CAR_Public/100219.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 19, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 35

                            Headlines

AMICAS INC: Mass. Suit Complains About Going-Private Transaction
ARAMARK SPORTS: Notice of Class Action Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Race-Based University Admissions Challenged Again
CARBONITE: Fla. Suit Complains About Computer Backup Services
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Affirms Class in Hawaii Mortgage Fee Suit

CRST VAN: Awarded $4.5 Mil. Defense Costs in EEOC Litigation
EASTERN REGIONAL: Canadian Court Approves Class Action Settlement
ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Certifies Gambling Addict Class
EXPEDIA INC: hotels.com Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Tex.
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Second Amended Securities Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Appeal on Settlement Approval Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Suit Versus Hotwire
EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in New York Still Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Subsidiary Continues to Face Class Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Los Angeles City

EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit by Findlay
EXPEDIA INC: Parties in Georgia Suit Agree to Mediation
EXPEDIA INC: No Final Judgment Amount in San Antonio City Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Gallup City's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Amended Suit by Columbus City

EXPEDIA INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Kentucky Suit
EXPEDIA INC: Nassau County's Suit Remanded by Second Circuit
EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Reached in Jefferson City Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville's Class Certification Motion Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Lyndhurst's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending

EXPEDIA INC: IAC Dismissed from Jacksonville's Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: Wants Arkansas Court to Dismiss Pine Bluff Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Suit Complains About New Privacy Settings
FIRST HEALTH: Appeal and Cross Appeal Filed in Class Action Case
HUNTER HOLMES: Settles Employee Discrimination Suit for $5 Mil.

LIBERTY MEDIA: Sued for Allowing Directors to Convert Shares
NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Complains About Mental Health Funding Cuts
NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Labaton Sucharow Secures C$28 Mil. Settlement
SCHENECTADY COUNTY: 2d Cir. Upholds Fee Cuts in Strip-Search Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Won't Reward Kenmore Dryer Class Counsel

SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Plaintiffs Sue Tex. Sup. Ct. to Speed Ruling
TOYOTA MOTOR: Files Sudden Acceleration Injury Suit in Calif.
WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Gets Zilch from $49 Mil. Settlement

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: DPL, Unit Subject to Pending Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,611 Claims Pending v. Burlington at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 23T Injury Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Faces Continental Case in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Still Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Long-Term Liability at $406.9M in Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Units Face 526 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $155MM Litigation Charges in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $831M NARCO Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $300Mil NARCO Coverage at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bendix Decrease to 19,940 at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.69B at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Has Capital Expenditures for Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Plan Slated for March 12
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $17.5M Adjustment in 3Q-Fiscal 2010

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $102.1M Current Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand plc Records $25M Income in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Motion in Garner Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Subject to Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Still Subject to Respirator Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in 9th Case v. 3M Company Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Has $34MM Aearo Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Records $138M Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Insurance Case v. 3M Set for June 2012
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Court Affirms Dismissal of Winrow Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Workers Protesting on Elmira Site Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Saranac Lake, N.Y. Lot to Cost $12T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soyars Indicted for Cleanup Violations in Colo.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probing Topeka Prison for Inmates' Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Firm Ordered to Clear Hazard from Empty Lot

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warning Issued Over Imported Tiles in Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Lower Hazard Levels in Libby, Mont.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered at Sackets Sewage Plant Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal to Spend $4M for Cleanup in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Cites 402 French Cases at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Subject to Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in AMSF Action Heard in Dec. 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Records $90M Settlement in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hosea Project Pays $22T Fine for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schuylkill Contractor Cleared of Cleanup Charge

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie in Dispute With CSR Over Berengo Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynoldsburg City Seeks $435T Grant for Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs at Fresno's Art Museum to Cost $241,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mt. Hood Community College Slated for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Defense Dept. Lauded for Funding Increase

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Hazards Found in West Mackay Primary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grayling, AT Remove Hazards from Welcome House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wahpeton School Board in N.D. Affirms Abatement

                            *********

AMICAS INC: Mass. Suit Complains About Going-Private Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say directors
of Amicas are taking the technology company private for the
unfair price of $5.35 a share, or $217 million, in Suffolk County
Court, Boston.

A copy of the Complaint in Mannhardt v. Amicas, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-0412 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/SCAAmicas.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-439-3939

               - and -

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


ARAMARK SPORTS: Notice of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
                This notice may affect your rights.
                       Please read carefully.

                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                  WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

     IN RE:                     )
                                )
     HANLON                     )
                                ) CASE NO.: CV 09-465
          v.                    )
                                )
     ARAMARK SPORTS, LLC,       )

      SUMMARY NOTICE OF CERTIFIED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about
the truncation requirements imposed by the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). All persons who used a credit
or debit card at any store at PNC Park between March 24, 2009 and
April 23, 2009 MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A SETTLEMENT VOUCHER,
as set forth below. If you qualify, you may send in a claim form
to get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the settlement,
or object to it.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

You are a class member and could get benefits if you used a
credit or debit card at any store at PNC Park between March 24,
2009 and April 23, 2009. If you believe you are a member of the
class, you may view the Full Notice online at:

     http://www.carlsonlynch.com/

or you can request a copy of the Full Notice by sending a written
request to:

          Aramark Sports, LLC Settlement
          PO Box 367
          Sewickley, PA 15143

Include your name and current address. You may also request a
Notice and Claim Form by calling Class Counsel at 1-800-467-5241.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

Jeff Hanlon ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of all members of the class,
has asserted that Aramark Sports, LLC violated certain
requirements imposed by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act ("FACTA"). Specifically, plaintiff claims that Aramark
Sports, LLC printed the expiration date of its customers' credit
or debit cards on receipts presented to them at the store, in
violation of FACTA, as specifically set forth in the Complaint on
file and available at the Court at 700 Grant Street, Suite 3100,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Aramark Sports, LLC denies any liability or
wrongdoing. Neither plaintiff nor any class member has sustained
any actual monetary injury as a result of the issues in dispute
in this litigation. However, FACTA requires that the expiration
date be deleted from credit card receipts presented to customers
at the point of sale.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Under the terms of the settlement, each class member will be
entitled to receive a voucher good for (1) $50 off of a purchase
of an item with a price of $100 or more; or (2) a "classy" tee
shirt with a suggested retail value of $20-40; or (3) a "hoodie"
with a suggested retail value of $50-55 redeemable at the Pirate
Outfitters location at PNC Park. The Settlement also imposes
certain other requirements and restrictions, which are set forth
in detail in the Settlement Agreement. A Full Notice describing
the Settlement in more detail is available at the website above.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A VOUCHER?

If you would like to participate in the settlement and receive
one of the Settlement Vouchers described above, you can simply
complete the short form attached to this Summary Notice and mail
it to Aramark Sports, LLC Settlement, PO Box 367, Sewickley, PA
15143 postmarked by June 17, 2010.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?

If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you
must exclude yourself by April 1, 2010, or you won't be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Aramark Sports, LLC about the legal
claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you can't get a
Settlement Voucher from this settlement. If you stay in the
settlement, you may object to it by April 1, 2010. The Full
Notice contains important information regarding the rights,
obligations, requirements, and deadlines for class members to
participate in the Settlement, to exclude themselves from the
Settlement, or to object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case (HANLON V. ARAMARK
SPORTS, LLC, CASE NO.: CV 09-465) on April 5, 2010, at 10:00 am
in Courtroom 3A, 3rd Floor, United States Courthouse, 7th & Grant
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 to consider whether to
approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing
all Class Members (Carlson Lynch LTD) for attorneys' fees and
costs of $105,000.00. You may ask to appear at the hearing, but
you don't have to.

If you wish to communicate with class counsel identified above,
you may do so by writing to:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PO Box 367
          Sewickley, PA 15143

Alternatively, you may call the offices of the firm at its toll
free number 1-800-467-5241.

This notice is not to be construed as an expression of any
opinion by the District Court with respect to the merits of the
respective claims or defenses of the parties.

                         The Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
                         United States District Court Judge

If you have any questions or concerns, address all inquiries in
the manner set forth above. The court and the clerk will not
answer legal questions from individual claimants. By issuing this
notice, the court expresses no opinion as to the merits of any
claims or defenses asserted in this civil action. Please do not
contact the court.


CALIFORNIA: Race-Based University Admissions Challenged Again
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a pro-affirmative action group
is renewing efforts to overturn the California law that prohibits
public universities from considering race in student admissions.

Attorneys for Michigan-based By Any Means Necessary filed a
class-action lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in Oakland. It
challenges the constitutionality of the ballot measure approved
by the state's voters in 1996.

Both a federal appeals court and the California Supreme Court
have rebuffed earlier challenges to the law, known as Proposition
209.

The complaint says a pair of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in
affirmative action cases since those earlier decisions warrant
another effort to invalidate the part of Proposition 209 that
deals with university admissions. The law also barred racial
preferences in government hiring and contracts.


CARBONITE: Fla. Suit Complains About Computer Backup Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Mendez at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that Carbonite sells computer backup services
for $50 a year without telling customers that the system fails
with Windows Vista.  The named plaintiff, a dentist, claims that
after he lost data, Carbonite told him that it "was aware of the
glitch, but did not want to cause 'widespread panic' with its
customers" by informing them.

While he was waiting, fruitlessly, for Carbonite to solve the
problem, the dentist says, the company "had the gall" to
automatically bill him for a second year of service -- at $54.95,
up from the $49.95 he paid for year one.

Dr. Allan Gross claims that Carbonite lures customers with a
fraudulent pitch: "The statistics are staggering: every year 43%
of computer users lose irreplaceable files.  Dangers lurk around
every corner -- hard drive crashes, theft, power surges, natural
disasters, or accidentally deleting your own files.  You need to
be aware that losing your most valuable files is a very real
possibility.  You need to take proper precautions."

Carbonite claims that its software will assure that its
customers' data is "constantly and automatically backed up."

But Mr. Gross says that after signing up, he tried to transfer
all of his files from an HP computer running Windows XP to an
Acer computer with Windows Vista, which he upgraded to Windows 7.  
He says he was "unable to retrieve the data that defendant
represented to be backed up."

During the weeks in which he tried, unsuccessfully, to regain his
professional and personal files, Mr. Gross says, Carbonite
representatives told him that the company "was aware of the
glitch, but did not want to cause 'widespread panic' with its
customers," and "had the gall" to bill him again.

Mr. Gross says Carbonite refused to return all of his money --
that the best offer it made was 6 months of free service, which
he rejected.

He demands damages for breach of contract and fraudulent
concealment, and want the "arbitration and no class action
clauses" declared unenforceable contracts of adhesion, and the
limitation on damages unenforceable as well.

A copy of the Complaint in Gross v. Carbonite, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-60211 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/Carbonite.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          David L. Ferguson, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL
          200 S.W. First Ave., 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-525-4100


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Court Affirms Class in Hawaii Mortgage Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action accusing Countrywide Home Loans of charging illegal fees
can proceed, the Hawaii Court of Appeals ruled.

When Cynthia Nakamura refinanced her home, Countrywide charged
her a $60 statement fee.  She paid it, but then filed a class
action against the company, challenging the legality of the fee.

Ms. Nakamura said she "represents a class of mortgagors that have
been damaged by (Countrywide's) unlawful and deceptive trade
practices."

She also argued that the fee was a sham, because the company had
a secret policy of waiving the fee on request.  Her class
included 19,000 customers to whom Countrywide had charged the
fee.

Countrywide argued that the class lacked commonality because it
sometimes charged a $30 fee and other times waived the fee for
customers through the mail or over the Internet.

Judge Daniel Foley noted that the lower court had performed a
"rigorous analysis" and had correctly certified the class.

"By examining Nakamura's pleadings, the circuit court was able to
determine that the interests of the absent parties were fairly
encompassed by Nakamura's claims," Judge Foley ruled.

A copy of the opinion in Nakamura v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
et al., No. 27993 (Haw. Interm. App. Ct.), is available at:
     
     http://www.state.hi.us/jud/opinions/ica/2010/ica27993.pdf

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Paul Alston, Esq.
          Bruce H. Wakuzawa, Esq.
          Peter Knapman, Esq.
          ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING
          1001 Bishop St., Suite 1800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: 808-524-1800

               - and -

          George Van Buren, Esq.
          Robert Campbell, Esq.
          VAN BUREN CAMPBELL & SHIMIZU
          745 Fort Street Mall, Suite 1950
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: 808-599-3800

The Defendant-Appellant, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., is
represented by:

          Patricia J. McHenry, Esq.
          W. Keoni Shultz, Esq.
          CADES SCHUTTE LLP
          1000 Bishop St., Suite 1200
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: 808-521-9200

               - and -

          Brooks R. Brown, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., 21st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-788-5148


CRST VAN: Awarded $4.5 Mil. Defense Costs in EEOC Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that a federal
judge in Iowa has ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to pay $4.56 million in attorney fees and expenses to
a Cedar Rapids trucking business after dismissing the agency's
sexual harassment lawsuit.

The lawyers leading's CRST Van Expedited's defense team in the
lawsuit, which was filed in 2007, are:

          John H. Mathias, Jr., Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: 312-222-9350

               - and -

          Kevin J. Visser, Esq.
          SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN, PLC
          115 3rd Street SE, Suite 1200
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266
          Telephone: 319-366-7641

The fee award against the EEOC, while not unprecedented, is
unusual, according to Mathias, and may be among the largest
imposed by a federal court.

The EEOC did not return a request for comment, but the agency has
filed a notice of appeal of the lawsuit's dismissal with the U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The agency had alleged in its suit that CRST's lead drivers or
team drivers had subjected approximately 270 female drivers to
sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment and
that the company had failed to correct and protect them.

In a series of rulings last year, Chief Judge Linda Reade of the
Northern District of Iowa dismissed all of the agency's claims.
In a key ruling last April, she granted summary judgment on the
claim that CRST tolerated a "pattern and practice" of sexual
harassment against female drivers.

"The EEOC has presented the court with anecdotal evidence to show
that some members of CRST's management occasionally violated
CRST's anti-sexual harassment policy by failing to respond
appropriately to sexual harassment in the workplace," wrote the
judge in April. "However, the EEOC has not compiled the failings
of CRST's managers in any meaningful way to show that CRST has a
pattern or practice of tolerating sexual harassment in its
workplace."

That was a "big finding," said Mr. Mathias.  "Once the pattern
and practice allegation was gone, you had 200 or so claims with
nothing in common, no unifying characteristic."

The EEOC's argument, said Judge Reade, "boils down to little more
than bald assertions."  The EEOC's litigation strategy, she
added, "was untenable: CRST faced a continuously moving target of
allegedly aggrieved persons, the risk of never-ending discovery
and indefinite continuance of trial."

In an order last August, Judge Reade dismissed the remaining
claims of 67 women after finding the agency had "wholly abandoned
its statutory duties" towards them by not conducting any
investigation of their allegations.

