CAR_Public/090911.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 180
  
                            Headlines

AGILENT TECH: Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal Pending
AGILENT TECH: Faces Merged Varian Shareholder Suit in California
AMTRUST BANK: Borrowers Sue To Recover $350 Table Funding Fee
BERNARD L. MADOFF: Law Student Settles with Madoff's Brother
BEST BUY: Sued For Refusing To Sell TV at Misprinted Sale Price

BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Sued for Cheating Policyholders in D. Ariz.
CASELLA WASTE: BMR Discriminatory Practices Suit Remains Pending
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Oct. 16 Final Hearing Set for Stockholder Deal
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement of "Fong" Calif. Labor Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Defending Remanded Refund Anticipation Loan Lawsuit

H&R BLOCK: Appeal to Junked Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
H&R BLOCK: SCC Still Faces Suits Over Pre-Termination Activities
H&R BLOCK: Unit Appeals "Do Right's Plant Growers" Certification
H&R BLOCK: Lawsuits v. Unit Over Peace of Mind Program Pending
IPO LITIGATION: $195 Million Fee Request Draws Fire

NETAPP INC: Motion to Dismiss Shareholders Suit Pending in Del.
NETAPP INC: Data Domain's Shareholders Suit Pending in Calif.
REGIONS BANK: Sued for Unfairly Maximizing Overdraft Fees
TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers
UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending

VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued in S.D. Ohio for Useless Data Service
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Arbitration of Consolidated Consumer Suit
WALGREEN CO: Sued for Discrimination After Firing Black Workers

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jones Case Filed in Jefferson County on Aug. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harper Case v. 18 Companies Filed in Jefferson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 Actions Filed in Madison During Aug. 10 to 14
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Lawsuits Filed in Madison During Aug. 3 to 7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kintetsu to Pay JPY49M Compensation for Injury

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Settles Satterfield Family Injury Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taunton Local to Pay GBP2T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PEER Files Suit on Grand Teton Asbestos Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Indicts 2 Firms for Handling Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Links Swindon Woman's Death to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Derbyshire Groundsman's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hardie Execs Penalized for Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willis Case v. Georgia-Pacific Settled Aug. 13
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $800T Assessed for Cleanup at Ohio School Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shiocton Resident Charged for Handling Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corry Family Wins $2Mil in Compensation Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hughes' Widow Wins Lawsuit v. Vernon & Roberts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Has $3.24B Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 858 Claims in W.Va. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $14.7Mil Net Reserve at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Cites $397M Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Cites $300T for Settlement Agreement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Units Still Facing Claims in Canada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Still Involved in MPERS Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.79MM Net Reserves at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse, Units Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge, NATCO Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright, Units Still Face Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $152.3M for A&E at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Ameren, Units Rise to 75 in June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Company Still Facing Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Product Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M for Coverage for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Accrues $900T for Remediation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 70 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Met-Pro Corp. at July 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $159.35M June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Facing 9,415 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $705.4MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Houston Wire Still Pending in 3 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Involved in AO Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Still Reserves $277T for Gradall Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Gardner Denver
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Records $2.7MM ARO Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&F Still Incurs No Material Amounts at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $46.90M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Still Has $13.56M Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,257 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevamar Subject to Workers' Compensation Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prime Group Has $8.1M June 30 Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BMCA Still Subject to Bodily Injury Proceedings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Still Subject to Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Subject to Product Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sisson Claim v. 41 Defendants Filed on Aug. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrell Case Filed v. 36 Companies in Jefferson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doyle's Lawsuit v. 9 Companies Filed on Aug. 26

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coldfoot to Pay $5,100 Penalty for CAA Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Ariz. Schools to Pay $22T for AHERA Breaches

                            *********

AGILENT TECH: Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the global settlement of a securities class
action, Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 01-CV-10639 (S.D.N.Y.), is pending, according to the
company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

In November 2001, the action was filed against certain investment
bank underwriters for the company's initial public offering,
Agilent and some of its officers and directors at the time of the
IPO.

In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims
against Agilent based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange
Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss the claims based on
Section 11 of the Securities Act.

On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the
plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and
insurers were presented to the Court.  Under the proposed
settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors
and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent
payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and
an assignment of certain potential claims.  However, class
certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the
underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several
"test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs.

On Jan. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the
full bench of the Second Circuit.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying
rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek
certification of a more modest class."

On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the
proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants
based on a stipulation among the parties.  Plaintiffs have
amended their allegations and filed amended complaints in six
"test cases" (none of which involve Agilent).

Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the amended
complaints.  On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  

The parties have again reached a global settlement of the
litigation and filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement on April 2, 2009.  Under the settlement, the insurers
would pay the full amount of settlement share allocated to
Agilent, and Agilent would bear no financial liability.   
Agilent, as well as the officer and director defendants who were
previously dismissed from the action pursuant to tolling
agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the case.  On
June 9, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a  
measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic
measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life
sciences and chemical analysis industries.  The company operates
in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the
bio-analytical measurement business.


AGILENT TECH: Faces Merged Varian Shareholder Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agilent Technologies, Inc. faces a consolidated amended putative
class action complaint, In re Varian, Inc., Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV-149132, in California.

On Aug. 5, 2009, a putative class action was filed in
California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara, entitled
Feivel Gottlieb Plan -- Administrator Feivel Gottlieb Defined
Benefit Pension Plan DTD 01-01-04 v. Garry W. Rogerson, et al.,
No. 1-09-CV-149132.  

The action was allegedly brought on behalf of a class of
shareholders of Varian, Inc. against Varian, its board of
directors, Agilent and Cobalt Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Agilent, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Varian.  

A similar action, entitled Stuart Kreisberg v. Garry W.
Rogerson, et al., No. 1-09-CV-149383, was filed in the
same court on Aug. 7, 2009.  

The actions were subsequently consolidated into In re Varian,
Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-09-CV-149132, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2009.  

The consolidated amended complaint is also filed on behalf of an
alleged class of Varian shareholders against Varian, its
directors, Agilent and Cobalt.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that Varian's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed acquisition and asserts, among other things, that the
price and other terms are unfair, that Varian's directors have
engaged in self-dealing, and that the disclosures in Varian's
Aug. 7, 2009 proxy filing are inadequate.  

Agilent and Cobalt are alleged to have aided and abetted the
Varian directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and other relief, including attorneys'
fees and costs.  

On Aug. 19, 2009, another substantially similar putative class
action, entitled Hawaii Laborers Pension Fund v. Varian, Inc., et
al., No. 1-09-CV-150234, was filed in the same court against
Varian, its directors, and Agilent.  

According to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2009, like the consolidated amended complaint, it
asserts claims on behalf of a class of Varian shareholders,
alleges that Varian's directors breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed acquisition by, inter alia,
failing to value Varian properly, agreeing to improper deal
terms, engaging in self-dealing and making misleading
disclosures, alleges that Agilent aided and abetted those
purported breaches of fiduciary duties, and seeks injunctive and
other relief (including attorneys' fees and costs).  

Agilent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.agilent.com/-- is a  
measurement company providing bio-analytical and electronic
measurement solutions to the communications, electronics, life
sciences and chemical analysis industries.  The company operates
in two business segments: electronic measurement business and the
bio-analytical measurement business.


AMTRUST BANK: Borrowers Sue To Recover $350 Table Funding Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AmTrust Bank charges $350
for a "table funding fee" at real estate closings, though it
offers no valid service for it, a class action lawsuit claims.  

A copy of the Complaint in Devito v. AmTrust Bank, Case No.
09-cv-03858 (E.D.N.Y.) (Cogan, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/HomeMortsCA.pdf

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Catherine Anderson, Esq.
          GINSJAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-847-8315


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Law Student Settles with Madoff's Brother
------------------------------------------------------------
Vesselin Mitev at the New York Law Journal reports that a Long
Island, N.Y., law student who sued the brother of Bernard Madoff
for depleting his trust fund in a multibillion-dollar Ponzi
scheme has settled for less than his original claim, according to
his attorney.  Andrew Samuels of Dix Hills, N.Y., sued Peter
Madoff for depleting his $475,000 trust fund by paying out
"fictitious returns" to other investors in the scam.  The fund
was started by Mr. Samuels' grandfather and his wife, Ruth.

Peter Madoff had moved to dismiss the case, arguing he owed no
fiduciary duty to the second-year Brooklyn Law School student.  
In March, Nassau Supreme Court Justice Stephen A. Bucaria ordered
a temporary freeze on Peter Madoff's assets but modified the
order in April, after the parties had stipulated to allowing him
a $10,000 monthly budget for "necessary" expenses with the
provision he set aside enough money to pay off Samuels' claim if
the matter got to trial. After several hearings were adjourned,
Samuels v. Madoff, Index No. 09-05534, was discontinued at the
end of July.

Steven Schlesinger, Esq., of Jaspan Schlesinger, who represented
Mr. Samuels, declined to provide a specific amount, but told Mr.
Mitev that the settlement was for less than the $475,000 sought.

Irving H. Picard, the trustee charged with liquidating Bernard
Madoff's assets, had tried to stake a claim to any funds
recovered, Mr. Mitev adds.  Mr. Picard declined Mr. Mitev's
request for comment on whether he planned to go after the
settlement money.  Charles Spada, Esq., one of Madoff's
attorneys, did not respond to Mr. Mitev's request for comment
either.

Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to defrauding investors in July and
was sentenced to 150 years in prison.

For more coverage of the Bernard Madoff case, see the Law.com
Madoff Watch page at http://www.law.com/jsp/law/madoff.jsp

For continuous updates, follow Law.com's Madoff Watch on Twitter
at http://twitter.com/Madoff_Watch


BEST BUY: Sued For Refusing To Sell TV at Misprinted Sale Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Best Buy refused to honor a
sale price of $9.99 for a 52-inch TV which it advertised on its
Web site on Aug. 12, a class action claims in Monmouth County
Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Vitarelle v. Best Buy Inc., Docket No.
L-4026-09 (N.J. Super. Ct, Monmouth Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/CCABestBuy.pdf

Michael Vitarelle, the named plaintiff, is represented by:

          Jonathan Rudnick, Esq.
          CARTON & RUDNICK
          262 Highway 35
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 842-2070


BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Sued for Cheating Policyholders in D. Ariz.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BlueCross BlueShield of
Arizona cheats policyholders who use out-of-network services, a
class action claims in Phoenix Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Traslavina-Pena v. BlueCross
BlueShield of Arizona, Case No. 09-cv-01857 (D. Ariz.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/InsureBlue.pdf

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          7702 E. Doubletree Ranch Road, Suite 300
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 607-4368
          Fax: (480) 607-4366
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          
               - and -
          
          Gregory Y. Porter
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 543-0226
          
               - and -
          
          Edwin R. Lamberth, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS LLC
          1601 Dauphin Street
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 471-6191
     
               - and -

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599


CASELLA WASTE: BMR Discriminatory Practices Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. and Blue Mountain Recycling, LLC
continue to defend a class-action lawsuit over discriminatory
hiring practices.

In November 2008, a class-action lawsuit was filed in U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania against BMR and
the company, alleging discriminatory hiring practices at BMR's
facility in Philadelphia.

A companion complaint was filed in February 2009, with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

BMR and the company deny all allegations, according to its Sept.
3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. -- http://www.casella.com/-- is a   
vertically integrated company.  The company operates in 15
states.  It operates vertically integrated solid waste
operations in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts,
and Maine, and materials processing facilities in Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Oct. 16 Final Hearing Set for Stockholder Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final settlement hearing in the consolidated amended class
action complaint against The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc., is scheduled for Oct. 16, 2009.

On Sept. 21, 2007 a stockholder class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York against the
company and certain of its current and former senior executives.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's current and former officers made statements to the
investing public which misrepresented material facts about the
business and operations of the company, or omitted to state
material facts required in order for the statements made by them
not to be misleading, causing the price of the company's stock to
be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the
Exchange Act, as amended.  It alleges that subsequent disclosures
establish the misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages plus interest as well as
costs and disbursements of the lawsuit.  

On Oct. 10, 2007, a third stockholder class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, against
the company and certain of the company's current and former
senior executives.  

This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of our
current and former officers made statements to the investing
public which misrepresented material facts about the business and
operations of the company, or omitted to state material facts
required in order for the statements made by them not to be
misleading, thereby causing the price of the company's stock to
be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the
Exchange Act, as amended.  

According to this complaint, subsequent disclosures establish the
misleading nature of these earlier disclosures.  

This complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages
plus interest, and costs and expenses of the lawsuit, including
counsel and expert fees.  

These two actions have been consolidated and the plaintiff filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008.

The company's motion to dismiss was denied on July 18, 2008.  

On June 26, 2009, the company and all other parties entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the action in the amount of
$12 million, which settlement was preliminarily approved by the
Court on July 17, 2009.  The cost of the settlement is covered by
the company's insurance, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's apparel and accessories, ages newborn to 14 years old.  
The company designs, contracts to manufacture and sells
merchandise under the The Children's Place brand name.  The
company offers current fashion trends in a color palette as
coordinated outfits specifically designed for children.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settlement of "Fong" Calif. Labor Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement on a putative class action suit by Joy
Fong against The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., is
pending.

On July 12, 2006, Ms. Fong, a former Disney Store manager in the
San Francisco district, filed a lawsuit against the company and
its subsidiary Hoop Retail Stores, LLC, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code and sought class action
certification on behalf of Ms. Fong and other individuals
similarly situated.  

The company filed its answer on Aug. 11, 2006, denying any and
all liability, and on Jan. 14, 2007, Ms. Fong filed an amended
complaint, adding Disney as a defendant.  

Effective as of March 26, 2008, the prosecution of this lawsuit
against Hoop was stayed under the automatic stay provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code by reason of Hoop's petition for relief
filed that same day.  The case is proceeding against the other
defendants.

On Dec. 18, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification on the misclassification claim.  

The company has reached a tentative settlement in the amount of
$0.6 million and the parties are negotiating the terms of the
settlement agreement.  The cost of this settlement was accrued as
part of the company's accounting for discontinued operations,
according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2009.

The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. --
http://www.childrensplace.com/-- is a specialty retailer of  
children's apparel and accessories, ages newborn to 14 years old.  
The company designs, contracts to manufacture and sells
merchandise under the The Children's Place brand name.  The
company offers current fashion trends in a color palette as
coordinated outfits specifically designed for children.


H&R BLOCK: Defending Remanded Refund Anticipation Loan Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. continues to defend a remanded putative class
action regarding the company's refund anticipation loan programs.

The sole remaining case is a putative class action entitled
Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, 1st
J. Dist., Phila. Cty.), instituted on April 23, 1993.

The court decertified the class in December 2003, and the
Pennsylvania appellate court subsequently reversed the trial
court's decertification decision.

In September 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the
appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decertification
decision.

In June 2007, the appellate court affirmed its earlier decision
to reverse the trial court's decertification decision.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has granted the company's request
to review the appellate court ruling.

In June 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court again reversed the
appellate court's reversal of the trial court's decertification
decision and remanded the case to the appellate court for
additional review, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal to Junked Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of In re H&R Block
Securities Litigation, Case No. 06-0236-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo.),
remains pending.

On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R
Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company
and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material
and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles and concealment of the potential for
lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the
company's operations.  It sought unspecified damages and
equitable relief.

On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted
the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint
pertaining to the Company's financial statements.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint,
alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading
financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed
complaint on Feb. 19, 2008.  On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal.

No updates on the matter were reported in the company's Sept. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles F. Speer, Esq.
          Speer Law Firm
          104 West 9th Street, Suite 305
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: 816-472-3560
          Fax: 816-421-2150
          E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Sameer Advani, Esq.
          Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
          787 7thAvenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Phone: 212-728-8000
          Fax: 212-728-8111
          E-mail: sadvani@willkie.com

               - and -

          Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq.
          Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: 650-320-4858
          Fax: 650-565-5100
          E-mail: jbirn@wsgr.com


H&R BLOCK: SCC Still Faces Suits Over Pre-Termination Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sand Canyon Corporation remains subject to class action lawsuits
pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities that
occurred prior to its termination and sale, according to H&R
Block, Inc.'s Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

H&R Block, Inc.'s subsidiary, SCC, was formerly known as Option
One Mortgage Corporation.

Although mortgage loan origination activities were terminated
and the loan servicing business was sold during fiscal year
2008, SCC remains subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits
pertaining to its loan origination and servicing activities that
occurred prior to such termination and sale.

These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by
state attorneys general, other state regulators, municipalities,
individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated.
Among other things, these investigations, claims and lawsuits
allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination
and servicing practices, public nuisance, fraud, and violations
of the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
the Fair Housing Act.

In the current non-prime mortgage environment, the number of
these investigations, claims and lawsuits has increased over
historical experience and is likely to continue at increased
levels.

The amounts claimed in these investigations, claims and lawsuits
are substantial in some instances, and the ultimate resulting
liability is difficult to predict.

In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amounts SCC may be
required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements
could be substantial and, because SCC's operating results are
included in the company's consolidated financial statements,
could have a material adverse impact on H&R's consolidated
results of operations.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


H&R BLOCK: Unit Appeals "Do Right's Plant Growers" Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R
Block, Inc., from the class certification in a lawsuit regarding
its business valuation services.

The suit is Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc.,
RSM McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. 06 CC00137 (Calif. Super, Ct., Orange Cty.), filed on
July 11, 2006.

The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation
services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified
damages, restitution and equitable relief.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on all claims.  The class consists of all
RSM EquiCo U.S. clients who signed platform agreements and for
whom RSM EquiCo did not ultimately market their business for
sale.  

RSM EquiCo has filed an appeal of this certification ruling and
intends to defend this case, according to the company's Sept. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


H&R BLOCK: Lawsuits v. Unit Over Peace of Mind Program Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc.,
continues to face purported class actions in Illinois and Texas
in relation to the its Peace of Mind Program, according to
the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

                      Illinois Litigation

One of the cases is the purported class action, Lorie J.
Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil
Action 2003L000004 (Ill. Cir. Ct, Madison Cty.).  The suit was
filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action status on Aug.
27, 2003.  The plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating
to the POM Program under which the applicable tax return
preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax
assessments attributable to tax return preparation error.  The
plaintiffs allege that the sale of the Peace of Mind Program
guarantees constitutes:

      -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license;

      -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming"
         (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though
         they did not request it or want it); and

      -- a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes
consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final
judgment:

      -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a
         defendant H&R Block class member;

      -- reside in certain class states and were charged a
         separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R
         Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and

      -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills
         by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member.

Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded
from the plaintiff class.

The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product.

The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to
certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal.
Discovery is proceeding.  No trial date has been set (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 14, 2008).

On Aug. 5, 2008, the court decertified the defendant class and
reduced the geographic scope of the plaintiff classes from 48
states to 13 states.

On Aug. 19, 2008, the company removed the case from state court
in Madison County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.  In December 2008, the U.S.
District Court remanded the case back to state court.

On April 3, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the decision to remand the case back to state
court, ruling that the case had been properly removed to federal
court.  The plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing of
this decision with the Seventh Circuit, which was denied in
August 2009.

                       Texas Litigation

There is one other putative class-action lawsuit pending against
the company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee.

This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are
involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar
allegations.  No class has been certified in this case.

H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial
services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment,
mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and
products.


IPO LITIGATION: $195 Million Fee Request Draws Fire
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that objections
have been filed to the $195 million fee request by plaintiffs
attorneys who achieved a $586 million settlement in a massive
federal initial public offering litigation. In papers filed
Tuesday by counsel for objectors, four attorneys argue the
request for $195 million was "outrageous" and "a fee of 33.33
percent is not permissible in a mega-fund case like this."

Southern District of New York Judge Shira A. Scheindlin is
scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday to give final approval to
the settlement and pass judgment on the fee request by Bernstein
Liebhard, Milberg LLP and other plaintiffs firms.

The objectors, led by attorney Edward F. Siegel, Esq., of
Cleveland, also argue in their papers in In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, MC-21-92 (S.D.N.Y.), against $50
million in expenses sought by the plaintiffs firms, stating,
"Whether the class should reward its counsel for flying first
class and staying at 5-star hotels is a question. Whether the
class should pay for the maintenance of the modern equivalent of
each firm's electronic law library (electronic research charges)
is another."

Howard Sirota, Esq., of the plaintiffs firm Sirota & Sirota said
of Siegel and the other objecting attorneys, "Their contribution
is zero -- they are shakedown artists."  Mr. Siegel said he
"obviously disagreed" with Mr. Sirota's opinion.  "We are working
for the best interests of the class to make sure they get as much
of the gross settlement fund as they can," Mr. Siegel told Mr.
Hamblett.

The hearing is set for 4:30 p.m. Thursday.



NETAPP INC: Motion to Dismiss Shareholders Suit Pending in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motion to dismiss a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
the shareholders of Data Domain, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware is pending, according to NetApp, Inc.'s
Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

The lawsuit, filed on June 12, 2009, names as defendants the Data
Domain directors, and NetApp and its merger subs, and alleged
breach of fiduciary duty by the Data Domain board of directors
and aiding and abetting such breach by NetApp.

The complaint initially sought injunctive relief and damages.

On Aug. 26, 2009, plaintiff in the Delaware Suit moved to dismiss
its action and requested attorneys' fees and expenses based on
the benefit allegedly conferred by plaintiff's lawsuit upon Data
Domain's shareholders.

According to the company's Form 10-Q dated Sept. 4, 2009, it
believes any claims against NetApp or its merger subs, and any
request for attorneys' fees or expenses from NetApp or its merger
subs, are without merit.

NetApp, Inc. -- http://www.netapp.com/-- is a provider of  
storage and data management solutions.  The company offers
solutions for storing, managing, protecting and archiving
business data.  The company is engaged in the design,
manufacturing, marketing and technical support of networked
storage solutions.  It offers storage solutions that incorporate
its unified storage platform and the functionality of the data
and storage resource management software.  NetApp markets its
products in the United States and in foreign countries through
its sales personnel and subsidiaries.


NETAPP INC: Data Domain's Shareholders Suit Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended purported class action complaint on behalf of Data
Domain, Inc.'s shareholders is pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, according to
NetApp, Inc.'s Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

The lawsuit, which was filed on June 19, 2009, names as
defendants the Data Domain, its directors, and NetApp and its
merger subs, and alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Data
Domain board of directors and aiding and abetting such breach by
NetApp.

The complaint initially sought injunctive relief and damages.

On July 23, 2009, plaintiff in the California Suit purported to
serve an amended complaint alleging a single claim for attorneys'
fees and expenses based on the benefit allegedly conferred by
plaintiff's lawsuit upon Data Domain's shareholders.

According to the company's Form 10-Q dated Sept. 4, 2009, it
believes any claims against NetApp or its merger subs, and any
request for attorneys' fees or expenses from NetApp or its merger
subs, are without merit.

NetApp, Inc. -- http://www.netapp.com/-- is a provider of  
storage and data management solutions.  The company offers
solutions for storing, managing, protecting and archiving
business data.  The company is engaged in the design,
manufacturing, marketing and technical support of networked
storage solutions.  It offers storage solutions that incorporate
its unified storage platform and the functionality of the data
and storage resource management software.  NetApp markets its
products in the United States and in foreign countries through
its sales personnel and subsidiaries.


REGIONS BANK: Sued for Unfairly Maximizing Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Regions Bank juggles
accounts to extract maximum, and unfair, "overdraft" fees, a
class action claims in Lufkin, Texas, Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Spikes, et al. v. Regions Bank, Case
No. 09-cv-00146 (E.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/BanksRegions.pdf

The five named plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce Steckler, Esq.
          Russell Budd, Esq.
          S. Ann Saucer, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Fax: (214) 520-1181


TOYS R US: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit by Internet Retailers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us' Inc. intends to defend a consolidated class action
case brought by internet retailers, according to its Sept. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

On July 15, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consumer class action commenced in
January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by
two internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005.

Both actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby
product manufacturers to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum
price agreements with retailers in violation of antitrust laws.

On July 29, 2009, Defendants filed a petition with the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to immediately appeal
the District Court's class certification order.

Toys "R" Us' Inc. -- http://www.toysrus.com/-- is one of the  
world's largest toy retailers.  Toys "R" Us sells its wares in
about 1,500 stores in the US and abroad and through Web sites.  
In addition to about 585 US namesake stores selling toys, games,
and other items for kids, Toys "R" Us sells infant and toddler
apparel, furniture, and feeding supplies at some 260 Babies "R"
Us stores in more than 40 states.  It's owned by KKR, Bain
Capital, and real estate firm Vornado Realty Trust, which
together took the toy seller private in a $6.6 billion deal.  
Toys "R" Us acquired troubled toy icon FAO Schwarz in 2009.


