CAR_Public/090904.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 175
  
                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Domestic Companion Airfare Program Under Fire
CREDIT SERVICES: Charged with Sham Loan Modification Service
DENNY'S CORP: Sued for Mileading Salt Disclosure in N.D. Ill.
FIRSTDATA: 6th Circuit Reinstates Check Verification Lawsuit
MAYTAG CORP: Washing Machine Mold & Mildew Suit Filed in Fla.

MERIAL: Dog Owners Claim HeartGard Medicine Not 100% Effective
MIDLAND NATIONAL: 9th Cir. Gives Nod to Annuity Purchaser Class
OFFICEMAX INC: Recalls 216,000 Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing Set For Oct. 19
SIGG SWITZERLAND: W.D. Ky. Suit Claims Aluminum Bottles are Toxic

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $20 Mil.
TELECHECK: 6th Circuit Reinstates Check Verification Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 4.2 Million DVD Players on Fire Hazard
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Washing Machine Mold & Mildew Suit Filed in Fla.

* Charles Pernicka, Esq., Joins Allen Matkins

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Coughlin Stoia Files Suit in C.D. Calif.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Target Facing EPA Probe on Alleged CAA Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Cites 102,300 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Garlock Trials Commenced in 2009-2nd Half
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Cites 5 Pending Appeals at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Records $46.5M Settlement Commitments
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $268.4M Coverage at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BJ Services Still Has Cases in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Ltd. Subject to A&E Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Has $58M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has 30T Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Cites $17M for Rockwell Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Cites $1.243B Net Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 16,060 Claims at July 23
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 8,139 Claims at July 23
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Subject to Mt. Vernon Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Involved in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Facing Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 7T Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has 214 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Facing Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Reversed in SRW Environmental Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Facing 107 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Has 415 Damage Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Facing Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $923M Excess Coverage at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $47.5M Libby Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $34.7MM for Libby at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in NJDEP Case v. Grace Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Units Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Cites $1.005B Carolinas Reserve

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Still Has Stehman Case in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 3rd-Party Cases Still Ongoing v. Liggett
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Chemicals Faces Claims Over Ohio Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Party to 122 Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dalmine Facing 42 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Still Faces 39 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Remand Motion in Kotecki Case

                            *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Domestic Companion Airfare Program Under Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
America Express charged $450 for a "Domestic Companion Airfare
Program," then suddenly canceled it on Nov. 15, 2008, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to
Chourthouse News Service.


CREDIT SERVICES: Charged with Sham Loan Modification Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Services of America, Mary Sussex and Dan Phillips charged
$3,495 for mortgage loan modification "services," but did nothing
for it, a customer claims in a class action in Clark County
Court, Las Vegas, according to Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint in Caison v. Credt Services of America,
LLC, et al., Case No. A-09-59818 (Clark Cty, Nev., Dist. Ct.,
filed August 28, 2009), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/01/LoanModify.pdf

Sheila Caison, the Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Jamie S. Cogburn, Esq.
          Kristin H. Cogburn, Esq.
          COGBURN LAW OFFICES
          9555 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 280
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: 702-384-3616
          Fax: 702-943-1936
          E-mail: jsc@cogburnlaw.com
                  khc@cogburnlaw.com


DENNY'S CORP: Sued for Mileading Salt Disclosure in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal class action lawsuit, Ciszewski v. Denny's Corp., Case
No. 09-cv-05355 (N.D. Ill), claims Denny's serves food with
dangerously high sodium levels, which it misrepresents with
"indecipherable disclosures." One meal at Denny's "may contain
more sodium than a human being should consume in 4 days," the
class claims.

A high sodium diet can lead to elevated blood pressure and
hypertension, increasing the risk of stroke and heart disease,
which kills "nearly 1 million Americans annually," the class
claims.  It calls sodium the "deadliest ingredient" in food.

An independent laboratory analysis revealed that around 75
percent of Denny's menu items contain much more than the 1,500
milligrams per day recommended by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, according to the complaint.

Named plaintiff Jason Ciszewski says that three Denny's menu
items that he regularly ate -- 'Moons Over My Hammy,' the
'SuperBird Sandwich' and the 'Meat Lover's Scramble' -- contain
3,200 mg., 2,600 mg. and 5,600 mg. of sodium.

Mr. Ciszewski says he suffers from high blood pressure, for which
he was advised to take prescription medication and cut his salt
intake. He says he was not aware of the high levels of sodium in
Denny's food because the restaurant chain "has made
indecipherable disclosures" about sodium content.

He demands damages of more than $5 million for deceptive trade,
breach of contract, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/02/DennysSalt.pdf

Mr. Ciszewski is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          James R. Rowe, Esq.
          Larry D. Drury, Ltd.
          205 West Randolph, Suite 1430
          Chicago, IL  60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950


FIRSTDATA: 6th Circuit Reinstates Check Verification Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit revived a class action accusing foreign
check-verification companies of ignoring a numbering change in
Tennessee's driver's license system, making it appear as if
"hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of consumers were first-
time check writers.

Cheryl Beaudry filed the class action in 2007 against TeleCheck
Services, TeleCheck International and First Data Corp., alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  U.S.
District Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger dismissed the case, saying
Beaudry failed to allege injury -- namely, that she had a check
rejected or transaction canceled because of the error.

But the Cincinnati-based appellate panel said she didn't need to
prove actual injury under the law.

"FCRA's private right of action does not require proof of actual
damages as a prerequisite to the recovery of statutory damages
for willful violations of the Act," Judge Sutton wrote.  "The
district court and the defendants suggest that, if we read the
law to allow statutory damages without proof of injury, we would
be creating a strict liability regime," Sutton added. "Not so.
The existence of a willfulness requirement proves that there is
nothing 'strict' about the state of behavior required to violate
the law."  Judge Sutton said Ms. Beaudry simply had to show that
the defendants used unreasonable procedures in preparing her
credit report.  "Under these circumstances," the court concluded,
"[Ms.] Beaudry's claim should not have been dismissed."

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's Opinion is available at:

     http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0315p-06.pdf

The appellate proceeding is Beaudry v. Telecheck Services, Inc.,
et al., No. 08-6428 (6th Cir.).  The underlying proceeding is
Beaudry v. Telecheck Services, Inc., Case No. 07-00842 (M.D.
Tenn.).


MAYTAG CORP: Washing Machine Mold & Mildew Suit Filed in Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whirlpool and Maytag have
not fixed mold and mildew problems in their improperly draining
washing machines, a class action claims in Dijols v. Whirlpool
Corp. and Maytag Corp., Case No. 09-cv-61353 (S.D. Fla., filed
Aug. 28, 2009).  A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/01/CCAWashers.pdf

Marlene Dijols, the Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          SEBERSKY & PAYNE, LLP
          4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 675-S
          Hollywood, CA 33021
          Telephone: 954-989-6333
          E-Mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
          
               - and -
          
          George J. Lang, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 313-220-0000
          
               - and -
          
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: 212-355-9500
          
               - and -
          
          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          RICHARD J. BURKE LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 650
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-880-7000
          
               - and -
          
          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-564-2300
          
               - and -
          
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880
          
               - and -
          
          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: 610-642-8500

MERIAL: Dog Owners Claim HeartGard Medicine Not 100% Effective
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action lawsuit, Haley, et al. v. Merial, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 09-cv-094 (N.D. Miss.), claims the makers of a popular
heartworm medicine have ignored seven years of warnings from the
FDA and jeopardized the lives of thousands of dogs by continuing
to misrepresent the drug as "100 percent effective."