In the fee application, Jenner said its attorneys and staff
billed a total of 18,005.75 hours on the case and sought
$7,121,569.25 at rates ranging from $151 to $825 per hour for
this work. Simmons attorneys and support staff billed a total of
2,507.66 hours at rates ranging from $95 to $295 per hour and
sought a total of $502,977.02 for their work.

Judge Reade on Feb. 9 said several factors warranted a large
award: The company's counsel successfully obtained a dismissal of
the entire case; the case involved hundreds of allegedly
aggrieved individuals and there was potentially massive liability
to CRST.

She awarded the amount requested by Simmons for its work, but
reduced Jenner's request to $3,501,394.63 after comparing the
firm's rates to market rates prevailing in the local community.
She also awarded reasonable out-of-pocket expenses totaling
$463,071.25.  In an earlier order, the court had granted CRST
$92,842.21 in costs.


EASTERN REGIONAL: Canadian Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM.com reports that the law firm representing patients involved
in a class action lawsuit against Eastern Health in the ER/PR
testing scandal is pleased the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador has approved their $17.5-million settlement.

A lawyer representing the Plaintiff Class:

          Darlene P. Russell, Esq.
          CHES CROSBIE BARRISTERS
          169 Water Street
          St. John's, NL A1C 1B1
          CANADA
          Telephone: (709) 579-4000

says her clients are pleased that Justice Thompson rendered his
decision in such a timely manner.  The firm represents breast
cancer patients who were affected by errors in ER/PR testing
between 1997 and 2005.  The firm says further details about how
to apply for compensation will be available in the next few days.

A copy of Mr. Justice Thompson's order approving the settlement
in Doucette v. Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority,
Docket No. 200601T2966CP (Sup. Ct. of Newfoundland and Labrador).


ELI LILLY: Ontario Court Certifies Gambling Addict Class
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell at the National Post reports that an Ontario judge
has certified a plaintiff class in a lawsuit by Parkinson's
patients who say a commonly used drug turned them into
"relentless" gambling addicts, causing some to lose hundreds of
thousands of dollars.

The decision to certify the unusual class action is the first
such ruling in Canada among several cases that have been launched
over "dopamine-agonist" drugs, designed to counter stiffness,
shaking and other symptoms of the nervous-system disease.

A growing number of studies have linked the medicine to excessive
gambling, sex addiction and other compulsive behaviour in a
minority of Parkinson's sufferers.

The certification judgment by Justice George Strathy of the
Ontario Superior Court deals with Permax, which was taken off the
market in 2007 because of other, heart-related side effects.
About three dozen Parkinson's patients have already signed up
with the class-action, said:

          Darcy Merkur, Esq.
          THOMSON, ROGERS
          390 Bay Street, Suite 3100    
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 1W2
          CANADA
          Telephone (416) 868-3100  

who is one of the lawyers handling the lawsuit.

Some had losses well into the six figures, and went as far as
taking money from employers to feed their out-of control habits,
he said.

"The amounts varied, but there is a consistent claim of
devastating financial losses: generally all their savings [gone],
or as much as they could get their hands on."

Justice Strathy also authorized an agreement among the parties to
enter what is called a "pilot project," where the plaintiffs and
defendants will work through the issues and possibly come up with
an out-of-court settlement.

The lawsuit claims more than $3-million in damages for each of
the plaintiffs; ads are to be placed in newspapers Saturday
calling for others to come forward, Mr. Merkur said.

The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of Permax
aggressively marketed the drug but failed to warn patients of the
potential side effects.

Laurel Swartz, a spokeswoman for Eli Lilly, the drug's developer,
said the claims against it are "without merit" and notes that all
drugs have side effects for some patients.

Information about adverse effects was properly communicated by
the firm to regulators and doctors, she said. Lilly will work on
a possible settlement but, if that is not possible, will
"vigorously defend" the lawsuit in court, said Ms. Swartz.

Patients with the degenerative illness suffer from tremors,
stiffness, impaired balance and muscle rigidity, generally
brought on by a shortage of the neurotransmitter dopamine in
their brains.

Permax and other dopamine agonists essentially mimic the
chemical's effect to lessen such symptoms. But dopamine also
influences the pleasure and reward areas of the brain.

Research indicates that Parkinson's patients who take the
medicine are more likely than others with the disease or the
general public to develop "impulse-control disorders" like
problem gambling, said Dr. Michel Panisset, a neurologist at
Montreal's Notre-Dame Hospital.

One study published in 2008 by Calgary physicians found that one
in 10 Parkinson's patients at a local clinic had gambling
addictions of some sort, about five times the rate in the general
population.

"We've had a significant number of patients with these problems
over the years," said Dr. Panisset. "It's the experience of every
neurologist who treats these patients. People lose lots of money
and get into personal, familial problems."

Swapan Banerjee, the lead plaintiff in the Permax case, was not
available for comment. According to the statement of claim filed
by his lawyers, though, the Mississauga, Ont., man was diagnosed
with Parkinson's in 1997 and prescribed Permax in 2000.

Soon after, the computer technician began gambling voraciously,
eventually burning through over $200,000, twice re-mortgaging his
condominium and causing a serious rift with his wife and
children.

"He gambled indiscriminately and relentlessly," said the
statement. "He visited casinos and played the slot machines
compulsively. He made impulsive and uncontrolled stock market
transactions. He spent large sums of money on lottery tickets."

When Mr. Banerjee finally stopped taking the drug in 2003, his
gambling problem ended, too, the lawsuit says.

Dr. Panisset said neurologists now warn patients and their
spouses of the risk of gambling problems. If signs of such
problems crop up, they are moved on to another drug, Levodopa,
which has similar benefits. Physicians try to avoid using
Levodopa in the early stages of the disease because of its side
effects, said Dr. Panisset.

Meanwhile, other class actions are in the works over two
dopamine-agonist drugs still on the market, Mirapex and ReQuip.


EXPEDIA INC: hotels.com Continues to Defend Amended Suit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
hotels.com, L.P., continues to defend an amended class action
petition alleging that it charged customers "taxes" that exceeded
the amount required, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On May 6, 2003, a purported class action was filed in Texas state
court against hotels.com, L.P., captioned Mary Canales,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
hotels.com, L.P., No. DC-03-162 (District Court, 229th Judicial
District, Duval County).

The complaint, as amended, alleges that hotels.com breached its
contract with its customers by charging customers "taxes" that
exceed the amount required by or paid to the applicable taxing
authorities and by charging customers "fees" that do not
correspond to any specific services provided.

On April 29, 2005, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On Feb. 1, 2006, the court of appeals reversed the holding
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court.

On April 20, 2006, Ms. Canales filed a fourth amended petition
and a new motion for class certification.

On June 23, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended class action
petition.

Plaintiff filed an amended motion to certify a class on
Sept. 18, 2009.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on Sept. 18, 2009.  
Plaintiff filed a response and cross-moved for summary judgment
on Oct. 22, 2009.  These motions remain pending.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Second Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a second amended securities
class action alleging failure to disclose material information
concerning problems at the company's then-travel businesses.

Beginning on Sept. 20, 2004, twelve purported shareholder class
actions were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against IAC/InterActiveCorp and
certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  These cases arose out of IAC's Aug. 4,
2004 announcement of its earnings for the second quarter of 2004
and generally alleged that the value of IAC's stock was
artificially inflated by pre-announcement statements about its
financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading
due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various
problems faced by IAC's travel businesses.

On Dec. 20, 2004, the district court consolidated the twelve
lawsuits, appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and designated co-lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  The consolidated suit is styled In re
IAC/InterActiveCorp Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-7447
(S.D.N.Y.).

On Dec. 21, 2004, IAC disclosed its plan to separate into two
independent public companies.  A new company, Expedia was
incorporated under Delaware law in April 2005, to hold
substantially all of IAC's travel and travel-related businesses.  
On Aug. 9, 2005, the Spin-Off was completed.

Expedia discloses that while it is not a party to the litigation,
under the terms of its Separation Agreement with IAC, Expedia has
generally agreed to bear a portion of the costs and liabilities,
if any, associated with any securities law litigation relating to
conduct prior to the spin-off of Expedia from IAC of the
businesses or entities that comprise Expedia following the Spin-
Off.

On Oct. 18, 2004, a related shareholder derivative action, Stuart
Garber, Derivatively on Behalf of IAC/InterActiveCorp v. Barry
Diller et al., No. 04-603416, was commenced in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York (New York County) against certain of
IAC's officers and directors.  On Nov. 15, 2004, another related
shareholder derivative action, Lisa Butler, Derivatively on
Behalf of IAC/InterActiveCorp v. Barry Diller et al., No. 04-CV-
9067, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against certain of IAC's current and former
directors.  On Jan. 24, 2005, the federal district court
consolidated the Butler case with the securities class action for
pre-trial purposes only.  On April 11, 2005, the district court
issued a similar consolidation order in respect of the Garber
case.

On July 5, 2005, the plaintiffs in the related shareholder suits
filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint against IAC
(as a nominal defendant) and sixteen current or former officers
or directors of IAC or its former travel business.  The
complaint, which is based upon factual allegations similar to
those in the securities class action, purports to assert claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment,
violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution
and indemnification.  The complaint sought an order voiding the
election of IAC's then Board of Directors, as well as damages in
an unspecified amount, various forms of equitable relief,
restitution, and disgorgement of remuneration received by the
individual defendants from IAC.

On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss both the securities class action and the shareholder
derivative suits.  On Nov. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motions.  On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants filed
reply papers in further support of the motions.  The court issued
an opinion and order (i) granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint in the securities class action, with leave
to replead, and (ii) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint in the shareholder derivative suits, with
prejudice.

On April 23, 2007, the plaintiffs in the shareholder derivative
suits filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit from the District Court's order of dismissal.  
On June 14, 2007, on consent of the parties, the appeal was
withdrawn from active consideration by the Court of Appeals,
subject to reinstatement by no later than March 31, 2008.

On May 15, 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class action
filed a second amended complaint.  The new pleading continues to
allege that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning problems at the company's then-travel
businesses and to assert the same legal claims as its
predecessor.  On Aug. 15, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint.  A hearing on the motion
has not been scheduled.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 11, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Appeal on Settlement Approval Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the approval of the proposed
settlement in a suit against Expedia(R) Washington remains
pending, according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.


Three objectors filed appeals before the Dec. 31, 2009 deadline.  
These appeals are pending.

On Feb. 18, 2005, three actions were filed against Expedia(R)
Washington:

     (1) C. Michael Nielsen et al. v. Expedia, Inc. et al.,
         No. 05-2-02060-1 (Superior Court, King County), filed
         on Jan. 10, 2005;

     (2) Bruce Deaton et al., v. Expedia, Inc. et al.,
         No. 05-2-02062-8 (Superior Court, King County), filed
         on Jan. 10, 2005 and

     (3) Jose Alba, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al.,
         No. 05-2-04533-7 (Superior Court, King County) filed
         Feb. 3, 2005.

The actions were consolidated under the caption In re Expedia
Hotel Taxes and Fees Litigation, No. 05-2-02060-1, pending in
King County Superior Court.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Expedia Washington is
improperly charging and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes
and engaging in other deceptive practices in charging customers
for taxes and fees.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking
rooms through Expedia Washington.

The complaint alleges violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and common-law conversion and seeks imposition of
a constructive trust on monies received from the plaintiff class,
as well as damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement,
restitution, interest and penalties.

Six of the seven originally named plaintiffs have withdrawn from
the suit.

On May 7, 2008, the court entered an order granting plaintiff's
motion to certify the class.

Both sides filed Motions for Summary Judgment on April 27, 2009.

On May 28, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, without the
benefit of an actual trial on the merits.

The plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was based on Expedia's
website Terms of Use that were in effect from February 2003
through December 2006.

The court concluded that the damages for the alleged breach are
$184,470,451.

On July 8, 2009, Expedia reached an agreement in principle on a
proposed settlement of all claims with the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
proposed settlement and the settlement was approved on Dec. 1,
2009.

Three objectors filed appeals before the Dec. 31, 2009 deadline.  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W, Berman, Esq.
          Andrew Volk, Es.q
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-623-7292
          Fax: 206-623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  andrew@hbsslaw.com

Expedia is represented by:

          James P. Karen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          2727 N. Harwood St.
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-969-5027
          Fax: 214-969-5100
          E-mail: jkaren@jonesday.com


EXPEDIA INC: Court Approves Settlement in Suit Versus Hotwire
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, has approved the settlement in the a class action
against Hotwire, Inc., according to Expedia, Inc.'s Feb. 11,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 19, 2005, three actions filed against Hotwire were
consolidated and now are pending under the caption Bruce Deaton
v. Hotwire, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-05-437631, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.

The consolidated complaint, which was amended on Feb. 17, 2006,
alleges that Hotwire is improperly charging and/or failing to pay
hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other deceptive practices
in charging customers for taxes and fees.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who were assessed a charge for "taxes/fees" when booking
rooms through Hotwire.

The amended complaint alleges violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business and Professions Code, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and breach of contract,
and seeks imposition of a constructive trust on monies received
from the plaintiff class, as well as damages in an unspecified
amount, disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties.

On March 15, 2007, the court certified a class of all residents
of the United States to whom Hotwire charged "taxes/fees" for the
facilitation of reservations for stand-alone hotel rooms on its
website.  The court has not yet required that Hotwire provide
notice to the potential class members.

The trial on plaintiff's Section 17200 claim that was set for the
week of Jan. 12, 2009, was postponed and a new trial date was not
set.

The parties have reached a settlement that was approved by the
court on Dec. 8, 2009.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Motion to Dismiss Suit in New York Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a suit alleging improper
charging remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb.
11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 8, 2008, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in New York State against Expedia, hotels.com and Hotwire.  
Similar lawsuits were filed at or about the same time against
Priceline and Travelocity.  The suit is styled Matthew R. Chiste,
et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 08 CV 10676 (S.D.N.Y.)

The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging
and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes and engaging in other
deceptive practices in charging customers for taxes and fees.  
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who booked a hotel room in New York City through the
defendants.

The complaint asserts claims for deceptive business practices,
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and
seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount, but exceeding $5,000,000.
Defendants' motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is
pending before the court.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Canadian Subsidiary Continues to Face Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc.'s Canadian subsidiary continues to defend a class
action suit alleging that disclosures related to "taxes and
service fees" were deceptive, according to the company's Feb. 11,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on June 26, 2009, against Expedia Canada
Corporation in Ontario, Canada.  The suit is styled Magill v.
Expedia Canada Corporation and Expedia.ca, CV-09-381919-00LP
(Ontario Superior Court of Justice).

The complaint asserts claims under the Competition Act and
Consumer Protection Act as well as claims of unjust enrichment,
restitution, constructive trust, accounting and disgorgement and
breach of contract.

