CAR_Public/100122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, January 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 15

                            Headlines

AETNA: Accused of Price Fixing Conspiracy in N.D. Calif. Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA MICRO: ON Semiconductor Shareholder Litigation Settled
CINCINNATI: City Accused of Revoking or Reducing Vested Benefits
DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Teachers Complain About Wage Deductions
DOREL ASIA: Recalling & Replacing 635,000 Dorel Asia Cribs

DYNCORP AEROSPACE: 425 Plaintiffs Dismissed from Pesticide Case
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 1.5 Million Strollers & Travel Systems
JOHN MOURIER: Calif. Suit Says 191 Homes Are Defective
LOS ANGELES: Detained Kids Sue State for an Education
MOORECO INC: Recalls 700 Spine Align & Posture Perfect Chairs

QUIXOTE CORP: Shareholder Suit Attempts to Block Trinity Deal
ROTO-ROOTER: Sex Discrimination Class Action Filed in E.D. Mo.
SENIOR RETIREMENT: Embezzlement Scheme Gives Rise to Class Action
SUNCOR ENERGY: Ontario Franchisees Launch Class Action Suit
SWITCH AND DATA: Agrees to Settle Equinix Transaction Litigation

TALBOTS INC: Shareholder Sues to Block AEON Buy-Out Transaction
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Potential Plaintiffs Intimidated
US FIDELIS: Extended Auto Warranties Under Fire in E.D. Mich.
WELLS FARGO: Calif. Suit Complains About Monthly Account Fees

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: United Refining Records $400,000 for Abatement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chudleigh Ex-Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Netherfield Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MUA Urges Chevron to Tackle Barrow Island Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Effingham Courthouse to Cost $10,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foreman Action v. Chevron Filed Jan. 11 in Tex.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phillips Case v. 23 Firms Filed Jan. 8 in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Manager to Plead Guilty to Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaRosa, Brewer Cases v. 133 Firms Filed Dec. 8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Hearings in CSR, ASIC Lawsuits Adjourned
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ATS Now Operates at "Severe" License Conditions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prive Allowed to File Lawsuit v. Vt. Mine Chief
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Bothell Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Denies Remand Motion in Case v. CBS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Holland Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Actions Filed in Madison County From Jan. 4-8

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henderson Case v. 8 Firms Filed Jan. 11 in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fareham Naval Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowder Mulled for Madison Asbestos Judge Post
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bibb County Mulling Tax for Contaminated Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ilkeston Joiner's Death Due to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Ithaca Gun Factory Still Continuing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Date in CSR Action Delayed Until Jan. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in DuPont Action Still Set for April 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crusellas Sentenced for Disposal Breach in N.H.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Project Forces Closure of Rath Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Madrid-Waddington Central
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abex Summary Judgment Granted in Everitt Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tucker Bid to Dismiss NESHAP Indictment Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Atwell Lawsuit

                            *********

AETNA: Accused of Price Fixing Conspiracy in N.D. Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aetna conspired to fix
prices for out-of-network health care services at artificially
low levels, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Silver, et ux. v. Aetna Health Inc. PA
Corp,. et al., Case No. 10-cv-00143 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/14/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          H. Tim Hoffman, Esq.
          Arthur W. Lazear, Esq.
          HOFFMAN AND LAZEAR
          180 Grand Ave., Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612-3749
          Telephone: 510-763-5700

               - and -  

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Michael Eyerly, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444


CALIFORNIA MICRO: ON Semiconductor Shareholder Litigation Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California Micro Devices Corporation (Nasdaq: CAMD) and the other
named defendants in the three purported class action lawsuits
that were filed in connection with the proposed acquisition of
California Micro Devices by ON Semiconductor Corporation (Nasdaq:
ONNN) have entered into a memorandum of understanding with
counsel for the plaintiffs.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the parties
have agreed to settle the lawsuits, subject to court approval. As
part of the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures made by the Company in
the Tender Offer Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 that was previously mailed by California Micro
Devices were inadequate. Under the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, the Company agreed to make available certain
additional information to its stockholders in an amendment to the
Schedule 14D-9.

The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to members
of the proposed settlement class. If finally approved by the
court, the settlement will resolve all of the claims that were or
could have been brought on behalf of the proposed settlement
class in the action being settled, including all claims relating
to the tender offer, the merger, the merger agreement, the
adequacy of the merger consideration, the negotiations preceding
the merger agreement, the adequacy and completeness of the
disclosures made in connection with the offer and the merger and
any actions of the individual defendants in connection with the
offer, the merger or the merger agreement, including any alleged
breaches of the fiduciary duties of any of the defendants, or the
aiding and abetting thereof. If the court does approve of the
settlement after a notice period, then all public stockholders
who did not elect to opt out of such settlement will be bound
thereby.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in
the memorandum of understanding, and subject to approval by the
court, the Company or its insurer will pay to plaintiffs' counsel
for their fees and expenses an amount not to exceed $495,000.
This payment will not affect the amount of consideration to be
paid to stockholders of the Company in connection with the offer
and the subsequent merger. Furthermore, any payment is also
conditioned on the offer being consummated so the Company's
stockholders will not indirectly bear such payment.
The additional information to supplement California Micro
Devices' Tender Offer Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 will also be set forth in a Current Report on Form
8-K that California Micro Devices will file with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. The additional information should be
read in conjunction with the Tender Offer Solicitation/
Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, as supplemented to
date.

            About California Micro Devices Corporation

California Micro Devices Corporation -- http://www.cmd.com/-- is  
a leading supplier of protection devices for the mobile handset,
high brightness LED (HBLED), digital consumer electronics and
personal computer markets.


CINCINNATI: City Accused of Revoking or Reducing Vested Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the City of Cincinnati
illegally revoked or reduced vested health care benefits for
retired city employees, according to a class action in Hamilton
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gamel, et al. v. City of Cincinnati,
et al., Case No. A10-9203 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Hamilton
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/14/HealthCare.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James F. McCarthy, III, Esq.
          KATZ, TELLER, BRANT & HILD
          255 East Fifth St., Suite 2400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-721-4532


DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Teachers Complain About Wage Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Thomas at Courthouse News Service reports that Detroit
Public School employees say the district is taking money from
their paychecks to destroy the public school system and replace
it with charter schools. The class action claims that Robert
Bobb, Emergency Financial Manager of Detroit Public Schools, is
deducting a "total of $10,000 from each teacher's paycheck and
its sum will be paid to them, if at all, only months, years or
decades later, when they resign or retire from the district."

Teachers, counselors and other school employees want the school
district enjoined "from attempts to extort a forced loan from
their pay without their consent, for 40 bi-weekly pay periods
beginning Jan. 12, 2010."

Mr. Bobb's position as emergency financial manager gives him
"full authority over all financial transactions by the district,
including the payment and means of payment of employees,"
according to the complaint in Wayne County Court.
     
The teachers say the "compelled loan" will "force many of the
best teachers out of the district and will make it impossible to
replace them with the best-qualified new teachers" thus
"destroying the public schools."
     
On Dec. 3, 2009, Mr. Bobb and the Detroit Federation of Teachers
(DFT) approved the "deduction of $250 each pay period for a total
of 40 pay periods." The lawsuit challenges the validity of the
DFT's vote and claims it does "not have the legal authority to
authorize the district to forcibly extract a loan from the pay of
the individual employees."
     
The employees fear that with the district's financial troubles
and Mr. Bobb's "continual threats to file bankruptcy" the "forced
loan" will never be repaid and the money will be used to "fund
consultants, charter companies and similar schemes to destroy the
public schools of the City of Detroit."
     
The teachers want Mr. Bobb restrained and enjoined from deducting
the money from their paychecks.

A copy of the Complaint in Miller, et al. v. Bobb, Case No. 10-
000346-CL (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/13/DetroitSchools.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Washington, Esq.
          Shanta Driver, Esq.
          SCHEFF, WASHINGTON & DRIVER, P.C.
          645 Griswold, Suite 1817
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: 313-963-1921


DOREL ASIA: Recalling & Replacing 635,000 Dorel Asia Cribs
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dorel Asia SRL, of Barbados, is announcing a voluntary recall to
replace drop side and non-drop side cribs that pose suffocation
and strangulation hazards to infants and toddlers.  Consumers
should immediately stop using the recalled cribs until
replacement kits are obtained and installed.

The drop side hardware can fail causing the drop side to detach
from the crib. When the drop side detaches it creates a space in
which an infant or toddler can become entrapped and suffocate or
strangle. In addition, the recalled cribs can pose a serious
entrapment and strangulation hazard when a slat is damaged. This
can occur while the crib is in use, in storage, being put
together, taken apart or reassembled; or during shipping and
handling.

CPSC and Dorel Asia SRL received a report of the death of 6-month
old child from Cedar Rapids, Iowa who became entrapped and
strangled in a crib after the drop side hardware broke. The crib
continued to be used after the parents tried to repair the drop
side themselves. CPSC and Dorel Asia received reports of 31 drop
side incidents. In six of those incidents, children were
entrapped between the drop side and crib mattress. Three children
suffered from bruises as a result of the entrapment. In addition,
CPSC and Dorel Asia received reports of 36 incidents of slat
breakage, including seven reports of bruises and scratches to
children and two reports of entrapment that resulted in no
injury.

