CAR_Public/100205.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 5, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 25

                            Headlines

AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued for Illegal Gambling Company Investments
BERNARD L. MADOFF: Ponzi Scheme Payout Plan Debated in Bank. Ct.
BLUE CROSS: Accused of Predatory Pricing in Alabama Suit
CHATTEM INC: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Florida
CHATTEM INC: Looks to Settle 2 Suits over Planned sanofi Merger

CHINA ORGANIC: Continues to Defend "Provo" Suit in New York
CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Appeal on Settlement's Approval Pending
CVS PHARMACIES: Ill. Ct. Certified AirShield Plaintiff Class
DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 9,600 Toy Gun Sets
FIFTH THIRD: Lawsuit Filed in N.D. Ga. Contests Overdraft Fees

FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Accused of Cheating Employees in Fla. Suit
HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HARTE HANKS: Shoppers Settles Class Action for $6.95 Million
IMS HEALTH: Inks Agreement to Settle Two Suits in Connecticut
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: N.J. Methylene Chloride Suit Will Continue

LODGIAN INC: Wolf Popper Files Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch. Ct.
ONE IRON: Sued in Ill. for Unlawful Credit & Collection Practices
OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY: Suit Complains About Home Theater Projectors
PANASONIC CONSUMER: Sells Defective Plasma TVs, N.J. Suit Claims
SERAGEN SECURITIES: Notice of Settlement in Del. Ch. Ct. Lawsuit

SUNRISE HOSPITAL: Notice of Fla. Class Action ADA Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: New Orleans Suit Complains About Sticky Pedals
U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING: N.D. Calif. Certifies ARM Borrower Class
VIRGINIA: Prisoners Sue for Meaningful Consideration of Parole

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Pays $190.3MM for Claims in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Still Faces 4,200 Pending Cases at Dec. 25
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henager Action v. 43 Firms Filed in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conley Action v. 37 Firms Filed in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clay Schools Settles AHERA Violation with EPA

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Bruce and Co. Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jean Charest Urged to Stop Exporting of Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Standard Coosa Case to Begin Feb. 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Abated From Lex Villa in Carrollton, Ga.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issues in Oil Field Cases in Pa.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Ruling in Dent Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Remands Coulter to Correct Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies UCC Bid in Washington Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay in Continental Case v. Indian Head Lifted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Liability at $11M in Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.040Bil in Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Nov. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Inc. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Affirms Commission's Ruling in Pope
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Denies Union Pacific Bid in Fletcher

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Remand Affirmed in Lindenmayer Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Riniers' Remand Bid in Case v. FWC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nafferton Joiner Seeks Colleagues Help in Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Collins Facing Legal Action in Missouri
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnston Case v. 160 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Seeks Agreement With Insurance Groups
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Records 2,300 New Claims in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayle Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wigal Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris Lawsuit v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geary Claim v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barber Case v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wood Action v. 125 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kontra Case v. 67 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McClure Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beckett Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daytona Beach Cleanup to Cost $80,000-$100,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Aviation Terminal in S.C. Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bickle Widow Gets GBP50,000 Interim Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Sets Aside Ruling in Larsen Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unitrin Reserves $71M for A&E Issues at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Records $734M Dec. 31 Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56 Cases Pending v. American Locker at Sept. 8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Graham Corp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Records $867.2M Dec. 31 Long-Term Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Cites $10M A&E Loss Reserve Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gallagher Suit v. 40 Companies Filed in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $11.6M for Bankruptcy in 4th-Qtr.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Actions Filed in Madison County Jan. 18-22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miller Case v. 53 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baumener's Family Awarded $2Mil in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stewart's Lawsuit Now Ongoing in NSW High Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Judge Rejects Demerger Plan of CSR Ltd.

                            *********

AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued for Illegal Gambling Company Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that managers of
the American Century International Discovery Fund cost investors
millions of dollars by knowingly investing in illegal Internet
gambling operations, a class action claims in Federal Court.  
Lead plaintiff Nelson Gomes says managers bought hundreds of
thousands of shares of NETeller and Bwin, both of them illegal
gambling entities.

The purchases were made despite the U.S. Department of Justice's
previous public warnings that Internet gambling companies that
take wagers from U.S. customers are criminal entities and that
supporting those entities is a crime, according to the complaint.

Mr. Gomes says NETeller even warned potential investors in its
2004 prospectus, which stated that the Department of Justice
viewed NETeller as a criminal operation and that there "could be
no assurance that the U.S. will not try to threaten or try to
prosecute the NETeller Group under federal law at some stage
under existing or future regulations."

Despite the warnings and prosecution of NETeller's and Bwin's
competitors, the fund managers continued to buy shares of the
organizations, the complaint states.

After several competitors were shut down by U.S. agencies, Bwin
shut itself down and took an impairment charge of nearly $680
million, the complaint states.

On Jan. 15, 2007, NETeller's founders, Stephen Lawrence and John
Lefebvre, were arrested and charged with conspiracy to violate
anti-gambling laws, the complaint states.  Mr. Gomes says
Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Lefebvre pleaded guilty to felonies and
agreed to forfeit $100 million.

"Defendants' illegal investments for the Fund's portfolio
directly injured plaintiff and other investors in the Fund
because the value of the shares in the Fund is calculated daily
on the basis of the net asset value of the Fund's portfolio," the
suit states.

"Each dollar lost by the defendants' investments in an illegal
gambling business resulted in a dollar loss to the Fund portfolio
and to the investors in the Fund on a pro rata basis."

Mr. Gomes says investors lost more than 85 percent of their money
in the Bwin purchases alone and adds that investors lost
"millions" in the fund's investments in Bwin and NETeller.

The class consists of all investors who bought one or more shares
in the fund during the purchases.  The class seeks disgorgement
and actual and punitive damages for RICO violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Gomes v. American Century Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00083 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Casinos.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          John Wagner, Esq.
          Gregory P. Erthal, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          707 Berkshire Blvd.
          East Alton, IL 62024
          Telephone: 618-259-2222
       
               - and -

          Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES, LLP
          112 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016-7416
          Telephone: 212-784-6400


BERNARD L. MADOFF: Ponzi Scheme Payout Plan Debated in Bank. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noeleen G. Walder at the New York Law Journal reports that the
attorney for the bankruptcy trustee recovering the assets of
Bernard L. Madoff argued before a packed courtroom Tuesday that
"no one in their right mind" would use the financial statements
concocted by Madoff as a basis for distributing the funds.

During a nearly four-hour hearing:

          David J. Sheehan, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: 212-589-4616

an attorney for trustee Irving H. Picard, urged Bankruptcy Judge
Burton Lifland to accept Mr. Picard's "cash-in/cash-out" method
of compensating investors.

Under that approach, investors who withdrew less cash from their
Madoff accounts than they deposited ("net losers") would share in
whatever Mr. Picard recovers, now about $1.5 billion.

On the other hand, investors who withdrew funds over and above
what they invested ("net winners") would get nothing.

Investors who object to Picard's plan insist that any payout
should be based on what Madoff, 71, claimed they made as recorded
in their Nov. 30, 2008, statement from Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC, just two weeks before Madoff was
arrested for his multibillion dollar Ponzi scheme.

Sheehan contended at the hearing that the approach of the
objecting investors would "ignore the reality" of a Ponzi scheme.

"The last customer statement, being the concoction of a
fraudster, is not something on which you can rely" in calculating
net equity, said Sheehan, a partner at Baker & Hostetler.

In fact, that would only "reinforce Bernie's fraud," he claimed.
"It's really sad that some of my colleagues have led people down
the wrong path," he said of the attorneys representing victims of
Madoff's fraud.

Stressing that about $600 million has been distributed to
investors so far, Sheehan said "the trustee understands his
responsibilities" under the Securities Investor Protection Act of
1970. And he tried to dispel notions that the Securities Investor
Protection Corp., a federally mandated nonprofit agency created
to protect customers of failed brokerage firms, has an insurance
fund to compensate victims.

According to Mr. Sheehan, while investors can receive up to a
$500,000 advance from the agency, that is only after someone has
"already determined that you have an allowed claim."

"There's no insurance. There's no $500,000 that everyone gets a
check for. I don't understand why people don't get that," he told
Judge Lifland.

Another lawyer:

          Brian J. Neville, Esq.
          LAX & NEVILLE, LLP
          1412 Broadway, Suite 1407
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 212-696-1999

argued that the trustee's method was contrary to 80 years of
precedent in securities law and a throwback to the discredited
concept of "buyer beware."  He said that SIPC, which acts as a
"backstop" when a brokerage firm fails, had clearly "failed the
Madoff victims."

Another lawyer:

          Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq.
          PHILLIPS NIZER LLP
          666 Fifth Avenue, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10103-0084
          Telephone: 212-977-9700

who has blasted Picard for his method of calculating claims and
accused him of violating the mandates of SIPC, agreed that the
agency had let down investors.

Herself a victim of Madoff's fraud, Ms. Chaitman, who represents
both "net winners" and "net losers," said that investors like
Adele Fox, an 86-year-old retired schoolteacher who "lost
everything to Madoff" had a "reasonable belief" she would receive
at least $500,000 in "insurance" from SIPC.  To the hundreds "of
Adele Foxes I represent, that $500,000 is the difference between
living" with or without bleeding ulcers, Mr. Chaitman said.

She also accused SIPC of ignoring warnings from Congress that it
was "grossly underfunded" and said that the agency, which had
$1.7 billion at the time Madoff's fraud was uncovered but faced
roughly $2.45 billion in exposure as a result of the scheme, was
"saving money at the expense of the investors."

Ms. Chaitman told Judge Lifland that accepting the trustee's
methodology would lead investors to move their accounts every
time there was an appreciation and result in a "musical chairs of
brokerage firms."

Both sides relied heavily on In re New Times Securities Services
Inc., 371 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2004), which involved a 17-year Ponzi
scheme in which hundreds of investors were defrauded out of
approximately $32.7 million.

Mr. Sheehan cited the case for the proposition that basing
customer recoveries on "fictitious amounts in the firm's books
and record" would enable customers to recoup "arbitrary amounts
that have no relation to reality."

However, Ms. Chaitman and other victims' lawyers contended the
case meant that a customer's "legitimate expectations," based on
written confirmations of transactions, should be protected.

Judge Lifland suggested that parties might wind up arguing their
differing views of the case to the Second Circuit.

The judge, who said he had received 27 briefs from attorneys
representing investors objecting to Mr. Picard's methodology and
22 submissions from pro se individuals, took the matter under
advisement.  

But he warned attorneys and victims, "No matter how I come down
and rule, it's going to be unpalatable to one party or the
other."

As of Jan. 29, the Madoff trustee Web site valued the total
number of "allowed claims" at roughly $5.1 billion, which exceeds
the statutory limits of SIPC protection by approximately $4.5
billion.

Mr. Sheehan suggested at the hearing that the trustee could
recover as much as $8 billion in assets.

                       Fraud Suit Dismissed

In other Madoff-related news, a federal court on Monday threw
out civil securities fraud claims in Securities and Exchange
Commission v. Cohmad Securities Corp., et al., Case No.
09-cv-05680 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stanton, J.).  

"Nowhere does the complaint allege any fact that would have put
defendants on notice of Madoff's fraud," wrote Southern District
Judge Louis Stanton.  "Rather, the complaint supports the
reasonable inference that Madoff fooled the defendants as he did
individual investors, financial institutions and regulators."

The regulators said the defendants were crucial to Madoff's
success because they gave the impression that one could only
invest with Madoff as a favor through special access.

In his ruling -- a copy of which is available at no charge at
http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/020310cohmad.pdf--  
Judge Stanton noted that Madoff had operated his business since
1960 and that Maurice Cohn, the company's chairman, is Madoff's
former neighbor.

Cohmad was formed in 1985 and Cohn's daughter, Marcia, its chief
operating officer, joined in 1988, three years before Madoff says
he began operating his business as a fraud, the judge said.  He
also noted that the Cohns worked in Cohmad's New York office on
the same floors as Madoff's legitimate market-making business.

Robert Jaffe, Cohmad's vice president and broker, who lives in
Palm Beach, Fla., previously headed Cohmad's Boston office.  He
is a son-in-law of Carl Shapiro, a prominent Boston-area
businessman and philanthropist whose family was said to have lost
hundreds of millions of dollars from their investments with
Madoff.

In its complaint, the SEC said Madoff directed Cohmad and its
executives to maintain a cloud of secrecy about his business and
banned all written marketing materials, cold calls and e-mails.
It said he also told the defendants he would not accept investors
in the finance and banking industry because sophisticated
investors ask too many questions.

The defendants countered the allegations by saying an aura of
exclusivity is a common marketing tactic.

The judge rejected the SEC's conclusion that the defendants'
fraudulent intent could be inferred from allegations that Cohmad
failed to disclose the full extent of its relationship with
Madoff in its regulatory filings and books and records.

He said the argument "that concealment was because any defendant
knew that Madoff was committing fraud is speculative and flimsy."

Judge Stanton gave the SEC permission to replead if it could
provide facts to back up its allegations.

A suit filed by Mr. Picard in June, which accused Cohmad of
recouping decades of "ill gotten gains" as a result of the firm's
"symbiotic relationship" with Madoff, is pending before Judge
Lifland.  Cohmad has moved to dismiss the trustee's suit as well.

Mr. Madoff, who was sentenced to 150 years in prison in June, is
incarcerated in a medium security facility in Butner, N.C.


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Predatory Pricing in Alabama Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
class action in state court, four medical groups accuse Blue
Cross Blue Shield of monopolizing insured medical services in
Alabama through its preferred medical doctor requirements and
"exclusionary" and "predatory conduct" designed to eliminate
competition.  The physicians say Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Alabama controls 80 percent of the state's commercially insured
residents.

The complaint in Jefferson County Circuit Court claims that Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Alabama excludes physicians from practicing
in the state by refusing to give them a provider number if they
do not accept its underpayment.

Dr. David Williamson and four medical groups claim that saying no
to Blue Cross, and refusing to accept the PMD status it requires,
would mean financial ruin for hospitals and doctors.

The PMD requirement allows Blue Cross to reimburse "contracting"
doctors at whatever rate it decides, according to the complaint.
In Alabama, this rate is far lower than is given to doctors in
other states and by other insurance providers.

The physicians particularly object to the reimbursement Blue
Cross pays to emergency physicians in Alabama.