It seeks damages in the amount of C$50,000,000 for the class as
well as interest, fees and alternate damages measures.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Suit by Los Angeles City
---------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a purported class action filed
by the city of Los Angeles, according to the company's Feb. 11,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 30, 2004, the city of Los Angeles filed a purported class
action in California state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including hotels.com, Expedia Washington and
Hotwire. City of Los Angeles, California, on Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., No.
BC326693 (Superior Court, Los Angeles County).

The complaint alleges that the defendants are improperly charging
and/or failing to pay hotel occupancy taxes.  The complaint seeks
certification of a statewide class of all California cities and
counties that have enacted uniform transient occupancy-tax
ordinances effective on or after
Dec. 30, 1990.

The complaint alleges violation of those ordinances, violation of
Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code,
and common-law conversion.

The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the
defendants are subject to hotel occupancy taxes on the hotel rate
charged to consumers and imposition of a constructive trust on
all monies owed by the defendants to the government, as well as
disgorgement, restitution, interest and penalties.

On July 26, 2007, the court signed an order staying the lawsuit
until the cities have exhausted their administrative remedies.  
The case is coordinated with the cases in San Diego, Anaheim and
San Francisco.

Los Angeles issued assessments of $15.7 million against Expedia,
$14.8 million against hotels.com and $4.4 million against Hotwire
on September 9, 2009.  An administrative hearing challenging the
assessments was held on Dec. 3, 2009.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit by Findlay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, according
to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the city of Findlay, Ohio filed a purported
state wide class action in state court against a number of
internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia Washington.  The suit is City of Findlay v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al., No. 2005-CV-673 (Court of Common Pleas of Hancock
County, Ohio).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint includes claims for violation of that
ordinance, violation of the consumer protection act, conversion
imposition of a constructive trust and declaratory relief.

On Nov. 22, 2005, defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On July 26, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court has consolidated this
lawsuit with the lawsuit filed by the cities of Columbus and
Dayton, Ohio.

On Feb. 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated
Complaint adding the city of Toledo, city of Northwood, city of
Rossford, city of Maumee, city of Perrysburg, Perrysburg Township
and Springfield Township as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On July 7, 2009, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the
Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority as a plaintiff.

The court's prior ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss has
been applied to the joined jurisdictions.

The court has held that the defendants are not directly obligated
to pay the hotel occupancy taxes at issue, but may be liable for
taxes collected but not remitted.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Parties in Georgia Suit Agree to Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------
The suit City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., No. 4:05-CV-249, has been stayed after the parties agreed to
participate in mediation, according to Expedia Inc.'s
Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

On Nov. 18, 2005, the city of Rome, Georgia, Hart County,
Georgia, and the city of Cartersville, Georgia filed a purported
state wide class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division, against a number of
internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia.  The suit is City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., No. 4:05-CV-249 (U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the county and cities the hotel accommodations taxes as required
by municipal ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert claims
for violation of excise and sales and use tax ordinances,
conversion, unjust enrichment, imposition of a constructive
trust, declaratory relief and injunctive relief. The complaint
seeks damages and other relief in an unspecified amount.

On Feb. 6, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On May 9, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 8, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding 16
more municipalities and political subdivisions as named
plaintiffs.

On May 10, 2007, the court stayed the litigation, concluding that
the plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before
continuing to litigate their tax claims.

On July 10, 2009, the court lifted the stay of the litigation.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on Feb. 8,
2010.  The case has now been stayed based upon the parties'
agreement to participate in mediation.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: No Final Judgment Amount in San Antonio City Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final amount of the judgment against the Expedia, Inc., in
the matter City of San Antonio, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al., SA06CA0381, has yet to be determined, according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On May 8, 2006, the city of San Antonio filed a putative
statewide class action in the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas, San Antonio Division, against a number of
internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia Washington.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of that ordinance, common-law conversion, and declaratory
judgment.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution
and disgorgement.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a jury verdict was entered finding that
defendants "control hotels" and awarding approximately $15
million for historical damages against the Expedia companies
(Expedia, hotels.com and Hotwire).  The jury also found that
defendants were not liable for conversion or punitive damages.  
The final amount of the judgment against the Expedia companies
has not been determined.

In further proceedings, the court will determine, among other
things, whether the tax is actually due on the amounts that the
online companies retained for their services and the amount, if
any, of penalties and interest, which could be significant.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Gallup City's Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Gallup, New Mexico's partial motion for summary judgment
in a putative statewide class action against Expedia, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico filed a putative
statewide class action in state court against a number of
internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia Washington.  The suit is City of Gallup, New Mexico, et
al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., CIV-06-0549 JC/RLP (U.S.
District Court, District of New Mexico).

The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of those ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution
and disgorgement.

On April 18, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss its own lawsuit.

On July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit.  The
defendants answered the complaint on Aug. 27, 2007.

Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2009.  
The court certified the class on July 7, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment, which is
pending.  The court's order approving class notice was issued on
Oct. 22, 2009.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Continues to Defend Amended Suit by Columbus City
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend an amended consolidated
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio filed by the city of Columbus, Ohio and the city of Dayton,
Ohio, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On August 8, 2006, the city of Columbus, Ohio and the city of
Dayton, Ohio, filed a putative statewide class action in federal
court against a number of internet travel companies, including
hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia Washington.  The suit is City of
Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 2:06-CV-00677.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
counties and cities in Ohio hotel accommodation taxes as required
by local ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert claims for
violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment, violation of
the doctrine of money had and received, conversion, declaratory
judgment, and seeks imposition of a constructive trust.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 25, 2006 and a
motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio on
Sept. 27, 2006.  The case was transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio and defendant's motion to dismiss was granted in
part, consistent with the ruling in the City of Findlay, Ohio
lawsuit.

On February 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint adding the city of Toledo, city of
Northwood, city of Rossford, city of Maumee, city of Perrysburg,
Perrysburg Township and Springfield Township as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.

On July 7, 2009, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the
Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority as a plaintiff.  
The court's prior ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss has
been applied to the joined jurisdictions.

The court has held that the defendants are not directly obligated
to pay the hotel occupancy taxes at issue, but may be liable for
taxes collected but not remitted.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Kentucky Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of
the suit against Expedia, Inc., filed by Louisville/Jefferson
County Metro Government, according to the company's Feb. 11,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 21, 2006, the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro
Government filed a putative statewide class action in federal
court against a number of internet travel companies, including
hotels.com, Hotwire, and Expedia Washington.

The suit is Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 3:06CV-480-R (W.D. Ky.)

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay the
counties and cities in Kentucky hotel accommodation taxes as
required by local ordinances.  The complaint purports to assert
claims for violation of those ordinances, unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, imposition of a constructive
trust, and declaratory judgment. The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
was denied on Aug. 10, 2007.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or certification of interlocutory appeal.

On April 16, 2008, the Lexington- Fayette Urban County Government
filed an intervening complaint, joining the lawsuit.

On May 16, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss Lexington-
Fayette complaint.  On Sept. 30, 2008, the court granted
defendants' motion for reconsideration of defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety.

On Dec. 22, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Nassau County's Suit Remanded by Second Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has remanded the
putative statewide class action against Expedia, Inc., to
determine whether class certification is appropriate, according
to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the county of Nassau, New York filed a putative
statewide class action in federal court against a number of
internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire, and
Expedia Washington.  The suit is Nassau County, New York, et al.
v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., (E.D.N.Y.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay
cities, counties and local governments in New York hotel
accommodation taxes as required by local ordinances.  The
complaint purports to assert claims for violations of those
ordinances, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
and imposition of a constructive trust.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 31, 2007.  On
Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion dismissing
the lawsuit due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust its
administrative remedies.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit remanded the case for the
district court to determine whether class certification is
appropriate.  The court has ordered the parties to proceed with
class certification.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Reached in Jefferson City Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a putative class action against
Expedia, Inc., filed by Jefferson City, Missouri, according to
the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On June 27, 2007, Jefferson City, Missouri filed a putative class
action in state court against a number of internet travel
companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia.  The suit
is Jefferson City v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 07AC-CC0055
(Circuit Court of Cole County).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of that ordinance, violation of Missouri's Merchandising
Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary
duties, constructive trust, and declaratory judgment.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the defendants' filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's lawsuit.

On June 19, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  Settlement has been
reached.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville's Class Certification Motion Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Goodlettsville, Tennessee's motion for class
certification in a suit against Expedia, Inc., remains pending,
according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood,
Tennessee filed a putative class action in federal court against
a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia,
hotels.com, and Hotwire.  The suit is styled City of
Goodlettsville and City of Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et
al., 3-08-0561 (M.D. Tenn.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the cities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment
and conversion.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the city of Brentwood.

On March 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.  Defendants' answers were filed on April 24, 2009.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Lyndhurst's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, on the
dismissal of a putative class action against Expedia, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a putative
class action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire.  The suit
is Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV-
03033-JLL-CCC (D. N.J.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment
and conversion.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 19, 2008.

On March 18, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.

Plaintiff's appeal is pending.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: IAC Dismissed from Jacksonville's Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., and the city of Jacksonville, Florida, have agreed
to dismiss IAC/InterActiveCorp from the suit, according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On July 28, 2006, the city of Jacksonville, Florida filed a
putative class action in state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire.  
The lawsuit was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

In February 2009, the court gave leave for plaintiffs to refile
its complaint.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on March 10, 2009.  The
suit is City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com LP, et. al., 2006-CA-
005393-XXXX-MA, CV-B (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit,
Duval County, Florida).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city the tourist and convention development taxes as required
by state and municipal ordinance.  The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

On April 8, 2009, defendants filed their answers.  The parties
have agreed to dismiss IAC.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Wants Arkansas Court to Dismiss Pine Bluff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss a class action filed
by Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
County, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County filed a class action against a
number of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc.,
hotels.com, L.P. and Hotwire, Inc.  The suit is captioned Pine
Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County,
Arkansas, and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al.
CV-2009-946-5 (In the Circuit Court of Jefferson, Arkansas).

The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to collect
and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online  
travel company.  The company makes travel products and services
available from a variety of large and small commercial and
charter airlines, lodging properties, car rental companies,
cruise lines and destination service providers.  The company's
portfolio of brands include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com,
the TripAdvisor Media Network, the Company's private label
programs (Worldwide Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate
Network), Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm
(formerly Expedia Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and
Veneretm Net SpA (Venere).  The company is also engaged in
offering travel and non-travel advertisers access to the source
of traffic and transactions, through various media and
advertising offerings.


FACEBOOK INC: Calif. Suit Complains About New Privacy Settings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook
users say the site's new privacy settings are "materially
deceptive, confusing and ineffective" at guarding personal
information from prying eyes.  The federal class action claims
that since November 2009 the new settings have provided less
control over personal information, exposing their Facebook
friends, pictures, organizations they support and products they
use to snooping by virtually anyone, "including hackers,
scammers, criminals, sociopaths and the like."

The new privacy settings are "difficult to use" and are not
"designed to explain how a user can best protect his information
and data," the class says.  "Rather, the default privacy settings
are all set at the minimum level of protection," exposing
Facebook users to "identity theft, harassment, embarrassment,
intrusion and all types of cybercrime."

Facebook also makes people's personal information available to
third parties such as Google, to profit through targeted
advertisements based on information in Facebook profiles.

The complaint quotes "Internet expert" Jason Calacanis as saying,
"Yes, Facebook is tricking us into exposing all our items so that
those personal items get indexed in search engines -- including
Facebook's -- in order to drive more traffic to Facebook."

The class demands an injunction requiring Facebook to implement
stricter default privacy settings; a live chat system where
people can get answers to their privacy questions; and an on-site
video to walk people through all privacy settings, "explaining
what they mean and what the minimum settings should be to keep
users safe."

The class also seeks restitution of the value of their lost
privacy, in violation of the Electronic Data Privacy Act, in the
form of either a return to Facebook's previous privacy settings
or disgorgement of profits made from revealing their personal
information.

A copy of the Complaint in Silverstri, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 10-cv-00429 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/FacebookCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
          16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: 818-788-5100

               - and -

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          FELGOISE LAW FIRM
          261 Old York Rd., Suite 423
          Jenkintown, PA 19001-2616
          Telephone: 215-985-0500


FIRST HEALTH: Appeal and Cross Appeal Filed in Class Action Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that even
though a Madison County judge approved a class action settlement
worth $1.25 million, legal maneuvers continue in a case filed
over improper Preferred Provider Organization discounts (PPO).

Objector Kathleen Roche, a Swansea chiropractor who opposed the
settlement, filed notice of an appeal, asking the appellate court
to throw it out Feb. 2.

Lead plaintiffs Lawrence Shipley and Richard Coy filed their
cross appeal notice six days later, asking the court disqualify
Ms. Roche's attorney, Richard Burke.

Mr. Burke had formerly worked for the same law firm as the class
counsel -- Robert Schmieder II -- before leaving it in 2007.
Burke has sparred several times since with his former firm, now
called LakinChapman LLC.

Ms. Roche had tried, unsuccessfully, to block the settlement
between the class and First Health, alleging that it did not
financially compensate class members. She also argued that it
would scuttle a nearly a identical suit she has pending in St.
Clair County.

She filed her objection in April 2009.

The Madison County class acction, led by Shipley and Coy, alleged
that the insurance company took PPO discounts it was not entitled
to.

The suit's settlement calls for First Health to hand over $1
million to non-profits in Illinois in order to further medical
education. Each lead plaintiff is set to receive $10,000.
LakinChapman will be paid $650,000 in legal fees.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack held several fairness
hearings in the case.

He entered a judgment last month approving the settlement.
Judge Stack had previously allowed Burke to continue representing
Roche in a May 2009 order.

The cross appeal asks the appellate court to end Mr. Burke's
involvement in the case.

The class action is one several filed against insurance companies
over PPO discounts.

Shipley and Coy have each helmed several.

Eric Brandfonbrener represents First Health.

Ms. Roche's appeal was due in Mount Vernon Feb. 16.

The case is Madison case number 04-L-1055.


HUNTER HOLMES: Settles Employee Discrimination Suit for $5 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Pellerano at CBS affiliate WTVR Channel 6 in Richmond,
Va., reports that a lawsuit stemming from a hospital's awards
bonus program under which 2,000 African-American workers said
their white counterparts were being recognized more frequently --
and getting more money than they were -- has been settled, in
principle, for $5 million.  

Nurses Beverly Hatcher and Anniemarie Harrison believe the award
system will now be fair for everyone at Hunter Holmes McGuire
Richmond VA Medical Center.

Ms. Hatcher, who served in the U.S. Army for 10 years and has
worked at the hospital for 17, claims she had been overlooked for
going above and beyond her responsibilities since 1993 compared
to her white counterparts.