These Dorel Asia cribs are involved in the recall:

Model Number (Front Rail): Description
WM1633 (Drop side): 3-1 Sleigh Crib - Cherry
WM1633-0 (Drop side): 3-1 Sleigh Crib - Cherry (no castors)
WM1676BC (Fixed): 4-1 Bethany James Crib - Walnut
WM1676BCR-DC (Fixed): 2-1 Crib -Walnut
WM2163 (Fixed): 4-1 Crib - Manhattan Walnut
WM2163DC (Fixed): 4-1 Crib - Manhattan Walnut
WM1633-0-DC (Fixed): 3-1 Sleigh Crib (no castors)
GP004B3EGR (Drop side): 3-1 Convertible - Espresso
GP004B3WGR (Drop side): 3-1 Convertible - White
GP006BCEGR (Drop side): Single - Espresso
GP006BCWGR (Drop side: Single - White
DA1615B3 (Drop side): 3-1 Convertible Crib - Natural
DAKM5132 (Drop side): 3-1 Convertible Crib - White
DASE5005 (Drop side): Cottage Hill Single Crib - White
DASE5009 (Drop side): Vintage Estate 3-1 Sleigh Crib - Cherry
DA0504KMC-1N (Drop side): 3-1 Heritage Crib - Natural
DA0504KMC-1W (Drop side): 3-1 Heritage Crib - White
DA1614B3 (Drop side): 3-1 Lexington Crib - Cherry
DAKM5152 (Drop side): Single Jenny Lind Crib - Walnut
DASE5015 (Drop side): 3-1 Convertible - Toffee

Pictures of the recalled cribs are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10114.html

The recalled cribs were manufactured in China and Vietnam and
sold at K-Mart, Sears and Wal-Mart stores nationwide from January
2005 through December 2009 for between $120 and $700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs, find
an alternative safe sleeping environment for your child, and
contact Dorel Asia to receive a free replacement kit.  Consumers
should log on to http://www.dorel-asia.com.to order the free  
replacement kit to prevent child entrapment in these cribs. The
repair kits will be provided to owners within the next several
weeks.  Call Dorel Asia toll-free at (866) 762-2304 between 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.dorel-asia.com/


DYNCORP AEROSPACE: 425 Plaintiffs Dismissed from Pesticide Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in Washington, D.C., dismissed two groups of plaintiffs --
425 in all -- from the plaintiffs in a class action against
DynCorp, a company hired by the U.S. government to spray
pesticides over Colombian farms in an effort to wipe out cocaine
and heroin production.
     
U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts said there were two classes
of plaintiffs in Arias, et al. v. DynCorp Aerospace Operations,
LLC, et al., Civ. Action No. 01-1908 (D.C.), who failed to
provide enough details about their alleged injuries.
     
In the class action, Ecuadorian farmers accused private military
contractor DynCorp of spraying pesticides on their farms as part
of "Plan Colombia," the U.S. government's effort to eradicate
Colombian cocaine and heroin production. The farmers said they
had "no connection to the production of illegal drugs in
Colombia," and claimed that the pesticides injured their health
and damaged their property.
     
The plaintiffs Roberts excluded from the class action failed to
provide complete answers to questionnaires, despite being given
three deadline extensions, the judge ruled. Those plaintiffs fell
into two categories: plaintiffs who provided dates of exposure
but did not disclose their location, and plaintiffs who gave
inadequate information about their alleged damages.
     
The judge noted that more than two years have passed since the
plaintiffs were ordered to complete the questionnaires.
     
The farmers had argued that the DynCorp defendants "should draw
their own conclusions" about the questionnaires, but Judge
Roberts said that's not DynCorp's job.
     
"The plaintiffs essentially are asking the defendants to draw
conclusions based on incomplete information," Judge Roberts
wrote.
     
The refusal to turn over the information violated several court
orders and prevented DynCorp from structuring its defense, he
ruled.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 1.5 Million Strollers & Travel Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Graco Children's Products Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1.5 million Graco's Passage, Alano and
Spree Strollers and Travel Systems.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hinges on the stroller's canopy pose a fingertip amputation
and laceration hazard to the child when the consumer is opening
or closing the canopy.

Graco has received seven reports of children placing their
fingers in the stroller's canopy hinge mechanism while the
canopy was being opened or closed, resulting in five fingertip
amputations and two fingertip lacerations.

This recall involves Graco Passage, Alano and Spree Strollers and
Travel Systems with these model numbers and specific hinge
mechanisms:

     Model Numbers
     -------------
     6303MYC, 6303MYC3
     7240DNB, 7240DNB2, 7240MKL2, 7240MKL3
     7F02GLM3
     6320IVY, 6320LAU
     7241DDH2, 7241DHO3
     7F04TAY3
     6330CAP, 6330THR,6330THR3
     7255CLP, 7255CLP2, 7255CRA2, 7255CRA3, 7255CSA3, 7255GPK3,      
     7255GRN, 7255GRN2, 7255JJB3, 7255ORC2, 7255WLO2, 7255WLO3
     7F07EMA3
     6F00QIN3, 6F00RRY3
     7256CLO2, 7256SPM2, 7256SPM3
     7F08DSW3, 7F08LAN3
     6F03GLN3
     7260BAN, 7260BAN2, 7260BAN3, 7260MRA2, 7260MRA3, 7260PKR,
     7260PKR2
     7G00DLS3, 7G00DLS4
     6G10CSE3
     7270BIA, 7270BIA2
     7G01CRL3
     7235GGA, 7235GGA2
     7E01JON2, 7E01JON3
     7G04KRA3
     7236CDR2
     7F00LPE3, 7F00RSH3
     7G05GPR3, 7G06WSR3
     7237HOL2, 7237HOL3
     7F01FOR3
     7G07ABB3, 7G07BAT3

Graco manufactured two different styles of hinge mechanisms for
these stroller models.  Only strollers or travel systems with a
plastic, jointed hinge mechanism that has indented canopy
positioning notches are included in this recall.  The recalled
strollers were manufactured between October 2004 and February
2008.  The model number and manufacture date are located on the
lower inside portion of the rear frame, just above the rear
wheels.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10115.html

The recalled strollers and travel systems were manufactured in
China and sold at AAFES, Burlington Coat Factory, Babies "R" Us,
Toys "R" Us, Kmart, Fred Meyer, Meijers, Navy Exchange, Sears,
Target, Walmart and other retailers nationwide from October 2004
and December 2009 for between $80 and $90 for the strollers and
between $150 and $200 for the travel systems.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers
and contact Graco to receive a free protective cover repair kit.  
For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gracobaby.com/


JOHN MOURIER: Calif. Suit Says 191 Homes Are Defective
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that John Mourier Construction
built 191 defective homes in the Laguna West Vineyards
subdivision in Elk Grove, a class action claims in Sacramento
Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Awni, et al. v. John Mourier
Construction, Inc., Case No. 34-2010-00068277 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/15/RealEstate.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Luke P. Ryan, Esq.
          Michael T. Quinn, Esq.
          SHINNICK & RYAN LLP
          1810 State Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-239-5900


LOS ANGELES: Detained Kids Sue State for an Education
-----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that
California's juvenile system deprives children of their
"fundamental right" to a "minimally adequate education," leading
to serious literacy problems and reduced chances of succeeding in
society, a class action claims in Federal Court.

The youths say the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the
Probation Department, the Education Division of juvenile court
schools and the Challenger Memorial Youth Center have violated
their rights through "widespread and well-known" deprivations of
educational services. This despite the $30,000 per bed per year
cost of detaining them.

The juvenile system, which is intended to rehabilitate rather
than punish, has been plagued by the problem for years, the
complaint states. It adds that because the named plaintiffs are
wards of the state, either in custody or on probation, they are
"subject to serious risk of retaliation," and so must sue under
pseudonyms.

Casey A., 18, cannot read or write and has been detained at
Challenger Youth Center for most of his high school years. The
Los Angeles Office of Education "refused to provide him with the
necessary instruction and services to overcome his illiteracy,"
according to the complaint.

Casey says he was repeatedly excused from assignments, assigned
to the "work crew" on school days, given passing grades and
awarded a high school diploma.

The class claims that youths in the juvenile system are not
provided with appropriate screening to determine their learning
deficits even though "it is well documented that detained youth
are substantially more likely than the general population to have
learning disabilities and reading deficiencies."

In Los Angeles, the typical detained youth is 16 years old, yet
reads at a 5th grade level, the complaint states.

The class seeks an injunction, remedies and reparations for civil
rights violations and violations of the California Constitution
and Education Code.