UTI WORLDWIDE: Freight Forwarding Services Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. and several other global logistics providers
continue to face a purported class-action suit that was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, alleging antitrust violations, according to the company's
Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption,
"Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport
(Holding) Ltd."  It alleges that the defendants engaged in
various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an
unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter Jan. 14,
2008).

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are:

     -- Panalpina, Inc.;
     -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG;
     -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.;
     -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.;
     -- EGL, Inc.;
     -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP;
     -- Deutsche Bahn AG;
     -- Schenker AG;
     -- Schenker, Inc.;
     -- Deutsche Post AG;
     -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.;
     -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and
     -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders.

Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC
d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental
entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding
Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any
subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any
time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present.

They want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in
         a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix,
         stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding
         Services sold in the United States;

     (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination
         violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or
         combination alleged;

     (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took
         affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy
         or combination;

     (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the
         contract, conspiracy or combination alleged;

     (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of
         Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an
         artificially high and non-competitive level;

     (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or
         combination upon interstate commerce;

     (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and

     (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
         declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs pray:

     -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim
        contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule
        23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
        Procedure;

     -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination
        alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint
        of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the
        Sherman Act;

     -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as
        provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment
        in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against
        the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance
        with the antitrust laws;

     -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors,
        transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors,
        partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other
        persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be
        permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner:

        (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract,
            conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering
            into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering
            into any other contract, conspiracy or combination
            having a similar purpose of effect, and from
            adopting or following any practice, plan, program or
            device having a similar purpose or effect; and

        (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any
            other person engaged in the distribution or sale of
            Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning
            prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any
            such products except to the extent necessary in
            connection with bona fide sale transactions between
            the parties to such communication;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre-
        and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded
        at the highest legal rate from and after the date of
        service of the initial complaint in this action;

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their
        costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
        as provided by law; and

     -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such
        other, further, and different relief as the case may
        require and the court may deem just and proper under the
        circumstances.

The suit is Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina
World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042
(E.D.N.Y.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 608-1900
          Fax: (212) 719-4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com

Representing the defendants are:

          August C. Venturini, Esq.
          Venturini & Associates
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 545
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: 212-826-6800
          Fax: 212-949-6162
          E-mail: acv@venturini-law.com

               - and -

          James Joseph Calder, Esq.
          Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
          575 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-940-6460
          Fax: 212-940-3871
          E-mail: james.calder@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          Breon S. Peace, Esq.
          Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-225-2059
          Fax: 212-225-3999
          E-mail: bpeace@cgsh.com


VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued in S.D. Ohio for Useless Data Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon Wireless charges for
"data usage" even if customers do not get such a service, and
even if their phones are incapable of it, a class action claims
in Cincinnati Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Brown v. Verizon Wireless, Case No.
09-cv-654 (S.D. Ohio), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/Verizon.pdf

Michael S. Brown, the named plaintiff, is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Theresa L. Groh, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          MURDOCK GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH, L.P.A.
          35 East Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@mgsglaw.com
                  tgroh@mgsglaw.com
                  tnaylor@mgsglaw.com

               - and -

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Paul J. Minnillo, Esq.
          Minnillo & Jenkins, Co., L.P.A.
          5712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600
          E-mail: cjenking@minnillojenkins.com
                  pjminnillo@minnillojenkins.com


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Seeks Arbitration of Consolidated Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. seeks arbitration of a consolidated
purported consumer fraud class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Initially, the company was named in several purported class
action complaints filed in California, New Jersey, Ohio and
Washington.  The suits allege a wide variety of deficiencies
with respect to the company's business practices, marketing
disclosures, e-mail marketing and quality issues for both phone
and fax service.

These cases seek relief under various state consumer protection
statutes, federal anti-spam laws, and common law theories.  Some
of the actions allege that the company failed to adequately
disclose terms of service, including how the money-back
guarantee and the free month of service operate.  Various
plaintiffs allege that the disconnect fees are improper and that
the company failed to honor promised rebates.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege the company falsely
represented cost savings for its customers and deceptively
describe the nature and quality of our service.  Other
plaintiffs claim its facsimile service is defective.

These various class action suits, on behalf of both nationwide
and state classes, pending in New Jersey, Washington and
California, are generally alleging that the company:

       -- delayed and refused to allow consumers to cancel
          their company service;

       -- failed to disclose procedural impediments to
          cancellation;

       -- failed to adequately disclose that their 30-day money
          back guarantee does not give consumers 30 days to try
          out the company's services;

       -- suppressed and concealed the true nature of its
          services and disseminated false advertising about the
          quality, nature and terms of the company's services;

       -- imposed an unlawful early termination fee; and

       -- invoked unconscionable provisions of its Terms of
          Service to the detriment of customers.

On May 11, 2007, the plaintiffs in one action petitioned the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and
consolidation of the pending actions to a single court for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The motion was heard on July 26, 2007, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and the MDL Panel, in an order dated Aug. 15, 2007,
transferred the pending actions to the U.S. Court for the
District of New Jersey, where they were consolidated under the
caption In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation,
MDL No. 1862, Master Docket No. 07-CV-3906 (D. N.J.).

On Oct. 1, 2007, the counsel for one group of plaintiffs asked
the court for appointment of co-lead counsel of the actions, and
requested time to file an amended consolidated complaint.

On Nov. 6, 2008, the Court entered an Order Granting
Consolidation and Appointment of Co-Lead Counsel, and ordered
that a consolidated Complaint be filed within 45 days, which
Complaint was filed on Dec. 19, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the company filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.  Oral argument on the motion was scheduled for Sept.
1, 2009, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q/A
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Vonage Holdings Corp. -- http://www.vonage.com/-- is a provider
of broadband telephone services with over 2.2 million subscriber
lines as of Dec. 31, 2006.  Utilizing its voice-over-Internet
protocol (VoIP) technology platform, the Company offers low-cost
communications services.


WALGREEN CO: Sued for Discrimination After Firing Black Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that eight former workers say
Walgreen discriminates against black people by firing them, in a
class action in E. St. Louis Federal Court.  

A copy of the Complaints in Boatwright v. Walgreen Co., Case No.
09-cv-00700 (S.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/08/EmployWalgreen.pdf

The eight former Walgreen employees are represented by:

          Tiffany B. Klosener, Esq.
          Amy L. Coopman, Esq.
          W. James Foland, Esq.
          FOLAND, WICKENS, EISFELDER, ROPER & HOFER, P.C.
          911 Main Street, 30th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 472-7474
          E-mail: tklosener@fwpclaw.com
                  acoopman@fwpclaw.com
                  jfoland@fwpclaw.com

               - and -

          Kent Spriggs, Esq.
          SPRIGGS LAW FIRM
          324 West College Avenue
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-8700
          E-mail: kspriggs@spriggslawfirm.com


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jones Case Filed in Jefferson County on Aug. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit against 23 defendant corporations and brought
on behalf of Donald G. Jones was filed on Aug. 28, 2009 in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Jones worked as an operator from 1957
until 1990. He died on Jan. 21, 2008, from lung cancer.

Plaintiffs named in the suit are Mr. Jones' wife, Beatrice Jones,
and his daughters Diana Hathorn, Donna Jones and Debra Jones
Kovar.

Defendants include: Able Supply LLC, Ameripol Synpol, AMF,
Babcock and Wilcox Power, Goodrich Corporation, Chevron Phillips
Chemical Company (f/k/a Gulf Oil Corporation), Chevron U.S.A.
Inc., Erie Power Technologies, Guard Line, and Gulf Oil
Corporation.

Defendants also include: Henry Vogt Machine Company, Huntsman
Petrochemical Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Michelin North America, Mid Valley Construction Company, Riley
Power Inc., Texaco Inc., Texaco Refining and Marketing, Triplex,
and Zurn Industries, LLC.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants did not provide Mr. Jones
with information on appropriate apparel to wear around the
products, according to the suit. They say the defendant companies
were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Jones bout the
dangers of asbestos.

In the suit, the plaintiffs state the companies also negligently
failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of the
asbestos-containing products.

According to the suit, Mr. Jones was unaware of the hazards and
defects in the asbestos-containing products.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified general, special, punitive and
exemplary damages, plus costs, interest and for other relief the
Court deems appropriate.

Tina H. Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont, Tex.,
and Paul D. Henderson, Esq., of Orange, Tex., represent the Jones
family.

Case No. E184-803 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harper Case v. 18 Companies Filed in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit by Gilbert L. Harper and his wife, Bonita L.
Harper, against 18 defendant corporations was filed on Aug. 25,
2009 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

Defendants include: A.O. Smith Corporation, A.W. Chesterton
Company, Babcock Borsig Power, CBS Corporation, Certainteed
Corporation, Cleaver Brooks Inc., Crane Co., Crown Cork and Seal
Company, General Refractors Company, Garlock, Georgia-Pacific
LLC, Goulds Pumps, Ingersoll-Rand plc, Kelly Moore Paint Co.,
Pneumo Abex Corporation, Sepco Corp. and Zurn Industries, Llc.

Mr. Harper Gilbert L. Harper worked as a painter, plumber,
carpenter, fire investigator and in heating and air conditioning,
where he says he was exposed to asbestos-containing products.

This is the second asbestos lawsuit filed by the Harpers against
the companies. In their August 2009 lawsuit, the Harpers claim a
different asbestos-related injury than in their prior complaint.

The couple claims the defendants failed to test the asbestos-
containing products before they were introduced into the stream
of commerce, according to the lawsuit. They say the defendant
companies were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Harper
about the dangers of asbestos.

The suit says that the companies also negligently continued to
manufacture the products around which Mr. Harper worked, even
after they were aware of the asbestos danger.

In the lawsuit, the Harpers seek unspecified actual and exemplary
damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and for
other relief the Court deems appropriate.

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

Case No. E184-778 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9 Actions Filed in Madison During Aug. 10 to 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Aug 10, 2009 through Aug. 14, 2009, a total of
nine new asbestos suits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L-833) Mary Balthasar of Iowa (a bookkeeper and
   office manager) claims mesothelioma. She was also exposed to
   asbestos through her family members, who performed home
   remodeling projects and worked on cars. Richard L. Saville
   Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Andrew J. Balcer, Esq.,
   of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Balthasar.

-- (Case No. 09-L-832) Rowland Deems of Nebraska, an electrician
   at Union Pacific Railroad, a member of the U.S. Navy and an
   outside salesman for Omaha Compound, claims mesothelioma.
   Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian
   and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. Deems.

-- (Case No. 09-L-831) Charles and Mary Sue Denning of Louisiana
   claim Mr. Denning developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   member of the U.S. Navy and as a research scientist at Behr
   Laboratories. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A.
   Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent
   the Dennings.

-- (Case No. 09-L-837) Donald and Margaret Hybels of Michigan
   claim Mr. Hybels developed mesothelioma after serving in the
   U.S. Army. Mr. Hybels also began working as an electrician
   and worked at Muskegan Electric, Moore Electrical Service,
   Rowen and Blair Electric Company and Hybels Electric Service.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., represent the Hybels.

-- (Case No. 09-L-834) Mary and Stephen Monasmith of Arizona
   claim Mrs. Monasmith developed mesothelioma after her work as
   an office manager. Mrs. Monasmith was also secondarily
   exposed to asbestos fibers through her family members.
   Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
   Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent the Monasmiths.

-- (Case No. 09-L-828) J.C. Morrow of Oklahoma, a laborer,
   insurance salesman and compositer at various locations
   throughout Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, California,
   Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, claims mesothelioma. G.
   Michael Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Morrow.

-- (Case No. 09-L-835) Julie Rockingham of Illinois claims
   Addist Rockingham died after developing mesothelioma. Mr.
   Rockingham was exposed to asbestos after his work as a
   steelworker for more than 30 years and as a member of the
   Army. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq.,
   of Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Rockingham.

-- (Case No. 09-L-830) Tawny and Keith Stetzel claim Mrs.
   Stetzel developed mesothelioma after her work as a medical
   lab technician. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A.
   Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., represent
   the Stetzels.