Her breaking point was in 2002. She picked up a patient who had
wandered off, but says she didn't get the recognition she thought
she deserved

"And I went to the union and became a steward and because of that
I was like enough. Someone has to be the voice around here", says
Ms. Hatcher

At about the same time, Harrison, an Iraqi war veteran and a
nursing coordinator at the hospital says she had heard similar
complaints from her staff. "As I made my rounds throughout the
hospital I could hear the staff talking 'Betty sue just got an
increase in her paycheck, and I didn't. What's the reason?" says
Ms. Harrison.

From there, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
hospital.

On Tuesday, after almost ten years, the hospital settled.  Not
admitting they discriminated against the workers, but say they
could not find the proper documents to defend themselves.

They went on to say in a statement "Discrimination is not
tolerated at the Department of Veterans Affairs".

Mmes. Hatcher and Harrison say this lawsuit will boost morale for
all employees at the hospital for years to come, and make care
for the patients even better.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Sued for Allowing Directors to Convert Shares
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Liberty
Media let directors trade in their shares for a more valuable
consideration in the company after it merged with DirectTV,
shareholders say in a class action in Chancery Court.  Liberty
Media Chairman John Malone and his wife transferred their shares
for more than $160 million of the new "super-voting stock" that
carries 15 votes per share, according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Blackthorn Partners is the largest public
shareholder of Liberty Media, with 110,816 of the company's 1.8
million shares.  Blackthorn says it and other public shareholders
represent 2.6 percent of the eligible aggregate vote.

The class represents "a diverse and disaggregated group of small
stakeholders unlikely to mount a concerted opposition or, for
that matter, to understand fully the complicated deal structure"
that gave directors an unfair advantage, according to the
complaint.

In the first phase of the Liberty Media "split-off," the company
converted 90 percent of each share into a corresponding share of
stock in newly formed Liberty Entertainment, which had a 57
percent interest in DirectTV Group, according to the complaint.
Blackthorn says Liberty Entertainment and DTV became wholly owned
subsidiaries of a new parent company called DirectTV in the
second phase of the transaction.

Mr. Malone and his wife then transferred their shares in Liberty
"for new DTV series B super-voting stock carrying 15 votes per
share and numerous express and implied consent rights," according
to the complaint.

The new stock allegedly gave the Malones $160 million in
considerations not shared with public shareholders.

Blackthorn says public shareholders received new DTV series A
common stock, which carry only one vote per share and lack the
valuable consent rights.

"The disparate allocation of consideration within Series B class
occurred with no procedural safeguards whatsoever, leaving the
LMDIB [public shareholders] without voice, powerless to vote down
the transaction and with no recourse other than to seek redress
from this court," according to the complaint.

By contrast, Blackthorn says, Mr. Malone had obtained effective
control over DTV and was freed from a premium cap.

"Malone has been paid handsomely to augment his control over
valuable assets and to position himself to capitalize on a future
transaction, free from a premium cap and any concern over other,
super-voting shareholders," according to the complaint.

"None of this valuable consideration, negotiated by Malone for
Malone with the passive (if not active) assistance of directors
whose future and fortunes are inextricably intertwined with
Malone's, was shared with the LMDIB public shareholders who had
no one representing their interests at the deal table," according
to the complaint.

Blackthorn says other Liberty Media directors were allowed to
convert their stock to avoid certain tax consequences.  One
director, Robert Bennett, took in more than $4 million worth of
shares, and all of the other Liberty Media directors received
"accelerated vesting of options through which they collectively
realized over $38 million."

Liberty Media's financial adviser, Goldman Sachs & Co., did not
advise on whether the transaction was fair, according to the
complaint.

"Goldman Sachs' objectivity was compromised by the fact that the
flat fee paid for its work was conditioned on the transaction
closing," the complaint states.  "Above all, Goldman Sachs
explicitly did not consider or offer an opinion on the fairness
of the consideration ultimately received [by all of the
shareholders]."

The class seeks compensatory and recessionary damages,
disgorgement, and equitable redistribution, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and self-dealing.  

A copy of the Shareholders' Verified Class Action Complaint in
Blackthorn Partners, L.P. v. Malone, et al., Case No. 5260
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/Malone.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Montgomery Donaldson, Esq.
          Lisa Zwally Brown, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          1105 N. Market St., Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-504-7840

               - and -

          Julie H. Chelius, Esq.
          Peter Breslauer, Esq.
          John G. Papianou, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          123 South Broad St.
          Avenue of the Arts
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: 215-772-1500


NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Complains About Mental Health Funding Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that North
Carolina's plan to cut 30 percent or more from funding to care
for mentally ill people with developmental disabilities in their
homes is not only illegal, it will cost the state more money in
the end by forcing them into institutions, a class action claims
in Federal Court.  Attorneys for the two named plaintiffs, who
live independently with around-the-clock assistance from aides,
said the decision funding cuts to providers of supervised
residential living services will kill such services in a five-
county region of the Piedmont.

The class claims the decision by defendant Dan Coughlin, CEO of
the Piedmont Behavioral Healthcare Local Management Entity,
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act.

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief until
alternative funding can be found to keep the plaintiffs at home
and their 24-hour supervision in place.

In North Carolina, adults dually diagnosed with mental
retardation and mental illness are part of a target population
eligible to receive state mental health, development disability
and substance abuse services funds.

Both named plaintiffs fall into this category.  Clinton L's
diagnoses include schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder,
intermittent explosive disorder, and moderate mental retardation.
Timothy B's diagnoses include intermittent explosive disorder,
major depressive disorder, epilepsy, and severe mental
retardation.

Despite being longtime recipients of state support for their
care, neither was notified of the impending funding change, nor
given a chance to appeal it, the complaint states.

Compounding the situation is that while some alternative funding
for in-home care would still be available to the plaintiffs even
after the cuts, it wouldn't be enough to keep them in their
homes, and once they're been institutionalized, they'll loss
access to those funds.

The attorneys said they wrote to Mr. Coughlin and his
co-defendant, North Carolina Health Secretary Lanier Cansler,
demanding postponement of the funding cuts, but received no
response.

A copy of the Complaint in Clinton L., et al. v. Cansler, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00123 (M.D.N.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/15/NCMental.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Rittelmeyer, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Bills, Esq.
          Andrew B. Strickland, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NC
          2626 Glenwood Ave., Suite 550
          Raleigh, NC 27608
          Telephone: 919-856-2195


NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Labaton Sucharow Secures C$28 Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announced this week that NovaGold Resources
Inc. has agreed to a C$28 million cash settlement of the class
action lawsuit arising from allegations that investors were
misled about the economic feasibility of NovaGold's largest
mining project, Galore Creek. The New Orleans Employees'
Retirement System is the Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that, between October 25, 2005, and
November 26, 2006, NovaGold violated federal securities laws by
disseminating a series of materially false and misleading
statements relating to the accuracy and reliability of an
independent study regarding the economic feasibility of its
largest mining project, Galore Creek. The complaint alleges that
internal cost estimates were more than double the costs stated in
the report, prompting NovaGold to shut down the mine.

This settlement resolves the claims of all of NovaGold's
shareholders who purchased shares on the American Stock Exchange
and Toronto Stock Exchange, pending approval of the U.S. Federal
Court for the Southern District of New York and the Canadian
courts presiding over class actions pending in that country.
Shareholders are represented by Sutts, Strosberg LLP in the
Canadian actions.

The lawyer overseeing the litigation:

          Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-907-0700

stated: "We are very pleased with this result. Lead Plaintiff's
aggressive prosecution of this matter has resulted in an
exceptional global resolution in little over a year from the
filing of the Lead Plaintiff's consolidated complaint. The size
and expedience of this result is a testament to the significant
impact institutional investors like New Orleans have in
shareholder litigation."

The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System is represented by
the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP. Labaton Sucharow LLP, with
offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware, is one of
the country's premier law firms representing institutional
investors in class action and complex securities litigation, as
well as consumers and businesses in class actions seeking to
recover damages for anticompetitive practices. The Firm has been
a champion of investor and consumer rights for over 45 years,
seeking recovery of current losses and necessary governance
reforms to protect investors and consumers. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and its peers.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com/


SCHENECTADY COUNTY: 2d Cir. Upholds Fee Cuts in Strip-Search Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a reduced attorney fee
award of $461,000 to former detainees who claimed they were
unconstitutionally strip-searched at the Schenectady County Jail.  
When the county settled the class action for $2.5 million, the
plaintiffs sought 26 percent of that amount, or $650,000, in
attorney fees.

The class members challenged the district court's decision to
grant attorney fees on an hourly rate, rather than as a
percentage of the settlement.

They said their attorneys spent more than 1,000 hours working on
the case.

The county had maintained that pre-trial detainees were merely
"required to change into jail uniforms in the presence of a
corrections officer of the same sex," and that the county jail
had no formal strip-searching policy.

Nonetheless, it agreed to pay the class members $2.5 million and
to alter some of its practices.

The class members sought $650,000 in attorney fees, based on a
percentage of the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe instead calculated fees using a
modified lodestar method, basing the fees on the attorneys'
normal hourly rates.  He awarded class members about $461,000 --
or 13 percent of the settlement -- which included about $343,000
in attorney fees, $10,000 in costs and $107,000 in administrative
expenses.

The Manhattan-based federal appeals court saw no abuse of
discretion in Judge Sharpe's decision to use the modified
lodestar formula instead of a percentage approach.

"Civil rights cases may or may not raise the same danger of
'routine overcompensation' for risk that has troubled this court
in the context of 'mega-fund' class actions," Judge Debra Ann
Livingston wrote, "but it is because of the case-specific nature
of the fee award inquiry that we have been loath to disturb the
determinations of district courts in this area."

A copy of the Honorable Judge Debra Ann Livingston's Feb. 16,
2010, decision in McDaniel, et al. v. County of Schenectady, et
al., No. 07-cv-5580 (2nd Cir.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?531c

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, PC
          1040 Riverfront Center
          P.O. Box 70
          Amsterdam, NY 12010
          Telephone: 518-434-1718

               - and -

          Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
          Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
          BERANBAUM, MENKEN, BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP
          80 Pine St.
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: 212-509-1616

               - and -

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: 202-789-3960

               - and -

          Ary E. Mason, Esq.
          THE MASON LAW FIRM
          1625 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-429-2290

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          William G. Greagan, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP
          8 Southwoods Blvd., Suite 300
          Albany, NY 12211-2364
          Telephone: 518-463-5400

               - and -

          Philip K. Howard, Esq.
          Jennifer O. Farina, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Ave.
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: 212-841-1000


SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Won't Reward Kenmore Dryer Class Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that a
Tennessee man is not entitled to $246,000 in attorney fees for
his $3,000 claim over Sears' stainless steel Kenmore dryers, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled.  
"The plaintiff's effort to exalt his meager claim into a
sprawling nationwide class action was a flop," Judge Richard
Posner wrote.

Steven Thorogood failed to get a class action certified over the
Kenmore dryers sold by Sears Roebuck, which were allegedly touted
as having "stainless steel" drums, though the drums contained
another material.

Under Tennessee law, he could only recover $3,000 for his
individual claim.  Sears offered him $20,000, including attorney
fees, to settle the case.

But the district court ruled that Mr. Thorogood wasn't entitled
to attorney fees and dismissed the case as moot, since the
$20,000 offer exceeded the $3,000 claim.

Mr. Thorogood insisted that the $246,000 in fees was a worthwhile
investment, because Sears' offer would help other buyers of
"stainless steel" Kenmores, should they sue.

Judge Posner viewed the offer differently.

"The defendant's offer of $20,000 was intended to get rid of a
nuisance claim," Judge Posner explained.  "The making of an offer
was not a vindication of the plaintiff's theory of liability, an
acknowledgement that it had some potential merit.

"Furthermore, the $246,000 in fees that the plaintiff seeks to be
reimbursed for were incurred in attempting to maintain the suit
as a class action; no sane person incurs fees in that amount to
prosecute a claim worth at most $3,000."

Judge Posner noted that Mr. Thorogood's bid for class
certification was a "flop," and that "Sears should not have to
bear the entire cost of the flop."

"The district judge did not abuse his discretion in assessing the
benefit to the class that we resoundingly ordered be decertified
at $0," Judge Posner wrote.

A copy of the Honorable Judge Richard Posner's Feb. 12, 2010,
decision in Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, No. 09-3005
(7th Cir.), is available at:
     
     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/V91BBTB6.pdf

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Clint Krislov, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          20 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago IL 60606
          Telephone: 312-606-0500

Sears, Roebuck and Company, the Defendant-Appellee, is
represented by:

          Phil Oliss, Esq.
          SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY LLP
          4900 Key Tower
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: 216-479-8448


SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Plaintiffs Sue Tex. Sup. Ct. to Speed Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that plaintiffs in an
$80 million class action against Southwestern Bell Telephone say
they are stuck in a legal "black hole" because the Texas Supreme
Court refuses to rule on a more than 4-year-old appeal.  
Marketing On Hold, which audits telephone services, and the
Harris County Hospital District sued the Texas Supreme Court's
nine justices in Federal Court to compel a decision.

The plaintiffs filed the original complaint in 2000, alleging
that the phone company overcharged more than 6,000 customers.

The current interlocutory appeal process began with an appeal
more than 7 years ago, in which Southwestern Bell questioned the
trial court's certification of the class.

The appellate court affirmed certification, and the question has
been pending before the Texas Supreme Court for more than 4
years, the plaintiffs say.

"Plaintiffs are stuck in a black hole with the inability to
appeal their constitutional deprivation to the United States
Supreme Court while they are frozen in an interlocutory appeal,"
the complaint states.

The case is stayed until the court rules, so discovery cannot go
forward.  The plaintiffs say they are worried that critical
evidence will be destroyed because Southwestern Bell keeps
customer billing records for only "12 years or less."

"The longer the plaintiffs' case is delayed, the greater the
likelihood that records will be destroyed, especially records not
yet discovered or requested," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating that the delay has
deprived the class of its constitutional rights.  

A copy of the Complaint in Marketing On Hold, Inc., et al. v.
Jefferson, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00104 (W.D. Tex.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/16/Stay.pdf

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Marketing on Hold. Inc.
d/b/a Southwest Tariff Analyst, No. 05-0748 (Tex.), is the
interlocutory appeal in which the Plaintiffs have been awaiting a
ruling for more than four years.  

Marketing On Hold, Inc. d/b/a Southwestern Tariff Analyst, et al.
v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., Cause No. 2000-05-001931-8
(Tex. Dist. Ct., Cameron Cty.), is the lawsuit filed nearly ten
years ago.  