A copy of the Complaint in Casey A., et al. v. Robles, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00192 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/14/LAJuvyEd.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          David B. Sapp, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W. 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-977-5220

               - and -  

          Hernan Vera, Esq.
          Laura Faer, Esq.
          Ariel Wander, Esq.
          PUBLIC COUNSEL
          610 South Ardmore Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90005
          Telephone: 213-385-2977

               - and -  

          Paula D. Pearlman, Esq.
          Shawna L. Parks, Esq.
          Carly J. Manson, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
          919 Albany St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90015
          Telephone: 213-736-8366


MOORECO INC: Recalls 700 Spine Align & Posture Perfect Chairs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MooreCo Inc., dba Balt & Best-Rite Manufacturing, of Temple,
Tex., announced a voluntary recall of about 700 Spine Align and
Posture Perfect Ergonomic Office Chairs.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The legs of the chair can break, posing a fall hazard to the
user.

The company has received five reports of the legs of the chairs
breaking, resulting in three minor injuries and in the
aggravation of an existing back injury.

This recall involves the Spine Align and the Posture Perfect
Ergonomic Office Chairs with model numbers 34571 and 34556
respectively.  The base of the chair is made of hard plastic and
the chair has no marks or labels.  Chairs bearing other marks or
labels are not included in this recall.  The model number is
found in the packaging.  Pictures of the recalled chairs are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10110.html

The recalled chairs were manufactured in South Korea and sold
through catalogs and online by United Stationers, Staples, S.P.
Richards, and W.B. Mason from December 2007 through October 2009
for between $320 and $650.

Consumers should stop using the recalled chairs immediately and
contact MooreCo for a free repair or a replacement chair.  
For additional information, contact MooreCo toll free at (888)
446-5161 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
or visit the company's Web site at http://www.chairrecall.com/
       

QUIXOTE CORP: Shareholder Suit Attempts to Block Trinity Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Quixote Corp.
are enriching themselves and selling the company too cheaply to
Trinity Industries, for $6.38 a share, stockholders claim in Cook
County Court.  
  
A copy of the Complaint in Superior Partners v. Jesuit, et al.,
Case No. 10CH01613 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/14/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leland E. Shalgos, Esq.
          2650 West 51st Street
          Chicago, IL 60632
          Telephone: 773-925-1700


ROTO-ROOTER: Sex Discrimination Class Action Filed in E.D. Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Roto-Rooter
hires only men for upper management positions, according to a
federal class action.  Debra Ring says only one woman holds one
of Roto-Rooter's more than 100 upper management positions -- and
that woman has been unfairly demoted twice and is suing the
company for gender discrimination.

Roto-Rooter routinely gives jobs paying $50,000 or more to men,
many times without even posting the position, Ms. Ring says.

Ms. Ring claims that despite her sterling record as an office
manager, Roto-Rooter gave a sales specialist position to a man
without giving her a chance to apply for it.  The man has a
higher salary and a company car, which Ms. Ring does not.

Ms. Ring says she repeatedly expressed a desire to advance to
upper management during her 11 years with Roto-Rooter, but her
general manager Rick Maloney told her there was nowhere to
advance to and that she was at the top of her pay scale.

The class consists of female Roto-Rooter employees who have been
unfairly denied upper management opportunities. It seeks actual
and punitive damages, wants Roto-Rooter enjoined from continuing
its discrimination and required to create a long-term plan to
ensure the discrimination is stopped.

A copy of the Complaint in Ring v. Roto-Rooter Services Company,
Case No. 10-cv-00044 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/13/RotoRooter.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Campbell, Esq.
          Erich Vieth, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          701 Market St., Suite 1450
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-2929

               - and -  

          Michael J. Fagras, Esq.
          LAMPIN, KELL, FAGRAS, LINSON, CUSTER & BUEHLER
          5770 Mexico Road
          St. Peters, MO 63376
          Telephone: 636-198-4000


SENIOR RETIREMENT: Embezzlement Scheme Gives Rise to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran at The St. Clair Record reports that a man and his
wife have filed a putative class action lawsuit, claiming they
were victims of a Clinton County man's embezzlement scheme in
which he allegedly collected more than $2 million.

James C. and Eileen L. McKay claim defendant Lavern Huelsmann
doing business as Senior Retirement Services approached them on
Aug. 17, 2009, at their home in Caseyville about investing
$139,000 in Senior Retirement Services. Senior Retirement
Services maintained an account at defendant FCB New Baden Bank.

The McKays decided to invest their money with Huelsmann after he
assured them the cash management account was safe, government
insured and guaranteed to provide at least 12 percent in annual
interest, the complaint says. At the time of the investment, the
McKays claim Huelsmann told them they were would not be able to
withdraw any money from the account for the first three to four
years.

When he approached the McKays, Huelsmann worked as a certified
life insurance agent and sold life insurance annuities with the
Midland National Life Insurance Company. Little did the McKays
know, but in 2006, Huelsmann also began encouraging elderly
residents in St. Clair County to invest in fraudulent notes and
accounts he maintained at defendants FCB New Baden Bank,
Germantown Trust and Savings Bank, Tempo Bank, Centrue Bank and
Scottrade, Inc., according to the complaint filed Jan. 6 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court.

When Huelsmann approached the McKays about investing money into
Senior Retirement Services, he actually planned to comingle their
funds with other money he had embezzled and obtain the cash for
his own use, the suit states.

The McKays claim the banks should have caught on to Huelsmann's
embezzlement, but never even filed a "Suspicious Activity
Report."

"FCB New Baden Bank, Germantown Trust and Savings Bank, Tempo
Bank, Centrue Bank and/or Scottrade Inc. never investigated
whether either Lavern Huelsmann or Senior Retirement Services was
ever licensed by any Federal or state of Illinois entity to offer
or sell securities such as the money kept in a constructive trust
at its bank," the suit states.

As a result of the banks' and Huelsmann's actions, the McKays
lost the $139,000 they invested, according to the complaint.

The McKays say they are not the only ones affected, and claim a
class action lawsuit is the only way to recover money due to
numerous people.

"Plaintiffs and their attorneys believe that at least 40 - 100
person, entities, or estates are missing over $2,000,000.00 in
investment monies," the suit states.

In their four-count suit, the McKays allege violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, negligence and acting in concert
with Huelsmann to convert funds against FDC Bank.

The McKays and the putative class are seeking a judgment of more
than $50,000 in compensable damages and money damages of more
than $100,000, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees and other
relief the court deems just. In addition, the McKays are asking
the court to certify the complaint as a class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in St. Clair County Circuit Court case number
10-L-04 are represented by:

          Bernard J. Ysursa, Esq.
          COOK, YSURSA, BARTHOLOMEW, BRAUER & SHEVLIN, LTD.
          12 West Lincoln St.
          Belleville, IL 62220-2085
          Telephone: 618-235-3500

               - and -  

          Michael S. Williams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. WILLIAMS, PC
          5055 West Main St.
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: 618-257-8563


SUNCOR ENERGY: Ontario Franchisees Launch Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Dearing at the Digital Journal reports that last week
Suncor Energy Inc. announced sweeping cuts as part of its ongoing
streamlining process after the giant oil sands producer bought up
Petro-Canada.  A week later, not only will Suncor be selling off
anywhere from $2 billion to $4 billion in assets, it will lay off
another 1,000 employees after its layoff of 1,000 people in late
2009. Suncor spokesman Brad Bellows told press:

     "I wouldn't characterize these as layoffs. What we are
     talking about primarily here are jobs that are associated
     with the divestments we planned over the course of 2010.
     What frequently happens in asset sales like this is the
     people go with the asset to the new owner."

Suncor is selling off some natural gas assets as it hones in on
its target of focusing on the oil sands, which it said provides
the best return on its money. Suncor is looking to increase oil
sands production from 300,000 barrels a day to over 1 million per
day. Suncor also aims to reduce its $13 billion debt by $3
billion in 2010.

According to 300 Ontario Sunoco retailers, Suncor made an
internal announcement last week that it would end franchise
agreements with Sunoco retailers. The retailers said 100 stations
are slated for closure, with the rest to be re-branded. In
response to the announcement, Ontario Sunoco retailers launched a
class action lawsuit Tuesday, claiming Suncor has violated their
franchise agreements, and Ontario law. The law suit is seeking
$200 million from Suncor. A press release issued by the affected
retailers said Suncor was terminating the franchise agreements
with all 300 station owners.

Suncor was required to divest itself of 104 Ontario gas stations
as part of the Competition Bureau's approval of the merger with
Petro-Canada, which took place in the summer of 2009. Husky
bought 98 Ontario gas stations from Suncor in December 2009. 68
of those stations were Sunoco stations, and the remainder were
Petro-Canada stations.

Another requirement of the merger stipulated by the Bureau will
see Suncor selling its greater Toronto area terminal storage and
distribution centers. Suncor also has to sell 98 million litres
of gas each year to independent gas stations in Ontario.


