in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation, a
former subsidiary.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
2,000 new claims filed, 1,000 claims settled, and 13,000 claims
dismissed. During the nine months ended June 30, 2008, the
Company recorded 3,000 new claims filed, 2,000 claims settled,
and 20,000 claims dismissed.

Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$551 million at June
30, 2009, compared with US$572 million at Sept. 30, 2008 and
US$580 million at June 30, 2008.

At June 30, 2009, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$437 million, of which US$71 million relates to
costs previously paid.

Receivables from insurers amounted to US$458 million at Sept.
30, 2008 and US$468 million at June 30, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Has 24,000 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Hercules Incorporated,
faced 24,000 open asbestos claims as of June 30, 2009, compared
with 27,000 claims as of Nov. 13, 2008, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2009.

Hercules faced 27,000 open asbestos claims, during the six
months ended March 31, 2009, the same as for the three months
ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009)

Those claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos
fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products which were
sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited
industrial market.

From Nov. 13, 2008 through June 30, 2009, Hercules recorded
1,000 new claims filed and 4,000 claims dismissed.

Total reserves for Hercules asbestos claims were US$365 million
at June 30, 2009. As of June 30, 2009 the receivables from
insurers amounted to US$57 million.

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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Party to 20 Hilco Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of June 30, 2009, there
are 20 plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits relating to alleged sales
of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by Hilco,
Inc.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Subsequent to June 30, 2009, one plaintiff has had their action
settled and one plaintiff has filed an action against Hilco,
which results in 20 remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of June 30, 2009, 12 filed actions
in 2007, three filed actions in 2006, one filed an action in
2005, two filed actions in 2004, and one filed an action in
2003.

There are 190 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 14 other plaintiffs that have settled as of June
30, 2009 for a total of US$3,359,500. There has been no judgment
against Hilco.

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC),
parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and
plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New
Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern
Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Supply Faces 13 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp.'s subsidiary, Universal Supply Group,
Inc., as of June 30, 2009, faced asbestos cases with 13
plaintiffs.

In the past, Universal was named by 36 plaintiffs. Of these, 11
filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in 2006, 11 filed
actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one filed an action
in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Twenty-one plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,359,500 of settled actions, two
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$26,500.

No money was paid by Universal in connection with any
settlement.

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC),
parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and
plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New
Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern
Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RAL Supply Still Facing 1 Action at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corporation's RAL Supply Group, Inc.
subsidiary, as of June 30, 2009, faced one asbestos-related
injury lawsuit.

RAL and other companies have been sued in the Supreme Court of
New York (Orange County) by a plaintiff filing a lawsuit on or
about July 30, 2008 alleging injury due to asbestos.

As of June 30, 2009, there existed one plaintiff in a lawsuit
relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or products
containing asbestos.

The lawsuit alleges injury due to asbestos during the 1970s,
prior to the RAL Predecessor's acquisition of assets from Dyson-
Kissner-Moran Corporation and RAL's acquisition of assets from
the RSG, Inc.

The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

RSG, Inc. agreed in the RAL APA to indemnify and hold harmless
RAL from and against damages that relate to products sold or
manufactured or services performed or other actions taken or
omitted by RSG, Inc. prior to the closing of the acquisition.  

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC),
parts and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and
plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New
Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern
Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sangamon County Local Gets $2MM in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Sangamon County, Ill., awarded US$2 million in damages
to 69-year-old William Willis, a postal worker and part-time
handyman, for his injuries related to exposure to asbestos, The
State Journal-Register reports.

Mr. Willis, who lived most of his life in Williamsville and
Springfield, was a night-shift U.S. Postal Service employee from
1966 until retiring in 1992. During the trial before Circuit
Judge Pete Cavanagh, Mr. Willis said that he did various odd
jobs during the day, including truck and bus driving and home
construction and repair in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Willis alleged in his suit that he had used asbestos-
containing pipe manufactured by CertainTeed Corp. and asbestos-
containing joint compound made by Bondex International Inc. and
Georgia-Pacific Corp. He alleged that he had developed pleural
mesothelioma.

The jury found Bondex International alone liable and awarded Mr.
Willis US$1.5 million in damages and his wife, Sharon Willis,
US$500,000 for loss of consortium. It found CertainTeed and
Georgia-Pacific not to be negligent.