Marketing On Hold, Inc., the Plaintiff, is represented by:

          Thomas R. Bray, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS R. BRAY
          1431 Wirt Rd., Suite 140
          Houston, TX 77055
          Telephone: 713-827-1760

               - and -

          J. Marcus Hill, Esq.
          HILL & HILL, P.C.
          1770 St. James Place, Suite 115
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: 713-688-6318

Harris County Hospital District, the Plaintiff, is represented
by:

          Vince Ryan, Esq.
          Randall Raymond Smidt, Esq.
          Terence O'Rourke, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
          1310 Prairie Suite 880
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-755-5585


TOYOTA MOTOR: Files Sudden Acceleration Injury Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Nelson, Esq., of the national plaintiffs' law firm
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, says that Chin Lin,
formerly of Arcadia, California, along with his wife Pei Yen
Cheng and daughter Jessica Lin, today filed a lawsuit against
Toyota Motor Corporation seeking compensation for injuries they
suffered when their 2005 Toyota Camry suddenly accelerated and
crashed.  The accident rendered Mr. Lin a quadriplegic.

"The complaint charges that Toyota for years was aware its
vehicles were susceptible to incidents of sudden, unintended
acceleration, posing a significant risk of injury and death to
vehicle occupants, other motorists, and pedestrians," stated
plaintiffs' counsel Robert J. Nelson.  "Yet, Toyota never made
any significant changes to improve the acceleration system and
the electrical system, in spite of the availability of several
safe and inexpensive alternative designs and feasible
modifications."

Since 2001, the electronic throttle system in most Toyota
vehicles, including the 2005 Toyota Camry driven by Mr. Lin, has
relied on sensors, microprocessors and electronic motors instead
of a mechanical linkage, such as a steel cable, to connect the
accelerator pedal to the engine throttle plate.  

The 2005 Toyota Camry, which Toyota has not yet recalled, and
millions of other Toyota vehicles were not equipped with a safety
feature, known as 'brake-to-idle' override.  The feature, used by
other automotive manufacturers, enables drivers to override the
electronic throttle and control the vehicle in the event of a
sudden unintended acceleration.  

"Toyota's failure to incorporate the 'brake-to-idle' safety
feature in the Camry driven by Mr. Lin, the complaint alleges,
played a direct role in the catastrophic accident that occurred,"
explained Mr. Nelson.

The complaint was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court as
two of the primary defendants, Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., are both California corporations
with their headquarters located in Los Angeles County.

                    Description of the Toyota
           Sudden Unintended Acceleration Accident

As set forth in the complaint, on March 1, 2007, Plaintiff Chin
Lin (age 57) and his wife, Plaintiff Pei-Yen Cheng (age 58) were
driving their daughter, Plaintiff Jessica Lin (age 22) to an
interview at the University of Pacific, where Jessica hoped to
attend school.  The family was riding in their 2005 Toyota Camry
and each of them were wearing their seatbelts.  

Chin Lin was driving, Pei-Yen Cheng was in the front passenger
seat, and Jessica Lin was in the back seat.  They were in the
left lane proceeding south on Interstate 5 in California.  The
car pulled slightly to the left so Mr. Lin straightened it out,
then quite suddenly, the vehicle shot off like an arrow. The
brakes failed and Mr. Lin lost control as the vehicle crossed to
the right side of the highway, went over the shoulder, and flew
airborne off the side of the highway.  

The Camry rolled over several times and landed at the bottom of a
hill where it finally came to a stop upside-down on its hood.  
Mr. Lin suffered grievous injuries, including fractured vertebrae
in his cervical spine, rendering him quadriplegic.  He now
requires 24-hour care and will never work again.  Pei Yen Cheng
suffered head trauma, fractured ribs, and other injuries. Their
daughter Jessica Lin also suffered back and other injuries.

Prior to the subject incident, Mr. Lin was a mechanical engineer
in a managerial position in which he supervised other engineers
in the design and building of propulsion systems for cargo ships.  

             Legal Resources For Drivers And Passengers
          Injured In Toyota Sudden Acceleration Accidents

Lieff Cabraser represents persons injured in accidents involving
Toyota and Lexus vehicles that suddenly accelerated across
America.  

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit:

    http://www.usautoinjurylaw.com/cases/defects/acceleration/toyota-lexus.htm

or call us toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to
attorney Todd Walburg.  There is no charge or obligation for our
review of your case.

                         About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972.
We have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. Lieff
Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes
representing persons injured and families of loved ones who died
in auto accidents due to the negligence of other drivers or
manufacturing defects.  

Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser
as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  Learn
more at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/


WEST PUBLISHING: McGuireWoods Gets Zilch from $49 Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wed., Feb. 17, 2010, could not have been a happy one for the
litigators at McGuireWoods, Ashby Jones at The Wall Street
Journal's Law Blog reports.  

The firm's lawyers had logged thousands of hours of work over a
half-decade. The work had helped forge a $49 million settlement
in an antitrust class-action against BAR/BRI parent company West
Publishing and Kaplan Inc. And now, Los Angeles federal judge
Manuel Real was telling them they would recover no fees for the
case. They could recover some $1.26 million in costs, but there
would be no fees. That's right. The firm could recover no part of
the $12 million it thought it was owed. The BAR/BRI class action,
with the stroke of a pen, became one fairly successful pro-bono
case.

How'd this happen? It's interesting. Let's step back and get you
up to speed.

Back in 2005, a group of folks who had used test-prep courses
provided by BAR/BRI or Kaplan sued the companies, alleging the
pair had agreed to divvy up the markets for LSAT and bar review
courses. In exchange for a promise from BAR/BRI that it would get
out of the LSAT-prep market, the allegation went, Kaplan agreed
to stay out of the bar-prep market. This, plaintiffs contended,
constituted a violation of the antitrust laws, namely Section 7
of the Clayton Act and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  See
http://is.gd/8xQrafor a May 2006 write-up about the Complaint  
from Womble Carlyle's Antitrust and Distribution Law Blog.

In early 2007, a $49 million settlement was reached. But before
the settlement was approved, it emerged that five of the seven
plaintiffs acting as class representatives had an agreement with
their lawyers at McGuireWoods which provided that they'd each
receive so-called incentive payments after the settlement was
approved.

The agreement stipulated that the five would get payments on a
sliding scale; the more taken in by the class, the more they'd
each get. Specifically, the agreements provided that if the case
settled for $500,000 or more, the representatives would get
$10,000. The payments would go up as the settlement figure went
up, but were capped if the settlement figure reached $10 million.

Attorneys for other plaintiffs in the class objected to the
settlement on these and other grounds. The arrangements created a
conflict of interest, the objectors argued, between the class
representatives and other members of the class as the reps might
not have much incentive to drive the settlement figure higher
once the $10 million threshold was reached.

Judge Real agreed with the objectors, and nixed the incentive
payments. But also notable was what Real didn't do. He didn't
limit the amount McGuireWoods could collect. Nor did he grant the
objectors' attorneys any fees.

So those attorneys appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In April of
last year, the Ninth Circuit questioned the ability of
McGuireWoods to recover anything -- see http://is.gd/8xQLo--  
saying:

     Under California law, "[a]n attorney cannot recover fees for
     such conflicting representation." [Citation omitted] "An
     attorney may claim fees only for services provided before
     the conflict arose and the ethical breach occurred." Id.

     We express no opinion on the impact of these principles on
     the fees request in this case, but it is apparent that they
     are, at least, implicated. . . . [T]he conflict of interest
     inhering in the incentive agreements did not just happen,
     nor was it a conflict that developed beyond the control or
     perception of class counsel. It was inserted into the
     retainer agreement.


     The district court should have . . . considered what effect,
     if any, the ethics implications of a conflict of interest
     created by the incentive agreements had on class counsel's
     request for an award of attorney's fees.

     Therefore, we affirm approval of the settlement. We reverse
     and remand the award of attorney's fees to class counsel for
     consideration of the effect, if any, of the incentive
     agreements on entitlement to fees.

And with that, the attorneys' fees issued was sent back down I-5
to the chambers of Judge Real.

That, lo and behold, brings the Journal's Law Blog to the Feb.
17, 2009, order from Judge Real in Rodriguez v. West Publishing
Corp., et al., Case No. 05-cv-03222 (C.D. Calif.), a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/8xR7c

Judge Real took the Ninth Circuit's opinion seriously. Very
seriously. He wrote:

     [T]he agreements gave rise to a conflict of interest that
     tainted the McGuireWoods representation. That a fair
     settlement was ultimately reached does not bear upon the
     seriousness of the ethical violation. This is all according
     to, at least, the Ninth Circuit. Under California law in the
     absence of informed written consent, the simultaneous
     representation of clients with conflicting interest
     constitutes an automatic ethics violation that results in
     the forfeiture of attorneys' fees. [Citation omitted.]
     Moreover, quantum meruit recovery is barred where an
     attorney has violated an ethical rule that proscribed the
     very conduct for which compensation was sought. [Citation
     omitted.] Accordingly, McGuireWoods LLP is not entitled to
     any fees for its representation in this matter.

McGuireWoods has moved to have Judge Real reconsider this
decision.  


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: DPL, Unit Subject to Pending Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
DPL Inc. and its subsidiary, The Dayton Power and Light Company,
have been named as defendants in pending asbestos litigation,
which at this time is not material to the Company, according to
the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

Asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may continue to
be, present at the Company's facilities where suitable
alternative materials are not available. The continued presence
of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities
could result in additional litigation being brought against the
Company.

The Company added a new asset retirement obligation for a
landfill and additional layers to its existing landfill and
asbestos AROs in the amount of US$2.7 million during 2009.

COMPANY PROFILE:

DPL Inc.
1065 Woodman Drive
Dayton, Ohio 45432
Tel. No.: 937-224-6000

Description:
DPL Inc.'s main subsidiary, Dayton Power and Light (DP&L),
provides electricity to more than 515,000 electricity customers
in 24 counties in west central Ohio. Non-regulated subsidiary DPL
Energy markets wholesale power generated at the Company's 10
power plants, which produce about 3,700 MW of primarily coal-
fired generating capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,611 Claims Pending v. Burlington at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation faced 1,611 unresolved
asbestos claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with 1,833 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according
to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 1,743 unresolved asbestos cases during the
three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, compared with 1,860
cases during the three and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 290
claims filed and 512 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company
recorded 494 claims filed and 442 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

The Company is party to personal injury claims by employees and
non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest
exposure for Company employees was due to work conducted in and
around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out
between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued
after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the
Company by 1985.

In 2009, the Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos claims were US$236 million. Payments made
during the year were US$15 million.

In 2008, the Company's accrued obligations for both asserted and
unasserted asbestos claims were US$251 million. Payments made
during the year were US$19 million.

Of the obligation at Dec. 31, 2009, US$198 million was related to
unasserted claims while US$38 million was related to asserted
claims. About US$16 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$17 million at
Dec. 31, 2008 were included in current liabilities.

It is reasonably possible that future costs to settle asbestos
claims may range from about US$212 million to US$257 million.
However, the Company said it believes that the US$236 million
recorded at Dec. 31, 2009, is the best estimate of the Company's
future obligation for the settlement of asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation is a holding company that conducts no operating
activities and owns no significant assets other than through its
interests in its subsidiaries. Through its subsidiaries, the
Company is engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation
business. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company and its subsidiaries had
about 35,000 employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 23T Injury Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. had about 23,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 27,000 claims
as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Of the 23,000 outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2009, about 12,000
were pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.

The Company faced about 23,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 6, 2009)

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the United States, the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one
of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions.

In 2009, of about 5,300 claims resolved, about 223 (4.2 percent)
resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf
of the Company. In 2008, of about 17,500 claims resolved, about
210 (1.2 percent) resulted in any payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement. In June
2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of
the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This led the
Company to access the next available layer of insurance coverage.

Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid asbestos-
related litigation defense and settlement expenses pursuant to a
funding arrangement. To date, the Company has paid US$79.8
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received US$21.2 million in cash from
insurers.

The net outstanding balance of US$58.6 million is expected to be
fully recovered, of which US$23 million is expected to be
recovered in 2010. Timing of the recovery is dependent on final
resolution of a declaratory judgment action. At Dec. 31, 2008,
insurers owed US$35.9 million in association with these claims.

In addition, at Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has estimated a
liability of US$49.9 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs. The Company also has a
related asset of US$49.9 million to recognize the proceeds
receivable from the insurance carriers.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in the declaratory judgment action. At
Dec. 31, 2008, the comparable value of the insurance receivable
and accrued liability was US$34.7 million.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered automotive systems and components, primarily
for powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and
sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) of light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles,
vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Faces Continental Case in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Ill., by Continental Casualty Company and related
companies (CNA) continues to be pending against BorgWarner Inc.
and certain of its other historical general liability insurers.

In the suit filed in January 2004, CNA provided the Company with
both primary and additional layer insurance, and, in conjunction
with other insurers, is currently defending and indemnifying the
Company in its pending asbestos-related product liability claims.

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned. On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order
regarding the apportionment matter.

The interim order has the effect of making insurers responsible
for all defense and settlement costs pro rata to time-on-the-
risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the insured harmless for
periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage. Appeals of the
interim order were denied. However, the issue is reserved for
appellate review at the end of the action.

In addition to the primary insurance available for asbestos-
related claims, the Company has substantial additional layers of
insurance available for potential future asbestos-related product
claims.

Headquartered in Auburn Hills, Mich., BorgWarner Inc. supplies
highly engineered automotive systems and components, primarily
for powertrain applications. These products are manufactured and
sold worldwide, primarily to original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) of light-vehicles (passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles,
vans and light-trucks).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Still Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation continues to be a defendant in
lawsuits personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos
integrated into certain of its products or premises, according to
the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

While it has never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any currently-manufactured products, certain
of the Company's historical products, like those of many other
manufacturers, have contained components incorporating asbestos.

Most of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by
insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of the closed cases has been
resolved for amounts that are not material individually or in the
aggregate.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., United Technologies Corporation
provides high technology products and services to the building
systems and aerospace industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to be a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim
resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products,
apparently based on the Company's historic use of vermiculite in
certain of its products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

Headquartered in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
and its subsidiaries manufacture, market, and sell lawn and
garden care products. The Company's primary customers include
home centers, mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware
chains, independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers,
food and drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and
specialty crop growers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Long-Term Liability at $406.9M in Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$406.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$380.2
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 11, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$336.3 million
as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$85.4
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$85.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$171.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$239.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's current asbestos
insurance receivable amounted to US$67.2 million, compared with
US$67.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

During the fourth quarter, the Company completed its normal
annual review of its 10-year estimate of the asbestos liability
of its subsidiaries. As a result of the review, the Company has
adjusted its previous estimate of the liability to reflect
changes in its assumptions regarding new mesothelioma claims
filings, payments by trusts established to pay claims against
former asbestos defendants who have emerged from bankruptcy, and
other factors.

As a result of the adjustment, the Company recorded a non-cash
charge of US$80.7 million to adjust the estimate as well as a
non-cash charge of US$6.2 million for the normal quarterly update
of the estimate.