The class claims Merial misrepresented its HeartGard Plus
medication because years of deceptive promotional campaigns have
made it the No. 1 choice of veterinarians to prevent heartworms.
The five named plaintiffs say their dogs contracted heartworms
while on the medication, and two dogs may die from it because
they are too weak to endure the "excruciating and debilitating
treatment."

HeartGard is a beef-flavored, chewable tablet that is given
monthly to dogs. Merial also makes a drug for cattle with similar
ingredients as HeartGard, which it also exaggerates as "100
percent effective," the class alleges.

Merial has exaggerating HeartGard's efficacy since 2002, and the
company only strengthened its deceptive campaign after FDA
studies found that the advertisements violated the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act, according to the complaint.

Merial dispenses 100 million doses of HeartGard a year, which
have brought in $700 million of ill-gotten gains since 2002, the
class claims.

Though the company stopped printing ads with the "100 percent
effective" message in 2006, it has done nothing to correct the
impression the old advertisements gave to hundreds of thousands
veterinarians, the class claims. Over the years, Merial has
supplied free placards with the false message that still decorate
veterinary offices across the country.

Merial also continues to benefit from fraudulent online
advertisements, and uses scare tactics to encourage sales, the
class claims. Brochures use "horrific photographs" depicting
blind children and infected feet to promote the false message
that HeartGard prevents the dog-to-human transmission of certain
diseases carried by roundworms and hookworms.

The class demands an injunction and punitive damages for fraud,
breach of warranty and RICO violations.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/02/DogMedicine.pdf    

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.W. Walker, Esq.
          Heath S. Douglas, Esq.
          LAKE TINDALL, LLP
          127 South Poplar Street
          P.O. Box 918
          Greenville, MS 38702-0918
          Telephone: (662) 378-2121
          Fax: (662) 378-2183


MIDLAND NATIONAL: 9th Cir. Gives Nod to Annuity Purchaser Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit has allowed senior citizens to proceed with
a class action accusing Midland National Life Insurance Co. of
violating Hawaii's Deceptive Practices Act by misrepresenting
annuities as low-risk investments.

The appellate panel in Hawaii reversed the lower court's denial
of class certification, saying the plaintiffs didn't need to show
"subjective, individualized reliance on deceptive practices."

Judge Schroeder said this requirement, imposed by the lower
court, contradicted the Hawaii Supreme Court's interpretation of
state law, which favors an "objective reasonable person"
standard.

The Ninth Circuit quoted the state high court as saying, "actual
deception need not be shown; the capacity to deceive is
sufficient."
     
The plaintiffs claimed that Midland hid the risks of its
annuities between 2001 and 2005, and deceptively marketed them as
suitable for seniors when they weren't.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Opinion is available at:

     http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/28/07-16825.pdf

The appellate proceeding is Yokoyama v. Midland National Life
Ins. Co., No. 07-16825 (9th Cir.).  The proceeding in the court
below is Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Ins. Co., Case No.
05-cv-00303 (D. Hawaii) (Seabright, J.).


OFFICEMAX INC: Recalls 216,000 Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
OfficeMax Inc., of Naperville, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 216,000 Office Max Task Chairs.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The back and the base post of the chair can break while in use,
posing a fall hazard to consumers.

OfficeMax has received about 35 reports of the chair backs or
posts breaking, including 15 reports of injuries involving
lacerations, muscle strains, contusions and concussions.

The recall involves OfficeMax Task Chairs with model numbers
OM182 and OM96614. The model number is located under the chair's
seat on a white UPC label. The chairs are charcoal or dark
charcoal in color and have black plastic arms and a rolling
plastic and metal base.

The recalled chairs were sold at OfficeMax stores nationwide, on
the firm's Web site at http://www.officemax.com/and in OfficeMax  
catalogs, and through direct commercial sales to businesses from
September 2003 through July 2008 for between $40 and $65.  The
chairs were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and return
them to any OfficeMax store for a full refund or a $55 gift card
if the consumer does not have a receipt.

For additional information, contact OfficeMax at (800) 283-7674
anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.officemax.com/

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing Set For Oct. 19
--------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie and The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., representing the
Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class in the lawsuit, Crafton
v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. SACV-07-0065-
PSG (MLGx) (C.D. Calif.), announce the proposed Settlement of
this class action in the sum of $3,150,000 in cash.

A Settlement Fairness Hearing will be held before the Honorable
Philip S. Gutierrez, at the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division, Roybal Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los
Angeles, Calif., at 2:30 p.m., on October 19, 2009 to determine:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter,
the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of May 14,
2009; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable and
adequate and therefore should be approved; (4) whether the
application of Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
matter should be approved; and (5) whether the Lead Plaintiff's
application for reimbursement of his costs and expenses
(including lost wages) incurred in representing the Settlement
Class should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Powerwave common stock
between May 2, 2005 and November 2, 2006, inclusive, and held
Powerwave shares purchased during that period through the close
of trading on November 2, 2006, your rights may be affected by
the settlement of the Litigation. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may
obtain copies by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at:

          Powerwave Technologies Securities Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 9014
          Jericho, NY 11753-8914
          Telephone: (800) 766-3330
          Fax: (516) 931-0810

or on the Web at http://www.berdonclaims.com/

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than November 4, 2009
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a written Request for Exclusion postmarked by October 5,
2009, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above.  All Members of the Settlement Class who have
not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement of the Litigation must be mailed
or delivered so that it is filed with the Clerk of the Court and
served by each of the following no later than October 5, 2009:

          THE COURT:

          Clerk of the Court
          U.S. District Court for the C.D. of California
          Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
          255 East Temple Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90012


          PLAINTIFFS' CO-LEAD COUNSEL:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006

               - and -

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90024

          DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL:

          Amy J. Longo, Esq.
          Seth Aronson, Esq.
          O'Melveny & Myers LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071


SIGG SWITZERLAND: W.D. Ky. Suit Claims Aluminum Bottles are Toxic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Been at Courthouse News Service reports that A federal class
action lawsuit, Johnson, et al. v. SIGG Switzerland (USA), Inc.,
Case No. 09-cv-00669 (W.D. Ky.), claims SIGG Switzerland (USA)
concealed that its reusable aluminum bottles contained bisphenol
A, a toxin that mimics estrogen and may cause cancer from
prolonged exposure.

SIGG USA, a subsidiary of aluminum product manufacturer SIGG
Switzerland, began selling its aluminum bottles in the United
States for adults and children in 2005.

The products, marketed for health- and environmentally conscious
consumers at retailers such as grocer Whole Foods and the outdoor
gear chain REI, became increasingly popular after consumers began
searching for bottles that did not contain BPA, a compound
sometimes used in production of plastic bottles.

Named plaintiffs Allison Johnson and Melissa Tantibanchachai say
that after media reports and government agencies expressed
concerns about BPA in 2007, SIGG USA benefited from the unease by
claiming its bottles were BPA-free.

When consumer groups reported that SIGG's bottles did contain
BPA, the company "struck back" and released several "aggressive
statements claiming its bottles were BPA-free," according to the
complaint.

But in August this year, SIGG USA's CEO Steve Wasik stated in a
letter posted on the company Web site that SIGG bottles produced
before August 2008 did contain low levels of BPA in the liner,
according to the complaint.  Mr. Wasik also revealed in the
letter that SIGG switched the liner to a "BPA-free EcoCare" liner
in August 2008 and that the company had started working on
replacing the water-based epoxy bottle liner that contained the
BPA in 2006, the class claims.    

Plaintiffs say Wasik tried to excuse SIGG's concealment by
claiming that the public conversation had been focused on "BPA
leaching from bottles" -- which SIGG's products allegedly never
did -- rather than the "mere presence of BPA."