-- (Case No. 09-L-836) Ronald E. Wilson and Alice Malone-Wilson
   of Arizona claim Mr. Wilson developed colon cancer after
   serving in the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy. Mr. Wilson
   was also a merchant seaman. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Wilsons.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Lawsuits Filed in Madison During Aug. 3 to 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Aug. 3, 2009 through Aug. 7, 2009, a total of
10 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 09-L826) David DeSante of Rhode Island claims his
   deceased mother, Anna DeSante, developed mesothelioma after
   her job as a factory worker for Westminster Jewelry, Cable
   Electric, Coro Jewelry, Spiedel, Monet Jewelry, O'Connell and
   Carpenter and Imperial Knife. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mr. DeSante.

-- (Case No. 09-L-825) Mary Eades of Texas claims her deceased
   son, Charles Gaffey, died after he developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a porter at Litsinger Motors and after
   helping his uncle remodel his home. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
   Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Eades.

-- (Case No. 09-L-820) Robert Gragg, who worked at Bakers
   Quarry, as an apprentice carpenter at DuPont, as a petty
   officer in the U.S. Navy, served aboard the U.S.S. Stribling
   DD and the U.S.S. Dyers DDS, at Dean White Construction
   cleaning up hoses after fires and general labor, for Goodyear
   Tire and Rubber Company as a factory worker and general
   janitorial worker, claims mesothelioma. James F. Kelly, Esq.,
   and Jeffrey A.J. Millar, Esq., of Brent Coon and Associates
   in St. Louis represent Mr. Gragg.

-- (Case No. 09-L-819) Teresa M. Lawlor of Florida claims Clara
   L. Fisk died after developing mesothelioma from her work in
   maintenance for bowling alleys and Goodwill stores. Richard
   L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton,
   Ill., will be representing Ms. Lawlor.

-- (Case No. 09-L-823) Hollis and Paula Lee of Indiana claim Mr.
   Lee developed mesothelioma after his work as a mechanic and
   painter. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., represent the Lees.

-- (Case No. 09-L-802) Richard Lemire of Texas claims Albert
   Lemire died after developing mesothelioma from his work as a
   laborer and store clerk while in the United States Navy.
   Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
   Alton, Ill., represent Richard Lemire.

-- (Case No. 09-L-818) Elizabeth S. Love of Massachusetts claims
   Helen F. Shelley died after developing mesothelioma from her
   work as a school teacher. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and
   Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Alton, Ill., represent Ms. Love.

-- (Case No. 09-L-822) Hubert L. and Sharon Paul of Alabama
   claim Mr. Paul developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   machinist helper for Mobile Ship Repair, as an employee for
   Alabama States Docks, as an employee for International Paper
   Company, as a firefighter, as a member of the U.S. Navy and
   the U.S. Air Force and as a firefighter. Elizabeth V. Heller,
   Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the
   Pauls.

-- (Case No. 09-L-824) Stanley Stevens of Indiana claims his
   deceased wife, Sarah Stevens, died after developing
   mesothelioma after her work as a dental assistant and x-ray
   technician. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., Paul M. Dix, Esq., and
   Courtney Harashe Gregory, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   represent Mr. Stevens.

-- (Case No. 09-L-821) Gary D. Trommell, an employee at Dairy
   Queen and the Miller Plant Farm Nursery, an employee at the
   Kelsey Hayes Company, a mobile home brake manufacturer on the
   assembly line and a teacher, coach, athletic director and
   principal, claims peritoneal mesothelioma. James F. Kelly,
   Esq., and Jeffrey A.J. Millar, Esq., of Brent Coon and
   Associates in St. Louis will represent Mr. Trommell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kintetsu to Pay JPY49M Compensation for Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yumiko Tokuoka order Kintetsu Corporation to pay JPY49
million in compensation to an unnamed man whose family claimed he
died from inhaling asbestos in a building owned by the Company,
The Yomiuri Shimbun reports.

The Company is an Osaka, Japan-based railway operator.

According to the lawyers representing the family, the ruling
given on Aug. 31, 2009 at the Osaka District Court was the first
ever to find a building owner at fault over health problems
caused by asbestos.

The family claimed in the suit that the man operated a stationery
shop under an elevated railway track of the Company in Osaka
Prefecture.

The man suffered mesothelioma because he inhaled asbestos powder
flaking from the shop's walls, leading to his death in 2004 at
the age of 70. The family had demanded JPY 73 million in
compensation.

Judge Tokuoka said the Company had failed to take proper
measures, although the vibrations from trains passing over the
shop could have caused asbestos particles to shake loose into the
air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Settles Satterfield Family Injury Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Satterfield's family and Alcoa Inc. settled for an
undisclosed amount an asbestos-related exposure and cancer
lawsuit, The Daily Times reports.

The case was filed in 2003 by Ms. Satterfield when she was 23
years old following her diagnosis with mesothelioma.

Greg Coleman, Esq., who represents the Satterfield family, said,
"A confidential financial settlement was obtained."

On Sept. 2, 2009, Christy Newman, the Alcoa Tennessee Operations
spokeswoman, said, "We can confirm that the parties have agreed
to settle the case in a confidential agreement. We are pleased
that the lawsuit is concluded and both parties can move forward."

Ms. Satterfield died on Jan. 1, 2005, at age 25, and her parents,
Doug and Donna Satterfield, continued the lawsuit.

Mr. Satterfield was employed by Alcoa Tennessee Operations
starting in 1973. He hauled asbestos for the Company.

In September 2008, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the family who maintained Ms. Satterfield's cancer was caused by
hazardous substances at her father's workplace that were
transferred to his daughter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taunton Local to Pay GBP2T for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael James, a developer, was ordered to pay GBP2,332 in fines
and costs after the Environment Agency charged him for illegal
waste disposal, edie reports.

The incident occurred last summer. Mr. James, of Taunton,
Somerset, England, allegedly buried asbestos and rubble at a
Somerset farm.

Taunton magistrates heard how during conversion of farm
buildings, Mr. James had built up over 250 tons of construction
and demolition waste. This was made up of concrete slabs and
blocks, fiber cement cladding material, and asbestos.

Rather than properly dispose of the waste, Mr. James hired a
contractor to dig a pit and bury it at the farm.

Michael Dyer for the Environment Agency said, "If the defendant
had taken the trouble to segregate the concrete rubble from the
hazardous waste it would have only cost around GBP1,000 to
legitimately dispose of the relatively small amount of asbestos.

"Mixing and burying the various wastes has created a much larger
potential clean-up bill."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PEER Files Suit on Grand Teton Asbestos Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a complaint filed on Aug. 26, 2009 by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency should investigate serious
asbestos-related violations by Grand Teton National Park
managers, according to a PEER press release dated Aug. 26, 2009.

Ignoring warnings from its staff, the park stored friable
asbestos in areas of the park accessible to visitors and then had
it illegally shipped in open trucks across state lines for
improper disposal.

In August 2001, the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration cited the park for subjecting the workers who
removed 2500 feet of asbestos-coated water pipe to unsafe and
unhealthful conditions such as shoveling the asbestos dust which
peeled off the pipes without protective equipment.

The PEER complaint focuses on what followed the OSHA citation,
charging that park managers:

-- Heaped the asbestos at local sites without any containment or
   means to protect park visitors from exposure;

-- Dumped some loads onto campsite fire grates that were later
   distributed throughout the park; and

-- Loaded much of the materials into uncovered dump trucks that
   were driven through Jackson Hole, Wyo., on a 300-mile trip to
   an open dump at Mud Lake, Idaho, where it remains today.

PEER contends that by these actions park officials knowingly
violated the Clean Air Act and the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund).

Knowing violations can bring fines of up to US$250,000 and
imprisonment of up to five years under the Clean Air Act and
three years under CERCLA. The organization argues that the clear
danger to the public and workers, as well as the fact that the
asbestos today still poses a hazard due to improper disposal,
merits treating these offenses as crimes.

PEER Staff Counsel Christine Erickson, Esq., said, "Grand Teton
park managers showed an outrageous disregard for the health of
the workers and the public in how they carried out this asbestos
removal. National Park officials sometimes forget that
environmental laws apply to them as well."

PEER further maintains that the asbestos violations are not
isolated incidents of problems at Grand Teton, pointing to a 2008
Interior Department Office of Inspector General audit criticized
Grand Teton facilities where park employees are subjected to
"poor indoor air quality" from vehicle exhaust vented directly
into work spaces.

PEER had to sue the Inspector General under the Freedom of
Information Act to obtain the inspection records underlying this
report and is looking at other unsafe and unhealthful work
conditions at Grand Teton that have yet to be remedied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Indicts 2 Firms for Handling Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Tennessee indicted two unnamed demolition and salvage
companies along with three of their owners and supervisors on
charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate
the Clean Air Act, The Associated Press reports.

The indictment describes a scheme in which the Standard Coosa
Thatcher plant in Chattanooga, Tenn., was illegally demolished
while containing asbestos that should have been removed first.

The indictment also alleges that owners and supervisors falsified
documents and lied to federal authorities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Links Swindon Woman's Death to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Anita Peters, of Greenmeadow,
Swindon, England, was linked to secondary exposure to asbestos,
This is Wiltshire.co.uk reports.

Mrs. Peters died at Prospect Hospice in Wroughton on April 4,
2009, the inquest in Swindon's Civic Offices in Euclid Street
heard on Sept. 1, 2009.

The inquest was told the 66-year-old Mrs. Peters suffered from
vascular dementia and developed chest problems in 2007, but a
confirmed diagnosis was never made. A post mortem by pathologist
Lawrence John showed that Mrs. Peters had pleural mesothelioma.

Mrs. Peters' husband John said he met his wife when she was 10
years old. He said his wife spent her professional life working
in accounts and never came into contact with asbestos through her
own work.

Mr. Peters said his father-in-law Albert Summers died of
mesothelioma in April 2006 after coming into contact with the
substance during his time at a railway company as a younger man.

Mr. Peters said of his father-in-law, "He was a fitter. They
didn't have showers in those days - he would come home in his
overalls and they would be dirty, covered in dust."

Wiltshire Coroner David Ridley said, "Mr. Peters and a family
friend took Anita for a walk around the garden. It was during
that walk Anita collapsed and became unresponsive. She was
pronounced dead."

Recording a narrative verdict, Mr. Ridley said, "Anita, in a
balance of probability, was most likely to be involved in
asbestos exposure down to her father's contact with asbestos.
Anita' death was caused by industrial disease mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Derbyshire Groundsman's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Stephen Gillingham, a former
groundsman from Derbyshire, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports.

Mr. 51-year-old Gillingham suffered from mesothelioma. He had
chemotherapy but, in May 2009, he was taken to the former Derby
City General Hospital with increasing shortness of breath, and
died there on June 16, 2009.

Mr. Gillingham worked as the head groundsman at International
Combustion in Sinfin Lane, Derby, from 1988 to 1994.

Before his death, Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court
heard how Mr. Gillingham planned to file a claim against the
company after what he described as several years' exposure to
asbestos dust.

In a statement compiled as part of his compensation claim, Mr.
Gillingham identified several periods when he might have been in
contact with the dust.

Assistant deputy coroner Michael Bird said it was likely that Mr.
Gillingham's mesothelioma was caused by this exposure, adding,
"We have good evidence from Mr. Gillingham, in the form of his
statement, about what he says he was exposed to.

"We have also heard how the vast majority of such cases occur in
connection with asbestos exposure, so it is highly likely this
was the cause of his death."

In his statement, Mr. Gillingham, of Grosvenor Street, Allenton,
said he had spent a lot of time in the archives of International
Combustion, which was bought by Rolls-Royce in the late 1990s.

Consultant pathologist Dr. Andrew Hitchcock, from the Royal Derby
Hospital, said that no asbestos fibers had been found in Mr.
Gillingham's body and his exposure to asbestos dust could have
been light.

Mr. Bird recorded a verdict of death as a result of industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Hardie Execs Penalized for Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Supreme Court, on Aug. 20, 2009, penalized
former executives and directors of James Hardie Industries N.V.
for breaching the Corporations Act in 2001 regarding the adequacy
of asbestos compensation funding, Bloomberg reports.

Hardie was fined AUD80,000 (US$66,467) for breaching its
continuous disclosure obligation in 2003, according to the
statement from the Australian Securities & Investments
Commission.

Former Chief Executive Officer Peter Macdonald was fined
AUD350,000 and barred from managing a corporation for 15 years,
and former company secretary and general counsel Peter Shafron
received an AUD75,000 fine and a seven-year ban.

Eight other former directors were banned from managing
corporations for five years and given fines of either AUD30,000
or AUD35,000.