They say Blue Cross's "fee for service" is 54 percent lower than
"reasonable commercial market reimbursement rates," and well
below the national average for emergency room doctors.

Blue Cross is driving away many board-certified emergency room
doctors, and has created a shortage of doctors that is
"critically affecting" emergency health care in Alabama,
according to the complaint.

Alabama has the lowest coverage ratio of board certified doctors
to population of any Southeastern state, according to the
complaint.

The medical groups seek punitive damages of $100 million for
breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual
relations.  

A copy of the Complaint in Williamson, et al. v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Alabama, Civil Action No. CV-2010-900303.00 (Ala.
Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Steadman S. Shealy, Jr., Esq.
          Richard E. Crum, Esq.
          SHEALY, CRUM, & PIKE, P.C.
          2346 W. Main St.
          Dothan, AL 36302-6346
          Telephone: 334-677-3000


CHATTEM INC: Continues to Defend "Wilson" Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc., continues to defend putative class action lawsuit
relating to the labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of its
Garlique product, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2009.

The suit was filed by Florida consumer James A. Wilson in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The company was served with this lawsuit on May 27, 2009.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorney fees.

The plaintiff alleges that the company mislabeled its product and
made false advertising claims.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a national class.

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- markets and  
manufactures a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such
categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care,
oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary
supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products.


CHATTEM INC: Looks to Settle 2 Suits over Planned sanofi Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc., has entered into an agreement to settle two
purported class actions over its planned merger with sanofi-
aventis, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2009.

On Dec. 20, 2009, the company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger, with sanofi-aventis, and River Acquisition Corp., an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of sanofi.

Two purported class action complaints were filed in connection
with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee.

The first complaint, captioned Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation
Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Chattem, Inc., et al. was filed on
Dec. 22, 2009.

The second complaint, captioned Schipper v. Guerry, et al., was
filed on Dec. 23, 2009.

The complaints allege generally, among other things, that the
members of the company's board breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by advancing their personal interests ahead of
those of the shareholders and by engaging in self-dealing and
failing to properly value or disclose the company's true value.

The Pirelli complaint also alleges that the company aided and
abetted the breaches of duty by its board and the Schipper
complaint brings a similar aiding and abetting charge against
sanofi.

The complaints seek generally an injunction preventing the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement from being
consummated or, to the extent any such transactions are
consummated, that such transactions be rescinded and set aside.  
Plaintiffs in each action seek costs and disbursements in
conjunction with the actions, including attorneys' fees, and
Schipper seeks compensatory damages against defendants, both
individually and severally.

On Jan. 6, 2010, plaintiff in the Pirelli action moved to
consolidate the actions and appoint its counsel as lead counsel
in the consolidated action.

On Jan. 8, 2010, the company moved to dismiss the Pirelli action
for failure to state a claim and to stay discovery pending the
resolution of the motion to dismiss.

The parties to the purported class actions have, following arm's-
length negotiations, agreed in principle upon a proposed
settlement of such actions, which will be subject to court
approval.  

Pursuant to this proposed settlement, the company will be making
certain supplemental disclosures to its shareholders in
connection with the Tender Offer.  The company and the members of
the board of directors have denied and continue to deny any
wrongdoing or liability with respect to all claims, events and
transactions complained of in the aforementioned actions or that
the company or the members of its board of directors engaged in
any wrongdoing.

The company is settling the actions in order to eliminate the
uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction of further
litigation.

Chattem, Inc. -- http://www.chattem.com/-- markets and  
manufactures a portfolio of branded over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products, toiletries and dietary supplements, in such
categories as medicated skin care products, topical pain care,
oral care, internal OTC, medicated dandruff shampoos, dietary
supplements, and other OTC and toiletry products.


CHINA ORGANIC: Continues to Defend "Provo" Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Organic Agriculture, Inc., continues to face a class-action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act 0f
1934, as amended, according to the company's Jan. 27, 2010, Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was filed on Dec. 12, 2008, by Lance C. Provo, "on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated", in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company, past officers and directors of the company, and one
current director of the company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
disseminated false and misleading statements or concealed
materially adverse facts causing members of the class to purchase
the company's stock at inflated prices, and engaged in other
improper actions, including divesting the company of its sole
productive asset and acquiring a luxury retreat for the use of
the Defendants.

The suit alleges that the Defendants' actions violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10(b) 5 under the Exchange Act.

The suit seeks as relief civil penalties, attorney's fees, and
disgorgement

China Organic Agriculture, Inc., formerly Industrial Electric
Services, Inc. -- http://www.chinaorganicagriculture.com/-- is  
engaged in the business of rice production, processing and
distribution.  China Organic Agriculture, Ltd. is the company's
wholly owned subsidiary.  It operates in three segments: Ankang,
the segment for the trading of agricultural products; ErMaPao,
the one for rice production and processing, and Bellisimo
Vineyard, the segment for wine production.


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Appeal on Settlement's Approval Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of a number of Chordiant Software, Inc.'s shareholder
on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York's final approval of an agreement settling a consolidated
case against the company remains pending.

Beginning in July 2001, the company and certain of its officers
and directors were named as defendants in a series of class
action stockholder complaints filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, now consolidated under the
caption "In re Chordiant Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-6222."

In the amended complaint, filed in April 2002, the plaintiffs
allege that the company, the Individuals, and the underwriters of
the company's initial public offering, violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended , based on
allegations that the company's registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the company's IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims against the Individuals for
control person liability under Securities Act Section 15 and
Exchange Act Section 20. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  Similar complaints were filed in the
same court against hundreds of other public companies that
conducted IPO's of their common stock in the late 1990's or in
the year 2000.

On Feb. 25, 2009, liaison counsel for plaintiffs informed the
district court that a settlement of the IPO Lawsuits had been
agreed to in principle, subject to formal approval by the parties
and preliminary and final approval by the court.

On April 2, 2009, the parties submitted a tentative settlement
agreement to the court and moved for preliminary approval
thereof.

On June 11, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
tentative settlement, ordered that Notice of the settlement be
published and mailed, and set a Final Fairness Hearing for Sept.
10, 2009.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the District Court certified the settlement
class in each IPO Case and granted final approval of the
settlement.

On or about Oct. 23, 2009, three shareholders filed a Petition
for Permission To Appeal Class Certification Order, challenging
the District Court's certification of the settlement classes.

Beginning on Oct. 29, 2009, a number of shareholders filed direct
appeals, objecting to final approval of the settlement.  

If the settlement is affirmed on appeal, the settlement will
result in the dismissal of all claims against the company and its
officers and directors with prejudice, and the company's pro rata
share of the settlement fund will be fully funded by insurance,
according to the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Chordiant Software, Inc. -- http://www.chordiant.com-- is an  
enterprise software company that delivers products and services
designed to improve the customer experience in front-office
processes for global companies primarily in the insurance,
healthcare, telecommunications and financial services markets.


CVS PHARMACIES: Ill. Ct. Certified AirShield Plaintiff Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that St. Clair
County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto has allowed a class action over
CVS Pharmacies Inc.'s version of "Airborne," to go ahead.

Judge Cueto entered his certification order in a class led by
lead plaintiff Iean Finley on Jan. 25.  Judge Cueto heard
arguments Jan. 11.

The suit is one of several pending in St. Clair County over the
generic forms of the popular immune system supplement.  All of
the suits were filed by Finley's legal team, Freed & Weiss LLC of
Chicago and Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson P.C. of
Belleville.

Defendants in the other suits include K-Mart and Target.

The class action case against Target was expanded last year to
potentially include claims from Minnesota, California and
Florida.

According to the transcript of the Jan. 11 hearing, plaintiff's
attorney Richard Burke of St. Louis argued that his client had
more than proved that CVS knowingly misrepresented its
"AirShield" as a supplement with the same effectiveness as
Airborne.

The suit alleges that CVS committed fraud and violated the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act in selling the product knowing it did
not work.

"It's snake oil," Burke told Judge Cueto.

Burke cited proceedings against the company at the Federal Trade
Commission that led to what he claimed was an admission by the
company that it falsely marketed the drug's effectiveness.

Defense counsel Robert Phillips countered that the FTC proceeding
was not an admission and that Finley himself admitted that he had
not gone in the store to buy the CVS product at all.

He pointed to Finley's deposition that he had gone to the store
to buy Airborne, hoping to ward off seasonal illness.

"He gets over to the shelf, he sees Airborne and then he sees my
client's product and he realizes it's a few dollars cheaper,"
Phillips explained.

Judge Cueto countered with a question about the product and the
store's intent.

"Let's suppose he looked at the Airborne label that was there
that day and he may have looked at your product as well. Isn't he
going to see basically the exact same thing in a different
language?" Judge Cueto asked.

Phillips replied that Finley would not have seen the "exact same
thing."

Judge Cueto continued questioning the product's marketing and
labeling.

"So when you say compare us to Airborne you're pointing somebody
out to a specific product that you're telling the consumer you're
as good as and perhaps better than that product and you're going
to save a few bucks too," Judge Cueto said.

"But what I'm not doing when I make that comparison is adopting,
embracing any false advertising or statement," Phillips replied
immediately after.

In Judge Cueto's Jan. 25 order, the class is certified and
consists of all people who bought AirShield from CVS in Illinois
from Dec. 1, 2003 to Jan. 25, 2010.

Judge Cueto notes that although CVS only sold AirShield in the
state from May 2004 onward, there is an evidentiary question that
will be resolved in discovery and the class definition can be
amended as the case goes on.

Finley's suit asks for individual damages of not more than
$75,000 per individual class member.

CVS is represented by Phillips and Robert Bassett.

The case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 9,600 Toy Gun Sets
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailer Dollar General, of Goodlettsville, Tenn., and importer
Dolgencorp LLC, of Goodlettsville, Tenn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 9,600 Special Forces and Police SWAT Toy Gun
Sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The orange tips located at the end of the toy guns' barrels,
which are designed to distinguish them from real guns, can easily
be removed from the barrels, posing a choking hazard to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes a Special Forces Weapons and Accessories Set
and a SWAT Police Play Equipment Set.  Each set includes two toy
guns and related accessories.  The number 48JQH09 is printed on
the right side of the larger gun included in the recalled sets.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10132.html

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold at Dollar
General stores in 35 states from September 2009 through October
2009 for about $5.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy guns away from
children and return them to any Dollar General for a full refund
or a replacement product.  For additional information, contact
Dollar General Corp. at (800) 678-9258 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.dollargeneral.com/


FIFTH THIRD: Lawsuit Filed in N.D. Ga. Contests Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington, D.C.-based law firm Tycko & Zavareei filed a
class action lawsuit in the Northern District Court in Georgia
against Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bank on Monday, February 1,
alleging predatory overdraft fee practices.

Willard v. Fifth Third Bancorp, Case No. 10-cv-00271 (N.D. Ga.)
(Shoob, J.), filed on behalf of Marlene Willard of Hephzibah,
Georgia, charges that Fifth Third manipulates customer debit
transactions by posting them to customer accounts in the order of
largest amount to smallest, rather than time of receipt, in order
to generate overdraft fees.

The result of this alleged practice is that customers are charged
overdraft fees even if they have money in their accounts, which
the suit claims has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars
of illegally-generated fees. According to the suit, this practice
violates federal and state laws as well as violating Fifth
Third's contract with its clients.

In addition, the suit charges Fifth Third with failing to
disclose transaction fees, writing its contract with customers in
a way that obscures its overdraft policies, and preventing
customers from opting out of the overdraft protection program
that generates the fees in question.

This suit is, in part, the result of a November 2009 ruling by
the Federal Reserve Board that prevents banks from charging
overdraft fees without consumer consent, meaning that banks must
now explain their overdraft policy to their customers, at which
point the customer must opt in to the program. These new
regulations have paved the way for lawsuits such as Ms.
Willard's.

Local counsel to Ms. Willard is:

          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          David James Worley, Esq.
          PAGE PERRY LLC
          1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: 770-673-0047


FORTRESS INVESTMENT: Accused of Cheating Employees in Fla. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fortress Investment Group
and Nevada Gold Inc. deducted health insurance premiums for
employees of its SunCruz Casinos, but never bought the insurance,
and fired hundreds of workers without proper notice, a class
action claims in Orlando Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Man, et al. v. Fortress Investment
Group, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00172 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Jonathan Stein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STEIN
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-587-2277

               - and -          

          Demetrios Kirkiles, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEMETRIOS KIRKILES
          1619 South Andrews Ave.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: 954-463-6500


HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corp. continues to defend a consolidated federal
securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, according to the company's
Jan. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 1, 2010.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., a former subsidiary of the
company, and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, including certain current officers of the company,
were named as defendants in a federal securities class action
complaint filed on Sept. 15, 2008 by plaintiff Norfolk County
Retirement System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of
HSTX securities from Jan. 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of
Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between
Stratex and our former Microwave Communications Division to form
HSTX.

Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and
Oct. 30, 2008.

The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint
filed on July 29, 2009 that added Harris Corp. and Ernst & Young
LLP as defendants.  This action relates to public disclosures
made by HSTX on Jan. 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included
the restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first
three fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended
March 28, 2008, Dec. 28, 2007 and Sept. 28, 2007) and for its
fiscal years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005
due to accounting errors.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Harris Corp. -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is an international communications and information
technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.  The company is focused on developing
assured communications products, systems and services for global
markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications,
government communications and broadcast communications.  The
company is organized in three segments: RF Communications
segment, Government Communications Systems segment and Broadcast
Communications segment.


HARTE HANKS: Shoppers Settles Class Action for $6.95 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Harte-Hanks, Inc.'s subsidiary, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.,
reached an agreement in principle to settle a class action
lawsuit for $6.95 million, according to the company's Jan. 28,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former
employee Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action against
Shoppers, claiming that Shoppers failed to comply with a
California statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify
employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer.  The
plaintiffs allege that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for
expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales
representatives and failed to accurately itemize these expenses
on plaintiffs' wage statements.  The suit was filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

The class that plaintiffs seek to represent has been limited to
all California Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were
not separately reimbursed apart from their base salary and
commissions for the expenses they incurred in using their own
automobiles after early 1998.  The plaintiffs seek
indemnification and compensatory damages, statutory damages,
exemplary damages, penalties, interest, costs of suit, and
attorneys' fees.

Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment
that the plaintiffs have been indemnified for their automobile
expenses by the higher salaries and commissions paid to them as
outside sales representatives.  The cross-complaint also alleges
conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and rescission
and restitution based on mutual mistake.

On Jan. 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that California Labor
Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for
mileage and other expenses incurred in the course of employment,
but that an employer is permitted to pay increased wages or
commissions instead of indemnifying actual expenses.

On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On Oct. 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a
unanimous opinion affirming the trial court's rulings, including
the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802 and denial of class
certification.

On Nov. 23, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum
reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations to
indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business
expenses under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced taxable
compensation.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further proceedings related to the class certification issue and
directed the trial court to consider whether the following issues
could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis:

     (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of reimbursing
         outside sales representatives for automobile expenses
         by paying them higher commission rates and base
         salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives,

     (2) did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the
         enhanced compensation payments between compensation for
         labor performed and expense reimbursement and

     (3) was the amount paid for expense reimbursement
         sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
         automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily
         incurred.

On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue a
split class action certification ruling, certifying a class
action with respect to the first two questions listed immediately
above (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an
apportionment method) and denying class certification on the
third question listed immediately above (sufficiency of
reimbursement).

On May 19, 2009, the trial court issued its written partial class
certification order.

This matter was set for a class trial in April 2010 on the first
two questions (adoption of a policy or practice, and
establishment of an apportionment method).

On Jan. 25, 2010, Shoppers, reached an agreement in principle
with Shoppers employee Mr. Gattuso and former employee Mr.
Sigala, individually and on behalf of a certified class, to
settle and resolve the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Shoppers, without any
admission of liability, agreed, subject to certain conditions,
that it will pay to the class settlement fund a total of $6.95
million.  The proposed settlement is subject to the entry of an
order of the trial court granting preliminary approval and,
following notice to class members, final approval of the
settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice against all class members.

The parties have agreed in principle to promptly negotiate, sign
and submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the
trial court to resolve this matter.  Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, in return for the above consideration, each member of
the class, including Gattuso and Sigala, will release all claims
against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or
related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have
been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action
lawsuit.

The company expects to incur a $6.95 million charge in the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009, associated with the proposed
settlement.

Harte-Hanks, Inc. -- http://www.harte-hanks.com/-- is a  
worldwide direct and targeted marketing company that provides
direct marketing services and shopper advertising opportunities
to a range of local, regional, national and international
consumer and business-to-business marketers.  The company manages
its operations through two operating segments: Direct Marketing,
which operates both nationally and internationally, and Shoppers,
which operates in local and regional markets in California and
Florida.


IMS HEALTH: Inks Agreement to Settle Two Suits in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the two putative
stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of
Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, according to
the company's Jan. 28, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Nov. 6, 2009, a putative stockholder class action, styled
Trust for the Benefit of Sylvia B. Piven v. IMS Health
Incorporated, et al., CV09-5013110-S, was filed in the Superior
Court of Connecticut against the company, the members of its
board of directors, TPG Capital, L.P. and the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board, asserting the directors breached their
fiduciary duties, and asserting that the company, TPG and CPPIB
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of duty.

On Nov. 10, 2009, a putative stockholder class action, styled
John Felhaber v. David R. Carlucci, et al., CV09-5013139-S, was
filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, against the company,
its directors, TPG, Parent and Merger Sub, also asserting claims
for breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting such
breaches.

On Dec. 8, 2009, plaintiff Felhaber filed an amended complaint
asserting, among other things, that the company's directors had
breached their duty of disclosure in the Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by the company on
Nov. 25, 2009.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the Company director defendants filed motions
to dismiss for failure to properly effect service, and on
December 21, 2009 the Company filed motions to strike, the Piven
complaint and the Felhaber amended complaint filed in the
Superior Court of Connecticut. On January 5, 2010, plaintiff
Felhaber filed an application for temporary injunction seeking,
among other things, disclosure-based relief in advance of the
February 8, 2010 Special Meeting of the Company's stockholders,
and on January 11, 2010, the Company and its directors filed an
objection to the application. During a January 13, 2010 hearing
before the Superior Court of Connecticut, the Company director
defendants withdrew their motions to dismiss.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
two putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the
Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-
Norwalk.


IMS Health Inc. -- http://www.imshealth.com/-- provides market  
intelligence to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.  
With $2.3 billion in 2008 revenue and more than 50 years of
industry experience, IMS offers market intelligence products and
services that are integral to clients' day-to-day operations,
including product and portfolio management capabilities;
commercial effectiveness innovations; managed care and consumer
health offerings; and consulting and services solutions that
improve productivity and the delivery of quality healthcare
worldwide.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: N.J. Methylene Chloride Suit Will Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Gottlieb at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a
federal judge in Newark, N.J., has ruled plaintiffs can pursue a
class action suit alleging that Johnson & Johnson and Wal-Mart
baby bath products are unfit for sale because they contain a
banned chemical that could cause cancer.

U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh denied the companies'
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, saying the
plaintiffs had made a good enough case to seek economic damages
on theories that the companies committed deceptive trade
practices and breached an implied warranty.

The allegations about Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo and Wal-
Mart's Equate Tearless Baby Wash do not say anyone has been
harmed, and two of the three allegedly hazardous chemicals in the
products have not been banned by the Food and Drug Administration
for use in cosmetics.

But since 1989 the FDA has banned use of the third chemical,
methylene chloride, and that gives the plaintiffs standing to
make a case that the sale of the products caused economic damages
to purchasers, Judge Cavanaugh ruled in Levinson v. Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Companies, Case No. 09-03317 (D. N.J.).

The suit, on behalf of two women from St. Louis, is one of four
putative class actions filed by law firm Keller Rohrback of
Seattle against baby shampoo and soap manufacturers last year.
The suits followed a March 2009 report by a Washington, D.C.,
health advocacy group, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, that tests
found traces of methylene chloride, formaldehyde and a chemical
called 1,4-dioxane in various products.

The suit says independent testing also showed the chemicals were
in the product and that the presence was not disclosed by the
companies.

In their briefs, the companies did not dispute the allegation
that the products contained traces of the chemicals. But they
assert that no one was harmed and the suits don't allege that
anyone had been harmed.

"Millions of parents and caregivers have bought and used
Johnson's Baby Shampoo without any incident or injury to their
children,"

          Daniel B. Carroll, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          500 Campus Dr.
          Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047
          Telephone: (973) 549-7296

said in a brief.  And people continue to use the 50-year-old
product around the world every day without harm, the brief added.

Judge Cavanaugh ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring
claims for economic damages for the use of the two chemicals
permitted in cosmetics by the FDA.

But the plaintiffs do have standing to sue over the presence of
methylene chloride because it is subject to a specific legal
prohibition, he held.

The deceptive trade practices claim survived because Judge
Cavanaugh chose to apply the law of Missouri, the plaintiffs'
home state, rather than New Jersey law.

In New Jersey, consumer fraud claims arising from the sale of
defective products are covered by the Product Liability Act, and
liability under that act requires proof of harm.

"The Court does not agree that articulating a claim in terms of
pure economic harm where the core issue is the potential injury
arising as a consequence of the products' allegedly harmful
chemicals converts the underlying defective product claim into an
independent and unrelated consumer fraud issue," Judge Cavanaugh
ruled.

The principle comes from Sinclair v. Merck & Co., 195 N.J. 51
(2008), a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that said claims that
painkiller Vioxx caused risk of heart attacks could be pursued
under the Product Liability Act, but not the Consumer Fraud Act.

The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, however, does allow
recovery for economic damages arising from any merchandise in
trade or commerce. And because the plaintiffs are from Missouri,
that state's law applies to the case, Judge Cavanaugh ruled.

He also declined to disturb a claim for violation of a breach of
implied warranty but did dismiss a claim for unjust enrichment.

According to the suits, the FDA banned the use of methylene
chloride in 1989 because its presence threatens an elevated risk
of cancer. If the substance occurs as a byproduct of other
chemical reactions within a product, it can be removed by a
process called "vacuum stripping," but the defendants chose not
to do so, the suits say.

Similar suits are pending against Gerber Products Company,
Kimberly-Clark and Proctor & Gamble Distributing.

Plaintiffs lawyer:

          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          
says it's too early to tell, given the number of similar cases
pending, what the damage claim or size of the class might be.

"We are heartened by Judge Cavanaugh's ruling," she says. "The
court recognized that plaintiffs stated viable claims under
Missouri state law and may proceed with their lawsuit."

Wal-Mart counsel:

          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          P.O. Box 677
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900

referred a New Jersey Law Journal reporter's call to Greg
Rossiter, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, who says, "Wal-Mart sells
millions of safe, affordable quality products to customers every
day and while we can't comment specifically on this case, we're
pleased that the judge had significantly narrowed the plaintiffs
claims."


LODGIAN INC: Wolf Popper Files Shareholder Suit in Del. Ch. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2010, Wolf Popper LLP filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of United Capital Corp. and other public shareholders
of Lodgian Inc. (AMEX: LGN), in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  
United Capital Corp. owns approximately 9.9% of the outstanding
common shares of Lodgian.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive and other appropriate relief
relating to the proposed acquisition of Lodgian's public shares
pursuant to a merger whereunder an affiliate of Lone Star Funds
is seeking to acquire Lodgian (the "Merger Agreement") for $2.50
per share.  The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that
Lodgian's Board of Directors failed to conduct an auction or an
adequate market check before entering into the Merger Agreement
which contains provisions that act to discourage a potential
superior proposal by another acquiror.  The Complaint also
contends that the $2.50 per share price is unfair and inadequate.

If you have any information concerning this action, please
contact:

          Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
          James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-759-4600


ONE IRON: Sued in Ill. for Unlawful Credit & Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that One Iron Ventures dba First
Cash Advance illegally rolls over payday loans at 416 percent
annual interest, creating a mounting tsunami of debt, a class
action claims in Cook County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Green v. One Iron Ventures, Inc.,
Case No. 10CH04127 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Lending.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Str., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312-739-4200


OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY: Suit Complains About Home Theater Projectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Optoma Technology's FU250W
home theater projectors have "unreasonably short life spans" that
cause the lamps to blow out quickly, a class action claims in
Bergen County Court, Hackensack, N.J.


PANASONIC CONSUMER: Sells Defective Plasma TVs, N.J. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Panasonic sells defective
Viera plasma TVs that randomly turn off, have failing picture or
sound or other defects, a class action claims in Newark Federal
Court.
      
A copy of the Complaint in Cohen v. Panasonic Consumer
Electronics Company, et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as
Doc. 7676 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Jan. 29, 2010 (D. N.J.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/CCAPanasonic.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Rd.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-994-1700

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Roland Riggs, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300


SERAGEN SECURITIES: Notice of Settlement in Del. Ch. Ct. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
          THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SERGIO M. OLIVER, RONALD OLIVER,      )    
EMILY OLIVER, GREGORY O. GRUSE,  )  
ANN O. GRUSE, WILLIAM M.              )  
STERRETT, BLACKSBURG TRANSFER         )  
& STORAGE, INC., DAVID MCDANIEL,      )  
WALLACE L. HUFF, and DANIEL R.        ) C.A. No. 16570-VCN
CANADA,                               )  
                                      )  
          Plaintiffs,                 )  
                                      )  
     v.                               )  
                                      )  
BOSTON UNIVERSITY, JOHN R. SILBER,    )  
LEON C. HIRSCH, TURI JOSEFESEN, REED  )  
R. PRIOR, GERALD S.J. CASSIDY,        )  
KENNETH G. CONDON, NORMAN A.          )  
JACOBS, JEAN C. NICHOLS, SERAGEN,     )
INC., SERAGEN TECHNOLOGY, INC., and   )  
MARATHON BIOPHARMACEUTICALS LLC,      )  
                                      )  
          Defendants.                 )  

       NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION
         OF CLASS, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
              SETTLEMENT HEARING AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO: ALL HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF COMMON
    STOCK OF SERAGEN, INC. ("SERAGEN") ON NOVEMBER 4, 1997
    AND ON AUGUST 12, 1998 (THE "CLASS CERTIFICATION DATES")

Common shareholders of Seragen stock brought the above action
("Action") against Boston University ("BU"), John R. Silber,
Gerald S. J. Cassidy, Kenneth G. Condon, Reed R. Prior, Norman A.
Jacobs, Jean C. Nichols, and others. The complaint alleges that
certain defendants caused Seragen to enter into "self-dealing"
transactions that were unfair to Seragen's minority shareholders.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants engaged in
wrongdoing in connection with the August 12, 1998 ("Merger Date")
merger between Seragen and Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Before
commencement of trial, three Defendants - Reed Prior, Norman
Jacobs and Jean Nichols - settled in exchange for $1,500,000
("Partial Settlement"). That Partial Settlement fund was
administered and paid to Class members who made valid claims.

Trial went forward in February 2005 against non-settling
defendants who had not previously been dismissed from the Action
("BU Defendants"). The Court issued its post-trial Opinion on
April 14, 2006. In its Opinion, the Court found in favor of the
BU Defendants on certain claims but also found the BU Defendants
liable for breach of fiduciary duty. The parties briefed numerous
post-trial issues raised in connection with entry of a form of
judgment order, including BU's claim to entitlement to receive
any unclaimed portion of the judgment award. The Court issued its
letter ruling on these issues on May 29, 2009. In the May 29,
2009 letter ruling, the Court, among other things: (i) held it
would enter a judgment against the BU Defendants in the amount of
$2,837,454 plus interest at the legal rate from the date of the
Merger; (ii) awarded $40,000 to lead plaintiff Sergio Oliver;
(iii) awarded $936,360 in attorneys' fees to Class Counsel plus
interest thereon from January 1, 2004; (iv) awarded costs and
out-of-pocket expenses; and (vi) directed that BU was entitled to
receive the portion of the judgment award not claimed by members
of the Class.