The plaintiffs seek class damages for breach of contract, breach
of warranties and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection
Act.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/02/AluminumBottles.pdf
     
The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          George Y. Nino, Esq.
          Caddell & Chapman
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: 713-751-0400
          Fax: 713-751-0906
          E-mail: gyn@caddellchapman.com
          
               - and -
     
          K. Gregory Haynes, Esq.
          WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
          500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: 502-562-7363
          Fax: 502-589-0309
          E-mail: ghaynes@wyattfirm.com

After the complaint was filed, Mr. Wasik released another letter
-- see http://mysigg.com/bulletin/-- to the public.  The Sept. 1  
posting stated that "after reading and responding to hundreds of
emails and viewing nearly as many blog and Twitter posts" he
realized that his "first letter may have missed the mark."  Mr.
Waski wrote that he should have said "simply and loudly" that he
and the company are "sorry that [they] did not make [their]
communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the
very beginning."

Mr. Wasik said the company will swap old SIGG bottles for ones
with the new liner until Oct. 31.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for $20 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO) reached an
agreement in principle this week to settle a previously disclosed
consolidated securities class action currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, Rockstar Games, and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors.  The class
action was related to allegations of the purported "Hot Coffee"
content (a euphemism for hidden adult content) buried in the
Company's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas title and historical
stock option backdating practices.

Under the proposed settlement, the class action will be dismissed
in exchange for an aggregate payment of $20,115,000 into a
settlement fund for the benefit of class members, of which
$15,200,000 will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers, and
$4,915,000 will be paid by the Company.  Take-Two fully accrued
for its portion of the settlement costs over several quarters
ended April 30, 2009.

The Company also agreed to supplement the substantial changes
that it has already implemented in its corporate governance
policies and practices.  The settlement is subject to the
completion of final documentation and preliminary and final
approval by the Court.

"We are pleased to have reached this settlement, which represents
another important step forward for the Company," said Strauss
Zelnick, Chairman of Take-Two.

Headquartered in New York City, Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc. -- http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global developer,  
marketer, distributor and publisher of interactive entertainment
software games for the PC, PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems, PSP (PlayStationPortable) system, Xbox 360
video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, Wii and
Nintendo DS. The Company publishes and develops products through
its wholly owned labels Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and
2K Play; and distributes software, hardware and accessories in
North America through its Jack of All Games subsidiary.


TELECHECK: 6th Circuit Reinstates Check Verification Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit revived a class action accusing foreign
check-verification companies of ignoring a numbering change in
Tennessee's driver's license system, making it appear as if
"hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of consumers were first-
time check writers.

Cheryl Beaudry filed the class action in 2007 against TeleCheck
Services, TeleCheck International and First Data Corp., alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  U.S.
District Judge Aleta Arthur Trauger dismissed the case, saying
Beaudry failed to allege injury -- namely, that she had a check
rejected or transaction canceled because of the error.

But the Cincinnati-based appellate panel said she didn't need to
prove actual injury under the law.

"FCRA's private right of action does not require proof of actual
damages as a prerequisite to the recovery of statutory damages
for willful violations of the Act," Judge Sutton wrote.  "The
district court and the defendants suggest that, if we read the
law to allow statutory damages without proof of injury, we would
be creating a strict liability regime," Sutton added. "Not so.
The existence of a willfulness requirement proves that there is
nothing 'strict' about the state of behavior required to violate
the law."  Judge Sutton said Ms. Beaudry simply had to show that
the defendants used unreasonable procedures in preparing her
credit report.  "Under these circumstances," the court concluded,
"[Ms.] Beaudry's claim should not have been dismissed."

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's Opinion is available at:

     http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0315p-06.pdf

The appellate proceeding is Beaudry v. Telecheck Services, Inc.,
et al., No. 08-6428 (6th Cir.).  The underlying proceeding is
Beaudry v. Telecheck Services, Inc., Case No. 07-00842 (M.D.
Tenn.).


UNITED ARTISTS: Junk Fax Class Challenging Debtor's Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the proposed class in a putative class
action raising a due process challenge to a debtor's Chapter 11
discharge as to the pursuit and collection of the damages awarded
in a prior state-court class action due to the alleged lack of or
inadequate notice of the bankruptcy case given to the state-court
class members could be certified on the basis that the debtor
acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
class, making final injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate
respecting the class as a whole.  The debtor's alleged failure to
provide adequate notice of the bankruptcy case affected the
proposed class members in the same manner and, based on the
inadequacy of notice, the named plaintiff sought a declaration
that the proposed class could pursue the collection of the
damages award in the state-court litigation despite the debtor's
bankruptcy discharge, and did not seek relief from the bankruptcy
court that would lead to litigation over monetary damages.  In re
United Artists Theatre Co., --- B.R. ----, 2009 WL 2632771
(Bankr. D. Del.) (Walsh, J.).  See, also, In re United Artists
Theatre Co., 406 B.R. 643, slip op. http://is.gd/2Nb4O(Bankr. D.  
Del. 2009).

On November 18, 1999, ESI Ergonomic Solutions, L.L.C., filed a
class action complaint against United Artists and American Blast
Fax, Inc., in Arizona state court (Case No. CV99-20649, Maricopa
County) claiming that United Artists and American Blast violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, by
sending 90,000 movie-ticket advertisements to fax machines in the
metro-Phoenix area without receiving express permission.  ESI
sought to represent the class of those individuals and entities
who received the advertisement.    

On September 5, 2000, United Artists, along with numerous related
entities, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 00-03514).  
United Artists emerged from chapter 11 under that terms of a Plan
of Reorganization confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on January
22, 2001, and declared effective on March 2, 2001.

During United Artists' chapter 11 restructuring, ESI obtained
relief from the automatic stay and the Arizona state court then
certified a class of junk fax recipients, entered summary
judgment in favor of the class for at least 57,600 TCPA
violations, resulting in an aggregate statutory damage award
against United Artists and American Blast of $28.8 million plus
prejudgment interest.   

In this second ruling in this matter (Bankr. D. Del. Adv. Pro.
No. 09-50896), Judge Walsh says certification of the class for
purposes of challenging the United Artists' notice to the class
and the Debtors' discharge is appropriate.   


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 4.2 Million DVD Players on Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4.2 million Durabrand DVD Players.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Approximately 1.5 million of these units were previously recalled
on August 20 recall.  The August recall of silver Durabrand DVD
player has been expanded to include the pink and purple-colored
versions of the same DVD player.

The DVD player's circuit board can overheat, posing a fire and
burn hazard to consumers.

Wal-Mart has received 14 reports of DVD players overheating,
seven of which have resulted in fires that caused property
damage. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves a single DVD player with a remote control.
The device was sold in three colors-silver, pink and purple and
has a U-shaped opening at the top to insert the DVD. The DVD
players were sold under the following UPC codes and model
numbers:

          Silver: UPC 1799901002, Model No. 1002
          Pink: UPC 1799934100, Model No. 1002 PINK
          Purple: UPC 1799932100, Model No. 1002 PUR
     
The DVD players were sold at Wal-Mart stores nationwide from
January 2006 through July 2009 for about $29, and were
manufactured in China.  