The former James Hardie directors were found in April 2009 to
have breached the Corporations Act when making statements in 2001
about the adequacy of asbestos compensation funding.

A media release at the time said the trust was "fully funded" and
offered "certainty" of compensation for victims. The fund could
run out of cash by 2011 if the government does not step in, the
Australian Financial Review reported.

Hardie has spent US$20.3 million on the case since February 2007,
it said in its first-quarter results this week. The defendants
will have 28 days from the making of the penalty orders to appeal
the punishment, ASIC said.

URS Corp. Chief Executive Officer Martin Koffel, who left the
Hardie board in 2002, is planning to appeal the decision,
according to his legal counsel, said Jane Simmons, an outside
spokeswoman for URS.

In a statement to the stock exchange, Hardie said it is
considering its position regarding an appeal and at this stage
does not intend to comment further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willis Case v. Georgia-Pacific Settled Aug. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to defense law firm HeplerBroom in Edwardsville, Ill.,
on Aug. 13, 2009, an asbestos trial ended in a defense verdict
for Georgia-Pacific LLC in a case filed by William Willis, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

However, a Sangamon County jury also awarded the 69-year-old Mr.
Willis, a former Springfield postal worker and part-time
handyman, US$2 million against Bondex International, over its
asbestos-containing joint compound.

Mr. Willis sued in 2007 in Sangamon Circuit Court, claiming he
was dying from mesothelioma. He was a full-time postal worker,
but claimed that he did odd jobs over a number of years relating
to roofing, siding and the use of drywall joint compounds.

At trial, Mr. Willis maintained that he used Georgia-Pacific
joint compound while doing residential renovations from the mid-
1960s to the early 1980s.

Pathologist Mark Wick, M.D. and pulmonologist Gerald Kerby, M.D.
testified that Mr. Willis' death was either idiopathic or due to
amphibole asbestos exposure for work he had done as a teenager
working for his father on boiler tear outs.

Industrial hygienist Kim Anderson approximated the minimal
exposure Mr. Willis would have had based on his claims of drywall
joint compound work.

The jury found Bondex alone liable and awarded Mr. Willis US$1.5
million in damages and his wife, Sharon Willis, US$500,000 for
loss of consortium. But the jury award is subject to a reduction
of US$1.4 million due to prior settlements.

The jury found co-defendants CertainTeed Corporation and Georgia-
Pacific not to be negligent.

Mr. Willis was represented by Davis Law Offices in Springfield,
Ill.

Georgia-Pacific was represented by Jeff Hebrank, Esq., and Brian
Huelsmann, Esq., of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville, Ill., along with
Michael Drumke, Esq., of the firm's Chicago office and Steve
Kaufmann, Esq., of its Springfield office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $800T Assessed for Cleanup at Ohio School Bldg.
----------------------------------------------------------------
About US$800,000 (out of US$1 million) is estimated for the
removal of asbestos at a school building in Ohio, Mesothelioma &
Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

The Ohio School Facilities Commission says it will likely cost
US$1 million to demolish the aging school building.

For the first time in 132 years, students will not be attending
the Cortland, Ohio, school that started out as Cortland High
School and is now used to house the elementary school.

The school board has shut the building, and moved students into
other buildings. The school's future is uncertain, but it will
likely be put up for sale in an auction be held this fall,
according to Robert Wilson, Lakeview district superintendent.

By law, the school district had to offer the building for sale
first to any private schools in the district. However, there are
none.

Cortland, Ohio, Mayor Curt Moll estimates that tearing down the
building would cost between US$500,000 and US$1 million. MR.
Wilson says the number is closer to US$1 million, according to an
estimate generated by the Ohio School Facilities Commission.

The asbestos present in the building is encapsulated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shiocton Resident Charged for Handling Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Phillips, a 53-year-old resident of Shiocton, Wis., was
indicted on federal charges for breaching regulations for
asbestos removal, the Post-Crescent reports.

The indictment says Mr. Phillips owned Villa Apartments in New
London, Wis., through a corporation. Between July 2007 and
November 2007, he removed a large quantity of pipe during a
heating system conversion and violated federal Environmental
Protection Agency rules for disposal.

The indictment said Mr. Phillips did not give the EPA required
notice, did not wet down asbestos when it was removed from pipes,
handled asbestos carelessly, removed it from the building without
packing it in leak-proof wrapping, did not label packages as
hazardous and did not have anyone trained in asbestos removal and
disposal on premises.

Mr. Phillips was indicted on seven counts. Each count carries a
maximum penalty of five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine,
plus a mandatory US$100 special assessment and up to three years
of supervised release.

The EPA and the state Department of Natural Resources
investigated the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corry Family Wins $2Mil in Compensation Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois jury awarded the family of Leslie Corry US$2 million
for Ms. Corry's secondhand exposure to asbestos and eventual
death, Asbestos.com reports.

In the 1950s, Ms. Corry's first husband worked at an asbestos and
rubber company. During his employment, he was exposed to asbestos
on a regular basis, which he unknowingly carried home on his
clothes.

While washing his clothes, it is believed that Ms. Corry was
exposed to asbestos, which has been labeled the cause of her
malignant mesothelioma.

Although Ms. Corry's secondary exposure occurred during the
1950s, she was not diagnosed with mesothelioma until several
decades later due to the severe latency period of symptoms.

Secondary exposure has primarily affected women who used to wash
their husbands' asbestos-contaminated clothes after work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hughes' Widow Wins Lawsuit v. Vernon & Roberts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Hughes' widow, Dorothy Hughes, won a seven-year
asbestos-related compensation fight against her husband's former
employers, Stalybridge, England-based engineering firm Vernon &
Roberts, the Manchester Evening News reports.

Vernon & Roberts has been forced to pay up to settle the case.

Mr. Hughes died of mesothelioma in 2001 after being exposed to
asbestos working for the firm in the 1960s. His case was settled
for GBP60,000 four years ago.

However, since the firm's insurance company had dissolved, Mrs.
Hughes had to start a new fight to force someone to honor the
decision.

Manchester solicitor Pauline Chandler, from Pannone LLP, has now
secured a payout from the former directors who got a share of
Vernon & Roberts' assets when it shut down.

Vernon & Roberts were dismantling engineers and Mr. Hughes came
in to contact with asbestos dust as buildings and equipment were
demolished and stripped. The firm was insured with the Federated
Insurance Company, which has now ceased trading.

Solicitors tried to claim from the Financial Services
Compensation Scheme, but they refused to pay out because the
claim was lodged with Vernon & Roberts before it was wound up in
2003.

Ms. Chandler had to sue the former directors of Vernon & Roberts
for not fulfilling their duties properly. They were then forced
to pay the settlement out of their own pockets.

Ms. Chandler said, "If a company has employer's liability
insurance, the insurers will usually pay out if an employee
develops a disease.

"In this case, there were assets of GBP250,000 when the claim was
made and instead of sharing them out between themselves when the
company finally folded, the directors should have paid out Mrs.
Hughes' compensation claim."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Has $3.24B Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability for
unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$3.242 billion
during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$3.541
billion during the six months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims for and
claims adjustment expense was US$3.330 billion during the three
months ended March 31, 2009, compared with US$3.598 billion
during the three months ended March 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2009)

The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expense was US$1.152 billion during the six months
ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$1.288 billion during the
six months ended June 30, 2008.

The gross IBNR (incurred but not yet reported reserves) included
in the liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense,
relating to asbestos claims, were US$2.151 billion during the six
months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$2.256 billion during
the six months ended June 30, 2008.

The net IBNR included in the liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense, relating to asbestos claims, were
US$978 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$1.114 billion during the six months ended June
30, 2008.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recoded
380 claims opened, 161 claims settled, 514 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 5,485 claims at end of period.

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company recorded
392 claims opened, 97 claims settled, 551 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 6,307 claims at end of period.

New York-based American International Group, Inc. provides
property/casualty and specialty insurance to commercial,
institutional, and individual customers. Internationally, the
Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and retirement
services, asset management, and financial services in more than
130 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 858 Claims in W.Va. at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc., as of June 30, 2009, faced 858 claims
alleging exposure to asbestos in West Virginia, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 7, 2009.

As of June 30, 2009, the Company also faced four claims in
Pennsylvania and one in Illinois.

The Company's total number of claims alleging exposure to
asbestos, as of March 31, 2009, was 865 in West Virginia and
three in Pennsylvania. (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2009)

Allegheny's Distribution Companies (Monongahela Power Company,
The Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company) have
been named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants,
in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving
multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites. These suits have been
brought mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not
involve allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of
asbestos-containing products by the Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities. Its historical
operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers,
including Lloyd's of London.

Asbestos-related litigation expenses have to date been reimbursed
in full by recoveries from these historical insurers, and the
Company said it believes that it has sufficient insurance to
respond fully to the asbestos suits. Certain insurers, however,
have contested their obligations to pay for the future defense
and settlement costs relating to the asbestos suits.

The Company is currently involved in three asbestos and
environmental insurance-related actions:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
   Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
   County, Md.),

-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
   Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and

-- Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
   Company, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS (Suffolk Superior
   Court, Mass.).

The Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company have resolved
their dispute and, therefore, Civil Action No. 07-3168-BLS will
be voluntarily dismissed.

The parties in the remaining actions seek a declaration of
coverage under the policies for asbestos-related and
environmental claims.

Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated
energy business that owns and operates electric generation
facilities and delivers electric services to customers in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland and Virginia. The Company's
two business segments are the Delivery and Services segment and
the Generation and Marketing segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Records $14.7Mil Net Reserve at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s net asbestos- and
environmental-related reserve for losses and loss adjustment
expenses were US$14.7 million at June 30, 2009 and US$13.9
million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's net A&E-related reserve for losses and LAE were
US$14 million at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 22,
2009)

The Company's gross A&E-related reserve for losses and LAE were
US$17.6 million at June 30, 2009 and US$18.5 million at Dec. 31,
2008.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of US$57.7 million at June 30,
2009 and US$58.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation. However, the Company continues to
be subject to claims related to years in which it was a
participant.

A significant part of the Company's pool reserves relates to its
participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association
(ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was
dissolved and since that time, the business has been in runoff.
The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years.

The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10
years.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
provides personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, workers'
compensation, and commercial multiple-peril insurance and
professional liability coverage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Cites $397M Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and casualty group's
asbestos and environmental insurance reserves, at June 30, 2009,
were US$397 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$84
million.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Cites $300T for Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation says that settlement agreement and related
costs reflected legal and related fees for asbestos-related
matters of US$300,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2009
and US$800,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2009.

On Nov. 27, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in
the bankruptcy case of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current
and future asbestos-related claims made against the Company and
its affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction.

The Settlement agreement will also resolve the fraudulent
transfer claims and successor liability claims, as well as
indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
and affiliated companies that had been made against the Company
in connection with the Cryovac transaction.

On Dec. 3, 2002, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
agreement in principle. The Company received notice that both of
the Committees had approved the agreement in principle as of Dec.
5, 2002.

The parties subsequently signed the definitive Settlement
agreement as of Nov. 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the
agreement in principle.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Units Still Facing Claims in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Sealed Air Corporation's subsidiaries in Canada are
still parties to asbestos-related litigation filed in various
Canadian courts.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in
the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench.

W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as
defendants. The claim was brought as a putative class proceeding
and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of
Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

Another proceeding was filed in January 2005 in the Manitoba
Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified
subsidiaries as defendants.

The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the
Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of
insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of
Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the
Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and
its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie,
as well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace &
Co.-Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian
resident, other than in the course of employment (except with
respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's
marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and
delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada
prior to the Cryovac transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in
respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and
costs, in these actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (Canadian
Court), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States
of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation
and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions. The Canadian Court has
entered an order extending the stay until Oct. 1, 2009.

A global settlement of these Canadian actions has been finalized
and will be funded entirely by Grace (Canadian Settlement). The
Canadian Settlement will become null and void if a confirmation
order in the Grace U.S. bankruptcy proceeding is not granted
prior to Oct. 31, 2009.

The Canadian Court issued an Order on Oct. 17, 2008 approving of
the Canadian Settlement, and released its detailed reasons for
that order on Oct. 23, 2008.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Corp. Still Involved in MPERS Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to be party to an asbestos-
related class action lawsuit involving the Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS).

On Sept. 15, 2003, the case of Senn v. Hickey, et al. (Case No.
03-CV-4372) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark). This lawsuit seeks class action status on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of the Company during the period from March 27, 2000
through July 30, 2002.