The parties thereafter reached a settlement, subject to approval
of the Court ("Settlement"), before the entry of a judgment
implementing the Court's various post-trial rulings. The
Settlement calls for the creation of a Settlement Fund in the
amount of $4,375,000 from which all awarded fees, expenses and
administration costs are to be paid, with the net amount to be
distributed pro rata to the members of a Settlement Class whose
claims are approved. BU is not entitled to receive any unclaimed
portion of the Settlement Fund. In exchange, claims against the
BU Defendants and other Released Parties are to be released and
the Action will be dismissed with prejudice. The complete terms
of the Settlement are set forth in the Settling Parties'
Stipulation, which is available for inspection at the Register in
Chancery of the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

If you held Seragen common stock on either of the Class
Certification Dates, you may be a member of the Settlement Class
and your rights may be affected by the Settlement. Class members
wishing to participate in the Settlement must submit either a
Claim Confirmation form (if the Class member had an approved and
paid claim for shares held as of the Merger Date in connection
with the Partial Settlement) or a Proof of Claim form so that it
is received by The Garden City Group, Inc. (the "Claims
Administrator"), no later than June 7, 2010. FAILURE TO FILE A
CLAIM CONFIRMATION OR A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM, EVEN IF YOU HAD A
CLAIM APPROVED IN THE PRIOR SETTLEMENT, WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. All Class members will be
bound by any judgment entered with respect to certification of
the Class and the Stipulation and Settlement, regardless of
whether you submit a Claim Confirmation or Proof of Claim form.
If you object and wish to be heard with respect to either the
Settlement or the certification of the Class, you must file an
objection by March 5, 2010, in the manner and form explained in
the detailed Notice referred to below.

In order to receive a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Class, Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear and a Claim
Confirmation and Proof of Claim form, please contact: In re
Seragen Securities Litigation II, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9595, Dublin, OH 43017-4895,
Phone (888) 281-2470.

A hearing with respect to confirmation of the Class and with
respect to the Settlement will be held before the Honorable Vice
Chancellor Noble, on March 15, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., at the New
Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801. Questions concerning the Settlement may be
directed to:

          Michael A. Weidinger, Esq.
          Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC
          1220 N. Market Street, Suite 950
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 504-1528


SUNRISE HOSPITAL: Notice of Fla. Class Action ADA Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT
    TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING
    THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY
    LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
    MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL
    SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM,
    FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF
    SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, LLC.

You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class
action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the
Facilities of Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC d/b/a
Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center.  This Notice is to inform
you of facts which affect your legal rights.

SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT

A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc., et al.
v. Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd., et al., Case No.
99-cv-00109 (S.D. Fla.) (Garber, J.), is currently pending and
involves disability access at the facilities of Sunrise Hospital
and Medical Center, LLC (Medical Center). The complaint alleges
on behalf of all disabled individuals, including individuals with
mobility, visual, or hearing impairments, that the Medical Center
is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations. The complaint alleges that the Medical
Center has failed to provide equal access for persons with
disabilities to the Medical Centers facilities, because numerous
physical, communication, structural, and program barriers exist
at the Medical Center.

The Medical Center has denied these allegations. By entering into
a settlement of this action, the Medical Center does not admit or
imply that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction, or
damages or injured anyone in any fashion.

This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action.
The Named Plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their
counsel are:

          Miguel M. de la O, Esq.  
          David E. Marko, Esq.
          DE LA O, MARKO, MAGOLNICK AND LEYTON
          3001 S.W. 3rd Ave.
          Miami, FL 33129

Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class.

The Medical Center is represented by:

          Pedro P. Forment, Esq.
          FORD AND HARRISON LLP
          100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2150
          Miami, FL 33131

DEFINITION OF THE CLASS

You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any
type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will
seek access to or use of any facility of Medical Center.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The named plaintiffs and the Medical Center have reached a
proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit as to the
Medical Center. The United States District Court has
preliminarily approved that settlement, although the Court has
made no findings and offers no opinion with respect to the merits
of the settlement. The proposed settlement provides in substances
that the Medical Center will make modifications and alterations
to its Facilities, including public restrooms, paths of travel,
parking, and other public areas within the facilities, with the
express purpose of improving and/or providing equal access to and
usability of the Facilities by persons with disabilities. No
money damages are to be paid to members of the class.

PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT

     Court Hearing.

On April 1, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., the court will hold a hearing at
the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida,
Courtroom Four, 10th Floor, 99 N.E. 4th Street, Miami, Florida
33132, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is
fair and reasonable and should be given Final Approval, and to
consider the application Notice. More detailed information about
the settlement of the Action, including a complete copy of the
settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel.

     Objections to the Settlement.

If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you
may advise the Court of your objections and a special hearing
will be scheduled on a date to be determined by the Court. To be
considered by the Court, however, any objections to the final
approval of the settlement must state the basis for the objection
and must be timely filed in writing, along with all other papers
or briefs the objector wishes the Court to consider, with the
office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami,
Florida, 33128, and served upon Class Counsel and counsel for
Defendant on or before March 17, 2010 (Cutoff Date). All
objections must include at the top of the document the case name,
the case number, and the name of the Defendant to whom the
objections relate. If any attorney will be representing an
individual objecting to the settlement, the attorney shall file a
notice of appearance with the Court and serve counsel for all
parties on or before the Cutoff Date. Any member of the class who
does not timely file and serve a written objection in the manner
prescribed herein (1) shall not be permitted to raise such
objection, except for good cause shown, and (2) shall be deemed
to have waived, and shall be foreclosed from raising, any such
objection.

     Entry of Judgment.

If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving
the proposed settlement and a judgment dismissing this action
with prejudice as to Medical Center, will be entered on or after
April 1, 2010. You should not expect to receive any further
notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment, or of
the proceedings which occur before such entry. All class members
will be bound by the judgment. The judgment will bar all class
members from asserting any claims under or related to Title III
of the ADA and its implementing regulations against the Medical
Center concerning physical, communication, structural and program
access barriers in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
Also, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in this
matter, all class members are deemed to have waived the
protection provided by any state statutes or codes with respect
to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the
general release in this action will be effective to forever
discharge any claims relating to physical, communication,
structural and program access barriers under or related to Title
III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, if any, at the
Medical Center by a class member at the time of the settlement
agreement whether known or unknown to the class member.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are
summarized in this or by consulting the public file on the case
at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami,
Florida.

          Please Follow the Procedures Set out Above.

          Please Do Not Contact the Judge or the Clerk
      of the Court With Any Question About the Settlement


TOYOTA MOTOR: New Orleans Suit Complains About Sticky Pedals
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota faces a class action
in New Orleans Federal Court for the 5.3 million vehicles
recalled for sticky accelerator pedals.  A similar class action,
in Corpus Christi Federal Court, blames the sticky pedals for 16
deaths and 243 injuries.


A copy of the Complaint in Wiemer, et al. v. Toyota Motor North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00219 (E.D. La.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/01/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          June A. Oswald, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 West 7th St.
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: 985-536-1186

               - and -

          Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
          Linda J. Nelson, Esq.
          Cayce C. Peterson, Esq.
          LAMBERT & NELSON, PLC
          701 Magazine St.
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-1750


U.S. FINANCIAL FUNDING: N.D. Calif. Certifies ARM Borrower Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Edstrom at http://livinglies.wordpress.org/reports that a  
nationwide class of individuals who obtained "pick-a-pay" option
ARM loans has been certified in Lymburner v. U.S. Financial
Funds, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-00325 (N.D. Calif.) (Laporte, J.).

With an option ARM loan, Mr. Edstrom explains, the customer picks
what payment he will make among a menu of payment options. In
most circumstances, the customer picks the minimum payment. Any
interest due which the minimum payment does not cover gets tacked
on to the principal.

Michael Lueder at http://cfslbulletin.com/relates that plaintiff  
Dian Lymburner refinanced her existing home loan with an option
ARM loan.  The loan had a low monthly payment option of $700.  
Shortly after plaintiff got her first bill, she realized that
with each payment, the amount she owed went up, not down as she
had expected.  She sued, claiming violations of the Truth in
Lending Act and California Unfair Competition Law.  Ms. Lymburner
claimed that the loan documents she signed did not disclose that
her $700 payments would not cover all the interest owed and that
negative amortization would result.

In its opinion, Mr. Lueder reports, the Court carefully reviewed
each factor supporting class certification.  Among the
considerations was all putative class members had the same loan
documents which said negative amortization "may," rather then
"will," result if minimum payment is made.  Although the Court
did not address the merits, plaintiff will likely argue that the
clause is misleading in that it suggests that negative
amortization is merely a possibility where, in fact, under every
circumstance, it is certainty that if one makes only the minimum
payment the loan balance will go up.

Ms. Lymburner is represented by:

          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-986-1400

               - and -  

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP
          6303 Owensmouth Avenue, 10th Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2263
          Telephone: 818-961-2000

               - and -  

          Patrick DeBlase, Esq.
          Michael C. Eyerly, Esq.
          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER & LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444

               - and -  

          Christopher Peter Fields, Esq.
          3701 Wilshire Blvd., St. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213-380-5858

               - and -  

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Lina Berjouhi Melidonian, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-217-5000

               - and -  

          Edward Young Lee, Esq.
          LEE & FIELDS, A.P.C.
          3701 Wilshire Blvd., #510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213-380-5858

U.S. Financial Funding, Inc., is represented by:

          Shahram Nassi, Esq.
          Roger Scott Raphael, Esq.  
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-362-2580

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, appearing as an
interested party, is represented by:

          Ryan E. Bull, Esq.
          Mary Jocelyn Schmid, Esq.
          David A. Super, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          The Warner
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: 202-639-7986

               - and -

          Kevin E. Cadwell, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          620 Hansen Way
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: 650-739-7504


VIRGINIA: Prisoners Sue for Meaningful Consideration of Parole
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Aid Justice Center, with the assistance of Troutman
Sanders LLP and other attorneys, filed a class action in federal
court in Richmond on behalf of 11 Virginia inmates.  The suit
challenges the Virginia Parole Board's administration of the
parole process in a manner that deprives the thousands of
Virginia inmates convicted of violent offenses committed prior to
1995 of their right to fair and meaningful consideration for
parole as required by Virginia law and the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, Burnette v. Fahey, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond.

"We are filing this lawsuit today on behalf of those imprisoned
in Virginia who are eligible for parole but are being denied
their constitutional rights. Virginia law requires the Parole
Board to release those found suitable for parole and to consider
a broad range of circumstances in making this determination. In
violation of Virginia law and protections under the U.S.
Constitution, the Parole Board has been making parole
determinations without considering all the circumstances Virginia
law requires," said:

          Stephen A. Northup, Esq.
          Troutman Sanders LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: 804-697-1200

Virginia law and the Virginia Parole Board's written manual state
that the circumstances to be considered in making a parole
determination include the nature of the crime, the sentence
imposed, the inmate's prior record, the inmate's record in
prison, whether the inmate has been rehabilitated, and whether
release would be an acceptable risk.

Virginia abolished discretionary parole in 1995. The men and
women who committed crimes in Virginia before 1995, however, are
still eligible for parole. For individuals sentenced under the
old parole system, judges often imposed lengthy sentences,
believing that these men and women would be released on parole
after serving as little as one-quarter of the sentence they
received. Abigail Turner, the Litigation Director for the Legal
Aid Justice Center, stated, "The Parole Board's unlawful conduct
has prolonged the plaintiffs' imprisonment and caused them to
serve far longer sentences than those contemplated by the law at
the time the sentences were handed down prior to 1995. The Parole
Board's treatment of parole-eligible inmates convicted of violent
offenses has amounted to a de facto abolition of parole,
violating not only due process but also the ex post facto
provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits punishment
beyond that issued at the time of conviction."

William R. Richardson, Jr., an attorney from Arlington who has
worked with members of the Virginia General Assembly to reform
the parole process, stated, "The failure of the Virginia Parole
Board to give fair and meaningful consideration of parole for
'old law' inmates, in addition to being illegal, harms Virginia
taxpayers, who must bear the cost of warehousing thousands of men
and women who by any reasonable measure have rehabilitated
themselves and no longer belong in prison. Continuing to lock
away so many men and women who have learned useful job skills
also deprives the Commonwealth of revenue they could contribute
from their work. And it deprives their families of money for
support as well as emotional support of children as they grow up
and of parents as they age."

The Virginia Institutionalized Persons Project of the Legal Aid
Justice Center and a group of private attorneys concerned about
Virginia's broken parole system are representing the plaintiffs
and the class. The class action includes approximately 6,000 men
and women incarcerated in Virginia for violent offenses committed
before 1995.

The plaintiffs have asked the court to order the Board to issue
new rules which conform to the requirements of due process and
ensure fair and meaningful consideration of parole for inmates
convicted of violent offenses. In addition, plaintiffs ask the
court to require the Parole Board to specifically consider all of
the required factors in reaching parole decisions and to enjoin
the Parole Board from focusing solely on the nature of the crime
in deciding suitability for parole.

LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER, VIRGINIA INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS
PROJECT

Additional information about the lawsuit is available at:

     http://www.justice4all.org/our_programs/VIP

                 About the Legal Aid Justice Center

The Legal Aid Justice Center provides legal representation for
low-income individuals in Virginia who have the least access to
legal resources. The LAJC staff of 40 work from offices in
Charlottesville, Falls Church, Petersburg, and Richmond. The
Virginia Institutionalized Persons (VIP) Project within the LAJC
led the effort to bring this lawsuit. The VIP's mission is to
investigate the conditions of Virginia's prisons and mental
institutions and, through political advocacy and legal action, to
increase accountability within the system to ensure that Virginia
operates its institutions consistent with constitutional
standards and human dignity.

                     About Troutman Sanders LLP

Troutman Sanders LLP -- http://www.troutmansanders.com/-- is an  
international law firm with over 650 lawyers and 15 offices in
North America, Europe and Asia. The firm's lawyers provide
counsel and advice in practically every aspect of civil and
commercial law related to the firm's core practice areas:
Corporate, Finance, Litigation, Public Law and Real Estate. See
for more information.


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Pays $190.3MM for Claims in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments were
US$190.3 million during the full year of 2009 and US$67.9 million
during the fourth quarter of 2009, according to a Company press
release dated Jan. 27, 2010.

The Company's asbestos-related cash payments were US$38.2 million
during the third quarter of 2009, up from US$36.7 million during
the third quarter of 2008. (Class Action Reporter Nov. 6, 2009)

The Company's asbestos-related cash payments were US$210.2
million during the full year of 2008 and US$69.9 million during
the fourth quarter of 2008.

The deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was
about US$36.3 million at the end of 2009, up slightly from year
end 2008.