SWITCH AND DATA: Agrees to Settle Equinix Transaction Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Switch and Data (NASDAQ: SDXC), a leading provider of network-
neutral data center and Internet exchange services, and the other
defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding with
plaintiffs' counsel to settle three purported class action
lawsuits filed regarding the proposed merger between Switch and
Data, Equinix, Inc. and Sundance Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Equinix.

In connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein would be dismissed with prejudice,
including the claims brought against Switch and Data and its
directors. Switch and Data and the other defendants deny all of
the allegations in the lawsuits and believe that the existing
disclosures regarding the proposed merger are appropriate under
the law. Nevertheless, Switch and Data and the other defendants
have agreed to settle the putative class action lawsuits in order
to eliminate the risk, burden and expense of further litigation,
to fully resolve all claims raised in the lawsuits, to permit the
merger to be consummated without the risk of injunctive relief or
delay, and to permit Switch and Data's stockholders to receive
the consideration provided for in the merger.

Switch and Data filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
a Current Report on Form 8-K to announce the settlement of the
stockholder class action lawsuits and to also supplement and
amend the Proxy Statement dated December 21, 2009, as previously
supplemented on December 23, 2009.  A copy of the Form 8-K is
available at:

   http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1371011/000119312510008221/d8k.htm

Under the memorandum of understanding, the parties will seek
approval of the settlement in the Florida state court;
simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the actions
pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The proposed
settlement is conditional upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the
merger and final approval of the proposed settlement by the
Florida state court. The proposed settlement contemplates that
plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida state court for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs in an aggregate amount of
$900,000, and that the defendants will not oppose or undermine
this application. These attorneys' fees and costs will not be
deducted from the merger consideration.

                       About Switch and Data

Switch and Data -- http://www.switchanddata.com/-- is a premier  
provider of network-neutral data centers that house, power and
interconnect the Internet.  Leading content companies,
enterprises and communications service providers rely on Switch
and Data to connect to customers and exchange Internet traffic.
Switch and Data has built a reputation for world-class service,
delivered across the broadest collocation footprint and richest
network of interconnections in North America. Switch and Data
operates 34 sites in the U.S. and Canada, provides one of the
highest customer satisfaction scores for technical and
engineering support in the industry, and is home to PAIX(R) --
the world's first commercial Internet exchange.


TALBOTS INC: Shareholder Sues to Block AEON Buy-Out Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say The Talbots
Inc.'s controlling shareholders, AEON, is charging Talbot's too
much for its $491 million buyout, in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in
Campbell v. The Talbots, Inc., et al., Case No. 5199 (Del. Ch.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Laina M. Herbert, Esq.
          Kevin H. Davenport, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          P.O. Box 1328
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1328
          Telephone: 302-888-6500

               - and -  

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          James H. Miller, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-667-7706


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Potential Plaintiffs Intimidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordana Mishory at the Daily Business Review reports that Florida
smokers who lose personal-injury suits against tobacco companies
could be on the hook for the opposition's attorney fees under a
settlement strategy being pursued by cigarette makers.

Tobacco companies have been offering the state's 8,000 smoker
plaintiffs minuscule amounts of money -- typically $500 to $2,500
-- to settle wrongful death and negligence cases potentially
worth millions of dollars. The catch: Florida law says plaintiffs
who obtain a significantly smaller judgment than a rejected
settlement offer must pay the other side's attorney fees.

Smokers' attorneys say the exposure to potentially tens of
thousands of dollars in attorney fees is another tactic being
used to intimidate their clients as thousands of liability cases
go to court.

"They will pursue a losing smoker and their family to the ends of
the Earth to make an example out of him and to discourage others
from trying to get compensation for 50 years of fraud and
deceit," longtime smoker attorney Philip Gerson said.

Murray Garnick, senior vice president and associate general
counsel of Altria Client Services, parent of tobacco industry
leader Philip Morris, said cigarette companies have routinely
offered nominal judgments.

"This is a tiny fraction of plaintiffs' costs in bringing the
suit, and I don't think anyone would regard this seriously as any
kind of settlement in the real-world, practical meaning of the
term," he said. "Defendants are making these offers of judgment
for a very nominal amount to put the plaintiff at some risk if he
or she loses the case at trial."

Florida law states plaintiffs could be forced to pay attorney
fees and costs if they reject a settlement offer, even a nominal
one, and lose or obtain a judgment at least 25 percent less than
the offered amount. Tobacco companies have lost most of the
trials that have gone to juries so far, including a $300 million
verdict last November.

A plaintiff in a Pinellas Circuit Court tobacco case agreed to
pay $100,000 in defense fees following a defeat. A Hillsborough
Circuit Court judge ordered a smoker plaintiff to pay nearly
$30,000 in costs after a loss.

Gerson's client, Jerome Cohen, accepted a $1,000 offer in the
middle of his Broward Circuit Court trial and decided after
testifying to drop the case. In a news release, Altria said Cohen
dropped the case to avoid paying attorney fees in case he lost.
Gerson said his client, who suffers from lung cancer, walked away
for health reasons.

Gerson of Gerson & Schwartz in Miami said the state law that
pushes fees onto the losing side was intended to promote
settlements and discourage litigants from turning down reasonable
offers.

"The purpose of the law is to create a penalty for being
unreasonable," he said. The token offers are laughable --
especially in light of the fact that the lowest amount of
potential damages to pursue a case in circuit court is $15,000,
he said.

Gerson said Cohen proposed a $200,000 settlement.

"Who would file a lawsuit if what they wanted was $1,000?" Gerson
asked. "It doesn't matter if they made an offer of $1,000 or $100
or $1. What's in play is a substantial amount of money, and if
the plaintiff loses they have to worry about paying their
attorney fees."

Plaintiffs attorneys take the smoker cases on a contingency fee
basis, which brings in money only for a winning verdict.

Smoker attorney Howard Acosta of St. Petersburg, Fla., echoed
Gerson's argument.

"The purpose is to encourage settlement," he said. "They are the
ones who are essentially thumbing their nose at the law by
offering $500 settlements to families of people that have died
from their defective and unreasonably dangerous, fraudulently
sold, addictive products."

R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard confirmed the company seeks
attorney fees as provided for by Florida law. He noted plaintiffs
lawyers should make their clients aware they could be on the hook
for the fees if they are unsuccessful in court. He declined to
comment on settlement offers or respond to comments made by
smoker attorneys.

'ENGLE' PROGENY

More than 8,000 cases linger on dockets statewide stemming from a
Florida Supreme Court decision tossing the largest verdict in
U.S. history. In 2006, the justices decertified a class of sick
Florida smokers but allowed them to file individual complaints
and carry findings from the original Miami jury that found
smoking is dangerous, addictive and disease-causing.

The cases are referred to as Engle progeny after the lead
plaintiff in the initial class action.

For decades, tobacco companies refused to settle any cases,
defended every case and appealed every defeat.

Cigarette makers have claimed plaintiffs are unconstitutionally
allowed to use the Engle findings because presenting them to
juries violates their due process rights.

For that reason, Altria's Garnick said the nominal offers are
reasonable.

"The reasonableness of the offer is not based upon the
plaintiff's expectations or wants. It's based upon the case
itself, and we think these cases are fundamentally flawed as a
matter of state law and constitutional law," he said. "When we
make a nominal offer -- these are not settlements, these are
nominal offers -- we think it really reflect the value of these
cases."

Garnick maintains plaintiffs have been doing the same thing by
submitting low settlement offers to shift the burden of costs and
fees to tobacco companies.

Plaintiffs attorney Cal Warriner of Searcy Denney Scarola
Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla., agrees that both
sides have been seeking attorney fees.

Warriner's colleague, David Sales, sought $1 million to $2
million in attorney fees after winning a $3.4 million judgment in
a recent Pensacola case. Sales had offered to settle the case for
$150,000 against three defendants.

Sales said the tobacco companies, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds
and Liggett, had nominal counteroffers.

"The amount was not sufficient to pay the cost of a round-trip
ticket to Pensacola," Sales said.

Philip Morris trial attorney Ken Reilly of Shook Hardy & Bacon in
Miami declined to comment beyond Garnick's remarks.

Liggett did not provide comment.

DESTITUTE CLIENTS

Warriner said although both sides are seeking attorney fees, the
law provides a big advantage to tobacco companies.

"You have a destitute plaintiff whose risk is complete and utter
financial disaster if they lose versus R.J. Reynolds, which can
sell another couple hundred packs of Camels in China and pay for
their attorney fees exposure," he said. "It's a joke."

In many instances, smoker attorney Acosta said the defense won't
have a chance of collecting attorney fees. If a smoker dies,
tobacco lawyers can't seek fees and costs from the estate, which
usually is small.

"In all the death cases, [the defense] is not going to be able to
recover any money from the families unless for some reason there
is money in the estate, which there almost never is," he said.

When smokers are still alive, "they have already been so
devastated by their illnesses that there's nothing to collect
from them," Acosta said. "You can't get blood from a turnip.
These people are essentially judgment proof. All of their life
savings have been spent dealing with the diseases that they
have."