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return it
to the nearest Wal-Mart for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Wal-Mart Stores at
(800) 925-6278 between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.walmartstores.com/

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports
that are either directly related to this product recall or
involve a different hazard with the same product at
https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Washing Machine Mold & Mildew Suit Filed in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whirlpool and Maytag have
not fixed mold and mildew problems in their improperly draining
washing machines, a class action claims in Dijols v. Whirlpool
Corp. and Maytag Corp., Case No. 09-cv-61353 (S.D. Fla., filed
Aug. 28, 2009).  A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/01/CCAWashers.pdf

Marlene Dijols, the Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          SEBERSKY & PAYNE, LLP
          4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 675-S
          Hollywood, CA 33021
          Telephone: 954-989-6333
          E-Mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com
          
               - and -
          
          George J. Lang, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 313-220-0000
          
               - and -
          
          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: 212-355-9500
          
               - and -
          
          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          RICHARD J. BURKE LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 650
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-880-7000
          
               - and -
          
          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-564-2300
          
               - and -
          
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Natalie Finkelman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880
          
               - and -
          
          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: 610-642-8500
          

* Charles Pernicka, Esq., Joins Allen Matkins
---------------------------------------------
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, a leading
California business and real estate law firm, expanded its
litigation practice group with the addition of Charles Pernicka,
Esq., as senior counsel, in the firm's San Diego office.

Mr. Pernicka brings extensive real estate litigation experience
to Allen Matkins, having represented clients in all aspects of
real estate development litigation, including purchase and sale
disputes, construction litigation, and project workouts. He also
represents clients in landlord/tenant litigation, including
commercial lease disputes and unlawful detainer actions. In
addition, Mr. Pernicka is experienced in commercial contract
disputes and corporate litigation, including breach of fiduciary
duty claims, and insurance litigation.

For nearly seven years Mr. Pernicka practiced at Luce Forward
Hamilton & Scripps, along with litigation partner Valentine Hoy,
who joined Allen Matkins' San Diego office in March 2009.

"Charlie's addition will help deepen the firm's already strong
capabilities in the litigation arena," said Jeff Patterson, chair
of the litigation group in Allen Matkins' San Diego office.  "The
arrival of Charlie, combined with the group of highly talented
attorneys we have added over the past few months, illustrates the
growth of our firm in strategic practice areas."

Mr. Pernicka joins Allen Matkins' litigation practice group of
more than 60 attorneys statewide, whose expertise in litigation
and trial work includes all aspects of real estate litigation
(including construction litigation, land use litigation, water
rights and resources, landlord tenant litigation and
condemnation) representing owners, developers, landlords, hotel
and resorts, and construction companies and business litigation
(including corporate and partnership disputes, bankruptcy
litigation, consumer class action litigation and securities
litigation) representing companies, boards of directors, special
committees and executives.  The firm's litigators also have
extensive experience representing clients in environmental, toxic
tort and product litigation.

Mr. Pernicka received his J.D. from the University of Virginia
School of Law in 2002 and his B.A. in history, magna cum laude,
Phi Beta Kappa, with a minor in philosophy, from the University
of Colorado at Boulder in 1999.  While at the University of
Virginia School of Law, he was a member of the Virginia Journal
of Law and Technology.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP -- http://
www.allenmatkins.com/ -- founded in 1977, is a California-based
law firm with approximately 230 attorneys practicing out of seven
offices in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Francisco, San Diego,
Century City, Del Mar Heights and Walnut Creek. The firm's broad
areas of practice include real estate, land use, construction,
real estate finance, business litigation, corporate and
securities, intellectual property, environmental, taxation,
bankruptcy and creditors' rights, and employment and labor law.  
For more than 30 years, Allen Matkins has helped clients turn
opportunity and challenge into success by providing practical
advice, innovative solutions and valuable business opportunities.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Coughlin Stoia Files Suit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE:FLE), between December
6, 2007, and March 10, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Fleetwood is
not named in this action as a defendant because it and its core
operating subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy protection in March
2009.  A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.csgrr.com/cases/fleetwood/complaint.pdf

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel
H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com.  
If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.csgrr.com/cases/fleetwood/. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges certain of Fleetwood's former executives
with violations of the Exchange Act.  Fleetwood, together with
its subsidiaries, produces and distributes manufactured housing
primarily in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the
Company's financial condition, business and prospects. The
complaint further alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, among others: (i) that demand for
Fleetwood's manufactured houses and the big homes-on-wheels was
rapidly declining, and was adversely affecting the Company's
liquidity; (ii) that the Company's RV Group sales, especially in
its travel trailer division, were declining because of softening
consumer demand due to high gasoline prices and the credit
crisis; (iii) that the Company's financial condition was
declining precipitously such that the Company was nearing
insolvency and would have to file for bankruptcy protection; and
(iv) based on the foregoing, defendants had no reasonable basis
for their positive statements regarding the Company's ability to
control its deteriorating financial condition.

On March 10, 2009, Fleetwood issued a press release announcing
that it had "filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions for itself and
certain operating subsidiaries in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Central District of California."  The Company also announced
that it was closing its travel trailer division. As a direct
result of information disclosed at the end of the Class Period,
the price of Fleetwood common stock fell precipitously, falling
to $0.0103 per share on March 10, 2009.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Fleetwood common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C.,
Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending
in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has
taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf
of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as
victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site
at http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm.  


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: Target Facing EPA Probe on Alleged CAA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation is the subject of an ongoing U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency investigation for alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 28, 2009.

In March 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation (FOV)
related to alleged violations of the CAA, specifically the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
promulgated by the EPA for asbestos.

The FOV pertains to the remodeling of 36 Target stores that
occurred between Jan. 1, 2003 and Oct. 28, 2007. The EPA FOV
process is ongoing and no specific relief has been sought to date
by the EPA.

The Company anticipates that any resolution of this matter will
be in the form of monetary penalties that are likely to exceed
US$100,000.

COMPANY PROFILE:
Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minn. 55403
Tel. No.: 612/304-6073

Description:
The Company operates about 1,700 Target and SuperTarget stores in
48 states, as well as an online business called Target.com. The
Company also owns apparel supplier The Associated Merchandising
Corp. and issues Target Visa and its proprietary Target Card.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Cites 102,300 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at June 30, 2009, recorded 102,300 open
asbestos cases, of which the Company is aware of 5,900 cases that
involved claimants alleging mesothelioma.

Of about 103,900 open asbestos cases at March 31, 2009, the
Company was aware of about 5,800 that involve claimants alleging
mesothelioma. (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009)

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are defendants
in actions filed in various states by plaintiffs alleging injury
or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers.

Among the products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The
damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases
plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. To date,
neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any punitive
damage awards.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid over US$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and
over US$400 million in fees and expenses.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of
plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about seven percent
have been claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other cancers,
and about 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging
asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of
the respiratory system.

About 2,200 new claims were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in the first half of 2009, down from the 3,100
claims filed in the first half of 2008.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Garlock Trials Commenced in 2009-2nd Half
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, during the first half of 2009, began six asbestos-related
trials involving six plaintiffs.

A South Carolina jury returned a defense verdict in favor of
Garlock in a mesothelioma lawsuit. In another South Carolina
mesothelioma case, the jury awarded a plaintiff US$700,000.
However, after set-offs, Garlock's share of this verdict was
US$0.

In a Kentucky mesothelioma case, the jury awarded the plaintiff
US$2.1 million. Garlock's share of this verdict was US$525,000.
Garlock has appealed. Lawsuits in Pennsylvania and New York
settled during trial before the juries had reached a verdict. In
California, Garlock received a dismissal in a mesothelioma case
during trial.

Garlock's product defenses have enabled it to be successful at
trial. Garlock won a defense verdict in one of three cases tried
to verdict thus far in 2009, three of the six cases tried to
verdict in 2008, and four of six cases tried to verdict in 2006
and 2007. In the successful jury trials, the juries determined
that either Garlock's products were not defective, that Garlock
was not negligent, or that the claimant was not exposed to
Garlock's products.