New lawsuits and claims filed were about 6,000 during full year
2009, compared with about 5,000 in 2008. The number of pending
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were about 7,000 as of Dec.
31, 2009, compared with about 11,000 at year end 2008.

The current portion of asbestos-related liabilities was US$175
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$175 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$320.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$320.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
manufactures consumer-preferred, 100 percent recyclable glass
containers that enable superior taste, purity, visual appeal and
value benefits for its customers' products. The Company employs
more than 22,000 people with 78 plants in 21 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Still Faces 4,200 Pending Cases at Dec. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., as of Sept. 25, 2009 and December 25,
2009, faced about 4,200 asbestos lawsuits pending against it and
its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Jan. 28, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials.

These cases typically involve product liability claims based
primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of
industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third-parties. Each case typically names between
dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants.

Of the lawsuits that have proceeded to trial since 2005, the
Company has won or settled all but one case, with that one case
returning an adverse jury verdict for about US$7.7 million, which
included both compensatory and punitive damages. The Company has
appealed the verdict.

Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company
has determined that it had about 5,500 claims outstanding as of
Sept. 25, 2009. The number of claims has not significantly
changed since Sept. 25, 2009.

As of Dec. 25, 2009, the Company's estimated net liability of
US$58 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of US$235 million, and separately as an
asset for insurance recoveries of US$177 million.

Headquartered in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Tyco International
Ltd. is made up of five divisions: Fire Protection Services (fire
detection and suppression systems), Electrical and Metal Products
(steel tubing, pipes, and cables for commercial construction),
ADT Worldwide (security systems), Safety Products (protective
equipment), and Flow Control (valves).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henager Action v. 43 Firms Filed in Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonore Hall, on behalf of her father Leon Henager, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2010 against 43 defendant
corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Henager was diagnosed with lung cancer on March 4, 2009. Mrs.
Hall says her father worked from 1949 until 1953 in the U.S. Air
Force and worked as a manufacturing mechanical foreman from the
1950s until 1986.

According to the suit, Mrs. Hall states Mr. Henager's exposure
was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the
defendants. She claims Mr. Henager's disease was caused after he
was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
asbestos fibers.

Mrs. Hall alleges the asbestos-related disease caused Mr. Henager
to incur substantial medical costs. He also experienced great
physical pain and mental anguish as a result of the disease, Mrs.
Hall claims in the lawsuit.

In the 10-count lawsuit, Mrs. Hall seeks sums in excess of
US$200,000, economic damages of more than US$150,000,
compensatory damages of more than $100,000 and punitive and
exemplary damages in excess of US$50,000.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent Mrs. Hall in Case No.
10-L-14.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conley Action v. 37 Firms Filed in Madison Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Conley, on behalf of her late husband Albert Conley, filed
an asbestos-related lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2010 against 37 defendant
corporations in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison
St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Conley was diagnosed with lung cancer on June 29, 2009. Mrs.
Conley says he worked from 1955 until 1956 as a machinist at
Paper Ball Company, as a printer at Beaumont Enterprise and
Journal from 1956 until 1957, as an aviation machinist mate in
the U.S. Navy from 1957 until 1977 and as a self-employed
salesman from 1977 until 2007.

Mrs. Conley claims Mrs. Conley's disease was caused after he was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers.

In the six-count lawsuit, Mrs. Conley seeks sums in excess of
US$150,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000 and
compensatory damages of more than US$100,000.

He is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq.,
of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent
Mrs. Conley in Case No. 10-L-15.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clay Schools Settles AHERA Violation with EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached a settlement
with Clay County Schools in Clay, W. Va., for one violation of
the Asbestos Hazards Emergency Response Act (AHERA) at the
Lizemore School, an elementary school in Lizemore, W.Va.,
according to an EPA press release dated Jan. 27, 2010.

AHERA is the federal law requiring schools to inspect and manage
asbestos-containing materials. Lizemore School is located at 100
Lizemore Lions Road, Lizemore, W.Va.

According to the EPA, an inspection conducted in 2007 by the West
Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources resulted in one
violation: failure to re-inspect all areas containing asbestos in
each school building at least once every three years. A re-
inspection helps prevent exposure to asbestos by ensuring that
any maintenance or other routine school activities will not
disturb asbestos.

Lizemore School was assessed a civil penalty of US$5,525. Since
the school spent US$600 to come into compliance with AHERA, the
civil penalty has been reduced to US$4,925.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frank Bruce and Co. Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Bruce and Company Ltd, of Bristol, England, was fined for
putting its workers at risk of asbestos-related diseases while
working on a property in the city, according to a Health and
Safety Executive press release dated Jan. 27, 2010.

Frank Bruce pleaded guilty at Bristol Magistrates in relation to
refurbishment work at Lawrence Hill Industrial Park in the city
during February 2009 and March 2009.

The court heard HSE inspectors visited industrial units where
Frank Bruce had organized refurbishment work involving the
removal of a large quantity of asbestos insulation board without
taking statutory safety precautions.

This led to exposure of the workers to the asbestos and also the
contamination of the units being renovated.

The court heard Frank Bruce plead guilty to breaches under
Regulation 14 of the Construction (Design and Management) [CDM]
Regulations 2007 by failing to appoint a CDM-coordinator or
principal contractor for notifiable construction work and
Regulation 4 (10) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations by
failing to review or implement a plan to manage materials
containing asbestos.

On Jan. 27, 2010, Frank Bruce and Co was fined GBP18,000 for
breaching the regulations and ordered to pay GBP6,679 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Sue Adsett said, "The
decision not to have large quantities of asbestos insulation
board removed by licensed contractors before the general
refurbishment work began, put the workers at risk and
contaminated the site.

"The work was stopped and the defendant paid to make the site
safe, but this doesn't change the fact that seven construction
workers were exposed to asbestos, which we know can cause fatal
diseases.

"Landlords and property developers need to be very wary of
organizing construction work themselves if they haven't got
appropriate experience of managing health and safety in building
projects."

Around 500,000 buildings built before 2000 could contain
asbestos, according to HSE estimates. If managed properly and
kept in good condition, asbestos need not pose safety concerns.

Landlords need to arrange for "Type 3" surveys to be done before
refurbishment or demolition and pass this information on to
builders before asking them to start work.

Certain asbestos products like Asbestos Insulation Boards or
Asbestos Insulation can only be removed by specially licensed
contractors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jean Charest Urged to Stop Exporting of Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Premier of the Canadian province of Quebec, Jean Charest, has
been urged by more than 100 scientists from 28 countries to put a
stop to asbestos exports from the province, The Canadian Press
reports.

The scientists ask Mr. Charest to take heed of extensive
international scientific opinion that all forms of asbestos
present a danger for public health.

Dated Jan. 28, 2010, the scientists' letter to Mr. Charest is the
outburst in an ongoing battle over asbestos mining in Quebec and
comes as Mr. Charest prepares to depart on a trade mission to
India, one of the major importers of Canadian asbestos.

The scientists say the province needs to stop mining asbestos
(also called chrysotile) and stop sending it abroad to developing
countries.

Several poor countries still import asbestos from Canada despite
numerous studies linking it to health hazards, including cancer.
However, the facts and figures cited were quickly dismissed as
rehashed arguments by the Chrysotile Institute, an asbestos lobby
group and a fierce defender of the product.

The asbestos industry claims chrysotile can be used safely as
long as precautions are followed. President Clement Godbout said
in an interview after reading the letter, "Instead of giving new
scientific research or data, they are just launching accusations.

"If they have new data and studies showing that the way
chrysotile is used today in Canada and Quebec is an unacceptable
risk for people, please send them to us because I've never seen
such a study."

The academics say Quebec's position is hypocritical and that the
province should stop funding the pro-asbestos lobby. Dr. Fernand
Turcotte, a professor of public health at Universite de Laval
said, "It's a good occasion for him to realize the Quebec
asbestos question is a worldwide problem right now."

The letter states that while Quebec exports asbestos, it rarely
uses it in construction projects at home. The letter states,
"Quebec itself uses virtually none of the asbestos it mines, in
spite of major infrastructure projects currently underway.

"Instead virtually all Quebec's asbestos is exported to
developing countries, where protections are few and awareness of
hazards are non-existent."

In 2008, Canada exported 175,000 tons of chrysotile - almost all
of it to developing nations like India, Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Industry critics have declared that safety precautions are rarely
enforced in those countries.

Canada's US$100-million-a-year asbestos industry is localized
mainly in Thetford Mines, Que., home to the country's last
operational mine with about 400 employees.

Figures released by Quebec's Workers Health and Safety Board
indicated that asbestos-related deaths are the most common among
workers in Quebec. In 2008, of 127 deaths, 58 were linked to
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Standard Coosa Case to Begin Feb. 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in an asbestos lawsuit, regarding the former site of the
Standard Coosa-Thatcher Company textile plant in Chattanooga,
Tenn., will commence on February 2010, Mesothelioma reports.

In February 2010, three defendants will stand trial in federal
court on 11 counts of conspiracy to defraud the government and
violate the Clean Air Act by making false statements and
obstructing the course of justice in relation to asbestos
remediation.

The defendants have pleaded not guilty, but, if found in
violation of NESHAP rules after the trial (beginning on Feb. 16,
2010) concludes, face up to five years in prison and fines of up
to US$250,000.

The defendants are Donald Fillers, David Wood, and James Mathis
(of the Mathis Companies, Inc.). Mr. Fillers and Mr. Wood are the
owners of a company called the Watkins Street Project, LLC, which
was formed in 2003 to buy and demolish the Standard Coosa textile
plant, intending to salvaging equipment and materials.

A fourth member of the consortium, Gary Fillers, has already
pleaded guilty to what federal investigators and prosecutors
suspect was a hugely understated amount of asbestos removed from
the textile factory during 2004 and 2005, under conditions which
clearly did not comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's NESHAP (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants) regulations.

The indictment charges the defendants with submitting a 10-day
notice (in August 2004) with the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Bureau, the agency regulating asbestos removal
and other hazardous air pollutants. The notice is described by
officials as having vastly understated the amount of asbestos
involved in removal.

Other counts include:

-- Failure to wet the tools used in asbestos removal;
-- Failure to hire trained personnel;
-- Failure to provide those hired with protective equipment;
-- Sorting the removed asbestos from salvage items by hand;
-- Disposing of removed asbestos by throwing it out windows;
-- Putting the discarded asbestos into open piles, accessible to
   the general public, or;
-- Hiding it in dumpsters and;
-- Transporting removed asbestos offsite without proper
   packaging, labeling or shipping, and disposing of it in
   facilities not licensed for hazardous waste.

The Standard Coosa-Thatcher textile plant asbestos removal is one
of the most scandalous examples of NESHAP violations on record,
and some of the victims - being homeless and thus transitory -
may never be found, in spite of efforts by local regulators to
identify them by placing ads in the local newspaper on Jan. 10,
2010.

As U.S. Attorney Greg Sullivan notes, state and federal
governments have an obligation to notify victims of their rights
under the law. So far, however, only two people have been
reported responding to the advertisement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Abated From Lex Villa in Carrollton, Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lex Villa Building on Tanner Street in Carrollton, Ga.,
underwent asbestos abatement in preparation for demolition and to
pave way for the new Carroll County justice center, the
Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

The demolition has been scheduled for February 2010, according to
Carroll County Public Works/Solid Waste Superintendent Charles
Pope. In the meantime, workers at the site are collecting glass
and other recyclable materials.

The asbestos abatement was performed by Pyramid Remedial Systems
Inc. of Alpharetta, Ga., and was completed on the Jan. 12, 2010.
The removal of asbestos must be done by licensed specialists, as
there are a number of state and federal laws which govern and
regulate how asbestos must be handled and disposed of.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issues in Oil Field Cases in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in the asbestos case styled Various Plaintiffs v.
Various Defendants (Oil Field Cases).

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 09-MC-103 on Dec. 10, 2009.

The instant motion to remand was filed on behalf of 444
plaintiffs arguing that this Court must remand their actions to
Mississippi state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendants filed timely responses.

These cases originated in Mississippi state court and were
removed to federal court by defendants Union Carbide and
ConocoPhillips. The basis for removal was the allegedly
fraudulent joinder of two non-diverse defendants, Oilfield
Service & Supply, Inc. and Mississippi Mud., Inc.

In addition, 25 of these cases were removed under the theory that
plaintiffs were entitled to assert federal jurisdiction under the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).

After removal, plaintiffs filed motions to remand, on the same
grounds considered here, in the Southern District of Mississippi.
After considering these motions, U.S. District Judge Walter Gex
remanded five of these cases to Mississippi state court. Before
Judge Gex was able to rule on the remaining motions, the cases
were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated as part of MDL-875 by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

The remand motions remaining on the docket at the time of the
consolidation with MDL-875 were denied by the MDL court without
prejudice. Plaintiffs had renewed their request for remand in the
444 cases and these renewed motions are now before the Court.

After removal, the cases in all three categories were grouped by
the Court for settlement purposes, under MDL-875 procedures.
After attending several settlement conferences with defendants
and Magistrate Judge Strawbridge, plaintiffs filed the instant
motion to remand.

The motion was granted in part and denied in part.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Ruling in Dent Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in the asbestos case styled Reginald Dent v.
Westinghouse, et al. MDL No. 875.

U.S. Magistrates Judge Elizabeth T. Hey entered judgment in EDPA
Civil Action No. 08-83111 on Jan. 4, 2010.

Warren Pumps, a defendant in this asbestos action, filed a motion
to compel Reginald Dent to respond to certain interrogatories and
requests for production of documents. Specifically, Warren Pumps
sought information on the settlement of any claim asserted in Mr.
Dent's complaint.

Mr. Dent sued a total of 10 defendants in this action, seven of
which have been dismissed.

The Court denied in part and dismissed as moot in part Warren
Pumps' motion to compel. To the extent Warren Pumps sought
settlement information, the motion was denied. The remainder of
the Motion was dismissed as moot based on Mr. Dent's
representation that counsel has resolved the other issues raised
in the Motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Remands Coulter to Correct Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, remanded the
asbestos case styled Ernest Coulter and Lerose Coulter,
Appellants v. Asten Group, Inc., Respondent, to correct a
judgment.

Judges Marlin Appelwick, Robert Leach and Kenneth Grosse entered
judgment in Case No. 63148-9-I on Jan. 11, 2010. This was an
appeal from King County Superior Court.