The Company also incurred cash expenses for legal and
administrative costs of US$7 million in the quarter, resulting in
total asbestos-related expenses of US$93.9 million in the fourth
quarter and US$135.5 million for the full year.

Net cash outflows for asbestos-related payments and expenses were
US$39.8 million in 2009 compared to US$37 million in 2008.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Corp. Units Face 526 Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain U.S. subsidiaries of Celanese Corporation, Celanese Ltd.
and CNA Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2009, are defendants in
about 526 asbestos cases, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, LLC faced
517 asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30,
2009)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, 56 new cases were filed
against the Company, 90 cases were resolved, and one case was
added after further analysis by outside counsel.

Because many of these cases involve numerous plaintiffs, the
Company is subject to claims significantly in excess of the
number of actual cases. The Company has reserves for defense
costs related to claims arising from these matters.

Headquartered in Dallas, Celanese Corporation produces chemicals
and advanced materials. The Company produces acetyl products,
which are intermediate chemicals for nearly all major industries.
The Company also produces high performance engineered polymers
that are used in high-value, end-use applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $155MM Litigation Charges in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc recorded asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, of US$155 million during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$125 million during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, were US$38 million during the three months ended Sept.
30, 2009, compared with US$43 million during the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009)

The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$1.029 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company is a defendant personal injury actions related to
asbestos. It did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that
have been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related
disease in the vast majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into
two general categories: refractory products and friction
products.

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: Honeywell Has $831M NARCO Receivable at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell Insurance receivable for its former North American
Refractories Company (NARCO) subsidiary amounted to US$831
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$877 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's insurance receivable for NARCO was US$870 million
as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009)

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims of US$1.1 billion as of both Dec. 31,
2009 and Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that
were sold to the steel industry in the East and Midwest. Less
than two percent of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all
other claims. On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company. The stay has remained in
effect continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed to
pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a
plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company (which
amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent
company $40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO
indebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan
of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oral
argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter has been
submitted for decision.

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: Honeywell Has $300Mil NARCO Coverage at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. says that about US$300 million of
coverage under certain asbestos insurance policies is included in
its North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related insurance
receivable at Dec. 31, 2009.

About US$340 million of coverage under certain asbestos insurance
policies was included in the Company's insurance receivable at
Sept. 30, 2009, related to NARCO. (Class Action Reporter, Oct.
30, 2009)

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance
Company filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance
carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York,
disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under
high excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other
insurance carriers.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical
choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of
allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered
policies. The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling
was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second
quarter of 2009.

Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Appellate Division,
the highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.

A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been
dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been
preserved in the New York action.

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: Claims v. Bendix Decrease to 19,940 at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials business
faced 19,940 asbestos claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with 51,951 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Asbestos-related claims against Bendix dropped to 48,622 during
the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 30, 2009)

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has resolved about
152,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in
adverse verdicts. Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on
appeal, five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three
claims were settled and the remaining five have been or will be
appealed.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 2,697
claims filed and 34,708 claims resolved. During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,003 claims filed and 51,951
claims resolved.

Of the outstanding claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
the Company recorded 4,727 as mesothelioma and other cancer
claims and 15,213 as other claims. Of the outstanding claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 5,575
as mesothelioma and other cancer claims and 46,376 as other
claims.

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: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.69B at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related liabilities for Honeywell International Inc.'s
subsidiaries amounted to US$1.694 billion during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.709 billion during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Of the US$1.694 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
about US$566 million related to the Bendix friction materials
business and US$1.128 related to the former subsidiary, North
American Refractories Company (NARCO).

Of the US$1.709 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008,
about US$578 related to Bendix and about US$1.131 billion related
to NARCO.

Asbestos liabilities for the Company's subsidiaries were US$1.730
billion during the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2009, of which
US$1.130 billion was for NARCO and US$600 million was for Bendix.
(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009)

Insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.003 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, of which
US$172 million related to Bendix and US$831 million related to
NARCO.

Insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.003 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, of which
US$156 million related to Bendix and US$877 million related to
NARCO.

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: Coca-Cola Has Capital Expenditures for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., in 2009, had capital expenditures of
about US$2.1 million under an environmental cleanup plan, which
includes asbestos-related matters, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company estimates that its capital expenditures will be about
US$5.1 million in total for 2010 and 2011 under this plan.

The Company had capital expenditures of about US$3.5 million in
2008 under a cleanup plan involving asbestos. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009)

Substantially all of the Company's facilities are subject to laws
and regulations dealing with above-ground and underground fuel
storage tanks and the discharge of materials into the
environment. It has adopted a plan for the testing, repair, and
removal, if necessary, of underground fuel storage tanks at its
locations in North America.

This plan includes any necessary remediation of tank sites and
the abatement of any pollutants discharged. The Company's plan
extends to the upgrade of wastewater handling facilities and any
necessary remediation of asbestos-containing materials found in
its facilities.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. is a Coke
bottler that accounts for 18 percent of worldwide sales of Coca-
Cola's beverages. The Company also bottles and distributes other
beverages, including Canada Dry and Dr Pepper (both brands owned
by Dr Pepper Snapple Group), Nestea (Nestle), bottled waters, and
juices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Plan Slated for March 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation says that a hearing on its disclosure
statement and plan voting procedures has been scheduled for March
12, 2010, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 12,
2010.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the Company reported that it has filed a
modified plan of reorganization and disclosure statement with the
U.S. District Court. The plan was filed jointly with the official
asbestos claimants' committee, the official committee of
bondholders and the futures representative.

Terms of the plan are substantially similar to those of the
previous reorganization plan filed on Oct. 22, 2009.

The Company has reached a US$100 million settlement with nine
insurance groups and the New Jersey insurance guaranty
associations, and a hearing to approve that settlement is
scheduled for Feb. 19, 2010. A settlement with another insurer
for US$2.1 million has been reached and will also be heard on
that date. The Company will additionally be seeking approval of
the US$25 million settlement it reached in 2006 with Travelers.

A further 12 insurance settlements totaling US$82 million are in
force and have already received court approval. Net proceeds from
these settlements are payable to the plan trust that will be
formed for asbestos claimants after a plan becomes effective.

In the event the Court approves the settlements being heard Feb.
19, 2010, one insurer, Chartis (formerly known as AIG), remains
unsettled because a prior settlement agreement has been declared
expired.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "We are
pleased that the futures representative has added his official
support to the plan and that a hearing date has been set for our
disclosure statement. It also marks tremendous progress to have
only one unsettled insurer. Negotiations to modify their
agreement are underway."

Mr. Marcus continued, "The District Court entered an order this
week scheduling our confirmation hearing for May 25, 2010 and we
are fully committed to emerging from bankruptcy in the second
quarter of this year."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $17.5M Adjustment in 3Q-Fiscal 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. recorded net unfavorable asbestos
adjustments of US$17.5 million during the third quarter of fiscal
year 2010 and US$200 million during the nine months of fiscal
year 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed on
Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company recorded 401 new claims during the nine months ended
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 607 claims during the nine months
ended Dec. 31, 2008. The Company recorded 430 closed claims
during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 596
claims during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Open claims against the Company numbered to 505 during the nine
months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 534 claims during the
nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Average settlement amount per settled claim was US$155,556 during
the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$151,300
during the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2008. Average settlement
amount per case closed was US$144,342 during the nine months
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$133,530 during the nine
months ended Dec. 31, 2008.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $102.1M Current Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V.'s current asbestos-related liability
amounted to US$102.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$78.2 million as of March 31, 2009, according to a Company
report, on Form 6-K, filed with on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$1.496 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.206
billion as of March 31, 2009.

The Company recorded current asbestos-related workers'
compensation of US$700,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009. The Company recorded long-term
asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$96.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31,
2009.

Under current assets, the Company's asbestos-related restricted
cash and cash equivalents amounted to US$43.5 million as of Dec.
31, 2009, compared with US$45.4 million as of March 31, 2009. The
Company's asbestos-related restricted short-term investments
amounted to US$26.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$52.9 million as of March 31, 2009.

Under current assets, the Company's asbestos-related insurance
receivable amounted to US$16.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$12.6 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company
recorded asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$700,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009.
The Company's asbestos-related deferred income taxes were US$16.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$12.3 million as of
March 31, 2009.

Under long-term assets, the Company's asbestos insurance
receivable amounted to US$182.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$149 million as of March 31, 2009. The Company
recorded asbestos-related workers' compensation of US$96.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$73.8 million as of
March 31, 2009. The Company's asbestos-related deferred income
taxes amounted to US$414.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with US$333.2 million as of March 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand plc Records $25M Income in 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc says that, during the fourth quarter of 2009,
it had a US$25 million income primarily related to a favorable
settlement with an insurance carrier associated with a portion of
its asbestos obligation, offset by a US$24.4 million currency
loss triggered by the devaluation of the Venezuela Bolivar.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 12, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Swords, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc makes
products like Club Car golf carts, Hussmann refrigeration
equipment, Schlage security locks, Thermo King temperature
control equipment, and Trane air conditioning systems and
services. Pumps, tools, air compressors, and material handling
equipment are also made under the Ingersoll-Rand brand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Motion in Garner Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, granted
defendants' motion to dismiss an asbestos-related case styled
Gail Garner, The Estate of Angelo Palermo, Plaintiff v. DII
Industries, LLC, Mark M. Gleason & Marcellene Malouf, Defendants.

District Judge Charles J. Siragusa entered judgment in Case No.
08-CV-6191-CJS on Feb. 4, 2010.

Gail Garner filed her original complaint pro se and alleged that
Defendants were liable to her father's estate for his death
caused by exposure to asbestos. On Nov. 14, 2008, the Court,
interpreting Mrs. Garner's response to Defendants' first motion
to dismiss as a request to proceed pro se as the representative
of her father's estate, denied the request. She subsequently
hired counsel, and on March 27, 2009, filed an amended complaint.

On April 17, 2009, Defendants again moved to dismiss, primarily
on the ground that Mrs. Garner's claim against them was barred by
the statute of limitations.

Angelo Palermo was a union insulation mason for 29 years from
1937 through 1966 in the construction asbestos industry. He
spray-coated and handled asbestos-containing products while
working for one or more of the Haliburton or Harbison-Walker
entities. He died on April 23, 1966, at the age of 51 years.

On June 6, 2003, Mr. Palermo was posthumously diagnosed with
mesothelioma "by a tribunal of asbestos experts who were part of
the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Mansville Trust." On April
4, 2006, Mrs. Garner filed a claim with DII Industries, LLC, and,
the following day, filed a claim with the DII Trust, with regard
to her father's death. Defendants eventually rejected the claims,
and a pro bono evaluator confirmed Defendants' denial.

In her amended complaint, Mrs. Garner asserted three causes of
action. First, a claim that Defendants negligently caused Mr.
Palermo's death; second, a claim that defendants Mark M. Gleason
and Marcellene Malouf breached a fiduciary duty owed to Mrs.
Garner; and third, a claim that DII Industries, LLC Asbestos PI
Trust was negligent in hiring and supervising Mr. Gleason and Mr.
Malouf.

Mr. Gleason was described as a Trustee of the Trust, and Mr.
Malouf was described as the Trust's Executive Director.

Christina A. Agola, Esq., in Rochester, N.Y., represented Gail
Garner.

Andrew L. Morrison, Esq., of K & L Gates LLP in New York, Beth W.
Bivans, Esq. of K & L Gates LLP in Dallas, represented the
Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Subject to Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries are still
defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as a
result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at the
Company's facilities, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court.

In May 2002, the Company completed the tax-free spin-off of its
Engineered Industrial Products (EIP) segment, which at the time
of the spin-off included EnPro Industries, Inc. and Coltec
Industries Inc. At that time, two subsidiaries of Coltec were
defendants in a significant number of personal injury claims
relating to alleged asbestos-containing products sold by those
subsidiaries prior to the Company's ownership.

It is possible that asbestos-related claims might be asserted
against the Company on the theory that it has some responsibility
for the asbestos-related liabilities of EnPro, Coltec or its
subsidiaries. A limited number of asbestos-related claims have
been asserted against the Company as "successor" to Coltec or one
of its subsidiaries.

The Company said it believes that it has substantial legal
defenses against these and other such claims. In addition, the
agreement between EnPro and the Company that was used to
effectuate the spin-off provides the Company with an
indemnification from EnPro covering these liabilities.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation supplies
aerospace components, systems and services to the commercial and
general aviation airplane markets. The Company also supplies
systems and products to the global defense and space markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Still Subject to Respirator Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of Dec. 31, 2009, is a named defendant in
respirator mask cases (including asbestos-related) in various
courts that purport to represent about 2,510 individual
claimants, down from about 2,700 individual claimants with
actions pending at Dec. 31, 2008.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company faced respirator mask cases
(including asbestos-related) in various courts with 2,490
individual claimants, down from the number of individual claims
pending at June 30, 2009 and March 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending
against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts
found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally
in the workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well
as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at
Company premises.

Plaintiffs have asserted specific dollar claims for damages in
about 32 percent of the 913 lawsuits that were pending against
the Company at the end of 2009 in all jurisdictions.

Most states restrict or prohibit specifying damages in tort cases
such as these, and most of the remaining jurisdictions do not
require such specification. In those cases in which plaintiffs
choose to assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints,
brought in states that permit such pleading, the amounts claimed
are typically not meaningful as an indicator of the Company's
potential liability.

Some complaints allege that the compensatory and punitive damages
are at least the amounts specified. The Company's experience and
the other reasons cited indicate that the damage amounts
specified in complaints are not a meaningful factor in any
assessment of the Company's potential liability.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with a global presence in the following
businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer
and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and
Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in 9th Case v. 3M Company Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed plaintiff's appeal, over the dismissal of a ninth
asbestos-related respirator case against 3M Company, is still
pending.

The Company tried its ninth respirator case in the Superior Court
of Alameda County, Calif. The plaintiff, who is suffering from
mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos, claimed
that the Company's respirators were defective and failed to
provide him with adequate protection and came with inadequate
warnings.

On July 6, 2009, after nearly four months of trial, the judge
granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against the
Company at the end of the plaintiff's case.

The trial judge dismissed the claims against the Company because
the plaintiff failed to prove that a defect in the Company's
respirator or its warnings was a substantial factor in causing
the plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff has filed an appeal
of the trial judge's decision.

With this dismissal, the Company has prevailed in all nine cases
taken to trial, including seven of the eight cases tried to
verdict (such trials occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004,
and 2007), and an appellate reversal in 2005 of the one jury
verdict adverse to the Company, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with a global presence in the following
businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer
and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and
Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Has $34MM Aearo Liabilities at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, as of Dec.
31, 2009, has recorded US$34 million as an estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo.