In 2008, Garlock began 11 trials involving 13 plaintiffs. In
2007, Garlock began nine trials involving 12 plaintiffs.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Cites 5 Pending Appeals at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at June 30, 2009, five asbestos
appeals of its subsidiary (Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC) were
pending from adverse verdicts totaling US$2.7 million, up from
US$2.2 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and US$1.4 million at Dec. 31,
2007.

Garlock has historically enjoyed success in most of its appeals.
The Company said it believes that Garlock will continue to be
successful in the appellate process.

In June 2007, the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned a US$800,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2004, granting a new trial. In March 2006, a
three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The case
subsequently settled.

The Maryland Court of Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from a 2005
verdict in a mesothelioma case in Baltimore and Garlock paid that
verdict, with post-judgment interest, in 2006. In a separate
Baltimore case in 2006, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
denied Garlock's appeal from another 2005 verdict. The subsequent
appeal of that decision was also denied and Garlock paid that
verdict in 2007, also with interest.

In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company has been required to provide cash
collateral or letters of credit to secure the full amount of the
bonds, which can restrict the use of a significant amount of the
Company's cash for the periods of such appeals.

At June 30, 2009, the Company had about US$3.3 million of appeal
bonds secured by letters of credit.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Records $46.5M Settlement Commitments
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s new asbestos settlement commitments in
the first half of 2009 were US$46.5 million, up from US$28.1
million in the first half of 2008.

Much of the increase was because of the timing of annual
settlements with some plaintiff firms.

Garlock's new asbestos settlement commitments in the first
quarter of 2009 were US$22.5 million, up from US$8.2 million in
the first quarter of 2008. (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009)

Company subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC settles and
disposes of actions on a regular basis. Garlock's historical
settlement strategy was to settle only cases in advanced stages
of litigation. In 1999 and 2000, however, Garlock employed a more
aggressive settlement strategy.

The purpose of this strategy was to achieve a permanent reduction
in the number of overall asbestos claims through the settlement
of a large number of claims, including some early-stage claims
and some claims not yet filed as lawsuits.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999.

In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement commitments. As a result, Garlock
reduced new settlement commitments from US$180 million in 2000 to
US$94 million in 2001 and US$86 million in 2002.

New settlement commitments have continued to decline gradually
and totaled US$71 million in 2008.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $268.4M Coverage at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, at June 30, 2009, had available US$268.4 million of
insurance and trust coverage that the Company said it believes
will be available to cover future asbestos claims and certain
expense payments.

At March 31, 2009, Garlock had available US$302.2 million of
insurance and trust coverage. (Class Action Reporter, May 29,
2009)

In addition, at June 30, 2009, Garlock classified US$12.9 million
of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. Garlock collected
about US$100,000 from insolvent carriers in 2008, and the Company
said it believes that Garlock will collect some additional
amounts from insolvent carriers in the future. Garlock has
received US$700,000 from insolvent carriers early in the third
quarter of 2009.

Arrangements with Garlock's insurance carriers limit the amount
of insurance proceeds that Garlock is entitled to receive in any
one year. The Company anticipates that its remaining solvent
insurance will be collected during the period 2009 - 2018 in
about the following annual amounts: 2009 through 2010 - US$67
million per year (US$39 million was collected in the first half
of 2009); 2011 - US$40 million; 2012 and 2013 - US$25 million per
year; 2014 through 2016 - US$20 million per year; and 2017 and
2018 - US$12 million per year. The Company collected US$73
million of insurance in 2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Company reached an
agreement with a significant group of related U.S. insurers.
These insurers had withheld payments pending resolution of a
dispute. The agreement provides for the payment of the full
amount of the insurance policies (US$194 million) in various
annual payments to be made from 2007 through 2018. Under the
agreement, Garlock received US$22 million in 2007, US$20 million
in 2008 and US$20 million in 2009.

In May 2006, the Company reached agreement with a U.S. insurer
that resolved two lawsuits and an arbitration proceeding. Under
the settlement, Garlock received US$3 million in 2008, US$3
million in 2007 and US$4 million in 2006 and is scheduled to
receive another US$11 million in the future.

In the second quarter of 2004, the Company reached agreement with
Equitas, the London-based entity responsible for the pre-1993
Lloyds' of London policies in the Company's insurance block,
concerning settlement of its exposure to the Company's
subsidiaries' asbestos claims. As a result of the settlement,
US$88 million was placed in an independent trust.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the Company reached agreement with
a group of London market carriers (other than Equitas) and one of
its U.S. carriers that has some policies reinsured through the
London market. As a result of the settlement, US$55.5 million was
placed in an independent trust. At June 30, 2009, the aggregate
market value of the funds remaining in the two trusts was US$20.7
million, which is included in the US$268.4 million of insurance
and trust coverage available to pay future asbestos-related
claims and expenses.

Insurance coverage for asbestos claims is not available to cover
exposures initially occurring on and after July 1, 1984.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BJ Services Still Has Cases in Miss. Courts
------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Company continues to be involved in asbestos lawsuits
filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones and Smith Counties in
Mississippi.

In August 2004, certain predecessors of the Company, along with
numerous other defendants, were named in four lawsuits filed in
the Mississippi courts. These four lawsuits included 118
individual plaintiffs alleging that they suffer various illnesses
from exposure to asbestos and seeking damages.

The lawsuits assert claims of unseaworthiness, negligence, and
strict liability, all based upon the status of our predecessors
as Jones Act employers.

The plaintiffs were required to complete data sheets specifying
the companies they were employed by and the asbestos-containing
products to which they were allegedly exposed. Through this
process, about 25 plaintiffs have identified the Company or its
predecessors as their employer. Amended lawsuits were filed by
four individuals against the Company and the remainder of the
original claims (114) was dismissed.

Of these four lawsuits, three failed to name the Company as an
employer or manufacturer of asbestos-containing products so the
Company was thereby dismissed.

Subsequently an individual from one of these lawsuits brought his
own action against the Company. As a result, it is currently
named as a Jones Act employer in two of the Mississippi lawsuits.

The allegations in these cases vary, but generally include claims
that the Company provided some unspecified product or service
which contained or utilized asbestos or that an employee was
exposed to asbestos at one of its facilities or customer job
sites. Some of the allegations involve claims that the Company is
the successor to the Byron Jackson Company.

To date, the Company has been successful in obtaining dismissals
of those successor cases without any payment in settlements or
judgments, although some remain pending at the present time.

Houston-based BJ Services Company provides pressure pumping
services and other oilfield services to the oil and natural gas
industry worldwide. Services are provided through four business
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping, Canada Pressure Pumping,
International Pressure Pumping and the Oilfield Services Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Ltd. Subject to A&E Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited anticipates that it will continue to be
subject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary
course of business, including litigation generally related to the
scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental
claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited was formed to
acquire and manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-
off, and to provide management, consulting and other services to
the insurance and reinsurance industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Has $58M Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s non-current asbestos liabilities were US$58
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$54 million as of
Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related liabilities were US$58
million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 29,
2009)

The Company's current asbestos liabilities were US$14 million as
of June 30, 2009, compared with US$15 million as of Sept. 30,
2008.

Non-current asbestos recoveries were US$45 million as of June 30,
2009, compared with US$44 million as of Sept. 30, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos recoveries were US$8 million as of
both June 30, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2008.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems,
modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light
vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and
certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Has 30T Pending Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, faced
about 30,000 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2009,
down from about 35,000 at Sept. 30, 2008.

Asbestos claims against Maremont dropped from about 35,000 at
both Dec. 31, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2008 to 30,000 at March 31,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009)

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies face suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Although Maremont has been named in
these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged,
very few claimants have established that a Maremont product
caused their injuries.