The lawsuit named the Company and five current and former
officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The Company
is required to provide indemnification to the other defendants,
and accordingly the Company's counsel is also defending them.

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his choice
of lead counsel. The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number
of allegations against the defendants.

The principal allegations are that during the above period the
defendants materially misled the investing public, artificially
inflated the price of the Company's common stock by publicly
issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. GAAP by
failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's
contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past
operations of W. R. Grace & Co. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 14, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Senn v.
Hickey, et al. case for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 19,
2005, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The Court determined that the complaint failed adequately to
allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than
T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with
respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately
alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the Company.

Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the Company and was formerly
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court
reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying
defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the Company's
arguments other than scienter that the Court certify the matter
for interlocutory appeal. On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed
an answer to the amended complaint.

On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants'
reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied
the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court
from granting a motion to dismiss based on the Company's
arguments other than scienter. On Oct. 3, 2006, plaintiff filed a
motion to certify a class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the Company during the
period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and
to substitute a new class representative, the MPERS. On March 26,
2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles Senn to
withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be substituted
as lead plaintiff.

Consequently, the case is now properly referred to as MPERS v.
Sealed Air Corporation, et al. On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead
plaintiff, filed a motion to certify a class of all persons or
entities that purchased Sealed Air Corporation securities during
the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002, both dates
inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their
memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class
certification. On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also
filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., and Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly require dismissal of MPERS's claims.

In an Opinion and Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. Subsequently, in an
Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2008, the Court denied
defendants' motion for reconsideration of their motion to dismiss
the complaint premised on the Supreme Court's decisions in
Tellabs and Twombly.

On March 27, 2008, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition
for leave to appeal the district court's class certification
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May
14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition.

On April 27, 2009 the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiff to settle the MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation,
et al. case, subject to documentation and Court approval.

The agreement provides for payment of US$20 million, which will
be fully funded by the Company's primary and excess insurance
carriers. As a result of the settlement in principle, in the
first quarter of 2009, the Company recorded a liability in the
amount of US$20 million.

The Company also recorded a corresponding current asset in the
first quarter of 2009 for US$20 million since the claim is fully
covered by the Company's insurance carriers.

Elmwood Park, N.J.-based Sealed Air Corporation manufactures
packaging and performance-based materials and equipment systems
that serve an array of food, industrial, medical and consumer
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Has $16.79MM Net Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net loss and loss adjustment expense
reserves for its asbestos exposures were US$16,789,000 for the
six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$16,683,000 for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for asbestos exposures
were US$16,836,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
(Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009)

The Company's gross loss and LAE reserves for its asbestos
exposures were US$21,626,000 for the six months ended June 30,
2009, compared with US$21,774,000 for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008.

The reserves for asbestos exposures at June 30, 2009 are for:

-- One large settled claim for excess insurance policy limits
   exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved in
   the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being
   paid over several years (two other large settled claims were
   fully paid in 2007);

-- Other insureds not directly involved in the manufacturing or
   distribution of asbestos products, but that have more than
   incidental asbestos exposure for their purchase or use of
   products that contained asbestos; and

-- Attritional asbestos claims that could be expected to occur
   over time.

Substantially all of our asbestos liability reserves are included
in the Company's marine loss reserves.

The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$8 million
at June 30, 2009, compared with US$8.9 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Based in New York, The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international
insurance holding company focusing on specialty products for
niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market. Its
largest product line and most long-standing area of
specialization is ocean marine insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse, Units Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec)
and certain of its affiliates still face lawsuits filed by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

Over the last four years, the overall number of new claims filed
has significantly decreased as compared to the previous four-year
period. However, the resolution of these new claims, and all
previously filed claims, may take a significant period of time.


Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),
and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that
the Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation provides technology-based products and services for
the global rail industry. Its products are found on U.S.
locomotives, freight cars and passenger transit vehicles, as well
as in more than 100 countries throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge, NATCO Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and its former subsidiary,
NATCO Limited Partnership, still face pending asbestos-related
lawsuits.

The Company or NATCO are named as defendants in 264 lawsuits, the
majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. In the second
quarter of 2009, one additional lawsuit was filed against the
Company.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury,
primarily fibrosis or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on
our vessels. Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the
Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of
Michigan.

All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the
inactive docket.

Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to reinstate the cases at a
future date without being barred by the statute of limitations.
However, to date, no plaintiffs with claims against the Company
have sought reinstatement.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation
provides dredging services in the United States. In addition, the
Company is a dredging contractor with significant international
operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright, Units Still Face Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation and its subsidiaries are still named
in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to
asbestos.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case. The Company said it believes that the minimal use of
asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it
unlikely that the Company will face material liability in any
asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.  

The Company maintains insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities.

Parsippany, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs,
manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems. The
Company also provides highly engineered products and services to
the aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing,
oil, petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power
generation, security, and metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $152.3M for A&E at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.'s gross loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims were US$152.3 million as of
June 30, 2009, compared with US$149.5 million as of June 30,
2008.

The Company's gross loss reserves for A&E claims were US$162.6
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$154.1 million as
of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims were US$111.9
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$134.4 million as of
June 30, 2008.

The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims were US$122.3
million as of March 31, 2009, compared with US$138.5 million as
of March 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 30, 2009)

Included in losses and loss adjustment expenses for the six
months ended June 30, 2009 was US$6.1 million in reserve
strengthening for prior accident years for certain A&E claims,
coupled with US$1.5 million related to the workers compensation
reserve discount.

Pembroke, Bermuda-based Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.
provides specialty property/casualty insurance and reinsurance
products in the United States and Europe. The Company operates
seven subsidiaries that focus on three well-defined markets:
excess and surplus, industry-specific insurance and international
catastrophe reinsurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Ameren, Units Rise to 75 in June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related lawsuits against Ameren Corporation and its
subsidiaries increased to 75 as of June 30, 2009, compared with
69 lawsuits as of March 31, 2009.

These subsidiaries are: Union Electric Company, Central Illinois
Public Service Company, Ameren Energy Generating Company, Central
Illinois Light Company, and Illinois Power Company.

The Company and its subsidiaries have been named in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the Circuit Court
of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case is significant;
as many as 192 parties are named in some pending cases and as few
as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of
June 30, 2009, the average number of parties were 73.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric generating
plants. Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former
CILCO plants are now owned by AmerenEnergy Resources Generating
Company.

Most of IP's plants were transferred to a former parent
subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP.

As of June 30, 2009, seven asbestos-related lawsuits were pending
against Electric Energy, Inc. The general liability insurance
maintained by EEI provides coverage with respect to liabilities
arising from asbestos-related claims.

St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4
million customers and natural gas to almost one million customers
in Missouri and Illinois through its utility subsidiaries. The
Company has a generating capacity of more than 16,500 MW
(primarily coal-fired).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to litigation,
including liability claims related to its current products and
asbestos-related claims, concerning premises and historic
products of its corporate affiliates and predecessors.

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

Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation produces chemicals
for the automotive, transportation, construction, packaging,
agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-durable
goods, industrial rubber and home pool and spa chemicals markets.
The Company manufactures and sells more than 3,500 products and
formulations in more than 100 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Company Still Facing Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is still party in asbestos-related
lawsuits in which it is one of numerous defendants, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.

Headquartered in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is
a multi-industry, capital goods manufacturer in two principal
markets: Cranes and Related Products and Foodservice Equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Still Named in Product Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. is named, along with multiple other defendants, in
asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations the
Company previously acquired, but which are no longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Aug. 31, 2009.

With respect to these claims, the Company is either contractually
indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or
believes that it has no liability for those claims.

The Company seeks dismissal from these proceedings and has
tendered the defense of these cases to the insurers of the
companies from which the Company acquired the businesses.

Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based Magnetek, Inc. provides digital power
control systems that are used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator, and energy delivery
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10M for Coverage for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million
per occurrence and up to US$10 million in the aggregate.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials.

In the past, the Company has performed remediation of those
environmental matters, and it is not aware of any significant
remaining potential liability relating to these environmental
matters. The Company may be required in the future to perform
testing relating to these matters.

Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust owns
and operates shopping malls and power centers. The Company's
portfolio currently consists of a total of 56 properties in 13
states, including 38 shopping malls, 14 strip and power centers
and four properties under development. The retail properties have
a total of 34.8 million square feet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Accrues $900T for Remediation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of June 30, 2009, accrued about
US$900,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties.

With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at City
National Plaza and Brookhollow, these materials have been removed
or abated from certain tenant and common areas of the building
structures.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a full-service
real estate operating company that owns, acquires, develops and
manages primarily office, as well as mixed-use and residential
properties on a nationwide basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 70 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Met-Pro Corp. at July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Pro Corporation says that, as of July 31, 2009, there were a
total of 70 asbestos cases pending against it (with most of the
cases pending in New York, Mississippi and North Carolina), as
compared with 55 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2009.

A total of 61 asbestos cases were pending against the Company as
of April 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

Beginning in 2002, the Company and one of its business units
began to be named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits filed predominantly in Mississippi on a mass basis by
large numbers of plaintiffs against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

The complaints filed against the Company and this business unit
has been vague, general and speculative, alleging that the
Company, and the business unit, along with the numerous other
defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and
engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including
death) and loss to the plaintiffs. More recent cases typically
allege more serious claims of mesothelioma.

The Company and the business unit have been dismissed from or
settled a number of these cases. The sum total of all payments
through July 31, 2009 to settle these cases was US$540,000, all
of which has been paid by the Company's insurers including legal
expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses, with an average
cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of about US$32,000.

For the six-month period ended July 31, 2009, 30 new cases were
filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 13
cases and settled two cases.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules
leading to, or are scheduled for trial.

Harleysville, Pa.-based Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and
sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for
purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for
corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration
and purification products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $159.35M June 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$159,357,687 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$187,014,436
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$180,670,000 as
of March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$32 million as of
June 30, 2009, compared with US$20 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$103,151,356 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$122,175,929
as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$22
million as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$14 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures metal products. Its
forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for
the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing
segment includes Buffalo Pumps; Aerofin; and Buffalo Air
Handling. The Company is based in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Facing 9,415 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 9,415 open asbestos claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with 9,402
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2009.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company noted 552
claims settled or dismissed. The gross settlement and defense
costs were US$14,782,000.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and
of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former
division of the Company. Those subsidiaries, and in some cases
the Company, are defendants (among a number of defendants,
typically over 50) in cases filed in various state and federal
courts.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers). Under the Coverage
Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility,
subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense
percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for a
substantial majority of the pending claims for Asbestos
Liability.

The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the
Company, about 340 as of June 30, 2009, are not included within
the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former
division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company (Products).

The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization
on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than
the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access
the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a
Product.

In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the
Products will erode the coverage under the policies available to
the Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability
alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other
historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered
by the applicable policies.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation manufactures metal products. Its
forged and cast steel rolls unit makes hardened-steel rolls for
the steel and aluminum industries. The air and liquid processing
segment includes Buffalo Pumps; Aerofin; and Buffalo Air
Handling. The Company is based in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Records $705.4MM Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s gross reserves for asbestos and
environmental exposures were US$705.4 million during the three
and six months ended June 30, 2009, compared with US$871 million
during the three and six months ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's gross reserves for A&E claims were US$768.8 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$901 million during the three months ended March 31, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

The Company's net reserves for A&E exposures were US$673.9
million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2009,
compared with US$820.5 million during the three and six months
ended June 30, 2008.

The Company's net reserves for A&E claims were US$731.9 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2009, compared with
US$843.2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

At June 30, 2009, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$138.1 million representing case reserves reported
by ceding companies, US$148.1 million representing additional
case reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance
claims, US$89.5 million representing case reserves established by
the Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt.
McKinley, and US$328.8 million representing IBNR (incurred-but-
not-reported) reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at June 30, 2009, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$660.6 million, or 93.8
percent, of total A&E reserves, of which US$501.5 million was for
assumed business and US$159.1 million was for direct business.

The Company's net three year asbestos survival ratio was 2.1
years for direct business and 10.2 years for reinsurance business
at June 30, 2009.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Everest Re Group, Ltd. offers specialized
underwriting in several areas, including property & casualty,
marine, aviation, and surety, as well as medical malpractice,
directors and officers liability, and professional errors and
omissions liability.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Houston Wire Still Pending in 3 States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to face a number of
lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota and South
Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable, which may have
contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable.