The defendants argued that Mr. Willis had used their products
decades ago and was mistaken about which products he actually
used.

Stephen Kaufmann, Esq., of the Springfield office of HeplerBroom
LLC, along with other HeplerBroom colleagues, represented
Georgia-Pacific, one of the three defendants who remained
through trial.

Mr. Willis' pretrial motion asking to add a claim for punitive
damages was denied. The jury award is subject to a reduction of
US$1.4 million due to prior settlement amounts.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Cites $119.8M Adjustments at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. recorded asbestos adjustments of
US$119.8 million during the three months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$40.5 million during the three months ended June
30, 2008, according to a Company press release dated Aug. 18,
2009.

Current asbestos liability was US$92.5 million as of June 30,
2009, compared with US$78.2 million as of March 31, 2009.
Workers' compensation liability was US$700,000 as of June 30,
2009, compared with US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009.

Long-term asbestos liability was US$1.403 billion as of June 30,
2009, compared with US$1.206 billion as of March 31, 2009.
Workers' compensation liability was US$87.3 million as of June
30, 2009, compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31, 2009.

The current asbestos insurance receivable was US$14.9 million as
of June 30, 2009, compared with US$12.6 million as of March 31,
2009. Current workers' compensation asset was US$700,000 as of
June 30, 2009, compared with US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009.

Current asbestos-related deferred income taxes were US$14.6
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$12.3 million as of
March 31, 2009.

The long-term insurance receivable was US$172 million as of June
30, 2009, compared with US$149 million as of March 31, 2009.
Long-term workers' compensation asset was US$87.3 million as of
June 30, 2009, compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31,
2009.

Long-term asbestos-related deferred income taxes were US$391.6
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$333.2 million as
of March 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie
Industries N.V. uses cellulose-reinforced fiber cement to create
products for residential and commercial construction, including
siding (Hardiplank), external cladding, walls, fencing, and
roofing. The Company also makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
pipe through its Hardie Pipe business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tektoniks Fined $2.4T for Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued a US$2,400
penalty to Walla Walla, Wash.-based Tektoniks Corporation for
asbestos removal violations, the East Oregonian reports.

The DEQ fined Tektoniks for two asbestos abatement projects
(removing vinyl tile containing asbestos at 1889 E. Highland
Ave, in Hermiston and removing vinyl flooring containing
asbestos at 868 College St. in Milton-Freewater).

The DEQ gave Tektoniks until Aug. 19, 2009 to respond before the
fine is due.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Former BP Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Woking Coroners Court, held on Aug. 12, 2009,
heard that the death of Wilfred Oldham, who once worked for BP
p.l.c., was linked to exposure to asbestos.

Mr. Oldham, who died at the age of 85, was a resident of
Ashtead, Surrey, England. He was exposed to asbestos during the
early part of his career while working for BP.

The inquest heard Mr. Oldham's exposure caused him to develop
malignant mesothelioma. He died on April 2009.

The inquest heard Mr. Oldham had smoked, but not in the past 30
years of his life. He was under the care of the Princess Alice
Hospice in the last months of his life.

Coroner Michael Burgess recorded a verdict of death caused by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 2 Vermont Firms Fined for CAA/NESHAP Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Vermont real estate and demolition company together face a
penalty of nearly US$30,000 for alleged violations of the Clean
Air Act and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Asbestos, according to a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency press release dated Aug. 6, 2009.

In March 2008, the JIDDU/SIDDU Trust of Colchester, Vt., and CRC
Excavating, LLC of Middlesex, Vt., demolished buildings on two
residential lots in Essex Junction, at 231 and 235 Pearl Street,
as part of a commercial project to build a three-story, 35-unit
apartment building on the combined lot.

EPA's complaint alleges that JIDDU/SIDDU and CRC failed to
thoroughly inspect for asbestos prior to demolishing the
buildings and failed to provide EPA with prior written
notification of its intent to demolish as is required under
Federal asbestos demolition standards. The two companies could
face a fine of US$29,308 for the alleged violations.