Acosta represented the Gelep family, which agreed to pay $100,000
in defense attorney fees after losing a trial last March.

He said he believed the tobacco companies, Philip Morris and R.J.
Reynolds, went after the son, Paul Gelep, because he was an
attorney. Acosta said he wasn't involved in the attorney fee
negotiations. Gelep did not return a call for comment by
deadline.

He also represented plaintiffs who had to pay tobacco attorney
costs. He said he believed his clients had to pay $26,000 in
costs, which he didn't contest.

Edward Sweda Jr., the senior attorney with the Tobacco Products
Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law in
Boston, called tobacco companies' offers of small settlements to
recover fees "un-American."

"This deters lots of people who have valuable claims against big
companies," he said, adding it could lead to economic ruin for
families who can't afford to run the risk.


US FIDELIS: Extended Auto Warranties Under Fire in E.D. Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that US Fidelis fka National Auto
Warranty Services bilked customers for so-called extended auto
warranties, a class action claims in Ann Arbor Federal Court.  

A copy of the Complaint in Bruno v. US Fidelis, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-10169 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/15/CCAFidelis.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter W. Macuga, II, Esq.
          MACUGA & LIDDLE, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015


WELLS FARGO: Calif. Suit Complains About Monthly Account Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo Bank collects
monthly service charges from Portfolio Management Accounts and
Advantage Accounts with sufficient minimum balances, though it
promises not to, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hughes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case
No. 10-cv-00239 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/14/BanksWF.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC
          1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-4416
          Telephone: 206-682-5600

               - and -  

          Christopher Grivakes, Esq.
          Jerry Smilowitz, Esq.
          IVES, KIRWAN & DIBBLE, APC
          660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-627-0113


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: United Refining Records $400,000 for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Refining Company, during the three months ended Nov. 30,
2009, recorded US$400,000 for asbestos abatement, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Jan. 14, 2010.

COMPANY PROFILE:
United Refining Company
15 Bradley Street     
Warren, Pa. 16365
Tel. No.: 814-723-1500

Description:
United Refining Company is a petroleum refiner and marketer in
its primary market area of Western New York and Northwestern
Pennsylvania. Operations are organized into two business
segments: wholesale and retail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chudleigh Ex-Builder's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 78-year-old Anthony Underhill,
a retired builder from Chudleigh, England, was linked to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Herald Express reports.

Mr. Underhill was diagnosed with mesothlioma in November 2009. He
died at Torquay's Rowcroft Hospice on Jan. 6, 2010.

A post mortem examination confirmed Mr. Underhill died from
malignant pleural mesothelioma. Formal identification was carried
out by his wife Gaie, a home care assistant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Netherfield Worker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 14, 2009, an inquest at Nottingham Coroner's Court heard
that the death of 78-year-old John Spooner, of Netherfield,
Nottinghamshire, England, was linked to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

Mr. Spooner died on Jan. 8, 2010 from mesothelioma at City
Hospital in Nottingham.

Notts coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease. Mr. Spooner worked as a diesel fitter for
British Rail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MUA Urges Chevron to Tackle Barrow Island Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) is pressuring Chevron
Corporation to address the asbestos issue on Barrow Island, which
is off the coast of Western Australia, ABC News reports.

The MUA says that workers who have been transporting containers
of asbestos from the island to the mainland were exposed to
asbestos.

MUA spokesman Chris Cain says a meeting has been organized with
seafarers and waterfront workers in Dampier. He said, "We will
not be shifting asbestos from the island at all to wharfies and
seafarers on their vessels until we, the MUA, are part of that
process through their [occupational] health [and] safety reps and
that is the Act that is law. So Chevron, it's up to them. It's
their move."

Chevron says it has already begun investigating the workers'
concerns.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Effingham Courthouse to Cost $10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials in Effingham County, Ill., expect asbestos abatement at
the old county courthouse to cost nearly US$10,000, once
oversight costs and inspection are factored into the mix, the
Effingham Daily News reports.

Don Althoff, chairman of the County Board's Buildings & Grounds
Committee, said asbestos removal will cost between US$5,000 and
US$6,000. Oversight by a licensed inspector will cost anywhere
from US$1,000 to US$2,500, depending on the length of the job.

Engineer Courtice Bowman's inspection revealed the presence of
asbestos in floor and ceiling tiles and some of the walls of the
138-year-old courthouse.

Conducted on Dec. 7, 2009, Mr. Bowman's inspection cost US$1,666.
In a report dated Jan. 8, 2009, Mr. Bowman wrote that "the focus
of the inspection was to identify building components known to
contain asbestos, such as insulating materials, acoustical
finishes, flooring finishes, or other miscellaneous components."

Materials thought of containing asbestos were found throughout
the building. Building components suspected were sheet rock
finish throughout the building, fire doors, plaster walls and
ceilings, floor tiles on both concrete and wood, and transit wall
and ceiling finish.

Mr. Bowman said the inspection was performed in accordance with
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foreman Action v. Chevron Filed Jan. 11 in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit in behalf of Jesse Foreman was filed on Jan.
11, 2010 against Chevron Corporation in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed by Mr. Foreman's family: Vergie Foreman, Clara
Foreman, Darrell Foreman and Darnell Foreman. The claimed the
lung cancer and pulmonary asbestosis with which Mr. Foreman was
diagnosed was wrongfully caused. They claimed Mr. Foreman died
from the diseases on March 21, 2008.

The plaintiffs say Mr. Foreman worked as a pipefitter helper,
insulator trainer and instrument mechanic. During the course of
his work, he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise
absorbed asbestos fibers, according to the complaint.

In the lawsuit, the Foremans seek punitive and exemplary damages,
plus costs, interest and other relief to which they may be
entitled.

J. Keith Hyde, Esq., and D'Juana Parks, Esq., of Provost and
Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will represent the Foremans.

Case No. B185-674 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phillips Case v. 23 Firms Filed Jan. 8 in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Sue Phillips, on Jan. 8, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit
on behalf of her deceased husband, Ransom Glen Phillips, against
23 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court,
Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Phillips was diagnosed with lung
cancer in July 2008 and died of it on Aug. 18, 2008.

Defendants include: Able Supply Co., AMF Inc., B&B Engineering
and Supply Co., CertainTeed Corp., Chevron U.S.A., Deltak,
Garlock, Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., General Electric Co.,
Georgia-Pacific Corp., Gulf Oil Corp., Huntsman Petrochemical,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Motiva Enterprises, Owens
Illinois, Riley Power Inc., Texaco Inc., TMR Co., Triplex Inc.,
Union Carbide Corp., Viacom Inc., Vogt Power International Inc.
and Westinghouse Electric Co.

Mrs. Phillips says Mr. Phillips worked from 1948 until 1985 for
various companies, including Texaco. She claims her husband's
disease was caused after he was exposed to and inhaled, ingested
or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers. Mr. Phillips did not know
of the hazards of asbestos exposure, according to the suit.

In the lawsuit, Mrs. Phillips seeks general, special, punitive
and exemplary damages, plus costs, interest and other relief to
which she may be entitled.

Tina H. Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont, Tex.,
will represent Mrs. Phillips.

Case No. A185-671 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham, 58th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Manager to Plead Guilty to Safety Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Roger Edwards, the project manager for an Indian Shores
condominium conversion in Tampa, Fla., agreed to plead guilty to
a federal crime for helping cover up asbestos violations, Tampa
Bay Online reports.

Mr. Edwards agreed to cooperate with prosecutors as part of his
signed plea deal filed in U.S. District Court. He will also plead
guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the violations.

Mr. Edwards worked for Gannaway Builders when the company was
hired in 2004 to convert the Indian Pass Apartments on Gulf
Boulevard into the Barefoot Beach Resort condominiums. The resort
had 164 units in six two-story buildings on six acres.

After asbestos was found in the popcorn texture in the ceilings
of the units, the property owner and Gannaway Builders decided it
was too expensive to remove the asbestos, and decided to instead
cover it with drywall, according to court papers. The technique
used to cover the ceilings disturbed the asbestos.

In June 2005, rain further damaged the ceilings in 10 units of
one building. At the time, Mr. Edwards was managing a different
project. However, the superintendent of the Barefoot Beach
project contacted him about the rain damage and asbestos.

Mr. Edwards was told wrongly by Gannaway's owner that the
ceilings were "under threshold" for asbestos, and that the
ceilings should be removed quickly to keep the project on
schedule. He relayed the instructions, leading workers to remove
the ceilings without observing precautionary measures required by
law.

Mr. Edwards became the project manager in August 2005.

Federal inspectors were tipped off that workers were being
exposed to asbestos, and visited the site the following month,
according to Mr. Edwards' plea agreement. Inspectors found
several violations.