Ernest and Lerose Coulter sued AstenJohnson, Inc. and other
sellers and manufacturers of asbestos-containing products Mr.
Coulter was exposed to during the course of his work at the Port
Townsend Paper Mill. By the time of trial, Asten was the only
remaining defendant.

The jury apportioned two percent of the liability to Mr. Coulter,
five percent to Asten, and 93 percent to all the other suppliers
of asbestos-containing products to the mill. The total damages
award was US$242,500. The trial court entered judgment against
Asten in the amount of US$12,125 plus US$611.31 in taxable costs,
according to the jury's apportionment of liability.

This court directed the trial court to hold a reasonableness
hearing to determine the appropriate offset for the full amount
of Mr. Coulter's pretrial settlements with other defendants. Once
the offset amount was established, this court directed the trial
court to award damages consistent with Asten's joint and several
liability. Without offset, Asten would be responsible for 98
percent of the judgment, for a total of US$237,650.

Upon remand, the parties agreed that the offset amount for
settlements from other defendants and bankruptcy trusts should be
US$94,977. Asten did not challenge the reasonableness of these
specific agreed upon settlements. Asten argued, however, that it
was entitled to an additional offset based on unrecovered
settlement amounts Mr. Coulter might receive in the future. Mr.
Coulter asked for postjudgment interest on the original judgment
amount.

The trial court agreed that the offset should be US$94,977 for
paid settlement proceeds. The trial court also offset the
judgment by US$57,215 for probable recovery from future trust
applications, and US$7,200 for the unpaid portion of the
Coulters' agreement with the Bartells Asbestos Settlement Trust,
for a total of US$64,415 for potential future recovery. The total
offset was US$159,392. The offsets resulted in a total judgment
against Asten in the amount of US$78,258, plus US$611.31 in
taxable costs.

The court determined Mr. Coulter was not entitled to prejudgment
interest, because their tort claims were unliquidated. It also
decided that postjudgment interest should accrue from the date of
the entry of final judgment, which was March 3, 2009. Mr. timely
appealed the order.

Philip Albert Talmadge, Esq., Sidney Charlotte Tribe, Esq., of
Talmadge/Fitzpatrick in Tukwila, Wash., Cameron O. Carter, Esq.,
of Brayton Purcell LLP in Portland, Ore., represented Ernest
Coulter and Lerose Coulter.

G. William Shaw, Esq., of Sarah Christine Johnson K & L Gates LLP
in Seattle, and Kevin A. Rosenfield, Esq., of Ball Janik LLP in
Seattle, represented Asten Group, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies UCC Bid in Washington Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California,
denied Union Carbide Corporation's petition for writ of mandate
in an asbestos case styled Union Carbide Corporation, Petitioner
v. The Superior Court o Los Angeles County, Respondent; Helen P.
Washington et al., Real Parties In Interest.

Judges Judith M. Ashmann-Gerst, Roger W. Boren and Victoria M.
Chavez entered judgment in Case No. B216591 on Jan. 15, 2010.

This was an action brought by real parties in interest Helen P.
Washington and others for the wrongful death of John H.
Washington, Jr., due to his exposure to asbestos (wrongful death
action). At issue was the Los Angeles Superior Court's denial of
a motion by Union Carbide to preclude the use of Mr. Washington's
deposition from a personal injury action he filed in Texas to
prove liability in the wrongful death action. The petition was
denied.

From 1964 to 1996, Mr. Washington worked in the maintenance
department at the Los Angeles Unified School District. He worked
with equipment that may have contained asbestos (boilers,
gaskets, pumps, steam traps and valves), joint compounds that may
have contained asbestos (Bondex, Georgia Pacific, Goldbond,
Kaiser Gypsum and Paco), and insulation.

Mr. Washington was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2006.
In January 2007, he contacted Waters & Kraus, a law firm
experienced in asbestos litigation. On May 21, 2007, Waters &
Kraus filed the Texas action and alleged multiple tort claims on
behalf of Mr. Washington based on his exposure to asbestos-
containing products, and a loss of consortium claim on behalf of
Mrs. Washington. Union Carbide was served as a defendant on May
24, 2007.

Mr. Washington was deposed at his home in Huntsville, Ala., in
July 2007 on the 19th, 20th, 25th and 26th. Counsel for various
defendants asked questions, but counsel for Union Carbide,
Brennon D. Gamblin, Esq., opted not to conduct an examination.
Within the next few days, the Washingtons filed a first amended
complaint and a second amended complaint. A month later, they
dismissed the Texas action without prejudice.

The Washingtons then filed a similar personal injury action in
California and once again named Union Carbide as a defendant.
When Union Carbide noticed Mr. Washington's deposition at a Los
Angeles location, Waters & Kraus objected on the grounds that Mr.
Washington resided in Huntsville and that he was too ill to
attend in any event. Counsel for Union Carbide withdrew the
notice of Mr. Washington's Los Angeles deposition.

On Dec. 21, 2007, Mr. Washington passed away. Subsequently, Mrs.
Washington and the other plaintiffs filed the wrongful death
action. Union Carbide moved to exclude Mr. Washington's
deposition.

The Appeals Court summarily denied Union Carbide's petition for
writ of mandate. Following a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court, the case was transferred back to the
Appeals Court.

The temporary stay was vacated. Real parties in interest, Helen
Washington and Dana Washington, are entitled to recover the cost
of these proceedings.

McKenna Long & Aldridge (William J. Sayer, Esq., and Margaret I.
Johnson, Esq.) represented Union Carbide Corporation.

Waters, Kraus & Paul (Paul C. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien,
Esq.) represented Helen P. Washington and Dana Washington.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stay in Continental Case v. Indian Head Lifted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, lifted the stay in the case styled Continental Casualty
Company and Columbia Casualty Company, Plaintiffs/Counter-
Defendant v. Indian Head Industries, Incorporated,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

District Judge Denise Page Hood entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 05-73918 on Jan. 15, 2010.

This matter was before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Allocation. Briefs have
been filed and a hearing was held on the matter. Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Allocation
was granted. A hearing was held on the matter.

Since 1994, Continental Casualty Company had defended and
indemnified Indian Head Industries, Inc. against numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits. The underlying claimants had asserted
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by Indian
Head, or one of its predecessors. Claimants alleged exposure as
early as the 1940s and continued exposure through the present.

In April 1984, Continental Casualty issued a policy of primary
liability insurance to Indian Head with effective dates of April
8, 1984 through April 8, 1985. In April 1985, Continental
Casualty issued a renewal of policy number GLP 062339817, with
effective dates of April 8, 1985 through April 8, 1986.

In April, 1986, Continental Casualty again renewed policy number
GLP 062339817, with effective dates of April 8, 1986 through
April 8, 1987. Although Continental Casualty was able to point to
policy numbers issued from April 8, 1987 through April 8, 1988
and April 8, 1988 through April 8, 1989, Continental
Casualty contended that Indian Head had failed to provide full
and complete copies of those policies.

Continental Casualty alleged that, to the extent that it issued
liability insurance policies for periods beginning on or
subsequent to April 8, 1987, those policies contained "absolute
asbestos" exclusions.

Continental Casualty's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the
Issue of Allocation (No. 24, filed Sept. 6, 2006) was granted. A
Status Conference would be held in this matter on Feb. 8, 2010 to
address further discovery and hearing dates.

It was further ordered that the stay in this action be lifted.

Ralph C. Chapa, Jr., of Kaufman, Payton in Farmington Hills,
Mich., and Lisa A. Pach, Esq., of Colliau, Elenius in Chicago,
represented Continental Casualty Company and Columbia Casualty
Company.

James E. Wynne, Esq., Butzel Long, Esq., of Detroit, represented
Indian Head Industries, Incorporated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Liability at $11M in Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's asbestos-related aggregate
liability amounted to US$11 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Jan. 29,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company recorded an asbestos-related liability of
US$9,350,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
20, 2009)

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal
costs through March 31, 2027 and March 31, 2039 to range between
US$6.5 million and US$18 million using actuarial parameters of
continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.040Bil in Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos liabilities
amounted to US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$1.583 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company
press release dated Jan. 29, 2010.

Headquartered in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell International
Inc. is a manufacturer that serves customers worldwide with
aerospace products and services; control technologies for
buildings, homes, and industry; automotive products;
turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at Nov. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 20 asbestos-
related cases as of Nov. 30, 2009, compared with 23 cases as of
Aug. 30, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Jan. 21, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure
to products previously manufactured by the Company and others.  

During the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009, there were four new
asbestos-related cases, seven cases dismissed, no cases settled,
no judgments and aggregate net costs and expenses of US$134,000.

Headquartered in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International
Corporation is a multinational manufacturer of highly-engineered
products and materials for the chemical, industrial, energy,
transportation and infrastructure markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Inc. Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus USA Inc. and other third parties continue to be defendants
in several lawsuits related to illnesses from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Jan. 29, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaints fail to specify which plaintiffs allegedly were
involved with the Company's products, and because the cases are
in initial stages, it is uncertain whether any plaintiffs have
asbestos-related illnesses or dealt with the Company's products,
much less whether any plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-
containing component part of the Company's product or whether
such part could have been a substantial contributing factor to
the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products
from certain subsidiaries of Invensys plc under the stock
purchase agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired
Invensys Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated with
all other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price
paid by the Company in connection with the acquisition of
Invensys Metering Systems.

Headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus USA Inc. provides advanced
utility infrastructure systems, metering product technologies and
related communication systems to the worldwide utility industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Affirms Commission's Ruling in Pope
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the ruling of the
North Carolina Industrial Commission, which favored Horace K.
Pope, Jr. in an asbestos case styled Horace K. Pope, Jr.,
Employee, Plaintiff, Appellee v. Johns Manville, Employer, St.
Paul Travelers Indemnity Company, Carrier-Defendant, Defendants-
Appellants.

Judges Sam Ervin, Martha Geer and Donna Stroud entered judgment
in Case No. COA09-281 on Jan. 19, 2010.

This was an appeal by Defendants from Opinion and Award entered
Nov. 7, 2008 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. The
matter was heard in the Court of Appeals on Sept. 16, 2009.

Johns Manville and Travelers Indemnity Company appealed from an
Opinion and Award of the Commission entered Nov. 7, 2008,
concluding that Mr. Pope was exposed to asbestos during his
employment with Defendants; that Mr. Pope had contracted
asbestosis; that Mr. Pope is disabled; and that Mr. Pope should
be awarded total disability benefits in the amount of US$399.06
per week, medical expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Mr. Pope, who was 80 years old at the time of the Commission's
decision, worked from Jan. 1, 1949 to Jan. 1, 1950 and from Aug.
1, 1952 to Aug. 31, 1968 at a Johns Manville manufacturing plant
located in Marshville, N.C. The facility was initially owned by
Union Asbestos and Rubber Company, but was purchased by Johns
Manville in 1962. At the Marshville facility, raw asbestos fibers
were mixed with either cotton or rayon to form asbestos yarn,
which was woven into cloth or tape.

Beginning in 1952, Mr. Pope worked as a "spare hand," which meant
that he performed various tasks in the facility. He testified
that he became the "supervisor of the whole yarn manufacturing
part of the company" in 1957. In that capacity, he oversaw
between 45 and 80 employees and spent about 90 percent of his
time on the plant floor overseeing the manufacturing process.
However, once he began to work as a supervisor, he did not have
responsibility for performing "hands on" work except for
occasionally repairing machinery.

Although he stopped working at Johns Manville in August 1968, Mr.
Pope was paid through June 1969 as the result of accumulated
vacation time and the receipt of nine months severance pay. At
that point, he began working at Armour Creameries, a turkey and
chicken processing plant. Subsequently, he worked at Masterspun
Yarn, a carpet yarn plant, and Maylock Industries, a plastic
injection molding plant.

After working in various industries for several years, Mr. Pope
began raising turkeys full-time and remained in that occupation
from 1986 until 2003, when he was 75. As a turkey grower, he
would keep about 18,000 to 20,000 turkeys at one time.

Mr. Pope began smoking cigarettes in 1944, when he was 16 years
old, and stopped smoking in 1992, when he was 64. He usually
smoked a pack a day during the time that he smoked. He has had
multiple heart catheterizations, including one in 1999, which led
to a quadruple bypass procedure, and another one in 2003, shortly
before he stopped working as a turkey grower.

On May 24, 2005, Mr. Pope filed an Industrial Commission Form 18
against Defendants seeking workers compensation benefits for
asbestosis. The matter was heard before Deputy Commissioner
George T. Glenn, II on Nov. 15, 2006.

On Feb. 25, 2008, the Deputy Commissioner entered an Opinion and
Award finding that Mr. Pope had been exposed to asbestos during
his employment with Johns Manville and had developed asbestosis
as a result of that exposure. The Deputy Commissioner ordered
Defendants to pay disability benefits to Mr. Pope from September
2003 until such time as Mr. Pope returned to work at the same or
greater wages or upon further order of the Commission.

On Feb. 26, 2008, Defendants appealed the Deputy Commissioner's
decision to the Commission. On Nov. 7, 2008, the Commission
entered an Opinion and Award affirming the Deputy Commissioner's
decision. Defendants noted an appeal from the Commission's order
to this Court.

Wallace and Graham, P.A. (Michael B. Pross, Esq.) represented
Horace K. Pope, Jr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Denies Union Pacific Bid in Fletcher
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff
Division, denied Union Pacific Railroad Company's motion to sever
the injury claims of Eugene J. Fletcher, Robert Davis, and Lonnie
Hughes.

The case is styled Eugene J. Fletcher, Robert Davis and Lonnie
Hughes, Plaintiffs v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant.

Judge Brian S. Miller entered judgment in Case No. 5:09-CV-030
BSM on Jan. 21, 2010.

The plaintiffs claimed that, while employed at Union Pacific,
they suffered musculosekeletal injuries and other conditions as a
result of Union Pacific's negligence. They alleged that Union
Pacific failed to provide them with safe working conditions and
they were exposed to excessive and harmful cumulative trauma.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Union Pacific provided them with
wholly inadequate training programs aimed at preventing or
decreasing the risk of injuries.

Mr. Fletcher worked as freight conductor for Union Pacific and
its predecessor, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, from 1971 to
2006. Mr. Fletcher stated that as a result of his employment with
Union Pacific: (1) he was exposed to asbestos; (2) he suffers
from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; and (3) he has injuries to
his right knee and his neck.