About 75,106 pounds (about 120 cubic yards) of demolition debris
was removed from the properties and disposed of at a waste
transfer station as non-asbestos containing waste without proper
inspection. Available information indicates that JIDDU/SIDDU
tested limited debris remaining after the demolition, but did
not identify any remaining asbestos on the property.

The federal Clean Air Act and the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP) require
owners and operators of demolition and renovation operations to
follow certain inspection and notification requirements prior to
beginning such operations, and to abide by specific work
practice and waste disposal requirements when the owners and
operators identify the presence of regulated asbestos-containing
material.

These violations of the Asbestos NESHAP could have posed
significant health risks to the surrounding community, as well
as to the employees conducting the demolition, since there was
no evaluation of any potential asbestos risks that may have been
raised from the demolition work.

However, at this time, EPA is not aware of any specific harm
caused by the violations alleged in this case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gilkison Cleared in CSX Transportation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the U.S. District Court, on Aug. 14, 2009, cleared
Robert Gilkison in an asbestos-related suit involving CSX
Transportation Inc., The State Journal reports.

Mr. Gilkison is an investigator for Robert Peirce & Associates,
P.C. (f/k/a Peirce, Raimond & Coulter P.C.).

Mr. Gilkison was found not responsible for the fraud perpetrated
by former CSX railroad employee Ricky May of Ashland, Ky., and
Daniel Jayne of Largo, Fla.

Because Peirce was sued because Mr. Gilkison was their employee,
the law firm was by default also exonerated. Afterward, Peirce
patriarch Robert Peirce, Esq., was pleased with the outcome.

CSX legal counsel Marc Williams, Esq., referred questions to CSX
spokesman Bob Sullivan, who said the Company is disappointed in
the jury's decision. He said, "CSX Transportation brought this
case because it felt it important to stand up to fraudulent
actions against our company and our employees and do our part to
ensure that this state's legal system operates fairly."

The suit stems from a June 13, 2000, asbestos screening at which
Mr. May, who had tested negative for asbestos exposure in the
late 1990s, asked Mr. Jayne, another ex-railroader who had
previously tested positive, to be X-rayed in his place.

Based on that faked X-ray, Peirce sued CSX Transportation on Mr.
May's behalf. Mr. May eventually settled for an US$8,000 cash
settlement.

However, CSX was tipped to the fraud by two anonymous callers in
October 2003. Charges were filed against Mr. May and Mr. Jayne
two years later.

Mr. May, who has since repaid the money, told the jury Mr.
Gilkinson gave him the idea for the switch when they were
drinking after a union meeting. Mr. Gilkison, however, testified
that he did not take Mr. May seriously and considered him "a
sneaky guy who helped get us business."

Mr. Gilkison said he considered Mr. May's threats to be
"rantings and ravings" of an angry man and feared being held
liable if he accused Mr. May of wrongdoing without proof.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup at Former Deena Facility Cost $400T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of the removal of 2,450 tons of asbestos debris at the
former Deena Products manufacturing plant in Arlington, Ky.,
costs US$400,000, The Paducah Sun reports.

Chase Environmental completed emergency work to remove the
material on July 29, 2009 under a contract that the Energy and
Environment Cabinet's Division of Waste Management.

Thousands of tons of other debris and a dilapidated building
remain on the Carlisle County site. Shawn Cecil of the Kentucky
Superfund Branch, said, "The rest of the material is the
responsibility of the property owner."

Three of the four original buildings have been razed, and debris
from at least two of those remains piled on concrete slabs that
were part of the buildings.

Deena operated the electroplating factory to manufacture lamp
fixtures until 1987. The plant, which opened in 1949, at one
time employed more than 300 people.

The contamination was discovered in debris while portions of the
building were being torn down, according to a news release from
the state. While the removal work was expensive, state officials
said it was half of the estimated cost of about US$800,000.

The state's Hazardous Waste Management Fund, which is set aside
by the legislature to address emergencies created by releases of
hazardous substances, paid for the work.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collier Lawsuit Filed v. 7 Firms on Aug. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 5, 2009, Amanda Elizabeth Collier, on behalf of her
husband, Forrest Collier, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
seven defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court
in Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Defendants are Babcock Borsig AG, CBS Corporation, Crown Cork &
Seal Company Inc, Guard-Line Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Uniroyal.