In an attempt to cover up the violations, Mr. Edwards wrote three
letters to regulators falsely claiming that Gannaway employees
had properly handled the asbestos, his plea agreement states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaRosa, Brewer Cases v. 133 Firms Filed Dec. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related cases filed on behalf of Francis J. LaRosa and
and Raymond E. Brewer Sr. were filed on Dec. 8, 2009 against 133
defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

The plaintiffs (Mr. LaRosa, Jeanette M. LaRosa and Raymond E.
Brewer Sr.) claim Mr. LaRosa and Brewer Sr. were exposed to
asbestos-containing products during their careers with the
defendants.

Mr. LaRosa and Mr. Brewer were diagnosed with asbestosis and
mesothelioma.

According to the 14-count lawsuit, the companies failed to warn
the plaintiffs of the dangers of the asbestos-containing products
and failed to test the asbestos-containing products and remove
them.

The plaintiffs seek damages, both jointly and severally, for an
amount above the court's jurisdictional minimum.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., and Lee W.
Davis, Esq., of Goldberg, Persky & White; and Scott S. Segal,
Esq., of the Segal Law Firm represent the plaintiffs.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case Nos. 09-C-2252 and 09-C-2253 have been
assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Hearings in CSR, ASIC Lawsuits Adjourned
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSR Limited says the first federal court hearing relating to the
Australian Securities & Investments Commission's (ASIC) scrutiny
of the Company's asbestos liability provisions will be adjourned,
The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Issues over CSR's asbestos liabilities emerged in 2009 when the
155-year-old company announced plans to demerge its sugar and
renewable energy businesses from its building products arm.

ASIC is checking CSR's provisions for those asbestos liabilities
in its de-merger scheme booklet. Both parties are in talks about
the matter and have agreed to give themselves more time.

CSR, in a statement on Jan. 14, 2010, said, "CSR considers and
ASIC have agreed that a short extension of time to complete these
discussions is sensible. As a result, the first court hearing in
the Federal Court which was scheduled for January 15 will be
further adjourned and is expected to take place next week.

"CSR continues to progress its demerger proposal and is targeting
implementation of the demerger on schedule by the end of March
2010."

CSR told AAP in June 2009 that it would ensure there were
sufficient funds available to meet asbestos-related compensation
liabilities before it proceeds with the proposed demerger.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ATS Now Operates at "Severe" License Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Constructions Occupations Registrar said Australasian
Technical Services (ATS), which was involved in the October 2009
asbestos scare at Pickles Auction House, now operates under the
"most severe" license conditions imposed on an asbestos
contractor in the Australian Capital Territory, The Canberra
Times reports.

ATS has had its license to work with the potentially deadly
substance restored but only under strict conditions agreed
between the Company and the registrar.

In the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Jan. 18, 2010,
ATS' principal, Frank Gatto, and the registrar edged closer to an
agreement to restore Mr. Gatto's license, with both parties going
away to consider a draft set of conditions.

The scare erupted on Oct. 9, 2009 when WorkCover was called to
the auction house after calls from the Construction, Forestry,
Energy and Mining Union.

The union alleged that up to 12 workers had been on the roof of
Pickles removing asbestos, without full protective gear, and with
customers and staff nearby.

Testing later revealed that asbestos had been at the site and
hundreds of staff and customers were advised to seek medical
attention, although the ACT Government said the risk of exposure
was low.

In the aftermath of the scare, the Government announced that a
task-force was to be formed to investigate. A spokesman for
acting Attorney-General Joy Burch said on Jan. 18, 2010 that the
probe, led by WorkCover, was still under way.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prive Allowed to File Lawsuit v. Vt. Mine Chief
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Vermont Supreme Court, on Jan. 15, 2010, says Leonard Prive
can sue Howard Manosh, the president of the Vermont Asbestos
Group, over contamination on property next to a defunct asbestos
mine in Eden and Lowell, VPR News reports.

Mr. Prive had sued Mr. Manosh for asbestos contamination of his
soil, ponds and wetlands, which the state said was likely caused
by a large pile of waste rock at the mine, which closed in 1993.

Mr. Prive said in his suit that Mr. Manosh was personally liable
because he allegedly directed where the waste rock pile should be
placed and how it would be contained.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Bothell Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, affirmed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, in the case styled City
of Bothell v. Steven D. Flanagan, Gerardo G. Suarez and Teresita
S. Suarez.

Judges Lau, Ellington and Becker entered judgment in Case No.
62733-3-I on Dec. 7, 2009.

Steven D. Flanagan and Gerardo G. Suarez jointly own the Park
Royal Apartments in Bothell, Wash. In 2006, the City of Bothell
inspected the property and found numerous code violations.

The City served Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez with an abatement
order/notice of violation (NOV) on Jan. 2, 2007. The first NOV
required them to remedy roof leakage, water damage, and toxic
mold in a number of units within 60 days. In August 2007, Mr.
Flanagan and Mr. Suarez informed the City that asbestos was
present on the property. The City served a second NOV on Mr.
Flanagan and Mr. Suarez on Nov. 7, 2007.

Over a year after the first NOV was issued, Mr. Flanagan and Mr.
Suarez had not completed much of the required work. The parties
entered into a stipulated injunction on Jan. 25, 2008. The
injunction prevented the continued occupancy of the Park
Royal Apartments and required that Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez
remedy the violations listed in the two NOVs and those discovered
through a comprehensive inspection report (CIR) process by April
30, 2008. The City agreed to provide the CIR to Mr. Flanagan and
Mr. Suarez by Feb. 29, 2008.

By April 30, 2008, Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez had fixed the roof
and completed asbestos abatement but had not addressed other
issues, such as mold. The City issued the CIR on May 8, 2008. The
City had refused to conduct the inspection while asbestos
abatement was ongoing.

The City moved for summary judgment on Sept. 25, 2008, alleging
that Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez had failed to comply with the
NOVs and the stipulated injunction. Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez
opposed the motion and moved for an order directing City to cease
arbitrary and capricious enforcement of code.

The court denied Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez's motion, granted
the City's summary judgment motion, and entered a judgment
against Flanagan and Suarez.

Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez appealed the order of summary
judgment, the supplemental judgment, and the denial of their
motion. Based principally on the stipulated injunction, the City
moved for a motion on the merits to affirm.

The Company had determined that Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Suarez's
appeal should be heard by a panel of judges without oral
argument.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Denies Remand Motion in Case v. CBS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court an asbestos lawsuit
filed against CBS Corporation.

District Judge Janet C. Hall entered judgment in Civil Action No.
3-09-cv-1112 (JCH) on Dec. 1, 2009.

The case is styled Samuel Allen, et al., Plaintiffs v. CBS
Corporation, Defendant.

On June 25, 2009, Samuel Allen and 11 other plaintiffs filed a
personal injury action in the Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Conn. On July 14,
CBS Corporation removed this case to federal court.

Plaintiffs are 12 men who were employed by General Dynamics
Corporation, Electric Boat Division, in Groton, Conn., for
various periods between 1956 and the present. All worked in areas
where they were exposed to asbestos and now suffer from asbestos-
related diseases such as lung cancer, lung disease, asbestosis,
and loss of lung function.

Plaintiffs alleged that their exposure to asbestos came at least
in part from products CBS manufactured for the U.S. Navy. CBS is
the successor by merger to Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court was denied.

Melissa M. Olson, Esq., of Embry & Neusner in Groton, Conn.,
represented the Plaintiffs.

Cara Ann Ceraso, Esq., Thomas F. Maxwell, Jr., Esq., of Pullman &
Comley in Bridgeport, Conn., represented CBS Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Ruling in Holland Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ruled on the
asbestos case styled James W. Holland, Appellant, Ann Holland,
Movant v. James B. Peake, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Appellee.

Judge Robert N. Davis entered judgment in Case No. 04-1848 on
Dec. 15, 2009.

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Secretary filed an unopposed motion to
vacate the Aug. 20, 2004, Board of Veterans Appeals decision,
which denied an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for
restrictive type emphysema, secondary to asbestos exposure.

On Nov. 17, 2008, this Court issued an Order that recalled
mandate and dismissed the appeal. That Order, however, did not
contain in its "ORDERED" section, an order to vacate the Board
decision with respect to the matters appealed to the Court.
Therefore, the Nov. 17, 2008, Order was withdrawn and this Order
was issued in its place.

On Nov. 19, 2007, the Secretary filed a motion to recall mandate
and dismiss the appeal based on the appellant's death. The
movant, Ann Holland, then filed a motion for substitution of
parties, requesting that she be substituted for the appellant
because she is the appellant's surviving spouse.

On March 17, 2008, the Secretary filed his response to the
Court's order.

It was ordered that the Nov. 17, 2008 order was withdrawn and
this order was issued in its place. It is further ordered that
the Secretary's Nov. 19, 2007, motion to recall mandate and
dismiss the appeal was granted. It was further ordered that the
movant's motion for substitution was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Actions Filed in Madison County From Jan. 4-8
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Jan. 4, 2010 through Jan. 10, 2010, a total of
six new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-17) William and Joyce Anderson of Arizona
   claims Mr. Anderson developed mesothelioma after his work as
   an insulator. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Anderson.