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of hundreds or
thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all named
defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and irrespective
of any causal connection with a particular product.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future
claims were US$55 million as of June 30, 2009, compared with
US$53 million as of Sept. 30, 2008.

Maremont's asbestos-related recoveries were US$36 million as of
both June 30, 2009 and Sept. 30, 2008.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems,
modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light
vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and
certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Cites $17M for Rockwell Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. has recorded an insurance receivable related
to Rockwell Automation, Inc. legacy asbestos-related liabilities
of US$17 million at June 30, 2009 and US$16 million at Sept. 30,
2008.

The Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.

Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from
Rockwell in 1997. Currently there are thousands of claimants in
lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other
companies, as defendants.

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

The Company has recorded US$17 million at June 30, 2009 (US$16
million at Sept. 30, 2008) as liability for defense and indemnity
costs associated with these claims.

Troy, Mich.-based ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems,
modules and components serving commercial truck, trailer, light
vehicle and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and
certain aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACE Cites $1.243B Net Reserves at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
ACE Limited's net asbestos reserves were US$1.243 billion at
March 31, 2009, compared with US$1.365 billion at Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's gross asbestos reserves were US$2.472 billion as of
March 31, 2009, compared with US$2.629 billion as of Dec. 31,
2008.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ACE Limited is an insurance and
reinsurance organization, with operating subsidiaries in more
than 50 countries serving the needs of commercial and individual
customers in more than 140 countries. The Company also provides
specialized insurance products like personal accident,
supplemental health, and life insurance to individuals in select
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 16,060 Claims at July 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 16,060 asbestos
claims as of July 23, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug.
7, 2009.

This compares with 16,818 asbestos claims as of May 1, 2009,
17,854 claims as of Feb. 6, 2009, and 18,385 claims as of Oct.
27, 2008.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products previously manufactured by the Company.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had
a useful life of three to 12 months.

These suits allege lung and other diseases based on alleged
exposure to products previously manufactured by the Company.

As of July 23, 2009, about 11,358 of the claims pending against
the Company were pending in Mississippi. Of these, about 10,816
are in federal court, at the multidistrict litigation panel
(MDL), either through removal or original jurisdiction.

In addition to the 10,816 Mississippi claims pending against the
Company at the MDL, there are about 509 claims pending against
the Company at the MDL removed from various United States
District Courts in other states.

As of July 23, 2009, the remaining 4,702 claims pending against
the Company were pending in states other than Mississippi.
Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work
histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill
exposure in about 25 percent of total claims reported, and a
portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper
mill to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-
containing products.

The Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and
funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of
July 23, 2009, the Company had resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 24,404 claims. The total cost of resolving all
claims was US$6,836,000. Of this amount, US$6,791,000, or 99
percent, was paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the
monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies
on independent suppliers for the remainder. It markets these
products to paper mills through a direct sales staff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 8,139 Claims at July 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s affiliate, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., faced 8,139 asbestos claims as of July 23, 2009, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 7, 2009.

This compares with 8,604 asbestos claims as of May 1, 2009, 8,607
claims as of Feb. 6, 2009, and 8,664 such claims as of Oct. 27,
2008.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills (Abney), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc., which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.
It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of July 23, 2009, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 9,439 claims for a total of US$152,499. Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The
remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been borne directly by
Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

As of July 23, 2009, 6,821 (or about 84 percent) of the claims
pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the
monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies
on independent suppliers for the remainder. It markets these
products to paper mills through a direct sales staff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Subject to Mt. Vernon Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. continues to be named both as a direct
defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills in asbestos-related cases.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.

Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually
obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising
out of such products.

The Company denies any liability for products sold by Mount
Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing. The Company produces about 45 percent of the
monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and relies
on independent suppliers for the remainder. It markets these
products to paper mills through a direct sales staff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Corp. Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is and will likely continue to be involved in
legal proceedings and claims concerning asbestos-related product
exposure.

No other asbestos matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 7, 2009.

Mentor, Ohio-based STERIS Corporation develops, manufactures, and
markets infection prevention, contamination control, microbial
reduction, and surgical and critical care, support products and
services for healthcare, pharmaceutical, scientific, research,
industrial, and governmental customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Castparts Facing Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp., like many other industrial companies,
is a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to chemicals and substances in the workplace,
including asbestos.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others.

Portland, Ore.-based Precision Castparts Corp. makes investment
castings used in jet aircraft, satellite launches, armament, and
medical applications (prosthesis). Investment Casting Products
include jet engine parts, fluid management valves, and deep-hole
boring tools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 7T Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., as of June 30, 2009, has determined that it
is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 7,000 plaintiffs and claimants.

As of March 31, 2009, the Company was a named defendant in
asbestos lawsuits and claims involving about 9,000 plaintiffs and
claimants. (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

The Company is one of a number of defendants in a substantial
number of lawsuits filed in numerous state and federal courts by
persons alleging bodily injury (including death) as a result of
exposure to dust from asbestos fibers. From 1948 to 1958, one of
the Company's former business units commercially produced and
sold about US$40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate
based pipe and block insulation material containing asbestos. The
Company exited the pipe and block insulation business in April
1958.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-
handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel
throughout the country. The Company said it believes that as of
June 30, 2009 there are about 800 claims against other defendants
which are likely to be asserted some time in the future against
the Company.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2009, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 373,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per
claim of about US$7,400. Deferred amounts payable totaled about
US$32.2 million at June 30, 2009 (US$34 million at Dec. 31, 2008)
and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per
claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.47 billion through 2008, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has 214 Cases at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 214 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation, LLC
was potentially liable and that had not been settled and
dismissed at June 30, 2009.

The Company had recorded a US$51 million liability at June 30,
2009, related to this matter.

The Company had 238 asbestos cases for which it was potentially
liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31,
2009. The Company had recorded a US$52 million liability related
to this matter. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company, LLC on Feb.
20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed
to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated
with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the
agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company
apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based
upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison
locations or Company locations. The obligations under this
agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms
(subject to the right of either party to terminate); under the
automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February
2010.

Chicago-based Midwest Generation, LLC operates 5,776 MW of power
plants, consisting of: six coal-fired generating plants
consisting of 5,471 MW, which include the Powerton, Joliet, Will
County, Waukegan, Crawford and Fisk Stations; and the Fisk and
Waukegan on-site generating peakers consisting of 305 MW.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Facing Liability Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc. continues to be involved in litigation
resulting from the alleged prior distribution of products
containing asbestos by certain of the Company's predecessors or
acquired companies.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 7, 2009.

West Chester, Pa.-based VWR Funding, Inc. provides distribution
services. Products distributed include chemicals, glassware,
equipment, instruments, protective clothing, production supplies
and other assorted laboratory products. The Company has
operations in more than 20 countries and process about 50,000
order lines daily from more than 20 distribution centers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Reversed in SRW Environmental Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County,
reversed the ruling of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas in
the case styled SRW Environmental Services Inc., Plaintiff v.
Terry Dudley, Defendant-Appellant and JRJ Company, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.

Judges Bressler, Powell, and Young entered judgment in Case No.
CA2008-11-282 on July 27, 2009.

Terry Dudley appealed the decision of the trial court, which
awarded JRJ Company, Inc. US$20,000.  The appellate court
reversed the decision of the trial court.