Mrs. Collier said that Mr. Collier already filed a lawsuit or
settled claims for his non-malignant disease with at least one
of the defending companies. Now she seeks more compensation
because he died from a different malignant asbestos-related
injury.

According to the suit, Mrs. Collier claims the defendants failed
to test the asbestos-containing products around which Mr.
Collier worked as a lab technician. She says the defendant
companies were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Collier
about the dangers of asbestos.

Mrs. Collier states the companies also negligently failed to
remove their asbestos products from the market after they became
aware of the products' dangers.

Mrs. Collier seeks unspecified actual and exemplary damages,
plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief the
Court deems appropriate.

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

Case No. B184-615 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson,
60th District Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial in Morin Action Scheduled for Oct. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos case filed against Holyoke Soldiers' Home
Superintendent Paul A. Morin is scheduled for a final pre-trial
conference on Sept. 14, 2009 and trial on Oct. 5, 2009, The
Republican reports.

Judge C. Jeffrey Kinder denied Mr. Morin's motion to dismiss the
criminal charge of violation of the Clean Air Act against the
56-year-old Mr. Morin, of 511 Grattan St., in Chicopee, Mass.

Judge Kinder said he did not agree with any of the points that
defense lawyer David P. Hoose, Esq., argued were reasons to
dismiss the charge.

Mr. Morin is on unpaid leave from his US$114,345-a-year post at
the facility, according to a spokeswoman for the state Executive
Office of Health and Human Resources.

Mr. Morin, the one-time national commander of the American
Legion, was initially placed on paid leave in December 2008, but
after his indictment he was placed on unpaid leave according to
state guidelines, the spokeswoman said.

State prosecutors contend that by ordering workers to take down
part of a wall between two bathrooms in a renovation project,
Mr. Morin had violated the law, even though the wall itself
contained no asbestos. Pipes inside the wall were wrapped in
asbestos, the state said.

The incident, investigated by the Massachusetts Environmental
Crimes Strike Force which includes officials from the Attorney
General's Office, environmental police, and the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, occurred during a
massive renovation of the home in October 2007.

Judge Kinder said that the charge against Mr. Morin is correct
under state law governing pollution.

State regulations require that asbestos be removed by licensed
contractors who ensure workers are wearing protective suits and
breathing apparatus.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cotgrave Resident's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 54-year-old Glenn William
Fowler, of Cotgrave, Nottinghamshire, England, was linked to
exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

Mr. Fowler died on Aug. 8, 2009 at the Hayward House hospice at
City Hospital. He worked for several years as a site manager for
the city council.

The inquest at Nottingham Coroner's Court heard that Mr. Fowler
contracted mesothelioma. Coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a
verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rossendale Local's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Burnley Coroner's Court heard that the death
of Robert Carroll, of Rossendale, East Lancashire, England, was
linked to exposure to asbestos, the Lancashire Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Carroll's widow, Mary Carroll, said that for years, her
husband would come home from work covered in asbestos dust.

He initially worked for John Woods, in Guardian Street,
Ramsbottom, later moving to Walmsley's Engineers, Bolton, which
became Beloit.

The inquest heard that the 70-year-old Mr. Carroll was found
dead at his home in Eden Avenue, Edenfield, near Rawtenstall, on
March 6, 2009.

An autopsy by Dr. Walid Salman showed that a malignant tumor had
infiltrated Mr. Carroll's diaphragm, chest wall and heart
cavity.

Dr. Salman said that although the official cause of death was
broncho-pneumonia, he believed that the tumor, most likely to
have been caused by exposure to asbestos, chiefly contributed to
Mr. Carroll's death.

Stuart Hunter, assistant coroner for East Lancashire, recording
an industrial disease verdict, said he was satisfied that
exposure to asbestos had resulted in the fatal tumor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colne Navy Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Edward Earnshaw, a resident
of Colne, Lancashire, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, the Burnley Express reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Earnshaw died from the exposure he
endured while serving with the Royal Navy.

Dr. Walid Salman's post mortem examination revealed Mr.
Earnshaw, who died in January 2009 at the age of 80, had
suffered mesothelioma.

In a statement from Mr. Earnshaw's wife, the court heard how Mr.
Earnshaw had joined the Royal Navy in 1947, but spent most of
his working life helping with a family business.