-- (Case No. 10-L-08) John and Mary Callahan of Alabama claim
   Mr. Callahan developed lung cancer after his work in the U.S.
   Navy, as a steelworker and carpenter at Republic Steel and as
   a steelworker and carpenter at USXF and USXE. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Callahans.

-- (Case No. 10-L-2) Carl and Ellen Filus of Michigan claim Mr.
   Filus developed lung cancer after his work as a member of the
   U.S. Army, as a brake assembler at Chevy Gear and Axle, as a
   laborer at Metal Coat and as a service representative. Randy
   L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Filuses.

-- (Case No. 10-L-6) James M. Follis of South Carolina claims
   his deceased father, John S. Follis, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a manufacturer of roof tiles for
   CertainTeed and as a millworker and electrician for Nabisco,
   according to the complaint. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent James M.
   Follis.

-- (Case No. 10-L-09) William M. Keller of Ohio claims his
   deceased father, William Keller, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as an HVAC maintenance worker at Rockwell
   International, as a mechanic at Wasserstrom and Sons and as a
   building superintendent at Ohio Medical Indemnity. According
   to the complaint, William Keller also performed automobile
   maintenance work and worked around drywall and shingles.
   Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian
   and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent William
   M. Keller.

-- (Case No. 10-L-5) Philip and Linda Paffel of Wisconsin claim
   Mr. Paffel developed mesothelioma after his work as a cook,
   assembly line worker, laborer and separator. He was also
   secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through his father,
   who worked as a mechanic at American Motors, according to the
   complaint. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent the Paffels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henderson Case v. 8 Firms Filed Jan. 11 in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Brashers, on Jan. 11, 2010, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit on behalf of her deceased husband, Michael B. Brashers,
against eight defendant corporations in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Brashers was diagnosed with lung cancer in April 2008 and
died of it on April 27, 2008, according to the lawsuit. Mrs.
Brashers said Mr. Brashers worked from 1963 through 1998 for
Union Oil Company of California located in Jefferson County.

Mrs. Brashers alleges her husband's disease was caused because he
was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers while at work. Mr. Brashers did not know of the
hazards of asbestos exposure, according to the complaint.

Defending companies named in the complaint include Able Supply
Llc, AMETEK Inc., Champlain Cable Corp., Guardline, Hercules
Inc., Jett Weld Inc., Union Oil Company of California and
Westinghouse Electric Co.

Mrs. Brashers states the defendants failed to adequately warn Mr.
Brashers of the serious health hazards related to asbestos
exposure and failed to provide Mr. Brashers of what would be
considered adequate and safe working apparel.

In addition, the defending companies failed to provide adequate
warnings to Mr. Brashers, failed to take reasonable precaution to
enforce a safety plan, failed to develop a substitute material to
eliminate asbestos exposure in the workplace and failed to market
asbestos products that were safe to use, according to the
complaint.

Mrs. Brashers seeks general, special, punitive and exemplary
damages, plus costs, interest and other relief to which she may
be entitled.

Tina H. Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont, Tex.,
and by Paul D. Henderson, Esq., of Jefferson, Tex., will
represent Mrs. Brashers.

Case No. E185-681 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fareham Naval Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 84-year-old Kenneth Garside, a
former naval worker from Fareham, Hampshire, England, was linked
to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Portsmouth News reports.

Mr. Garside regularly came into contact with asbestos during his
career as a shipwright. He was struck down with mesothelioma and
died at St. Mary's Hospital, Milton, on Feb. 2, 2008.

Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire coroner David Horsley
recorded a verdict that Mr. Garside died from industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowder Mulled for Madison Asbestos Judge Post
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder could probably be
the next asbestos judge when Circuit Judge Daniel Stack vacates
the position he has held since 2004, The Madison St. Clair Record
reports.

Judge Stack, whose term ends in December 2010, is retiring to
work in the private sector as a mediator/arbitrator.

Madison County Chief Judge Ann Callis said that Crowder will
"most likely" be tapped to preside over Madison County's asbestos
docket -- one of the busiest in the country.

Judge Crowder has overseen at least one asbestos hearing in Judge
Stack's absence in recent months.

In an earlier interview, Judge Stack indicated he wanted both
sides of the asbestos bar to consider a successor "who they won't
take a change from," he said.

If Judge Crowder succeeds Judge Stack in asbestos, she will
inherit a docket that has been growing in recent years with
claims filed by plaintiffs from all over the country.

Judge Stack, a Democrat, was appointed to the 3rd Circuit Court
in February 2003 to succeed retired judge Circuit Judge P.J.
O'Neill. Judge Stack was elected to fill Judge O'Neill's vacancy
in 2004.

Judge Crowder, a Democrat, was elected circuit judge in 2006.
Before her election she served as an associate judge. Judge
Crowder defeated James Hackett, a Republican. Judge Hackett was
then and still is an associate judge.

Madison County State's Attorney Bill Mudge, a Democrat, is
running unopposed in November 2010 to succeed Judge Stack.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bibb County Mulling Tax for Contaminated Homes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bibb County, Ga., officials are considering a so-called "blight
tax" to be levied against home owners whose dwellings are in
disrepair, and may contain asbestos or toxic mold,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

In some cases, the blight taxes could turn into a redevelopment
credit.

Bibb County Chief Administrative Officer Steve Layson said the
blight tax would motivate local property owners to better
maintain properties that are either eyesores or health hazards.

According to Mr. Layson, the county currently spends between
US$9,000 and US$15,000 to tear down a house. This figure includes
demolition, dumping fees, asbestos abatement, and other charges.

The city of Darien, Ga., has cleaned up numerous blighted
properties within the city limits with a blight tax.

However, Darien Community Development Director Frank Field said,
"That particular ordinance we thought was going to be a powerful
tool to clean up some long-standing problems, but the reality is
if you go in and enforce your existing codes fairly and strongly,
you'll do a better job than any ordinance."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ilkeston Joiner's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Eric Richard Beeby, of
Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England, was linked to workplace exposure
to asbestos, the Ilkeston Advertiser reports.

Mr. Beeby died at the age of 83 as a result of a form of lung
cancer caused by the combination of smoking and exposure to
asbestos.

Consultant Pathologist Dr. Ivan Robinson said Mr. Beeby, who died
at Ilkeston Community Hospital on Nov. 21, 2009 had been exposed
to asbestos while working as a shopfitter and joiner.

Dr. Robinson said he was able to see evidence of the exposure
with the naked eye. He added that asbestos definitely contributed
to Mr. Beeby's death but could not say that it was the only
factor.

Mr. Beeby's wife, June, told the inquest her husband had been a
heavy smoker since his teenage years but had cut down over the
years prior to his death and stopped completely in the last 18
months.

Mrs. Beeby said Mr. Beeby had never been provided with masks or
protective clothing and that he had not realized the dangers of
working with asbestos on an almost daily basis.

Derby and South Derbyshire deputy coroner Louise Pinder recorded
a narrative verdict.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Ithaca Gun Factory Still Continuing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos abatement of the former site of The Ithaca Gun
Company in Ithaca, N.Y., is ongoing, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos
Awareness Center reports.

Funding issues delayed the project in the later days of 2009.
Empire State Development Corp. board will decide in January 2010
if the city of Ithaca will be allowed to redistribute US$420,000
from the grant in order to clean up the site.

Empire State is responsible for disbursing the grant money for
the project.

The money in question was originally slated to bankroll
redevelopment. However, the extent of the cleanup was far larger
than was expected at the beginning of the project. Cleanup must
be completed before redevelopment can begin.

The money comes from the Restore NY grant fund. The money, if
allowed to be used for cleanup, would be used to clear away piles
of contaminated waste.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Date in CSR Action Delayed Until Jan. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSR Ltd., on Jan. 19, 2010, said that its court date to secure
federal approval for the demerger of its sugar and renewable
energy business will be further delayed until Jan. 29, 2010, the
Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The court hearing that was originally adjourned in December 2009
and recently delayed as the company seeks to appease concerns by
regulators about how it will meet its asbestos liabilities post-
demerger.

CSR said it has made "substantial progress" in working with the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission on the
disclosures of its asbestos liabilities in its scheme booklet but
that the latest delay gives both parties "appropriate time" to
review the final drafts.

CSR maintains the demerger is in the best interest of
shareholders and said the implementation of the plan is on
schedule, meaning it should be completed before the end of March
2010.

CSR has been settling asbestos claims since 1989 related to
mining, manufacturing and exporting activities in Australia and
the United States.

In December 2009, the New South Wales state Attorney General
pressured ASIC to "closely scrutinize the demerger" to ensure the
smaller, demerged business would still be able to compensate
victims of asbestos claims brought against the building materials
division of CSR.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in DuPont Action Still Set for April 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald Floyd, of Jefferson County District Court, still has
not made a ruling on E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's
unopposed motion to remove the asbestos case from the April 2010
trial docket, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Over the past two years, the Record has reported on the case of
Caryl Richardson vs. DuPont de Nemours on behalf of deceased
worker Willis Whisnant Jr.