Aearo manufactures and sells various products, including personal
protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and
certain respiratory protection products.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, Aearo and other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and
judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among
Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of
Warner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group). Liability is
allocated among the parties based on the number of years each
company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand and
owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and
the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff.

Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against,
asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for
respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearo
and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the
alleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.
With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other
occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this
arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its
obligations in these matters.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with a global presence in the following
businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer
and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and
Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Records $138M Liabilities at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company recorded asbestos or respirator mask liabilities of
US$138 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$140 million at
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's liabilities for asbestos and respirator mask claims
were US$126 million as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 6, 2009)

The Company recorded asbestos or respirator mask insurance
receivables of US$143 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$193 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

As a result of the costs of aggressively defending itself and the
greater cost of resolving claims of persons with malignant
conditions, the Company increased its reserves in 2009 for
respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$33 million. As of Dec.
31, 2009, the Company had reserves for respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities of US$104 million (excluding Aearo reserves).

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$143 million. The Company increased its receivables for
insurance recoveries by US$7 million in 2009 related to this
litigation.

As a result of settlements reached with its insurers, the Company
was paid about US$57 million in 2009 and has an agreement in
principle to receive an additional US$28 million in connection
with the respirator mask/asbestos litigation.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with a global presence in the following
businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer
and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and
Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Insurance Case v. 3M Set for June 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial in an insurance-related asbestos case against 3M Company
is scheduled to begin in June 2012, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 16, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. - both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims. These insurers represent about
US$14 million of the US$143 million insurance recovery
receivable.

The action seeks declaratory judgment regarding the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.
It was filed in Hennepin County, Minn., and named, in addition to
the Company, over 60 of the Company's insurers. This action is
similar in nature to an action filed in 1994 with respect to
breast implant coverage, which ultimately resulted in the
Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of 2003 that was largely in the
Company's favor.

At the Company's request, the case was transferred to Ramsey
County, over the objections of the insurers. The Minnesota
Supreme Court heard oral argument of the insurers' appeal of that
decision in March 2008 and ruled in May 2008 that the proper
venue of that case is Ramsey County. The case has been assigned
to a judge in Ramsey County District Court.

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that
names some additional insurers and deletes others. Several of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the
Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit. The case
remains in its early stages.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified
technology company with a global presence in the following
businesses: Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer
and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and
Graphics; and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Okla. Court Affirms Dismissal of Winrow Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma, granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving
asbestos filed by Billy J. Winrow.

The case is styled Billy J. Winrow, Plaintiff v. Justin Jones,
Director; et al., Defendants.

District Judge James H. Payne entered judgment in Case No. 08-CV-
761-JHP-TLW on Feb. 5, 2010.

On Dec. 23, 2008, Mr. Winrow, a state inmate appearing pro se,
filed a civil rights complaint naming three defendants: Justin
Jones, Director; Walter Dinwiddie, Warden; and James Lowman,
Employee. On June 1, 2009, Mr. Winrow filed an amended complaint
naming five defendants: Mr. Jones, Director; Mr. Dinwiddie,
Warden; Mr. Lowman, Employee; Jack Lemmons, Employee, and Sgt.
Reeves, Employee.

With the exception of Mr. Jones, the defendants work at Dick
Conner Correctional Center (DCCC). On Aug. 27, 2009, Mr. Jones,
Mr. Dinwiddie, Mr. Lowman, and Mr. Lemons filed a motion for
summary judgment, along with a Special Report. Mr. Winrow
responded.

Mr. Winrow's claims occurred at DCCC, located in Hominy, Okla. He
is no longer incarcerated at that facility. In his amended
complaint, he identified two claims.

Mr. Winrow alleged that on Aug. 31, 2006, he was placed in the
Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) at DCCC. While in his cell in SHU,
he noticed that "there was a flow of dust particles coming from
the air conditioning ventilation system." Upon closer
examination, he determined that "a piece of asbestos [was]
sticking inside of the ventilation duct work and the asbestos had
become friable."

Mr. Winrow further stated that he "lived under these
unconstitutional conditions for approximately 30 days breathing
and eating the friable asbestos dust particles coming from the
ventilation system." He claimed he has "migraine headaches,
bleeding nose issues, and a swollen esophagus that causes this
plaintiff pain while eating and drinking."

By Opinion and Order filed Sept. 3, 2008, the Hon. Terence Kern
determined that Mr. Winrow had failed to exhaust administrative
remedies and, for that reason, dismissed the complaint.

In response to the amended complaint, Defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment. Mr. Winrow filed a response to Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it was ordered that Defendants' motion for summary
judgment was granted and Mr. Winrow's complaint, as amended, was
dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Workers Protesting on Elmira Site Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of union workers are protesting the lack of local workers
hired to conduct an asbestos abatement and demolition project at
an armory in Elmira, N.Y., Mesothelioma.com reports.

At least two dozen union construction workers gathered in front
of Elmira City Hall early in February 2010 to protest the
project.

According to Alex Parillo, the field representative and
apprentice coordinator for Laborers Local 785, told reporters
that his union attempted to work with the project's contractor,
Epic Contracting Inc. of Orchard Park. However, the contractor
failed to hire what the union considered to be an acceptable
number of local workers.

Mr. Parillo told reporters that he would like to have new
language added to contracts and bid packets that requires a
certain percentage of workers to be locally-based.

Skilled workers are needed to undertake asbestos removal, as
exposure to airborne asbestos particles can lead to the
development of lethal cancers like mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Saranac Lake, N.Y. Lot to Cost $12T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Board of Trustees in Saranac Lake, N.Y., recently voted to
pay US$12,000 to remove asbestos from an abandoned and
dilapidated trailer on the Neil Street property, which village
officials seized in 2009, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise
reports.

Once it was cleaned up, village officials had planned to sell the
property. However, the .11-acre parcel, which measures 100 feet
by 51 feet, is so small that it cannot be developed with anything
larger than a structure would be 80 feet long and 10 feet wide,
without getting variances from the village's setback
requirements. However, the trailer could be replaced without
getting a variance.

Mayor Tom Michael suggested the village contact BOCES, Habitat
for Humanity or another nonprofit organization to see if they
would be willing to propose building something on the site, along
with securing the necessary permits and variances. In return, Mr.
Michael said, the village could sell the property at cost.

Trustee Susan Waters, who voted against paying for the asbestos
removal and demolition along with Trustee Christy Fontana, said
those costs should be paid by the purchaser of the property.

However, Trustee Jeff Branch said the village is obligated to get
rid of the asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Soyars Indicted for Cleanup Violations in Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal grand jury, on Feb. 10, 2010, indicted James Robert
Soyars Jr., on charges that his company removed asbestos from
various sites in Colorado and improperly stored it in a rental
storage unit instead of immediately disposing of it, The Gazette
reports.

If found guilty, Mr. Soyars faces up to five years in prison and
a US$250,000 fine.

The nine-count indictment filed in the U.S. District Court
charges Mr. Soyars, owner of Talon Environmental Inc., with
violating the Clean Air Act by mishandling asbestos removed from
three sites, including one in downtown Colorado Springs.

Between April 22, 2006, and Aug. 28, 2006, Talon removed asbestos
from the Transamerica Title Company building at 121 E. Vermijo
Ave., the indictment states. However, instead of immediately
disposing of the asbestos, Mr. Soyars allegedly moved it to a
storage facility in Denver.

Mr. Soyars is accused of doing the same thing with asbestos
removed from a former bowling alley in Greeley and a Gateway
Mazda dealership in Aurora.

Specifically, the indictment charges Mr. Soyars with three counts
each of failing to deposit the asbestos as soon as possible,
failing to label containers and failing to mark the vehicles used
to transport the material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probing Topeka Prison for Inmates' Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is probing if inmates
and employees at the Topeka women's prison in Topeka, Kans., were
exposed to asbestos during building renovations, fox4kc.com
reports.

Bill Miskell, Kansas Department of Corrections spokesman, says
the EPA's attention is focused on renovation of one building in
2005. However, the Topeka Capital-Journal reported that former
employees involved in asbestos abatement at the prison stated
improper exposure occurred during rehabilitation of several
structures.

EPA spokesman Chris Whitley says the agency is still in the
process of gathering information and talking to people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Firm Ordered to Clear Hazard from Empty Lot
----------------------------------------------------------------
An unnamed garbage firm based in Louisville, Ky., was ordered to
remove asbestos that has been sitting in the City's lots for
months, WHAS11.com reports.

The company, which went out of business after its owner was
incarcerated in July 2009, has been keeping the asbestos for more
than six months, prompting numerous complaints from the local
population about the wildlife attracted by the garbage and the
health risks posed by the presence of asbestos.

The garbage is mostly building insulation from a Chevron
Corporation warehouse that was destroyed by one of the company's
partners.

The trash is double bagged and sealed, and federal regulations
require the prompt removal of the toxic material to reduce the
risk of health problems.

Matt Stull, a spokesperson for the Louisville Metro Air Pollution
Control Board, said, "Any materials containing asbestos is a
concern because of its link to lung cancer. So we take all of
these complaints very seriously."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warning Issued Over Imported Tiles in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Competitor and Consumer Commission (ACCC), on Feb.
13, 2010, said that wall tiles, which were imported from China,
contain tremolite asbestos, a prohibited hazardous substance, The
Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The tiles, which had been sold in Australia, have been withdrawn.
However, there were fears that some tiles were still available on
the market or may already have been installed, the ACCC said.

The tiles are sold under the brand name Snow White and are
described as bright white in color with a quartz-like appearance.
They are made up of a number of pieces glued together to give the
appearance of stacked stone.

The ACCC said in a statement, "The ACCC is working closely with
the Customs and Border Protection Service and WorkCover
authorities to identify any other sources of the product in the
market and to have them withdrawn."

NSW WorkCover is advising consumers who may already have the
product installed to isolate the area until the tiles have been
removed by a licensed asbestos removalist and the area cleared by
an occupational hygienist.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Lower Hazard Levels in Libby, Mont.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During a public meeting on Feb. 8, 2010, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said that asbestos levels in and around Libby,
Mont., schools are much lower than in years past and do not pose
a risk to children, The Western News reports.

EPA Toxicologist David Berry said, "The first, probably most
important question is, is it OK to send my children to school
here in Libby, and I think the answer is yes. Levels that were
detected in the activity-based sampling were within acceptable
exposure levels as evidence and used at other Superfund sites in
the United States."

The scientific methods of measuring the amount of asbestos fibers
in the air and soil and the means by which a toxicity value was
assigned to Libby amphibole, the area's unique form of asbestos
fiber, left some attendees of the meeting uncertain.

Since EPA's toxicity studies concerning Libby amphibole have not
been completed, the EPA uses the toxicity value of a different
asbestos fiber when determining risk. Some believe that Libby
amphibole is the most potent type of asbestos.

The EPA took air and soil samples last year at five Libby school
campuses including the administration building, high school,
middle school, Asa Wood and the former Plummer building that now
houses Head Start.

Two-day composite samples recorded the indoor air quality in
various areas of all of the buildings. Out of 51 samples, 49 did
not detect the presence of asbestos. A detection occurred in a
Libby Middle School hallway and another in an Asa Wood classroom.

Mr. Berry pointed out that the fibers were most-likely brought
into the schools on shoes or clothing.

EPA detected asbestos in five out of 63 outdoor activity-based
samples, which were taken while simulating student and
maintenance worker activities such as swinging, playing sports,
mowing lawns and sweeping. The five samples were just barely
detectable using EPA's current method, Mr. Berry said.

Out of the 41 soil samples taken outside the schools, 31 revealed
a trace amount of asbestos, which is defined as detectable but
less than 0.2 percent. All buildings except the middle school had
at least one example of visible vermiculite.

Soil samples in 2001, Mr. Berry said, revealed asbestos levels as
high as 15 percent at the middle school, due mostly to the track
made of mine tailings, and 8 percent at the high school. Soil
sampling in 2001 also showed no asbestos outside the
administration building, though the 2009 testing revealed trace
amounts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Uncovered at Sackets Sewage Plant Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-coated cement pipe was discovered during blasting at
the site of the new sewage treatment facility in Sackets Harbor,
N.Y., the Watertown Daily Times reports.

The discovery of the pipe will require more funds and labor for
its removal. The budgeted cost of the facility is US$9,004,643.

Cory Reid of Bernier, Carr & Associates in Watertown, N.Y., said
the outfall, the pipe that leads from the plant to Lake Ontario,
tested positive for asbestos. He said, "We are working on a work
plan to submit to the state Department of Labor to get approval.
Once we get that approval, we can get a cost from the contractor.

"Worst case scenario, I'm thinking US$50,000. That's not what any
of the contractors have told us; it's just what we have seen on
past projects. We're hoping it will be far less than that."

The asbestos-coated pipe must be handled specially and then taken
to the regional landfill in Rodman, which is certified to take
asbestos-contaminated waste.

There is no threat to residents and there is a lot more leniency
with how the pipe must be handled because it is outside, not in a
building, said Lonnie L. Reinhardt, Department of Works
superintendent.

Aside from the discovery of asbestos, the project has been
running smoothly. Mayor F. Eric Constance said, "We're moving
along well on the project."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal to Spend $4M for Cleanup in 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArcerlorMittal says that subsidiary ArcelorMittal USA's
environmental provisions include US$55 million, with anticipated
expenditures of US$4 million during 2010, to specifically address
the removal and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and the
elimination of asbestos-containing material.

Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing
more than 100 million tons annually. Operating globally -- though
strongest in Europe - the Company makes the full range of steel
products: slabs and coil, coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and
rebar, and billets and blooms, as well as all manner of stainless
and electrical steel products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Cites 402 French Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The number of claims outstanding for asbestos exposure against
certain French subsidiaries of ArcelorMittal was 402 at Dec. 31,
2009, compared with 431 at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on Feb. 12, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 63
claims filed and 81 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company
recorded 76 claims filed and 105 claims settled, dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

Various retired or present employees of certain French
subsidiaries of the former Arcelor have initiated lawsuits to
obtain compensation for asbestos exposure in excess of the
amounts paid by French social security. Asbestos claims in France
initially are made by way of a declaration of a work-related
illness by the claimant to the Social Security authorities
resulting in an investigation and a level of compensation paid by
Social Security.

Once the Social Security authorities recognize the work-related
illness, the claimant, depending on the circumstances, can also
file an action for inexcusable negligence (faute inexcusable) to
obtain additional compensation from the company before a special
tribunal. Where procedural errors are made by Social Security, it
is required to assume full payment of damages awarded to the
claimants.

Due to fewer procedural errors and, consequently, fewer rejected
cases, the Company was required to pay some amounts in damages in
2009.

The range of amounts claimed for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 was
EUR7,500 to EUR865,000 (about US$10,000 to US$1,150,000). The
aggregate costs and settlements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009
were US$3.5 million, of which US$400,000 represents legal fees
and US$3 million represents damages paid to the claimant.