Mr. Davis worked as a brakeman and conductor for Union Pacific
from 1970 to 2007. He claimed that as a result of his employment,
he has injuries to his left shoulder and his right wrist.

Mr. Hughes worked as a brakeman and conductor for Union Pacific
and its predecessors from 1972 to 2007. He claimed that, as a
result of his employment, he suffers from injuries to his right
shoulder.

Union Pacific's motion to sever was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Remand Affirmed in Lindenmayer Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted
Robert and Beverly Lindenmayer's motion to remand an asbestos
lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler LLC and other defendants.

The case is styled Robert Lindenmayer and Beverly Lindenmayer,
Plaintiffs v. Allied Packing & Supply, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Thelton E. Henderson entered judgment in Case No.
No. C09-05800 THE on Jan. 14, 2010.

This matter came before the Court on Jan. 5, 2010, on the motion
to remand filed by the Lindenmayers.

This was a tort action against Foster Wheeler LLC and dozens of
other defendants seeking damages for injuries based on Mr.
Lindenmayer's exposure to asbestos. Foster Wheeler removed this
matter to federal court from Alameda County Superior Court on
Dec. 10, 2009.

The Lindenmayers moved to remand on the following day, and
simultaneously moved to shorten time for the hearing on that
motion, citing Mr. Lindenmayer's terminal illness. The Court
heard the motion on shortened time, and now decided whether to
remand this action to state court.

Mr. Lindenmayer was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and his doctor
attested that there is "substantial medical doubt that he will
survive more than six months beyond" Dec. 11, 2009.

The Lindenmayers alleged that Mr. Lindenmayer was exposed to
asbestos while working as a machinist mate in the U.S. Navy
aboard the USS America from 1964 to 1967. The Lindenmayers
brought multiple claims alleging defective design, failure to
warn and other theories against Foster Wheeler, which confirmed
that it manufactured marine steam generators, including boilers
and economizers, for that vessel.

Because it acted under an officer or agency of the United States
in manufacturing and selling that equipment, Foster Wheeler
argued that federal jurisdiction was proper under the federal
officer removal statute. The Lindenmayers disputed federal
jurisdiction and sought remand on that basis.

This matter shall be remanded to Alameda County Superior Court,
where the Lindenmayers shall waive any claims against Foster
Wheeler based on a design-defect theory of liability.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Riniers' Remand Bid in Case v. FWC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, affirmed
Henry Rinier, Jr. and Miriam Ann Kreider-Rinier's motion to
remand an asbestos lawsuit filed against Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation and other defendants.

The case is styled John Henry Rinier, Jr., and Miriam Ann
Kreider-Rinier, Plaintiffs v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

District Judge Patrick G. Murphy entered judgment in Civil No.
09-1068-GPM on Jan. 19, 2010.

This matter was before the Court on Foster Wheeler's motion to
recuse and the Riniers' motion for remand of this case to state
court. This case, in which Mr. and Mrs. Rinier sought damages for
personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos, was
filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Foster Wheeler had removed the
case to this Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for remand of this case was
granted. This case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Ill., for lack of federal
subject matter jurisdiction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nafferton Joiner Seeks Colleagues Help in Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Henry Mathison, a 76-year-old former joiner from
Nafferton, England, is calling for help in finding his former
colleagues to help in his claim for asbestos compensation, the
Driffield Times reports.

Mr. Mathison worked at Nafferton-based firm E Sutton as an
apprentice joiner between 1947 and 1954, and as a qualified
joiner from 1961 to 1973.

Mr Mathison, who was diagnosed with asbestosis over a year ago
and suffers chronic breathlessness, claims he was regularly
covered from head to foot in asbestos dust when he worked there.

Mr. Mathison, said, "During my employment at E Sutton I would
spend around 60 percent to 70 percent of my time working with
asbestos and I was never given any form of protection to prevent
me from inhaling the asbestos dust and fibers, not even a mask."

Law firm Irwin Mitchell is investigating a compensation claim
against E Sutton which ceased trading some years ago. The law
firm wants to hear from anybody who worked there during the same
period or who had sued E Sutton, having been unable to trace the
company's insurance company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robert Collins Facing Legal Action in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Collins Contracting is facing legal action over asbestos
cleanup violations at a building in the 5200 block of Page
Boulevard in St. Louis, the St. Louis Business Journal reports.

Robert Collins Contracting failed to perform asbestos inspections
and submit notification to the St. Louis Air Pollution Control
Program before the building's demolition, the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources said on Jan. 29, 2010.

In June 2009, DNR issued a notice of violation. The notice also
included citations for failure to properly control fugitive
particulate matter or dust emissions during the demolition.

On Jan. 29, 2010, DNR said it referred this case to Missouri
Attorney General Chris Koster's Office to pursue legal action for
violations of Missouri's Air Conservation Law and Regulations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnston Case v. 160 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos case styled Danny R. Johnston and Marilou Johnston,
his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith
Corporation, et al. was filed on Jan. 14, 2010 in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Belmont, Ohio, couple is suing the 160 defendants for Mr.
Johnston's asbestosis. They claim the defendants caused his
asbestosis. The Johnstons seek a trial by jury to resolve all
matters related to their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Johnstons. Case No.
10-C-0075 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Seeks Agreement With Insurance Groups
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation, on Jan. 28, 2010, filed a motion seeking
the approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey for settlement agreements with nine insurance groups and
the New Jersey insurance guaranty associations.

Subject to various requirements set forth in the settlement
agreements and the approval of the District Court, the insurance
companies will pay US$100 million to settle certain policies
issued to the Company and such amount will be paid to a plan
trust of which US$97 million will be available for the payment of
asbestos claims.

A hearing on the motion has been scheduled for Feb. 19, 2010,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 1, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corporation makes
flooring products for residential and commercial use, including
resilient sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-
yourself vinyl tile, and commercial flooring.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Records 2,300 New Claims in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related cases filed against Crown Holdings, Inc.
declined to 2,300 in 2009 from 3,100 in 2008, according to a
Company press release dated Feb. 2, 2010.

The Company recorded a charge in the fourth quarter of 2009 of
US$55 million (US$36 million, net of tax, or US$0.22 per diluted
share) to increase its asbestos litigation reserve. The Company
estimates that its liability for pending and future asbestos
claims will range between US$230 million and US$268 million.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the reported range was US$201 million to US$239
million. After the US$55 million charge, the Company's recorded
liability at Dec. 31, 2009 was US$230 million, compared with
US$201 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Asbestos-related payments totaled US$26 million in 2009, compared
with US$25 million in 2008, and the Company expects 2010 payments
of about US$25 million.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Crown Holdings, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, supplies packaging products to consumer marketing
companies around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayle Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Robert F. Mayle Sr. and Dorothy V.
Mayle, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith
Corporation, et al. was filed on Jan. 14, 2010 in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Mayles, from Mingo Junction, Ohio, sues 160 defendant
corporations for Mr. Mayle's asbestosis and lung cancer. They
claim the defendants caused his asbestosis and lung cancer.

In Case No. 10-C-0076, the Mayles seek a trial by jury to resolve
all matters related to their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Mayles. This case
is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wigal Claim v. 160 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 14, 2010, an asbestos lawsuit styled Guelda M. Wigal,
executrix of the Estate of John A. Wigal Sr., deceased vs. 20th
Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, et al. was
filed against 160 defendant corporations in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Wigal, of Belpre, Ohio, is suing for her late husband's
asbestosis and mesothelioma. She claims the defendants caused Mr.
Wigal's asbestosis and mesothelioma. She seeks a trial by jury to
resolve all matters related to her asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent Mrs. Wigal. Case No.
10-C-0077 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris Lawsuit v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Jan. 15, 2010, an asbestos lawsuit styled Crystal L. Morris,
executrix of the Estate of Stuart E. McQuain, deceased vs. CSX
Transportation was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Morris is Mr. McQuain's daughter. Mr. McQuain worked for CSX
Transportation and died on Aug. 11, 2008 of lung cancer. She
claims her father was exposed to and caused to inhale asbestos
fibers, fibrosis-inducing materials and carcinogenic materials
while working for CSX.

Mrs. Morris seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related
to the case.

Robert F. Daley, Esq., and Elizabeth Chiappetta, Esq., represent
Mrs. Morris. Case No. 10-C-0084 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geary Claim v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Geary, on behalf of Virgil Floyd Geary, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against CSX Transportation on Jan. 15, 2010 in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Geary is the widow of Mr. Geary, who worked for CSX
Transportation and died on Feb. 1, 2008 of lung cancer. Mrs.
Geary claims her late husband was exposed to and caused to inhale
asbestos fibers, fibrosis-inducing materials and carcinogenic
materials while working for CSX.

Mrs. Geary seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related
to the case. Robert F. Daley, Esq., and Elizabeth Chiappetta,
Esq., represent Mrs. Geary. Case No. 10-C-0085 is assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barber Case v. CSX Filed Jan. 15 in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna G. Barber, on Jan. 15, 2010, filed an asbestos-related
lawsuit against CSX Transportation in Kanawha County Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Ms. Barber worked for CSX Transportation and claims she was
exposed to and caused to inhale asbestos fibers, fibrosis-
inducing materials and carcinogenic materials while working for
the company. She claims this caused her asbestosis and lung
cancer.

Ms. Barber seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related
to her case. Robert F. Daley, Esq., and Elizabeth Chiappetta,
Esq., represent Ms. Barger. Case No. 10-C-0086 is assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wood Action v. 125 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit against 125 defendant corporations styled
Robert L. Wood and Candice J. Wood vs. 3M Company, A.O. Smith
Corporation et al. was filed on Jan. 19, 2010 in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Woods are suing the defendants for Mr. Wood's mesothelioma.
Mr. Wood was diagnosed on Dec. 14, 2009. He claims he smoked for
six years in the 1960s, but quit.

The Woods seek a trial by jury to resolve all matters related to
their asbestos-related case.

Victoria Antion, Esq., Anne McGinnes Kearse, Esq., and J.D.
McMullen, Esq., represent the Woods. Case No. 10-C-0091 is
assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kontra Case v. 67 Firms Filed Jan. 19 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled John D. Kontra Sr. and Mary Ann Kontra
vs. 3M Company, A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc., et al. was filed
against 67 defendant corporations on Jan. 19 2010 in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Kontras are suing the defendants for Mr. Kontra's lung
cancer. Mr. Kontra was diagnosed on July 23, 2009. He claims he
smoked one and one-half pack per day from 1961 until 2006.

The Kontras seek a trial by bury to resolve all matters related
to their asbestos-related case (Case No. 10-C-0093).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McClure Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos case styled David L. McClure and Nancy A. McClure vs.
A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc., Amchem Products, Inc., et al. was
filed against 63 defendant corporations on Jan. 20, 2010 in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

The McClures claim the defendants exposed Mr. McClure to asbestos
materials. They claim the defendants manufactured, processed,
converted, distributed, supplied and/or sold the products that
contained asbestos materials that presented a substantial risk of
harm to Mr. McClure.

The McClures seek a trial by jury to resolve all matters related
to their case.

William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents the McClures. Case No. 10-
C-0105 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beckett Case v. 63 Firms Filed Jan. 20 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Billy R. Beckett and Helen J. Beckett
vs. A.W. Chesterton Company, Inc., Amchem Products, Inc., et al.
was filed on Jan. 20, 2010 against 63 defendant corporations in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Billy R. and Helen J. Beckett claim the defendants exposed Mr.
Beckett to asbestos materials. They claim the defendants
manufactured, processed, converted, distributed, supplied and/or
sold the products that contained asbestos materials that
presented a substantial risk of harm to Mr. Beckett.

The Becketts seeks a trial by jury to resolve all matters related
to their case.

William K. Schwartz, Esq., represents the Becketts. Case No. 10-
C-0106 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daytona Beach Cleanup to Cost $80,000-$100,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos removal bill for the Daytona Beach Pier in Daytona
Beach, Fla., could be about US$80,000 to US$100,000, said Tom
Huger, the city's facilities construction and maintenance
manager, news-journalonline.com reports.

The asbestos removal will take about 45 to 60 days to complete
once it gets under way.

After the City took control of the 84-year-old pier for the first
time in fall 2009, inspectors discovered asbestos in paint on the
interior and exterior of the historic restaurant and casino
building that has been perched on the pier for decades.

City leaders said they expected to reopen the pier to the public
in January 2010, but now it looks like it could be summer 2010
before the asbestos removal and various upgrades are completed on
the 745-foot-long wooden structure.

The city bought out its last leaseholder a few months ago for
US$1.3 million. City officials say the pier slid into disrepair,
and they plan to sink at least US$1.6 million into repairs and
upgrades.

"We were very optimistic," said J. Paul Wetzel, the City's
support services director. "Once you get in there you never know
what you'll find." He added that the full gamut of repairs will
probably take about two years.

Mayor Glenn Ritchey said, "It's just prudent to take our time and
do it right."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Aviation Terminal in S.C. Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos removal at the old General Aviation Terminal in Myrtle
Beach, S.C., is ongoing, WMBF News reports.

The new General Aviation Terminal in Myrtle Beach is up and
running, but there still has not been a grand opening. Airport
officials say that is because the old terminal is blocking the
progress.

General Aviation Manager Mike Marlowe says the asbestos removal
will take about four weeks. It is a long process because DHEC is
supervising to make sure the asbestos does not spread into the
environment.   

Mr. Marlowe says that when crews went inside the old building,
they found more asbestos than they were anticipating, so that has
delayed the project a bit.

Once crews remove the asbestos and tear down the old building,
airport officials want to build a passenger drop off area and
parking lot.

Mr. Marlowe says that the U.S. Air Force built the old building
in 1956, and when the new terminal opened in October 2009, it was
past time for an update. He says the grand opening should happen
by May 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bickle Widow Gets GBP50,000 Interim Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Bickle's widow, June Bickle, was awarded GBP50,000 as an
interim asbestos settlement while the full value of the
settlement is calculated, the Jarrow & Hebburn Gazette reports.

On January 2009, Mr. Bickle died at the age of 58 of mesothelioma
after working with asbestos at the Filtrona factory in Jarrow,
England. Almost exactly a year to the day since Mr. Bickle died,
the 61-year-old Mrs. Bickle was told by her solicitors that the
case with Filtrona had been settled.