In September 2001, JRJ entered into a purchase agreement in which
it contracted to sell property located in Oxford, Ohio to Mr.
Dudley. The property had several environmental issues including
previously removed aboveground and underground tanks, and
asbestos. The property was divided into three remediation areas,
designated A, B, and C, and SRW Environmental Services, Inc. was
retained to assess and remediate the problem areas, and remove
the asbestos.

As a condition of loaning the purchase money, Mr. Dudley's bank
required JRJ and Mr. Dudley to place US$165,000 of the purchase
price in escrow to pay for the environmental remediation.

SRW performed the environmental remediation over the next two
years. After areas A, B, and C, was completed, SRW sent final
invoices and requested payment from the escrow account being held
at Bath State Bank. The escrow agent paid SRW, and the parties
entered into an agreement whereby the remaining funds not needed
to pay for areas A, B, and C were disbursed to JRJ's partners in
addition to interest accrued on the account.

However, the parties agreed to leave the US$20,000 in the escrow
account to be disbursed as final payment for the asbestos
removal.

Before the asbestos removal could commence, a tenant of the
building containing the asbestos had to vacate the property.
However, the tenant, Candlewood Terrace, requested a lease
extension in accordance with the hold-over provision in its
original lease with JRJ.

Mr. Dudley agreed and extended the lease three times so that
Candlewood Terrace's lease did not expire until April 6, 2004.
After Candlewood Terrace vacated the property, Mr. Dudley
arranged for SRW to complete the asbestos removal. As stipulated,
the parties agree that the deadline for asbestos removal was May
12, 2004. However, SRW began the removal on May 27, 2004 and
finished on June 14, 2004.

Jeff Schroer, JRJ's real estate agent, sent a letter to Bath
State Bank requesting that the bank release the remaining
US$20,000 in escrow to JRJ. Due to the dispute over the escrowed
funds, SRW did not receive payment for the asbestos remediation,
and filed a complaint seeking payment.

SRW named Mr. Dudley and JRJ as defendants, and JRJ filed a
cross-complaint against Mr. Dudley. Eventually, Mr. Dudley and
SRW reached a settlement and SRW dismissed its claim against JRJ.

However, the cross-complaint between JRJ and Mr. Dudley
proceeded.

The Appeals Court reversed the decision of the trial court and
enter judgment in favor of Mr. Dudley.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Facing 107 Lawsuits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company (IPL), was a defendant in 107 pending asbestos lawsuits
as of June 30, 2009, compared with 114 pending suits as of Dec.
31, 2008.

These lawsuits allege personal injury or wrongful death stemming
from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products
formerly located in IPL power plants. IPL has been named as a
"premises defendant" meaning that IPL did not mine, manufacture,
distribute or install asbestos or asbestos containing products.

These suits have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for
contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL. IPL has insurance
which may cover some portions of these claims.

These cases are being defended by counsel retained by various
insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of time
during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

Indianapolis-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. generates, transmits,
distributes, and sells electricity to about 470,000 retail
customers in the city of Indianapolis and neighboring areas
within the state of Indiana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Has 415 Damage Cases at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2009, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 415
asbestos-related Property Damage Claims (subject to a March 31,
2003 bar date) remain outstanding.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits seek to have
the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001
bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts. Judgments after trial were entered
in favor of the Company in nine cases (excluding cases settled
following appeals of judgments in favor of the Company).
Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases (one of which is on appeal) for a total of US$86.1
million.

About 207 property damage cases were settled for a total of
US$696.8 million and 16 cases remain outstanding (including the
one on appeal). Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI
(Zonolite Attic Insulation) and eight relate to a number of
former asbestos-containing products (two of which also are
alleged to involve ZAI).

About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March
31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court. The
Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 360 of those claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$93 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and disposal of all
ZAI insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is in
millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several
thousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, the eight
U.S. cases have been stayed.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
Oct. 31, 2008.

About 16,200 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the Oct. 31,
2008 claims bar date and, as of June 30, 2009 an additional 3,170
U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed. On Oct. 17, 2008, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, in the Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding
pending under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, approved
the Minutes of Settlement that would settle all Canadian ZAI PD
Claims on the terms of the Joint Plan.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009
as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Facing Personal Injury Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be subject to asbestos personal
injury claims, in which claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
PI Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products
were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about
163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through settlements and
judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI claims for personal injury were
pending against the Company.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $923M Excess Coverage at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2009, there remains
about US$923 million of excess asbestos-related coverage from 53
presently solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers
with respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage. In
addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess coverage
with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with an underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance
coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of US$90 million
directly to an escrow account in respect of claims for which the
Company was provided coverage under the affected policies. The
escrow account balance at June 30, 2009 was about US$97.2
million, including interest earned on the account.

Funds will be distributed from this account directly to claimants
at the direction of the escrow agent under the terms of a
confirmed plan of reorganization or as otherwise ordered by the
Bankruptcy Court.

The settlement agreement, as subsequently amended, provides that
unless the Company confirms a plan of reorganization by Dec. 31,
2008, at the option of the underwriter, exercisable at any time
prior to Sept. 30, 2009, the escrow amount with interest must be
returned to the underwriter.

On July 17, 2009, the Company and the underwriter entered into an
amendment to the settlement agreement.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $47.5M Libby Liability at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$47.5 million at June
30, 2009 and US$48.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

During 2008, the Company paid US$250 million plus accrued
interest of about US$2 million under an agreement (the "EPA Cost
Recovery Agreement"), between the Company and the U.S. Department
of Justice to settle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
cost recovery claims for all past and future remediation costs
with respect to the Company's former Libby operations, except for
those relating to the Grace-owned Libby vermiculite mine.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $34.7MM for Libby at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. and certain of its employees' total expense for
asbestos-related matters in Libby, Mont., was US$34.7 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$8.5 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2008.

In February 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the
unsealing of a grand jury indictment against the Company and
seven former senior level employees (one of whom died before the
trial commenced) (United States of America v. W. R. Grace & Co.
et al.) relating to the Company's former vermiculite mining and
processing activities in Libby, Mont.

The indictment accused the defendants of (1) conspiracy to
violate environmental laws and obstruct federal agency
proceedings; (2) violations of the federal Clean Air Act; and (3)
obstruction of justice. The Company categorically denied any
criminal wrongdoing.

The trial began in February 2009 and, on May 8, 2009, a Montana
jury unanimously acquitted the Company and three former employees
on all counts. Charges against three other former employees were
dismissed.

The Bankruptcy Court previously granted the Company's request to
advance legal and defense costs to the employees involved in this
case.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in NJDEP Case v. Grace Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a case
involving W. R. Grace & Co., remains pending.

In 2005, the NJDEP filed a lawsuit against the Company and two
former employees, which was removed at the Company's request to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J.
Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W. R. Grace & Co., et al.).

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and
false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by the
Company to the NJDEP in 1995 under the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of its former vermiculite expansion plant in Hamilton
Township, N.J. In 2005, the Bankruptcy Court stayed this lawsuit.

In April 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling stating that
the lawsuit filed by the NJDEP was in violation of the automatic
stay and enjoining further pursuit of all claims in the lawsuit.
In March 2009, the Delaware District Court upheld the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling.

In April 2009, the NJDEP appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To the extent this lawsuit
proceeds against the two former Grace employees, the Company may
have an indemnification obligation.

In April 2007, New Jersey filed a motion for leave to file a late
proof of claim in the amount of US$31 million with respect to
substantially the same claims set forth in the lawsuit.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied this motion and the
Delaware District Court affirmed this ruling on appeal in March
2008. In April 2008, New Jersey appealed this ruling to the Third
Circuit, which appeal remains pending.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Still Subject to Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, and
its operations may be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits,
claims, investigations and proceedings, including asbestos.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.