The aggregate costs and settlements for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008 were about US$510,000 and zero, respectively.

Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing
more than 100 million tons annually. Operating globally -- though
strongest in Europe - the Company makes the full range of steel
products: slabs and coil, coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and
rebar, and billets and blooms, as well as all manner of stainless
and electrical steel products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Still Subject to Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive
motion) that are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.

Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 17, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.


Headquartered in Norfolk, Va., Norfolk Southern Corporation's
Norfolk Southern Railway Company unit is engaged in the rail
transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and
finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and,
via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the
United States. The Company also transports overseas freight
through several Atlantic and Gulf Coast ports.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in AMSF Action Heard in Dec. 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company says that, on December 2009, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case involving
the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF).

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court alleging violations of the federal
securities laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission
initiated an investigation in connection with the Company's
change in accounting for revenue on long-term construction
projects and related disclosures.

In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were
filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named
as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers
and directors. The class action cases were later consolidated,
and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled
Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed
and served upon the Company in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now
styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al. The Company settled with the SEC in
the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court. In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that the Company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct
deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed
its fourth amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled.

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007
the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual
defendants other than the Company's Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against the
Company's CEO and the Company.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a
motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting
permission to appeal the district court's order denying class
certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.

Both parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral
argument in December 2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying class certification. AMSF will
have the opportunity to request additional review by the Fifth
Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had not accrued any amounts
related to this matter.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company provides services
and products to customers in the energy industry related to the
exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas.
The Company serves major, national, and independent oil and
natural gas companies throughout the world and operates under two
divisions: the Completion and Production segment and the Drilling
and Evaluation segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Co. Records $90M Settlement in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company received payments of US$90 million for its
asbestos-related insurance settlements during 2009, according to
the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 17, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2004, the Company resolved all open and future
asbestos- and silica-related claims in the prepackaged Chapter 11
proceedings of DII Industries LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, and
its other affected subsidiaries that had previously been named as
defendants in a large number of asbestos- and silica-related
lawsuits.

During 2004, the Company settled insurance disputes with
substantially all the insurance companies for asbestos- and
silica-related claims and all other claims under the applicable
insurance policies and terminated all the applicable insurance
policies.

Under the insurance settlements entered into as part of the
resolution of its Chapter 11 proceedings, the Company has agreed
to indemnify its insurers under certain historic general
liability insurance policies in certain situations.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had not recorded any liability
associated with these indemnifications.

Headquartered in Houston, Halliburton Company provides services
and products to customers in the energy industry related to the
exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas.
The Company serves major, national, and independent oil and
natural gas companies throughout the world and operates under two
divisions: the Completion and Production segment and the Drilling
and Evaluation segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hosea Project Pays $22T Fine for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
D. Todd Hosea, d/b/a Hosea Project Movers (Project Movers), of
Covington, Ky., has paid a US$22,000 penalty for violating Ohio's
asbestos emission control standards at the Crosley Building, 1333
Arlington St., Cincinnati, according to an Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency press release dated Feb. 17, 2010.

Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services (HCDOES),
which serves as Ohio's contractual representative administering
air pollution programs in the greater Cincinnati area, discovered
and documented the violations. HCDOES referred the case to Ohio
EPA for enforcement.

During 2007, the Cincinnati Fire Department ordered Project
Movers to completely remove the Crosley Building' interior. Ohio
law requires commercial and industrial building owners and
operators to evaluate whether asbestos is present before
demolition or major remodeling. If asbestos is present in
sufficient amounts, specific steps must be taken to keep it from
becoming airborne.

On Sept. 6 2007, HCDOES staff inspected the Crosley Building and
found friable asbestos. Violations documented as a result of the
inspection include failure to:

-- Notify HCDOES before beginning renovation;
-- Properly remove asbestos before renovation;
-- Keep asbestos wet so that it cannot become airborne;
-- Seal all asbestos-containing waste material in durable leak-
   tight containers; and
-- Comply with labeling requirements.

Of the US$22,000, about US$4,400 will go to Ohio EPA's Clean
Diesel School Bus program. The remaining US$17,600 will be
equally divided to administer air pollution control programs and
provide environmental education grants through Ohio EPA's
Environmental Education Fund.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schuylkill Contractor Cleared of Cleanup Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the Berks County Court acquitted Gary Gerber Jr., 37-
year-old a contractor from Schuylkill County, Pa., on charges
regarding the disposal of hazardous waste in an illegal dump in
Pennsylvania, Mesothelioma.com reports.

However, the jury convicted Mr. Gerber, who is the former owner
of Mount Carbon Industries, on charges of unlawful conduct for
dumping nonhazardous waste.

The dumping site is located on the Reading-Muhlenberg Township
line, and was allegedly in use between June 2001 and August 2002.
Mr. Gerber was accused of dumping lead, silver and asbestos at
the five-acre site.

Mr. Gerber is currently incarcerated, and is serving out the rest
of his sentence for the third-degree murder of a New Jersey man.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie in Dispute With CSR Over Berengo Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries N.V. and CSR Limited are in dispute over
an AUD2 million settlement reached with Robert Berengo, a 48-
year-old man from Victoria, Australia, who contracted
mesothelioma as a child, The Australian reports.

Now known as Amaca, James Hardie has launched proceedings against
CSR to seek a contribution for the compensation after Amaca
settled the case involving Mr. Berengo in the Victorian Supreme
Court.

Mr. Berengo claimed in his lawsuit that he contracted
mesothelioma mainly from hugging his father, who was a painter,
in the 1960s.

Amaca agreed to pay the compensation claim before it reached the
courtroom on Feb. 16, 2010, saving Mr Berengo from having to go
through a trial. The settlement will be paid by Amaca despite its
action against CSR.

Mr. Berengo's lawyer, Tracy Madden, said the AUD2 million
settlement from Amaca was a great result for her client. She said
they claimed he was exposed to asbestos when he used to hug his
father in his asbestos-clad work clothes, and when he would help
his father on jobs and shake his father's painting sheets at
home.

Ms. Madden said the case showed the effect asbestos still had on
families 30 years after people were originally exposed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reynoldsburg City Seeks $435T Grant for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Reynoldsburg, Ohio, seeks more than US$435,000 in
state funds to pay for the asbestos abatement from the former Big
Bear slated to become a Valu King grocery store, ThisWeek
Community Newspapers reports.

A public hearing is set for March 30, 2010, in the city municipal
building.

Reynoldsburg City Council has approved legislation authorizing
development director Lucas Haire to apply for a Clean Ohio
Assistance Fund grant to pay for brownfield revitalization work
to be done at the site at 6300 E. Livingston Ave., at the corner
of Brice Road and Livingston.

The city announced that Valu King, a subsidiary of Giant Eagle,
is scheduled to open this summer in 32,000 square feet of the
101,000-square-foot building.

Mr. Haire said, "The property was found to be contaminated with
asbestos, which has hindered the redevelopment of that site. We
were approached by the property owners to cooperate with them in
applying for this grant." He said government entities are
eligible for these types of grants.

Mr. Haire said the City will partner with the building owner, Red
Raider Capital LLC, to clean up the site. The application is for
US$435,342 and will include remediation of the asbestos and some
demolition of light fixtures and what was once Big Bear's garden
center. He said there is a match component required in the grant
application.

Mr. Haire said Red Raider Capital LLC is contributing US$411,000
in matching funds.

There is a 45-day public comment period after the application is
complete. Then it will go to the Ohio Department of Development
and on to the State Controlling Board.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Repairs at Fresno's Art Museum to Cost $241,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The repairs, including asbestos abatement, of the Fresno Art
Museum in Fresno, Calif., will cost US$241,000 and will begin as
soon as possible, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center
reports.

The City council has approved an emergency proposal to repair the
roof of the museum. The ceiling at the museum has asbestos, which
is present in ceiling-tile adhesive and wallboard tape, and that
will need to be abated.

Generally speaking, the City council has to accept multiple bids
for a project like this, but because of the urgent need to
complete the project quickly, the council approved an emergency
resolution to hire Graham Prewett, Inc. to tackle the project.

The museum has several leaks that have caused water damage to
walls and ceilings, as well as to the roof. A new roof is needed
immediately, according to Kenneth Nerland, director of the city's
general services department.

Mr. Nerland said, "It is urgent that roof-replacement work be
completed as soon as possible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mt. Hood Community College Slated for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement will need to be conducted at the Mt. Hood
Community College in Gresham, Ore., before some upgrades at the
school have to be undertaken, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Ventilation upgrades are ongoing at Mt. Hood Community College.
Karen Reynolds, the college's environmental health and safety
manager, said that a licensed contractor will be responsible for
opening up the ceiling in some area to properly remove any
fireproofing debris that has fallen on top of the ceiling tiles.

The fireproofing material in question is an asbestos-containing
Monocote fireproofing, composed of five percent chrysotile
asbestos.

Abatement and cleanup efforts have taken place over the past 20
years at the buildings in question, and those who are concerned
about the presence of asbestos can refer to a database of
asbestos air monitoring information at the school's Environmental
Health and Safety Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Defense Dept. Lauded for Funding Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph W. Belluck, Esq., a partner in New York-based law firm
Belluck & Fox, LLP, on Feb. 17, 2010, praised the U.S. Department
of Defense for stepping up its spending on research into new ways
to treat mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure, a once common
hazard of military work, according to a Belluck & Fox press
release dated Feb. 17, 2010.

Mr. Belluck said, "This boost in dollars finally recognizes a
condition that has been overlooked and under-researched for far
too long.

"With more funds and more focus, there's a chance of hope for
victims and their families who've too often had none. This has
been an orphan disease too long."

The Department of Defense effort includes awards totaling several
million dollars for three important mesothelioma projects. The
funds will support research into early detection of the disease
and the development of new treatments, including clinical trials
for a promising new vaccine that will directly impact patients.

Mr. Belluck said the funding increase must be only the beginning
of an effort to find a cure for a disease that has killed many
veterans. One third of those who currently die from mesothelioma,
about 3,000 annually, were exposed to asbestos on U.S. Navy ships
and shipyards, according to the Mesothelioma Applied Research
Foundation.

Reported cases of mesothelioma have increased in recent years
because of the long latency period associated with the asbestos-
caused cancer. It can take anywhere from 10 to 50 years after
exposure before the onset of the disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Hazards Found in West Mackay Primary School
---------------------------------------------------------------
QBuild, which provides construction and strategic building
maintenance services for the Queensland, Australia, Government,
says there is no reason for parents at the West Mackay Primary
School to be concerned after contractors inappropriately handled
asbestos products, ABC News reports.

The contractors were issued a notice for breaching the Workplace
Health and Safety Act after asbestos walls at the school were
sanded and flecks of paint left on the lawn during the school
holidays.

QBuild's Brett Taylor says testing showed there were no asbestos
particles in the air. He said, "All precautionary measures were
taken at the time the incident was identified and all works were
completed under the guidance of a hygienist who was actually on
site."

The occupational health and safety consultant who completed air
monitoring after the incident says the asbestos was in "bulk"
form rather than air particles.

Richard Baker from Parsons Bricknerhoff says its tests showed no
reason for concern. He said, "The airborne fiber monitoring
results were what we consider consistent with background levels,
which is less than 0.01 fibres per milliliter of air. That is the
standard we look for when we undertake airborne fiber
monitoring."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grayling, AT Remove Hazards from Welcome House
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grayling Industries, Inc. and AT Abatement, a division of AT
Industries, Inc., donated materials, labor and expertise for a
renovation project at Welcome House, a privately funded, non
profit, drug and alcohol rehabilitation center located in Kansas
City, Mo., according to a Grayling press release dated Feb. 16,
2010.

Mr. Greg Roark, Executive Director of Welcome House, said, "The
building houses approximately 80 residents when at full capacity
and the average stay is from six months to a year. Our ultimate
goal is to get these men back out into society, drug and alcohol
free and supporting themselves."

Welcome House is located in a four story former hospital building
built in 1913. The renovation project involves the removal of
1750' of asbestos pipe insulation. Grayling provided the Avail
QuickTwist or QT glovebags that would be required for the job and
AT Abatement provided the trained asbestos abatement technicians
and supervisors necessary to successfully complete the project.

As the crew from AT Abatement was not familiar with the QT style
glovebag, David Larsen, representing Grayling, presented the QT
glovebag concept and provided training on the use of the product.

Alan Copeland, the project supervisor, was immediately struck
with the substantial opportunity for labor savings by using the
QT10 instead of the standard 4460 type of glovebag. He said, "We
generally get about 18 inches to 20 inches of horizontal work
area with a 4460. It's obvious that we could more than double the
amount of work area per glovebag by utilizing the QT10."

In the end, the project required 18 cases of glovebags, or 360
QT10 glovebags.

Had AT Abatement used the industry standard 4460 glovebags, the
project would have required at least 1,000 glovebags, which not
only would that have necessitated the purchase of 640 more
glovebags, and all of the other supplies required, but it also
would have required the time and labor to complete 640 more
glovebag operations.

Headquartered in Alpharetta, Ga., Grayling Industries, Inc.
manufactures specialized flexible film products for industrial
applications. Markets served are industrial packaging and
environmental safety. Primary products are intermediate bulk
containers and liners and products for contamination control on
asbestos abatement projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wahpeton School Board in N.D. Affirms Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 8, 2010, the Wahpeton School Board in Wahpeton, N.D.,
approved the contract bid placed by Proctor, Minn.-based Mavo
Systems for the "abatement of 9-inch tile and matic" with a 9-0
vote, the Daily News reports.

Superintendent Mike Connell said, "We need to get a new floor
there. We put new lockers in the building, and we put new doors
in, so the last step is a new floor." The project will be funded
through US$50,000 in federal stimulus money provided by American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The building was originally constructed in 1964 and certain
materials like floor tiles contained asbestos. Mr. Connell added,
"When you take out any material that contains asbestos you have
to have an abatement company remove it. It's not a problem right
now because (the tiles are) sealed. In order to put new tiles
down we've got to remove the old tile and the old tile contains
asbestos."

In addition to asbestos and lead abatement, the Mavo Systems also
specializes in commercial mechanical installation, concrete floor
polish, epoxy floor coatings, HVAC cleaning and decontamination,
and industrial mechanical insulation.

The company offered US$39,880 to complete the job, with an
additional US$6,300 for 12 days (US$525 per day) of necessary air
monitoring. The total cost of the project is US$46,180.

The process for finding an abatement firm to remove the floor
tiles began in early January 2010, when Mr. Connell took four
vying contractors on a walkthrough of the high school. Bidding
for the contract officially began on Jan. 27, 2010.

The tile removal project will begin June 1, 2010 and will take 12
days to complete.

                            *********

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  * * *