CAR_Public/100226.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 40

                            Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: More Shareholder Class Certification Details
BJ SERVICES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware and Texas Lawsuits
CAFE GECKO: Waitress Claims Restaurant Doesn't Pay Minimum Wage

CANO PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Amended Suit
COBB & COLE: Suit Calls News-Journal Execs' Severance Excessive
FLORIDA: White House Boys' Class-Action Suit Dismissed
FRANKLIN ELECTRONIC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Amended Suit
INTEGRATED SILICON: Approval of Settlement Pact Still Pending

J.M. HALLOWEEN: Ill. Grocery Coupon Lawsuit Now Available
KAHALA CORP: Accused of Unscrupulous Advertising in Ill. Suit
LIVEDEAL INC: Continues to Defend GES Suit in Washington
METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: Third-Parties Agree to Pay $38 Million
SUGAR CREEK: Tempo Bank Wants "Consumer Fraud" Suit Dismissed

TOYOTA MOTOR: Suit Complains About Reduced Vehicle Resale Value
WEST CORP: Approval of Settlement in Georgia Suit Still Pending
YELP INC: Veterinary Hospital Suit Complains of Extortion

* Class Action Pros Give New Ont. R. Civ. Proc. Mixed Reviews

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Continues to Face Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers' Net Reserves at $2.758Bil at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Facing Insurance Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Goodyear Tire Drop to 90,200 in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Spends $2.9M for Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $34.866Mil Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Inc., Units Still Party to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp.'s Liability at $20.58MM at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural, Units Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Inc. Still Party to Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 75,030 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Cites $839M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Cites $84MM Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds American Still Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Records $96MM Total Liability in 2009

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Occupational Claims v. CSX Drop to 3,782 in '09
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide's Insurance Case Ongoing in N.Y.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Still Party to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Has $948MM Retirement Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd's Provisions Totaled $53Mil at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Reserves $12.11M for Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Records $7.3Mil for Cleanup at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Still a "Premises Defendant" in Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 167 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites 22,829 Abex Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites $784.5MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites $179.3M Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Class Certification in AMSF Case OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Has $2.8MM Potential Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Accrues $5.3Mil Liability in 2009

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philips Records EUR81Mil Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Still Facing 100 Steam Main Rupture Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Inc. Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22,000 Premises, Product Claims Ongoing v. FMC

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 17,191 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Kodak Co. Records $62Mil ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Ruling in Hall Action v. Warren Pumps
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in White's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Air Force Worker's Death Linked to Hazard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kettering Resident's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caversham Resident's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Men Indicted for Cleanup Breaches in Fla.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garside's Death Linked to Exposure to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Merchant Mariner's Son Awarded $9Mil Payout

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roach Case Filed v. 14 Firms in Ill. on Feb. 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Millbury Local Fined $20.4T for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Orchard Still Has 8,000 Actions From Vapor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transatlantic Cites $163M at Dec. 31 for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Ongoing v. Flowserve Corp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 560 Lawsuits Pending v. MeadWestvaco at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Facing Actions in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 26,084 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Cites $1.9M Liability, Expenses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Involved in Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Facing 426 Exposure Actions at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Temple-Inland Still Involved in Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Petroleum Still Party to Injury Cases

                            *********

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Being Sold for Inadequate Price, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allegheny Energy is selling
itself too cheaply to FirstEnergy, for $27.65 a share or $4.7
billion, shareholders say in Baltimore City Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Sheridan v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-C-10-001255 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore City), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John B. Isbister, Esq.
          Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
          TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
          100 East Pratt St., 26th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: 410-752-9700

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Marc Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-667-6200


ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated amended complaint with respect to derivative
claims brought on behalf of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.
remains pending.

On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled,
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against, among others, AllianceBernstein L.P.,
AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., and AllianceBernstein
Corporation.

The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to
disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market timing" of certain of the company's U.S. mutual fund
securities, violating various securities laws.

Following Oct. 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual
allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint
were filed in various federal and state courts against
AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants.

On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Holding; and claims brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of
AllianceBernstein.

On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the
plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund
derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential
memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle
these claims.  The agreement will be documented by a stipulation
of settlement and will be submitted for court approval at a later
date.  The settlement amount ($30 million), which the company
previously accrued and disclosed, has been disbursed.

The derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, in which
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, remain
pending.

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, 2008.

AllianceBernstein -- http://www.alliancebernstein.com/-- is an  
investment manager that administers about 80 domestic and
international mutual funds.  It serves such institutional
investors as pension funds, foundations, endowments, government
entities, and insurance firms.  For retail investors, the company
provides private client services, managed accounts,
annuities, retirement plans, and college savings plans.


AMERICAN INT'L: More Shareholder Class Certification Details
------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in yesterday's edition of the Class Action Reporter,
the Honorable Deborah A Batts certified a class of shareholders
in In re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-08141 (S.D.N.Y.), but declined to
certify a bondholder class.  

Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that Judge
Batts' ruling provides that certain equity shareholders could
pursue their claims, choosing to modify the class "to exclude all
bondholders, as well as in-and-out traders" who did not hold
stock when AIG allegedly overstated its assets in phony financial
statements.

Three Ohio state pension funds accused the insurance giant,
former chairman and CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, auditor
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and several other AIG executives and
affiliates of inflating the company's stock price through phony
transactions and making false statements about its financial
condition.

The class claims the bailed-out insurance company overstated its
worth "through the creation of sham transactions, mislabeling,
redirecting, and directly misstating and omitting financial
information on AIG's quarterly and annual financial statements."

"Lead plaintiffs allege that since the 1990s, AIG and other
insurance companies paid non-party Marsh & McLennan Companies
billions of dollars in illegal contingent commissions in return
for Marsh steering business toward them, all the while styling
these payments as related to various 'services,'" the ruling
states.

An attorney for the pension fund argued that the so-called bid-
rigging fraud "led to an artificial appearance of greater premium
income, which then flowed through the various financial
statements.   *   *   *   That, in turn, made the company look
rosier than it was."  This, coupled with a separate accounting
manipulation scheme, led to the inflated stock price, according
to the plaintiffs.

But Judge Batts said purchasers of AIG's debt securities were
excluded from the suit, because while they claimed to have
"relied on defendant's publicly issued statements . . . the
amended complaint made clear that plaintiffs were aware of the
misstatements in those documents before they purchased the debt
securities," including a press release that acknowledged
"irregularities in the company's financial records and the need
to restate its financial results."

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Police & Pension Fund
originally brought the suit in 2004, saying the fraud "ultimately
caused them substantial economic harm when the price of AIG
securities declined due to the pubic disclosure of those
omissions and misstatements," according to the ruling.

The pensions serve hundreds of thousands of current and former
Ohio state employees and hold combined assets of more than $100
billion.

In 2006 AIG agreed to pay the SEC and New York state more than
$1.6 billion -- with $800 million going to the commission -- to
settle similar accounting and bid-rigging claims, and charges of
improper use of workers' compensation funds.

Mr. Greenberg and another defendant, General Re Corp., previously
settled their claims.  See Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009.

A copy of the Honorable Deborah A. Batts' Feb. 22, 2010, decision
in In re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-cv-08141 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/AIG%20opinion.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Gottlieb, Esq.
          Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Edward Labaton, Esq.
          Zachary Myles Ratzman, Esq.
          LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP
          100 Park Ave., 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-907-0872

American International Group, Inc., the Defendant, is represented
by:

          Daniel Jonathan Kramer, Esq.
          Lewis E. Farberman, Esq.
          Stacey A. Shortall, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 212-373-3020

Defendant Maurice "Hank" Greenberg is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr., Esq.
          Steven Ian Froot, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          575 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-446-2300

               - and -

          David Scott Bassinson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          10 North Pearl Street, 4th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: 518-473-5843

               - and -

          Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Esq.
          Douglas M. Kraus, Esq.
          George Abraham Zimmerman, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-735-2504


BJ SERVICES: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware and Texas Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ Services Company has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle lawsuits filed in Texas and Delaware over
its proposed merger with Baker Hughes Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 11, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.  

In connection with the proposed merger of the company with and
into a subsidiary of Baker Hughes, lawsuits have been filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the District Courts of
Harris County, Texas against BJ Services, its directors and an
officer and Baker Hughes.

                    Delaware Actions

Between Sept. 1, 2009 and Oct. 1, 2009, nine actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger between
BJ Services and Baker Hughes.  On Sept. 25, 2009 and Oct. 14,
2009, the actions were consolidated and on Oct. 16, 2009, a
verified consolidated amended class action complaint, captioned
In re BJ Services Company Shareholder Litigation, was filed.

The complaint names BJ Services, its directors and an officer,
and Baker Hughes as the defendants.  The complaint challenges the
merger and generally alleges, among other things, that BJ
Services and its board of directors violated various fiduciary
duties in approving the merger and that Baker Hughes knowingly
aided and abetted such alleged violations.

The complaint also includes various alleged disclosure
violations.  The plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek, among other
things, to enjoin the merger, and to direct defendants to account
for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the
alleged wrongs.

Plaintiffs further seek the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court
deems just and proper.

                         Texas Actions

On Sept. 4, 2009, an original petition for breach of fiduciary
duty was filed in the 80th Judicial District Court, Harris
County, Texas.  The petition names BJ Services, its directors and
Baker Hughes as defendants.  Three nearly identical petitions
were subsequently filed in Harris County on behalf of different
named putative shareholder plaintiffs and consolidated into one
action, styled: Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. BJ
Services Company, et al., Cause No. 2009-57320.