However, during his time with the Navy, Mr. Earnshaw had worked
on insulated boilers and was exposed to asbestos every day, Mrs.
Earnshaw said.

East Lancashire assistant deputy coroner Mr. J.S. Hunter
recorded the cause of death as industrial disease.

Mr. Hunter added the Ministry of Defence has admitted full
liability, which has allowed Mr. Earnshaw's industries pension
to continue after his death.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bracknell Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 86-year-old Kenneth Bird, a
retired draftsman from Bracknell, Berkshire, England, was linked
to exposure to asbestos, getbracknell reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Bird, who died of lung cancer, had
probably been exposed to asbestos but no one knows where it
happened.

Mr. Bird died on May 6, 2009 of mesothelioma, believed to result
from his time working in industrial refurbishment.

Mr. Bird, who was married and lived in Warfield Park in
Bracknell, had worked for 40 years for two companies, neither of
which still exists. His work was designing and overseeing
projects for refitting shops, banks and building societies.

Mr. Bird was never personally involved in the construction, but
he would often carry out site visits to assess the progress of
the works.

Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford, who led the inquest on Aug. 13,
2009, said, "It's often very difficult to identity where the
exposure happened. It's possible asbestos dust was there."

Mr. Bird visited around 30 refurbishment sites a year for around
10 years but had no memory of having visited an asbestos-laden
building.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Heanor Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Nottingham Coroner's Court on Aug. 12, 2009 heard
that the death of Edwin Wright, of Heanor, Derbyshire, England,
was linked to exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

The 59-year-old Mr. Wright died on June 19, 2009 after being
exposed to asbestos while working as a joiner. He died from
asbestosis at the Queen's Medical Centre.

The inquest heard Mr. Wright worked with asbestos for five years
in the 1960s.

Notts coroner Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sarjeant Action Against Woolworths Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos action filed by Verna Sarjeant, on behalf of her
late husband Les Sarjeant, against the defunct Woolworths Group
is underway, getSURREY reports.

Mr. Sarjeant began his career as a stock room worker at a store
in Hastings, Sussex, England, at the age of 16 and worked in
several different Woolworths shops in the south after moving to
Redhill in 1964.

Mr. Sarjeant died in August 2008 at the age of 74 after being
ill for 18 months, but it was only shortly before his death that
he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Personal injury law firm Corries Solicitors is now in the early
stages of pursuing legal action against Woolworths and Mrs.
Sarjeant said she hopes the Company's insurers will accept
responsibility.

Dominic Collingwood, industrial disease lawyer at the York-based
firm, said Woolworths has been presented with the claim and
urged other people who may have worked with Mr. Sarjeant to come
forward.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Ltd. Still Has Lawsuits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Transocean Ltd. are still defendants in
asbestos exposure lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named in 21
complaints that were filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi involving about 750 plaintiffs that alleged personal
injury arising out of asbestos exposure in the course of their
employment by some of these defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints also named as defendants certain subsidiaries of
TODCO and certain subsidiaries of Sedco, Inc. to whom the
Company may owe indemnity. Further, the complaints named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing
asbestos.

The complaints alleged that the defendants used asbestos-
containing products in connection with drilling operations and
included allegations of negligence, strict liability, and claims
allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The
plaintiffs generally sought awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

The Special Master who was appointed to oversee these cases
required that each plaintiff file a separate amended complaint
for each individual plaintiff and then he dismissed the original
21 complaints.

The Company said it believes that it may have a direct or
indirect interest in 31 of the resulting complaints. The Company
has not been provided with sufficient information in all claims
to determine the period of the claimants' exposure to asbestos,
their medical condition or, in some cases, the vessels
potentially involved in the claims.

The Company historically has maintained broad liability
insurance, but it is not certain whether its insurance will
cover all liabilities arising out of the 31 claims.

Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At June 30,
2009, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or
operated 133 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,056 Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd., as of June 30, 2009, was a
defendant in about 1,056 lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 6, 2009.

The Company subsidiary faced 1,065 asbestos lawsuits as of March
31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

One of the Company's subsidiaries is involved in lawsuits
arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design,
construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in
its litigation, funding from settlements with the primary
insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain
insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with
numerous other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Some of these 1,056 lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the
Company estimates that there are 2,777 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been
provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to
determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the
nature of their alleged injuries.