These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is
not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of
the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact,
distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any
injuries.

The Company maintains general liability insurance that has
applied to these claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered
by the applicable insurance policies and all defenses of these
claims have been handled by the applicable insurance companies.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from
the manufacturers of such wire and cable if it were determined
that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed
contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these
plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL Corporation's sale of the Company in
1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and
damages associated with these claims that the Company said it
believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves
inadequate.


Houston Wire & Cable Company distributes specialty wire and cable
and related services to the U.S. electrical distribution market.
The Company serves its 3,200 customers in over 8,600 individual
locations, including virtually all of the top 200 electrical
distributors in the U.S. The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Involved in AO Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation continues to be involved in cases, including
asbestos-related, in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from American
Optical Corporation (AO) in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction.

The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its
acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain
circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including
costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and
judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the
1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of AO
respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed or
labeled.

As of June 30, 2009, there were about 53,000 claimants in pending
cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory
products.

As of March 31, 2009, there were about 54,000 claimants in
pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with
respiratory products. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009)

The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims.
The book value of the reserve at June 30, 2009 is about US$13
million on a discounted basis (or about US$23 million on an
undiscounted basis).

Boston-based Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a
reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and
coatings. The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed
metal oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used
as anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives
and coatings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. continues to be subject to asbestos-related
exposure claims concerning historic operations of a predecessor
affiliate, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these
claims and adequate insurance coverage in the event any asbestos-
related claim is not resolved in its favor.

Rolling Meadows, Ill.-based MYR Group Inc. performs construction
services in two business segments: Transmission and Distribution,
and Commercial and Industrial. T&D customers include more than
125 electric utilities, cooperatives and municipalities
nationwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Still Reserves $277T for Gradall Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 over a potential
asbestos issue at its Gradall facility in New Philadelphia, Ohio,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 10, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company had an environmental reserve in the
amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
facility in Ohio. Three specific remediation projects that were
identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation
with a remaining reserve balance of US$143,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.

Certain other assets of the Company contain asbestos that may
have to be remediated over time.

Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures,
distributes, and services high quality equipment for right-of-way
maintenance and agriculture. The Company's products include
tractor-mounted mowing and other vegetation maintenance
equipment, street sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow
removal equipment, pothole patchers, agricultural implements and
related aftermarket parts and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Gardner Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc., is still named as a defendant in a number
of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs
allege exposure to asbestos from multiple sources.

Typically, the Company is one of about 25 or more named
defendants. In the Company's experience to date, the substantial
majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which
the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits. However, neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber, the materials that allegedly caused
the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-
containing components of the Products were enclosed within the
subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of cost-sharing agreements
with multiple insurance companies to secure coverage for asbestos
lawsuits. The Company also said it believes some of the potential
liabilities regarding these lawsuits are covered by indemnity
agreements with other parties.

Quincy, Ill.-based Gardner Denver, Inc. designs, manufactures,
and sells compressor products. The Company also makes vacuum and
fluid transfer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Records $2.7MM ARO Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp.'s subsidiary Southern Star Central
Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s asbestos retirement obligation (ARO)
liability was US$2.7 million at June 30, 2009 and the
corresponding asbestos regulatory asset was US$2.4 million.

Central's ARO liability was US$2.6 million at Dec. 31, 2008 and
the corresponding asbestos regulatory asset was US$2.5 million.

Central, at March 31, 2009, recorded a US$2.7 million asbestos-
related ARO liability. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

Central recorded an asset retirement obligation for the
remediation of asbestos existing on its system. The asbestos
existing on Central's system is primarily in building materials
and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of 1973 that
established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants that regulates the use of asbestos.

Under its rate settlement under Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) docket RP08-350, Central is recovering about
US$300,000 annually in its rates related to those costs.

Owensboro, Ky.-based Southern Star Central Corp. is involved in
natural gas pipeline operations and development opportunities.
The Company owns the development rights for a natural gas
pipeline in the Rocky Mountain region, which could be developed
in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land, D/C Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities,
and D/C Distribution Corporation, a Company subsidiary, still
face personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to
asbestos.

While there a few cases that name the Company, there are a
substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against the
Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on D/C's prior
distribution business operations primarily in California.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American
& Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center. No other purported party was served.

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and
for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged
that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense
and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of
the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of
the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.

Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights,
and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff was
not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that
the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred
unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and
reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of
cooperation with plaintiff.

D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.

D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with the
Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company provided certain
advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for
a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this
lawsuit. In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with
payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7
of Title 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-
12776.

The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the
bankruptcy court passed in October 2008. Prior to the deadline,
the Company filed claims that aggregated about US$26.8 million,
relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by
D/C to the Company.

In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco
that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed
proofs of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants.

Chicago-based Kaanapali Land, LLC's operations are in two
business segments: Agriculture and Property. The Agriculture
segment grows seed corn and soybeans under contract and leases or
provides harvesting rights to a third party on certain lands
cultivated in or used for the processing of coffee. The Property
segment develops land for sale and negotiates bulk sales of
undeveloped land.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hexion Specialty Subject to Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. continues to be involved in
asbestos-related product liability lawsuits.

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

Columbus, Ohio-based Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. produces
thermosetting resins, or thermosets. Thermosets are an ingredient
for paints, coatings, glues and other adhesives produced for
consumer or industrial uses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M&F Still Incurs No Material Amounts at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of June 30, 2009, has not incurred and
does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-
related claims not subject certain arrangements (Remaining
Claims).

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC (together with its predecessors in
interest, "Pneumo Abex"). Substantially all of these contingent
claims are the financial responsibility of third parties and
include various environmental and asbestos-related claims.

As a result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not
expect to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to these
matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses, all
of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988 sale,
those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-containing
friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along
with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant
in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to
exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially all
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August
1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement.

The Transfer Agreement requires MCGI to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer.
Pneumo Abex will be obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded
when it receives amounts under related indemnification and
insurance agreements.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products.

The subsidiary commenced litigation in 1982 against a portion of
these insurers in order to confirm the availability of this
coverage. As a result of settlements in that litigation, other
coverage agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement, all
of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims
are managed and paid by others.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company that
conducts its operations through its indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide. The
Company's businesses are organized along four business segments:
Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and
Licorice Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Records $46.90M Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$46,909,000 as of June 30, 2009, compared with US$50,022,000,
according to the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$48,759,000 at March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
June 12, 2009)

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company filed a voluntary petition with the
Bankruptcy Court (Case No. 03-51524) seeking relief under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code as a means to resolve claims asserted
against it related to the use of asbestos in its products decades
ago.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation manufactures
resilient flooring, serving both residential and commercial
markets. Its sheet, tile and plank products are available in
various designs and colors, and are used in remodeling,
manufactured housing, new construction and commercial
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Still Has $13.56M Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
remain at US$13,563,000 as of June 30, 2009, according to the
Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$13,563,000 as of March 31, 2009, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

Long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities were
US$13,509,000 as of June 30, 2009, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and
films used to protect materials during handling and storage. The
Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile
flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid
asbestos-related suits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces 1,257 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
1,257 pending claims involving 1,812 individuals as of June 30,
2009.

The Company was a co-defendant with many other manufacturers and
distributors of asbestos containing products in 1,281 pending
claims involving 1,836 individuals as of March 31, 2009. (Class
Action Reporter, June 12, 2009)

The claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
113 new claims, 11 settlements, and 114 dismissals. During the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 356 new claims, 13
settlements, 434 dismissals, and 1,269 pending claims.

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims were US$3
million during the six months ended June 30, 2009 and US$900,000
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, all of which were paid by
the Company's insurance carriers, as were the related defense
costs.

The Company has first-layer excess umbrella policies with several
insurers, which include coverage for the Company's asbestos
related liabilities (Umbrella Coverage).

In addition to coverage available under the Umbrella Coverage,
the Company has additional excess liability insurance policies
that should provide further coverage if and when limits of
certain policies within the Umbrella Coverage exhaust.

The estimated range of liability for settlement of current claims
pending and claims anticipated to be filed through 2014 was
US$13.6 million to US$44 million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company
said it believes no amount within this range is more likely than
any other, and accordingly has recorded a liability of US$13.6
million as of June 30, 3009 in its financial statements which
represents a probable and reasonably estimable amount for the
future liability at the present time.

The Company also said it believes that based on this liability
estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of
recovery is US$13.5 million as of June 30, 2009, which has been
included in Other assets.

Wellesley Hills, Mass.-based American Biltrite Inc.'s tape
division makes adhesive-coated, pressure-sensitive tapes and
films used to protect materials during handling and storage. The
Company's Congoleum unit, which makes resilient sheet and tile
flooring, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid
asbestos-related suits.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevamar Subject to Workers' Compensation Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panolam Industries International, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary,
Nevamar Holding Corp., is subject to asbestos-related workers'
compensation claims.

During 2006, Nevamar was named a defendant in numerous workers'
compensation claims filed on behalf of current and former
employees at the Hampton, S.C., facility alleging injury in the
course of employment due to alleged exposure to asbestos and
unidentified chemicals.

Under the ownership of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the
Hampton facility manufactured asbestos-based products until 1975.
In 2004 and 2005, Nevamar, Westinghouse and International Paper
Company (IP) settled 10 workers' compensation claims related to
alleged asbestos exposure.

Under a 2005 agreement with IP, Nevamar's liability for workers
compensation claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos
brought by employees hired before July 1, 2002, was capped at 15
percent of any damages it shares with IP until Nevamar has paid
an aggregate of US$70,000 at which point the Company would have
no responsibility for any additional shared damages.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with IP to settle all of these workers' compensation claims for a
cash sum including any related claims that are filed by any
person who was previously employed, was currently employed or
became employed by Nevamar on or before Dec. 31, 2008 for a cash
payment in an amount that had been fully reserved for by the
Company.

Employees hired by Nevamar after Dec. 31, 2008 and who file
claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos are not covered by
this settlement agreement.

The Company paid the settlement amount in November 2008.

Shelton, Conn.-based Panolam Industries International, Inc.
designs, manufactures and distributes decorative laminates in the
United States and Canada. Products are marketed under the
Panolam, Pluswood, Nevamar and Pionite brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prime Group Has $8.1M June 30 Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Group Realty Trust recorded a liability of US$8.1 million
related to asbestos abatement and an asset of US$9 million as of
June 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 14, 2009.


The Company's 330 N. Wabash Avenue office property currently
contains asbestos in the form of spray-on insulation located on
the decking and beams of the building.

The Company has been informed by its environmental consultants
that the asbestos in 330 N. Wabash Avenue is being properly
maintained and no remediation of the asbestos is necessary.

A conditional asset retirement obligation for the removal of
asbestos at the 330 N. Wabash Avenue property was estimated to be
US$7.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

For the six months ended June 30, 2009, this obligation increased
as follows:

-- An increase in its cost estimate of US$900,000 due to the
   increased probability of abatement as lease terminations
   moved closer;

-- A US$400,000 increase in the liability based on the increased
   present value of anticipated future abatement expenditures as
   the estimated date of abatement comes closer; and

--- Payments of US$1 million were made for asbestos abatement.

Chicago-based Prime Group Realty Trust is a real estate
investment trust (REIT), which owns, manages, leases, develops
and redevelops office and industrial real estate, primarily in
the Chicago metropolitan area. As of June 30, 2009, the Company's
portfolio of properties consists of nine office properties,
containing an aggregate of 3.5 million net rentable square feet.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BMCA Still Subject to Bodily Injury Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Building Materials Corporation of America (d/b/a GAF Materials)
is still involved in asbestos-related bodily injury claims
relating to the inhalation of asbestos fibers contained in
products sold by its indirect parent, G-I Holdings Inc., or its
predecessors.

In connection with its formation, the Company contractually
assumed and agreed to pay the first US$204.4 million of
liabilities of G-I Holdings for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber contained in
products sold by G-I Holdings or its predecessors. As of March
30, 1997, the Company paid all of its assumed liabilities for
Asbestos Claims.

G-I Holdings has agreed to indemnify the Company against any
other existing or future Asbestos Claims if asserted against the
Company.

In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code due
to Asbestos Claims.