Mr. Bickle worked as a turner and grinder at Filtrona, a
cigarette filter manufacturer, at Bede Industrial Estate in
Jarrow for more than 30 years. He was made redundant about seven
years ago and later worked for other Tyneside companies.

In February 2008, Mr. Bickle felt a pain in his right lung and a
scan revealed he had mesothelioma. He died at St Clare's Hospice
in Jarrow on Jan. 30, 2009.

Filtrona denied responsibility for exposing Mr. Bickle to
asbestos, but abandoned its defense just minutes before a High
Court hearing on Jan. 28, 2010.

The High Court ordered judgment to be entered against the Company
and Mrs. Bickle has been awarded an interim payment of GBP50,000.

A spokesman for Filtrona said, "There has been a settlement and
compensation will be paid, but we cannot comment further, as the
matter is still with our solicitors."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Sets Aside Ruling in Larsen Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside a Sept.
23, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Gwen Larsen's claim for accrued benefits. The matter was remanded
for further adjudication.

The case is styled Gwen Larsen, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Bruce E. Kasold entered judgment in Case No. 08-3280 on
Jan. 29, 2010.

Mrs. Larsen, surviving spouse of veteran Harry D. Larsen,
appealed through counsel a Sept. 23, 2008 decision of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals that denied her claim for accrued benefits
and for the cause of her husband's death because there was no
evidence that Mr. Larsen's lung cancer was related to service.

The Board found no evidence that Mr. Larsen had been exposed to
asbestos while in service, but Mrs. Larsen contended he likely
was exposed to asbestos when he served on the U.S.S. Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unitrin Reserves $71M for A&E Issues at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Property and Casualty Insurance Reserves related to Unitrin,
Inc.'s Discontinued Operations are predominantly long-tailed
exposures, of which US$71 million was related to asbestos,
environmental matters and construction defect exposures at Dec.
31, 2009.

Headquartered in Chicago, Unitrin, Inc.'s subsidiaries serve the
basic financial needs of individuals, families and small
businesses by providing property and casualty insurance, life and
health insurance, and automobile finance services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Records $734M Dec. 31 Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$734 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$824 million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a
Company press release dated Feb. 2, 2010.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$330 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$658
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company's
diversified industry-leading portfolio of specialty chemical,
advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses deliver
technology-based products and solutions to customers in about 160
countries and in high growth sectors like electronics, water,
energy, coatings and agriculture. In 2009, the Company had annual
sales of US$45 billion and employed about 52,000 people
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 56 Cases Pending v. American Locker at Sept. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
The balance of unresolved cases against American Locker Group
Incorporated, as of Sept. 8, 2009, the most recent date
information is available, is about 56 cases, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 2, 2010.

Beginning in September 1998, the Company has been named as an
additional defendant in about 200 cases pending in state court in
Massachusetts and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs
in each case assert that a division of the Company manufactured
and furnished components containing asbestos to a shipyard during
the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from
exposure to such products. The assets of this division were sold
by the Company in 1973.

During the process of discovery in certain of these actions,
documents from sources outside the Company have been produced
which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in
the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained
asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards.
Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's
insurance carrier, subject to a reservation of rights.

Settlement agreements have been entered in 27 cases with funds
authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier.
Further, over 125 cases have been terminated as to the Company
without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural
rules.

Headquartered in Grapevine, Tex., American Locker Group
Incorporated manufactures and distributes lockers, locks and keys
with a wide-range of applications for use in numerous industries.
The Company is known for manufacturing and servicing the widely-
utilized key and lock system with the iconic plastic orange cap.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Party to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to be involved in various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 2, 2010.

Headquartered in New Orleans, Tidewater Inc. provides offshore
service vessels and equipment to the global offshore energy
industry through the operation of a diversified fleet of marine
service vessels. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had 394 vessels
(including joint-venture vessels and vessels withdrawn from
service) servicing the energy industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Graham Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation is still named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 3, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Records $867.2M Dec. 31 Long-Term Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$867.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$225.9
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company press release
dated Feb. 3, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$852.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 6, 2009)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$604.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$201.2
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets were US$601.6
million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6,
2009)

Net asbestos-related costs were US$13 million during the three
months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$3.1 million during
the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Asbestos-related costs were US$237.5 million during the 12 months
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$14.3 million during the 12
months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation is an
engineering and manufacturing company operating on all seven
continents in three vital markets: water and fluids management,
global defense and security, and motion and flow control. The
company generated 2009 revenue of US$10.9 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Cites $10M A&E Loss Reserve Development
---------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation says its Other Insurance (Discontinued Lines)
segment's underwriting loss for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009
included US$10 million of loss reserve development on asbestos
and environmental exposures compared to US$24.9 million in 2008,
according to a Company press release dated Feb. 3, 2010.

The Other Insurance (Discontinued Lines) segment produced an
underwriting loss of US$4.7 million for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, compared with an underwriting loss of US$28.1 million in
2008.

The underwriting loss in both 2009 and 2008 was primarily a
result of loss reserve development on asbestos and environmental
exposures.

Headquartered in Glen Allen, Va., Markel Corporation markets and
underwrites specialty insurance products and programs to a
variety of niche markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation continues to be subject to various
unresolved legal actions that relate to product liability
(including asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark
matters, and disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and
dealers, competitors and employees.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Feb. 3, 2010 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

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



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gallagher Suit v. 40 Companies Filed in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aloysius Gallagher and his wife, Maureen Gallagher, on Jan. 7,
2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 40 defendant
corporations in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Gallagher claims throughout his life he worked for and with,
or came in contact with products by the defendants and on March
1, 2009, was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Gallagher claims the defendants are liable to him and Mrs.
Gallagher for being generally negligent in failing to provide a
safe product.

The Gallaghers seek compensatory and punitive damages. Craig E.
Coleman, Esq., represents the Gallaghers. Case No. 10-C-47 has
been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Expends $11.6M for Bankruptcy in 4th-Qtr.
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s Chapter 11 expenses, net of filing entity
interest income, were US$11.6 million in the fourth quarter of
2009, compared with US$17.4 million in the prior year quarter,
according to a Company press release dated Feb. 2, 2010.

Chapter 11 expenses, net of filing entity interest income, were
US$48 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$65.8 million in the prior year.

Expenses related to the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings, net of
filing entity interest income, were US$18.4 million in the third
quarter of 2009, compared with US$12 million in the prior year
quarter. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2010)

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order
to resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of
Reorganization and several associated documents, including a
disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court. The Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Representative for Future Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, and
the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders are co-
proponents of the Joint Plan.

The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants and the
Representative for Future Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are
not co-proponents of the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan is consistent
with the terms of the previously announced settlements of the
Company's asbestos personal injury liability and claims related
to its former attic insulation product. The Joint Plant also
requires the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section
524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to which all present and
future asbestos-related claims would be channeled.

Confirmation hearings on the Joint Plan concluded in January
2010. Confirmation and consummation of the Joint Plan are now
subject to the findings of the Bankruptcy Court and the District
Court for the District of Delaware and the satisfaction of other
conditions, many of which are outside the Company's control.

Until such findings are made and the conditions to consummation
of the Joint Plan are satisfied or waived, the timing of the
Company's emergence from Chapter 11 will be uncertain. Subject to
this uncertainty, the Company is preparing to consummate the
Joint Plan in June 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies were
US$1.7 billion as of both Dec. 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008. The
Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million
as of both Dec. 31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Actions Filed in Madison County Jan. 18-22
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Jan. 18, 2010 through Jan. 22, 2010, about 14
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-59) James R. Bell of Alabama, a laborer and
   carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Bell.

-- (Case No. 10-L-64) David and Bernice Belton of Arizona claim
   Mr. Belton developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer
   performing home repairs, as a stone maker and layer, as a
   welder for R.F.P. and as a welder for Chrysler. Elizabeth V.
   Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Beltons.

-- (Case No. 10-L-58) Willie Buchanan of Minnesota, a laborer
   and carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Buchanan.

-- (Case No. 10-L-53) Louise Dotson of Illinois, a laborer,
   welder and machinist, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Dotson.

-- (Case No. 10-L-60) Terry L. Hupp of Ohio, a lab technician,
   claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Hupp.

-- (Case No. 10-L-57) Rogelio Perez Sr. of Indiana, a painter,
   laborer and operator, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Perez.

-- (Case No. 10-L-49) Mary Phillips of Georgia claims the
   deceased Gertha Phillips developed mesothelioma after her
   work as a splicer at Anderson Mills, as an inspector at Smith
   and Nephew, as a battery inspector at Masbac and as a
   custodian at Muscogee County School District. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Ms. Phillips.

-- (Case No. 10-L-51) Mary Ramsey claims her deceased husband,
   James Ramsey, developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   carpenter helper at Ragland, as a lathe operator at CAPCO
   Finish, as a tester at Stockham Valve, as an assembly line
   worker at Anniston Depot Assembly Line, as a supply clerk at
   Anniston Depot Supply, as a mechanic at Anniston Depot
   Electric and as a mechanic at Anniston Depot Fuel and
   Electric. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Ramsey.

-- (Case No. 10-L-56) James R. Smith of Mississippi, a laborer
   and carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Smith.

-- (Case No. 10-L-54) Ginger Vail of Mississippi, a laborer,
   claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Vail.

-- (Case No. 10-L-61) William Warren of Utah, a boiler
   technician and supervisor, claims mesothelioma. Randy S.
   Cohn, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Warren.

-- (Case No. 10-L-55) Eddie Williams of Missouri, a laborer and
   assembler, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Williams.

-- (Case No. 10-L-63) Anna Mae Willie of Indiana claims her
   deceased husband, Franklin D. Willie, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a plumber and electrician for Kitchen
   Kompact. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq.,
   of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mrs. Willie.

-- (Case No. 10-L-65) Frances Winberg claims her deceased
   husband, Tracy Winberg, developed mesothelioma after his work
   as a baker and as a construction worker. Matthew B. McLeod,
   Esq., of Shrader and Associates in Houston, will represent
   Mrs. Winberg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miller Case v. 53 Firms Filed Jan. 14 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ronald and Nola A. Miller, a couple from Ashland, Ky.,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 53 defendant corporations in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Mr. Miller claims he was exposed to asbestos products of the
defendants while working at various job sites over many years. On
Sept. 18, 2009, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He claims he
smoked one and one-half pack of cigarettes per day from the late
1960s until 1991.

According to the suit, the defendants are being sued for
negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied
warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy,
misrepresentations and post-sale duty to warn.

The Millers seek a trial by jury to resolve all issues concerning
their asbestos-related case. Cindy J. Kiblinger, Esq. of James F.
Humphreys & Associates, and Victoria Antion, Esq., of Motley Rice
represent the Millers.

Case No.: 10-C-0079 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baumener's Family Awarded $2Mil in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Allegheny County, Pa., jury awarded the family of Barry
Baumener, of Plum, Pa., US$2 million in compensation for Mr.
Baumener's exposure to asbestos, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
reports.

The jury returned a US$50 million verdict in favor of the Barry
Baumener estate and against 25 companies named as defendants
after a two-week trial. All defendants except Oglebay Norton Co.
of Ohio and its division, Ferro Engineering, settled out of
court, Mr. Baumener's attorney, John Kane, Esq., said.

Ferro will have to pay US$2 million because the jury ordered each
of the 25 defendants to pay four percent of the total. The 24
companies who settled out of court are immune to the jury's
verdict.

Mr. Baumener was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2009 and
died at the age of 62 in October 2009. He worked for Carpenter
Technology, a steel mill in Reading, Pa. He sued several
companies in May 2009, including Ferro, alleging that the company
sold asbestos-containing products to the mill where he worked.

Mr. Baumener and his wife, Marsha, moved from their Reading home
into his daughter's Plum home after his diagnosis.

Mr. Kane declined to say how much the family settled for in the
other cases but said it was far less than US$50 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stewart's Lawsuit Now Ongoing in NSW High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Stewart, the widow of Angus Stewart who died from
mesothelioma after wearing asbestos gloves at work 40 years ago,
on Feb. 2, 2010, took his battle for compensation to the New
South Wales, Australia, High Court, The Australian reports.

Mr. Stewart had worked for the now-defunct windscreen
manufacturer Pilkington Brothers. By the time he fell ill, the
company's insurance policy had vanished.

The NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal initially ordered insurer QBE and
asbestos supplier Wallaby Grip to pay Mr. Stewart more than
AUD350,000 in compensation.

However, the two companies successfully argued in the NSW Court
of Appeal that compensation for Mr. Stewart should be limited to
AUD40,000, the statutory minimum cover at the time, unless the
Stewarts could prove the policy was worth more.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's argument that
Pilkington had not been negligent in supplying Mr. Stewart with
asbestos gloves and tape.

Mr. Stewart spent just 18 months at the windscreen factory in
Sydney's west after moving with his family from Scotland in 1964.

The High Court agreed to hear the case because the insurance
issue had become significant in the United States, but not all
courts had treated it in the same way.

On Feb. 2, 2010, Mrs. Stewart's barrister, David Jackson QC, told
the High Court it should be up to the insurers, who had access to
the insurance contract, to prove the level of cover was limited
to the statutory minimum.

Mr. Jackson said that if the insurance company could not do that,
the High Court should not treat AUD40,000 as a starting point for
compensation.

QBE's barrister, Alan Sullivan QC, argued that, as the person
seeking compensation, Mrs. Stewart should bear the burden of
proving the insurance policy was worth more than the statutory
minimum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Judge Rejects Demerger Plan of CSR Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Australian Federal Court judge, Margaret Stone, dismissed CSR
Limited's proposed demerger of its sugar unit, citing uncertainty
on how asbestos claims against the Company would be funded if CSR
split in two, The Wall Street Journal reports.

A CSR spokesman said the Company would consider Judge Stone's
decision.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission and other
objectors raised concerns about how ongoing asbestos claims would
be funded if CSR were to spin off its sugar and renewable
energies business into a unit that would be called Sucrogen.

CSR had proposed funding the liabilities exclusively from the
remaining building products and aluminum business, which the
claims had been against.

However, Judge Stone said that the plan left many uncertainties
for asbestos claimants and therefore the demerger application
should be dismissed.

                            *********

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  * * *