The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against
this subsidiary in 1990.

Through June 30, 2009, the amounts expended to resolve claims
(including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement
costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect
to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary
continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits.

However, the subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in
insurance limits.

Vernier, Switzerland-based Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. At June 30,
2009, the Company owned, had partial ownership interests in or
operated 133 mobile offshore drilling units.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parker Drilling Still Facing Cases in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue
to face asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling-related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
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 under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county
in which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause
of action allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amended
complaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants in
filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs
have an employment relationship with which defendant, including
whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship
with subsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date, 16
plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its affiliates
as a defendant. Discovery is proceeding in groups of 60 and none
of the plaintiff complaints naming the Company are included in
the first 60 (Group I).

The initial discovery of Group I resulted in certain dismissals
with prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two
withdraws from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group
I. Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21,
2008.

Out of the 60 plaintiffs selected, the Company was named in one
suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
US$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a company
Parker Drilling acquired in 1996.

No amounts were accrued at June 30, 2009.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Company owns 28 land rigs and 17
U.S.-based barge drilling and workover rigs. The Company drills
worldwide (in nine countries in 2008) and has worked in 54
countries since its founding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 270 Actions Ongoing v. Park-Ohio at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at June 30, 2009, was a co-defendant
in about 270 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,270
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.

At March 31, 2009, the Company was a co-defendant in 260 cases
asserting claims on behalf of 1,750 plaintiffs alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (Class Action
Reporter, June 5, 2009)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.

There are four asbestos cases (involving 23 plaintiffs) that
plead specified damages. In each of the four cases, the
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages
in the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action
and US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive
damages in the amount of US$10 million.

In the other case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of US$20 million for three separate causes
of action and US$5 million for another cause of action and
punitive damages in the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of the
Company's subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to
identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by
the Company or its subsidiaries.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. furnishes
industrial supply chain logistics. The Company also manufactures
engineered products for markets ranging from aerospace and
defense to auto and semiconductors.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 11 Cases Pending v. Katy Industries in Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. continues to be a defendant in 11
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a
total of 3325 individual plaintiffs.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 13, 2009.

In all 11 cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to
asbestos in the course of their employment at a former U.S.
Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted
mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness. They
claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products in the
plant which were manufactured by each defendant.

In nine of the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death
claims.

Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. manufactures, imports
and distributes commercial cleaning and storage products. Its
commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary and
foodservice distributors. The Company's storage products are
sold through major home improvement and mass market retail
outlets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Katy Still Has 2,700 Sterling Fluid Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered about 2,700 asbestos cases to the Company for defense
and indemnification.

These cases are pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, and California.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling
purchased the LaBour Pump Company business and other assets from
the Company.

Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in
connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants. The plaintiffs in the
cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and
products containing asbestos in the course of their employment.  

Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of
products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came
into contact with a variety of different products in the course
of their employment. Plaintiffs claim that LaBour, a former
division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and Sterling
may have manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken
the position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the
Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in
these matters.

Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. manufactures, imports
and distributes commercial cleaning and storage products. Its
commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary and
foodservice distributors. The Company's storage products are
sold through major home improvement and mass market retail
outlets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LaBour Pump Has 100 Active Cases at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that its former subsidiary, LaBour
Pump Company, faced about 100 active asbestos cases as of July
3, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 13, 2009.

LaBour had about 130 asbestos cases, which remained active as of
April 3, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

LaBour, a former division of an inactive subsidiary of the
Company, has been named as a defendant in about 400 of the New
Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA).

The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of
which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Bridgeton, Mo.-based Katy Industries, Inc. manufactures, imports
and distributes commercial cleaning and storage products. Its
commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary and
foodservice distributors. The Company's storage products are
sold through major home improvement and mass market retail
outlets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Metalclad Involved in ACE Insurance Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation
Corporation, is still party to asbestos-related insurance
litigation filed by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central
National Insurance Company of Omaha and Industrial Underwriters
Insurance Company.