Clayton, Mo.-based FutureFuel Corp. develops, manufactures, and
markets products for two business units: Biofuels and Specialty
Chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Units Still Facing Exposure Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue
to be defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.

Atlanta-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in three
business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil. Mueller
makes and sells fire hydrants, valves and related products. U.S.
Pipe makes and sells ductile iron pipe, restrained joint
products, fittings and other products. Anvil makes and sells pipe
fittings, couplings, pipe hangers, pipe nipples and related
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Cites $1.005B Carolinas Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary's (Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC) asbestos-related reserves totaled US$1.005 billion million
as of June 30, 2009 and US$1.031 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company has experienced numerous claims for indemnification
and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or use of
asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.

The Company has a third-party insurance policy to cover certain
losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention of
US$476 million.

The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance
recoveries for indemnification and medical cost claim payments is
US$1.074 billion in excess of the self-insured retention.
Insurance recoveries of about US$1.007 billion as of June 30,
2009 and US$1.032 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008 are classified in
the Consolidated Balance Sheets in Other within Investments and
Other Assets and Receivables.

Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. have also
been named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations.

The Company has exposure to certain legal matters that are
described herein.

The Company has recorded reserves, including reserves related to
the aforementioned asbestos-related injuries and damages claims,
of about US$1 billion as of June 30, 2009 and US$1.1 billion as
of Dec. 31, 2008 for these proceedings and exposures.

The Company recognized about US$1.007 billion as of June 30, 2009
and US$1.032 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008 of probable insurance
recoveries related to these losses.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corporation has four million
electricity customers and about 520,000 gas customers in the U.S.
South and Midwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Still Has Stehman Case in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is still a defendant in an asbestos case
entitled Larry C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos
Corporation, Limited and Ballantyne Strong, Inc. individually and
as successor in interest to Strong International, Strong Electric
Corporation and Century Projector Corporation, et al.

The case was filed on Dec. 8, 2006 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco.

The case is scheduled for trial to commence on Aug. 24, 2009.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Ballantyne Strong, Inc. manufactures,
distributes, and provides service to the theatre exhibition
industry. The Company also designs, develops, manufactures and
distributes lighting systems to the worldwide entertainment
lighting industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 3rd-Party Cases Still Ongoing v. Liggett
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says that, as of June 30, 2009, there were two
Third-Party Payor Actions pending against subsidiary Liggett
Group LLC and other cigarette manufacturers.

Third-Party Payor Actions typically have been filed by insurance
companies, union health and welfare trust funds, asbestos
manufacturers and others.

In Third-Party Payor Actions, plaintiffs seek damages for funding
of corrective public education campaigns relating to issues of
smoking and health; funding for clinical smoking cessation
programs; disgorgement of profits from sales of cigarettes;
restitution; treble damages; and attorneys' fees.

Miami-based Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company and is engaged
principally in: the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the
United States, the marketing of the low nicotine and nicotine-
free QUEST cigarette products, and the real estate business
through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shell Chemicals Faces Claims Over Ohio Site
------------------------------------------------------------
Kraton Polymers LLC says that Shell Chemicals has been named in
several asbestos lawsuits relating to the elastomers business
that the Company has acquired.

In particular, claims have been filed against Shell Chemicals
alleging workplace asbestos exposure at the Belpre, Ohio,
facility.

Under the sale agreements between the Company and Shell Chemicals
relating to the separation from Shell Chemicals in 2001, Shell
Chemicals has agreed to indemnify the Company for certain
liabilities and obligations to third parties or claims against it
by a third party relating to matters arising prior to the closing
of the acquisition by Ripplewood Chemical.

The Company is indemnified by Shell Chemicals with respect to
these claims, subject to certain time limitations.

In addition, the Company and Shell Chemicals have entered into a
consent order relating to certain environmental remediation at
the Belpre, Ohio, facility.

Houston-based Kraton Polymers LLC produces styrenic block
copolymers (SBCs), a family of specialty chemical products whose
chemistry the Company pioneered over 40 years ago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Facing Injury Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
still face lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury
due to exposure to asbestos during work at formerly owned
facilities.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those
received may be asserted in the future, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 12, 2009.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states.
Subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas
gathering systems and provide various ancillary services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Party to 122 Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation is a defendant in 122 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended June 30, 2009.

The suits allege that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970 to Aug. 1, 1973 have
been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide a
defense under those policies.

The Company has requested that the carriers substantiate this
situation.

Arden Hills, Minn.-based IntriCon Corporation designs, develops,
engineers and manufactures body-worn devices and electronic
products. The Company has two operating segments: its body worn
device segment and electronics products segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harris Still Subject to Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, various claims or charges are asserted and
litigation commenced against Harris Corporation arising from or
related to the sale or use of products containing asbestos.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 31, 2009.

Melbourne, Fla.-based Harris Corporation is a communications and
information technology company that applies a solutions approach
to serving government and commercial markets in more than 150
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dalmine Facing 42 Pending Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary, Dalmine S.p.A., as of June 30, 2009,
faced 42 total asbestos claims, of which none are covered by
insurance.

As of March 31, 2009, Dalmine faced a total of 41 pending
asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, May 15, 2009)

Dalmine, a Tenaris subsidiary organized in Italy, is currently
subject to 12 civil proceedings for work-related injuries arising
from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing processes during
the period from 1960 to 1980. In addition, another 30 asbestos
related out-of-court claims have been forwarded to Dalmine.

During the six month period ended June 30, 2009, seven new claims
were filed, no claims were adjudicated, and five claims were
settled out of which four were paid, three claims were rejected,
and 13 claims were dismissed.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR8
million (US$11.3 million). Dalmine estimates that its potential
liability in connection with the claims not yet settled is about
EUR12.2 million (US$17.3 million).

Luxembourg-based Tenaris S.A. manufactures and distributes
seamless steel pipe products. Most of its products are oil
country tubular goods company (OCTG) meant for the energy
industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Still Faces 39 Cases at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at June 30, 2009, there were 39
asbestos lawsuits in which it was one of many defendants,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.

Sugar Land, Tex.-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling
contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs
contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 offshore drilling
units located worldwide, including the Middle East, India, the
U.S. Gulf of Mexico, Mexico, the North Sea, Brazil, and West
Africa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Remand Motion in Kotecki Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, denied Richard
and Barbara Kotecki's Motion to Remand in an asbestos case filed
against Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (BP) and General Electric Company
(GE).

The case is styled Richard Kotecki, et al., Plaintiffs v. Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants.

Senior District Judge Warren W. Eginton entered judgment in Case
No. 3:09-cv-00097 (WWE) on July 28, 2009.

This case arose out of the Koteckis' allegations that exposure to
asbestos from products manufactured by BP and GE, during Mr.
Kotecki's employment as a pipecoverer and pipefitter at Electric
Boat, caused him to contract asbestos-related diseases like
malignant mesothelioma.

Mrs. Kotecki sought damages for loss of consortium.

On Dec. 26, 2008, the Koteckis filed an action for asbestos
personal injury and loss of consortium in the Connecticut
Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport.

The Koteckis complained that defendants failed to warn of the
dangerous characteristics of asbestos and failed to provide
knowledge regarding known safety precautions to avoid harmful
exposure to asbestos.

BP filed a Notice of Removal on Jan. 21, 2009.  That same day,
GE joined in the removal petition. Both parties timely filed
their notice of removal.

The Koteckis moved to remand this case to state court, arguing
that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Brian P. Kenney, Esq., Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq., of Early,
Ludwick & Sweeney, in New Haven, Conn., represented the Koteckis.



                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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  * * *