About 1,900 Asbestos Claims were filed against the Company prior
to Feb. 2, 2001. On Feb. 2, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining any existing or future claimant from bringing or
prosecuting an Asbestos Claim against the Company. On June 22,
2001 and Feb. 22, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court converted the
temporary restraints into a preliminary injunction prohibiting
the bringing or prosecution of any such Asbestos Claims against
the Company.

On Feb. 7, 2001, G-I Holdings filed an action in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company has no successor liability
for Asbestos Claims against G-I Holdings and that it is not the
alter ego of G-I Holdings (BMCA Action).

One of the parties to this matter, the Official Committee of
Asbestos Claimants (creditors' committee), subsequently filed a
counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaration that the
Company has successor liability for Asbestos Claims against G-I
Holdings and that it is the alter ego of G-I Holdings. On May 13,
2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
overseeing the G-I Holdings Bankruptcy Court withdrew the
reference of the BMCA Action from the Bankruptcy Court.

By order dated May 30, 2008, the District Court dismissed the
BMCA Action without ruling on the merits of the Company's
position that it has no successor liability for Asbestos Claims.

On or about Feb. 8, 2001, the creditors' committee filed a
complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey
against G-I Holdings and the Company. On March 21, 2001, the
Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' application for interim
relief. In November 2002, the creditors' committee, joined in by
the legal representative of present and future holders of
asbestos-related claims, moved for appointment of a trustee in
the G-I Holdings bankruptcy. In December 2002, the Bankruptcy
Court denied the motion.

The creditors' committee appealed the ruling to the U.S. District
Court, which denied the appeal on June 27, 2003. The creditors'
committee appealed the denial to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals, which denied the appeal on Sept. 24, 2004. The
creditors' committee filed a petition with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its denial of the creditors'
committee's appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on
Oct. 26, 2004.

On July 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
authorizing the creditors' committee to commence an adversary
proceeding against the Company and others challenging, as a
fraudulent conveyance, certain transactions entered into in
connection with the Company's formation in 1994, in which G-I
Holdings caused to be transferred to the Company all of its
roofing business and assets and in which the Company assumed
certain liabilities relating to those assets, including a
specified amount of liabilities for Asbestos Claims (1994
transaction).

On July 20, 2004, the creditors' committee appealed certain
aspects of the Bankruptcy Court's order (and a June 8, 2004
decision upon which the order was based). G-I Holdings, the
holders of the Company's bank and bond debt, and the Company
cross-appealed. The District Court entered an order on June 21,
2006 affirming in part and vacating in part the Bankruptcy
Court's July 7, 2004 order.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court stayed an authorization
proceeding and other adversary proceedings effective upon the
filing of a Joint Plan of Reorganization by G-I Holdings, the
creditors' committee and the legal representative of present and
future holders of asbestos-related claims.

The Company has been advised by G-I Holdings that on Aug. 12,
2008, G-I Holdings reached an agreement with the creditors'
committee and the legal representative of present and future
holders of asbestos-related claims to jointly file a plan of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court that will provide for
settlement of Asbestos Claims and all related litigation.

A Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court on Aug. 21, 2008, and a First Amended Joint Plan
of Reorganization of G-I Holdings was filed with the Bankruptcy
Court on Oct. 30, 2008.

G-I Holdings filed with the Bankruptcy Court a Second Amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings on Dec. 3, 2008, a
Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of G-I Holdings on
July 2, 2009, and a Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
of G-I Holdings on July 28, 2009.

Wayne, N.J.-based Building Materials Corporation of America
(d/b/a GAF Materials) deals in shingles and roofing systems,
flashings, vents, decorative stone for fireplaces, and wrought
iron balusters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sears Holdings Still Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation is still involved and subject to legal
proceedings, which include asbestos exposure allegations.

These claims may seek compensatory, punitive or treble damage
claims (potentially in large amounts) or as well as other types
of relief.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 24, 2009.

Hoffman Estates, Ill.-based Sears Holdings Corporation is a
broadline retailer with 2,297 full-line and 1,233 specialty
retail stores in the United States operating through Kmart and
Sears and 388 full-line and specialty retail stores in Canada
operating through Sears Canada Inc., a 73 percent-owned unit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various
product liability (including asbestos-related liability actions),
according to the Company's annual report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 27, 2009.

The reserve for product and general liability claims (which
includes asbestos-related liabilities) was US$7.1 million on June
28, 2009 and US$6.3 million on June 29, 2008.

Wauwatosa, Wis.-based Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces air
cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The Company
designs, manufactures, markets and services these products for
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Co. Subject to Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company is still subject to various unresolved legal
actions, which arise in the normal course of its business, the
most prevalent of which relate to product liability (including
asbestos-related liability), retail credit, software licensing,
patent and trademark matters.

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

Moline, Ill.-based Deere & Company makes farm equipment. The
Company also produces construction, forestry, industrial, and
lawn-care equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sisson Claim v. 41 Defendants Filed on Aug. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos claim filed by Harles and Betty Sisson, of Walnut
Hill, Ill., against 41 defendant corporations was filed on Aug.
31, 2009, in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Sisson was diagnosed with cancer on March 9, 2009.

According to the Sissons, from 1951 to 1970, Mr. Sisson was a
quartermaster, electronic technician and construction technician
in the U.S. Navy and from 1979 to 1980 was an electrician at
Blackburn Electric Company. He was also employed as an
electrician helper in 1979 at DuPont Chemical Company.

The Sissons claims Mr. Sisson's exposure to asbestos was
completely foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the
defendants.

The Sissons seek judgment of more than US$100,000, economic
damages in excess of US$200,000, compensatory damages in excess
of US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages in excess of
US$100,000, plus punitive damages in an amount sufficient enough
to punish the defendants for their conduct and other relief the
court deems just.

Randy Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian &
Associates represent the Sissons in Case No. 09-L-463.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrell Case Filed v. 36 Companies in Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy J. and Linda Harrell, on Aug. 31, 2009, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 36 defendant corporations in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Defendants in the suit include Afton Pumps Inc., Amerflex Rubber
and Gasket, AMETEK Inc., BWIP, CBS Corporation, CertainTeed
Corporation, FMC Corporation, Foster Wheeler Energy Limited,
Georgia Pacific LLC, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Goulds
Pumps Incorporated, Ingersoll-Rand plc, J-M Manufacturing Company
Inc., The J. Graves Insulation Company Inc., John Crane Inc.,
Lamons Gasket Company, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Pfizer
Inc., Rapid-American, Standco Industries Inc., Triplex, Union
Carbide Corporation, Viacom Inc., Yarway Corporation, and Zurn
Industries.

Mr. Harrell worked as a pipefitter, welder and pipeliner from
1957 until 2004, where he says he was exposed to asbestos-
containing products. The Harrells claim Mr. Harrell was diagnosed
with malignant mesothelioma on July 30, 2009.

According to the suit, the couple claims the defendants failed to
advise Mr. Harrell about what would be safe apparel to wear while
working around the products. They say the defendant companies
were negligent by failing to timely warn Mr. Harrell about the
dangers of asbestos.

In the lawsuit, the couple seeks unspecified general, special,
punitive and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-
judgment interest and for other relief the Court deems
appropriate.

Aaron J. DeLuca, Esq., and Barrett B. Naman, Esq., of DeLuca and
Nemeroff in Houston, represent the Harrells.

Case No. B184-809 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doyle's Lawsuit v. 9 Companies Filed on Aug. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, styled Patrick Doyle et ux vs.
Chevron USA et al, was filed on Aug. 26, 2009 in Jefferson County
District Court, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The plaintiffs sued nine defendant corporations, claiming an
asbestos-related disease caused by the defendants killed their
benefactor.

They claim Barbara was exposed to asbestos through family members
who worked for the defendants.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to test the asbestos-
containing products before they were introduced into the stream
of commerce,

The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages. They are
represented by Bryan Blevins, Esq.

Judge Milton Shuffield presides over Case No. D184-782.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coldfoot to Pay $5,100 Penalty for CAA Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coldfoot Environmental Services, Inc., an asbestos abatement and
demolition contractor in Anchorage, Alaska, has agreed to pay a
US$5,100 penalty and perform a community service project to
settle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged
violations of the asbestos National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (asbestos NESHAP), under the Clean Air
Act, according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 8, 2009.

In August 2007 and April 2008, EPA conducted asbestos compliance
inspections at three Alaska demolition sites: Harborview Hospital
and Public Warehouse #2 in Valdez, and the Subport Building in
Juneau.

The results of those inspections found that Coldfoot failed to
update their written notices when the official start dates had
changed, making it more difficult for EPA's inspector to arrive
at the right time to observe the projects.

At the hospital job site in Valdez, the contractor expanded the
project to include an additional 75,000 square feet of regulated
asbestos debris in the crawlspace, again without updating the
notice to EPA.

In addition to paying the fine, Coldfoot will perform a
Supplemental Environmental Project valued at US$14,800. The
project requires Coldfoot to remove asbestos insulation from a
boiler and piping in a building owned by a local nonprofit
theater group located in Anchorage, Alaska. The theater group
lacks funds to safely remove the asbestos.

Marcia Combes, director of EPA's Alaska Operations Office, said,
"We hope that asbestos demolition contractors like Coldfoot learn
from this situation. When you are tearing down or renovating a
structure that has asbestos, it is important to notify EPA so we
have timely and accurate information to conduct our inspections
and ensure contractors are following the asbestos regulations."

Federal regulations require a thorough inspection of a facility
for the presence of asbestos prior to any demolition or
renovation activity, as well as advance notice to EPA or the
state or local agency that administers the asbestos NESHAP
program.

If a threshold amount of asbestos is found, contractors are
required to remove and dispose of the material according to
certain requirements such as using water to wet the asbestos
during removal, carefully handling, bagging and labeling of
wastes, and properly disposing of them at permitted landfills.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Ariz. Schools to Pay $22T for AHERA Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined two Arizona
charter school operators a combined total of US$22,030 for
alleged violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA), according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 8, 2009.

In April 2007, EPA inspectors discovered seven Arizona charter
schools operated by Pointe Educational Services, and The Charter
Foundation had not been inspected to determine if asbestos-
containing materials were present in the schools' buildings and
no asbestos management plans for the schools were created.

Katherine Taylor, associate director for the Communities and
Ecosystems Division in EPA's Pacific Southwest region, said,
"Asbestos can potentially endanger the health of students,
teachers, and employees at schools. All nonprofit schools subject
to AHERA, including charter schools, need to conduct asbestos
inspections and have asbestos management plans."

The EPA fined Pointe Educational Services US$13,700 and The
Charter Foundation US$8,330. The schools operated by Pointe
Educational Services are:

-- North Pointe Academy, located at 4941 West Union Hills Drive
   in Glendale

-- North Pointe Preparatory, located at 10215 N. 43rd Ave in
   Phoenix

-- Pinnacle Pointe Academy, located at 6753 West Pinnacle Peak
   Road in Glendale

The schools then being operated by The Charter Foundation are:

-- AmeriSchool Academy Yuma Campus, located at 2098 S. 3rd Ave
   in Yuma

-- AmeriSchool Academy Country Club Campus, located at 1150
   North country Club in Tucson

-- College Preparatory Academy Broadway Campus, located at 7444
   E. Broadway in Tucson

-- AmeriSchool Academy Camelback Campus, located at 1333 West
   Camelback Road in Phoenix

Each school is allowed to subtract properly documented costs of
complying with the regulations from the penalty amount.

Accredited inspectors have since inspected these schools and a
management plan was prepared for each school. Asbestos-containing
building materials were found at North Pointe Preparatory.
Inspectors found no asbestos containing building materials at the
other schools.

Federal law requires that local education agencies, which run
schools subject to AHERA, must conduct an initial inspection
using accredited inspectors to determine if asbestos-containing
building material is present and develop a management plan
addressing the asbestos materials found in the school

Schools subject to AHERA that do not contain asbestos-containing
material must still have a management plan which identifies the
designated person and includes the architect's statement or
building inspection and the annual notification to parents,
teachers, and employees regarding the availability of the plan.

Under AHERA, local education agencies must appoint a designated
person who is trained to oversee asbestos activities and ensure
compliance with federal regulations. Finally, schools with
asbestos-containing materials must conduct periodic surveillance
and re-inspections, properly train the maintenance and custodial
staff, and maintain records documenting those activities in its
management plan.

Local education agencies must keep an updated copy of the
management plan in its administrative office and at the school
which must be made available for inspection by parents, teachers,
and the general public.

                            *********

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  * * *