On Feb. 23, 2005 ACE, Central National, and Industrial, which
are all related entities, filed a declaratory relief lawsuit
against Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other liability
insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of
coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving
whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits
brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate"
limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of
liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers
of Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary
recovery from Metalclad.

The ACE Lawsuit is principally about coverage responsibility
among the several insurers, as well as total coverage.

Allstate Insurance Company, in a cross-complaint filed against
Metalclad in October, 2005, asked the court to determine the
Company's obligation to assume and pay for the defense of
Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit under the Company's indemnification
obligations in the settlement agreement.

The Company said it does not believe that it has any legal
obligation to assume or pay for such defense, but has accrued
US$375,000 to cover potential indemnification obligations.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation Corporation. The Company installs insulation on
pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Accrues $375T in Allstate at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation has accrued US$375,000 as a potential loss
over Allstate Insurance Company matters and nothing has come to
the Company's attention that would require it to record a
different estimate at June 30, 2009.

In June 2004, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, a Company
subsidiary, and the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement
and Full Policy Release (Agreement) releasing Allstate from its
policy obligations for claims arising from injury or damage
which may have occurred during the period March 15, 1980 to
March 15, 1981, under an umbrella liability policy (Policy). The
Policy provided limits of US$5 million in the aggregate and per
occurrence.

Allstate claimed that liability under the Policy had not
attached, and that regardless of that fact, an exclusion in the
Policy barred coverage for virtually all claims of bodily injury
from exposure to asbestos, which is of primary concern to
Metalclad. Metalclad took the position that such asbestos
coverage existed.

The parties to the Agreement reached a compromise, whereby
Metalclad received US$2.5 million in cash, and Metalclad and the
Company agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the insurer from
all claims which could be alleged against the insurer respecting
the policy, limited to US$2.5 million in amount.

Based on past experience related to asbestos insurance coverage,
the Company said it believes that the Agreement it entered into
in June 2004, will result in a probable loss contingency for
future insurance claims based on the indemnification provision
in the Agreement.

The Company said it believes at this time the reasonable
estimate of the loss will not be less than US$375,000 or more
than US$2.5 million (the US$2.5 million represents the maximum
loss the Company would have based on the indemnification
provision in the Agreement).

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation Corporation. The Company installs insulation on
pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Reserves $6.8MM for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's current reserve for asbestos liability
claims was US$6.8 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$7.25 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's current reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$7,025,000 as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May
15, 2009)

The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims
was US$34,825,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$38
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Prior to 1975, the Company was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos-related insulation materials, which has
resulted in numerous claims of personal injury allegedly related
to asbestos exposure.

Many of these claims are now being brought by the children and
close relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result
of the direct or indirect exposure to asbestos.

To date, all of the Company's asbestos-related injury claims
have been paid and defended by its insurance carriers.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation Corporation. The Company installs insulation on
pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Facing 289 Pending Actions at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation faced 289 pending asbestos cases for the six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 271 cases for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 12,
2009.

Entrx Corporation had 271 pending asbestos cases as of March 31,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
112 new cases filed, 77 defense judgments and dismissals, 17
plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 94 total resolved
cases.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
total indemnity payments of US$2,325,000, average indemnity paid
on plaintiff judgments and settled cases of US$136,765, and
average indemnity paid on all resolved cases of US$24,734.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation Corporation. The Company installs insulation on
pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Cites $41.625M Receivable at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation recorded US$41,625,000 as of June 30, 2009 and
US$45,250,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008 as asbestos insurance coverage
receivable, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 12, 2009.

The Company recorded an asbestos insurance coverage receivable
of US$43,437,500 as an asset on its balance sheets as of March
31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

The Company has determined that the minimum probable insurance
coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury claims
significantly exceeds its estimated future liability for those
claims of US$41,625,000 as of June 30, 2009 and US$45,250,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

Although defense costs are included in the Company's insurance
coverage, it expended US$66,000 in the six months ended June 30,
2009 and US$104,000 in the six months ended June 30, 2008 to
administer the asbestos claims and defend the ACE Lawsuit.

Minneapolis-based Entrx Corporation provides insulation and
asbestos abatement services through subsidiary Metalclad
Insulation Corporation. The Company installs insulation on
pipes, ducts, furnaces, boilers, and other industrial equipment.


                            *********

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  * * *