DuPont won a jury verdict in early 2008, However, Judge Floyd,
Jefferson County 172nd District Court, tossed out the jury's
decision and subsequently granted Ms. Richardson's motion for a
new trial without any explanation for the ruling.

After two appeals and numerous hearings, in July 2009, the Texas
Supreme Court ordered Judge Floyd to disclose his reasons for
granting the new trial.

Before Judge Floyd could craft a new order, DuPont asked him to
set aside his ruling. In a motion filed July 8, 2009, DuPont
argued that the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals should get
a crack at examining Ms. Richardson's complaints before Judge
Floyd expanded upon his original March 2008 ruling.

Ultimately, the judge has yet to rule on DuPont's motion or give
a reason on why he ordered a new trial, leaving the case on his
trial docket for April 2010.

On Dec. 9, 2009, DuPont filed an unopposed motion to remove the
case from the docket but more than a month later, the trial
remains slated for spring 2010.

In its motion, DuPont asks Judge Floyd to remove the case because
the parties "should not be put to the expenditure of time, effort
and resources necessary to prepare for an April trial date while
the Court has the new-trial issues under consideration."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crusellas Sentenced for Disposal Breach in N.H.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Ramirez-Crusellas, on Jan. 20, 2010, pleaded guilty to
two asbestos-related misdemeanor counts of reckless conduct, the
Associated Press reports.

The New Hampshire Attorney General says the 63-year-old Ms.
Ramirez-Crusellas, of Keene, N.H., has been sentenced to nine
days in prison for illegally disposing of asbestos.

The attorney general's office says Ms. Ramirez-Crusellas was
accused of dumping asbestos-containing material from a home
renovation project into a Dumpster at Keene State College.

Mr. Ramirez-Crusellas received a suspended sentence of 12 months
with all but nine days suspended. Officials say she must pay
US$4,000 fines and the cost of proper disposal of the asbestos to
the college.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement Project Forces Closure of Rath Bldg.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos removal project forced the closure of the 16th floor
of the Rath Building in Buffalo, N.Y., The Buffalo News reports.

On Jan. 15, 2010, workers in the building found signs saying the
floor, home to the offices of County Executive Chris Collins, was
not accessible by elevator.

Collins spokesman Grant Loomis said access to the floor could
reopen as early as Jan. 26, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed From Madrid-Waddington Central
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos was removed from the Madrid-Waddington Central School in
New York State, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Construction in the Madrid-Waddington Central School district is
nearing completion, and is an estimated US$1 million under
budget. The project is funded in part by the state Education
Department.

According to district Superintendent Lynn M. Roy, the reason the
project came in so far under budget is due, for the most part, on
lucky timing.

Improvements to the school included a new roof, windows, improved
technology, and the removal of asbestos.

Asbestos abatement is often needed in older buildings before the
start of construction or renovation projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abex Summary Judgment Granted in Everitt Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi,
Jackson Division, granted Pneumo Abex, LLC's motion for summary
judgment in the asbestos case filed by Doris Everitt on behalf of
Robert M. Everitt, Sr.

The Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.

The case is styled Doris Everitt, Executrix of The Estate of
Robert M. Everitt, Sr., Deceased, et al., Plaintiff v. Pneumo
Abex, LLC, Defendant.

District Judge Tom S. Lee entered judgment in Civil Action No.
3:06CV231TSL-JCS on Dec. 10, 2009.

In February 2000, plaintiffs (numbering somewhere between 1,300
and 1,400) filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County against Pneumo Abex and other asbestos manufacturers,
distributors or sellers seeking recovery under various theories
for injuries alleged to have resulted from plaintiffs' exposure
to the defendants' asbestos-containing products.

In this cause, plaintiffs alleged that on July 6, 2001, they
entered into a settlement agreement with Pneumo Abex and its co-
defendants in the Anderson case, Ferodo America, Inc. f/k/a
Nuturn Corporation, Gasket Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Flexitallic,
Inc., and Wagner Electric Corporation n/k/a Federal Mogul, Inc.,
under which an agreed order of dismissal with prejudice was
entered in the Anderson case on Sept. 21, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged that Pneumo Abex has breached the settlement
agreement, and plaintiffs had thus brought this action demanding
specific performance of the settlement agreement or damages for
its breach.

The putative settlement agreement, set forth in a July 1, 2001
letter to plaintiffs' counsel from counsel for the four Anderson
defendants, purported to "confirm settlement of approximately
1400 plaintiffs' claims" and to define the terms of the parties'
agreement.

Shortly before the Anderson defendants' first US$200,000 payment
was due under the agreement, three of those defendants, Federal
Mogul, Inc., Ferodo America f/k/a Nuturn Corporation and Gasket
Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Flexitallic, Inc., filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.

While not a debtor itself, Pnuemo Abex nevertheless sought to
intervene in the bankruptcy proceeding through an adversary
proceeding for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed the present
action demanding specific performance of the settlement agreement
or damages for breach of contract.

Pneumo Abex now moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims
and plaintiffs had themselves filed a cross-motion for partial
summary judgment on the questions of contract validity and breach
of contract.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tucker Bid to Dismiss NESHAP Indictment Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern
Division, denied Scott Tucker's motion to dismiss Counts I-IV of
an indictment regarding the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP), which governs the handling and
disposal of asbestos.

The case is styled United States of America, Plaintiff v. Scott
Tucker, Defendant.

District Judge Robert Holmes Bell entered judgment in Case No.
1:09-CR-57 on Dec. 9, 2009.

On Feb. 25, 2009, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Tucker on
four counts of violating the NESHAP and three counts of violating
the Toxic Substances Control Act, which governs the handling and
disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls.

Mr. Tucker is the president and owner of H & M Demolition. In
January 2005, H & M Demolition was hired to demolish a kiln-
drying building at VKW Hardwoods in Wyoming, Mich. At all times,
Mr. Tucker was aware that the roof of the kiln-drying building
was made up of transite, a cement-like material that contains
asbestos.

After examining the building, Mr. Tucker concluded that, due to
the instability of the roof panels, it would not be safe to
remove the panels by hand prior to demolishing the building. He
therefore decided to use a hydraulic excavator to remove the roof
panels, a process that would demolish the panels, or portions
thereof, in the process.

Mr. Tucker claimed that he spoke on the telephone with a NESHAP
inspector from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) about his intentions, and the inspector approved the plan.
Mr. Tucker began demolishing the roof panels on Jan. 26, 2005. On
Jan. 27, 2009, in response to a tip, inspector Langworthy, a
representative from the Michigan Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (MIOSHA), visited the work site and collected
samples of the roof material.

Mr. Langworthy submitted the samples to the Michigan Department
of Labor and Growth for testing and notified MDEQ of possible
NESHAP violations. On Feb. 1, 2005, after receiving confirmation
that the samples collected by Mr. Langworthy tested positive for
asbestos, three MDEQ inspectors visited the VKW site where they
notified H & M employees that the roof contained asbestos and
must be disposed of accordingly. The three inspectors also
collected seven additional debris samples.

On Feb. 2, 2009, Jaline Tucker, Mr. Tucker's wife and co-owner of
H & M Demolition, instructed employees to remove all the
asbestos-containing material from the work-site and dispose of it
in a cement-recycling yard. The yard was not an approved asbestos
disposal facility. According to the government, Mr. Tucker
affirmed his wife's instruction. On Feb. 5, 2005, one DEQ
inspector returned to the work site and collected two additional
material samples. Government agents collected 12 samples in all.

The government charged Mr. Tucker with four counts of violating
the asbestos regulations in the course of the VKW project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Affirms Ruling in Atwell Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division,
which favored Thomas F. Atwell, Jr. in an asbestos case styled
Thomas F. Atwell, Jr., Executor of The Estate of Thomas F.
Atwell, Deceased, Appellee v. John Crane, Inc., Appellant.

Judges Freedberg, Cleland and Kelly entered judgment in Case No.
2892 EDDA 2008 on Dec. 17, 2009.

This was an appeal from the judgment of US$150,000 in favor Mr.
Atwell in an action based on claims of strict liability stemming
from the death of Thomas F. Atwell from lung cancer. The question
raised by John Crane, Inc. was whether the litigation of state
tort claims based on work related asbestos exposure is preempted
by federal law where the employment, and thus the exposure,
occurs in a railroad maintenance facility.

From 1951 to the institution of suit in 2004, Thomas F. Atwell
was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by John
Crane, specifically gaskets, packing, and pipe wrap, used by
Thomas F. Atwell in his work as a pipe fitter repairing
locomotives first for Southern Railway, and then for Norfolk
Southern Railway.

In August 2003, Thomas F. Atwell was diagnosed with lung cancer,
contracted as the result of his asbestos exposure, and died in
July 2006, prior to the reverse bifurcated trial, which concluded
with the judgment in favor of Thomas F. Atwell, Jr., the executor
of Thomas F. Atwell's estate. This appeal followed.

                            *********

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 2010.  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  * * *