The petition challenges the merger between BJ Services and Baker
Hughes and generally alleges, among other things, that BJ
Services and its board of directors violated various fiduciary
duties in approving the merger and that Baker Hughes aided and
abetted such alleged violations.  The plaintiffs in this lawsuit
seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger, to direct the
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interest of the shareholders and
to rescind the merger agreement.  The plaintiffs further seek the
costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

                 Memorandum of Understanding

In an effort to minimize the further cost, expense, burden and
distraction of any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on
Feb. 9, 2010, the parties to the Delaware and Texas actions
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the terms of
settlement of such lawsuits.

The Memorandum of Understanding resolves the allegations by the
plaintiffs against the defendants in connection with the merger
and provides a release and settlement by the purported class of
the BJ Services stockholders of all claims against BJ Services,
its directors and an officer and Baker Hughes, and their
affiliates and agents, in connection with the merger.

In exchange for such release and settlement, the parties agreed,
after discussions on an arms' length basis, that Baker Hughes and
BJ Services provide additional supplemental disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Baker Hughes on Feb. 9,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-4.  
The proposed settlement includes an agreement that neither BJ
Services nor Baker Hughes will oppose plaintiff's counsel's
application for BJ Services to pay attorneys' fees and costs in
an amount to be determined by the court up to $700,000.

In general, the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding will not
become legally binding unless and until further definitive
documentation is entered into and court approval is obtained.  
The settlement is contingent upon consummation of the merger.
There can be no assurance as to when or whether any of the
foregoing conditions will be satisfied.  In the event that these
conditions are not satisfied, BJ Services intends to continue to
vigorously defend these actions.

BJ Services Co. -- http://www.bjservices.com/-- is a provider of  
pressure pumping and oilfield services for the petroleum
industry.  Pressure pumping services consist of cementing and
stimulation services used in the completion of new oil and
natural gas wells and in remedial work on existing wells, both
onshore and offshore.  Oilfield services include casing and
tubular services; precommissioning, maintenance, turnaround and
pipeline inspection services in the process and pipeline services
business, chemical services, completion tools, and completion
fluids.  The company conducts its operations through four
segments: U.S./Mexico Pressure Pumping Services; Canada Pressure
Pumping Services; International Pressure Pumping Services, and
Oilfield Services Group.


CAFE GECKO: Waitress Claims Restaurant Doesn't Pay Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that
waitresses Tabatha Green claims in Green v. Cafe Gecko, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00067 (E.D. Tex.) (Schell, J.), that The
Colony's restaurant, Cafe Gecko, violated the Federal Labor
Standards Act by requiring its waiters and servers to participate
in a tip pool which was shared with members of management.

Although the plaintiff and the other servers were paid a direct
wage of $3 per hour and received tips, the plaintiff alleges they
were required to contribute to a tip pool, making their pay less
than the full statutory minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Ms. Green states that the mandatory tip pool was shared with
other restaurant employees, including management, in violation of
the FLSA.

The plaintiff in the proposed class action is seeking the
difference between the amount paid by Cafe Gecko and the full
statutory minimum wage for each hour worked, an equal amount of
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

If approved, the class will include all waiters and servers
employed by Cafe Gecko in the past three years.

Ms. Green is represented by:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          DEBES LAW FIRM
          17 S. Briar Hollow Lane #302
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 623-0900


CANO PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit over the dismissal of an amended
purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
Cano Petroleum, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 2, 2008, a lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd; Donald W.
Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III and the
underwriters of the June 26, 2008 public offering of Cano common
stock alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were
Cano outside directors on June 26, 2008.

At the defendants' request, the case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:09-CV-308-
A).

On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
added as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith,
Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal Accounting
Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's Senior Vice President of
Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and dismissed
Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a defendant.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the
Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved
reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and
overstated Cano's proved reserves.  The plaintiff is seeking to
certify the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit and is seeking an
unspecified amount of damages.

On July 27, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas granted motions to dismiss all claims brought
by the plaintiffs.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily
utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing
properties.  The company's assets are located onshore United
States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.


COBB & COLE: Suit Calls News-Journal Execs' Severance Excessive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the law
firm that represented News-Journal in a shareholder class action
for corporate waste prepared "golden parachutes" that cost the
company millions and benefited only News Journal's top
executives, according to a complaint in Orlando Federal Court.

After a two-week trial, the court determined that Delaware-based
Cox Enterprises' minority position in News-Journal was worth
$129.2 million.  The defendant (in this action) Cobb & Cole law
firm, however, claimed that paying the judgment would ruin News-
Journal, a Florida company that owns the Daytona Beach News
Journal, according to the complaint.

"Cobb Cole represented to the court on behalf of NJC that due to
a number of factors, including a two-year downward trend in
newspaper valuations, it would not be possible for NJC to pay
this amount fully and promptly and that requiring NJC to do so
would result in 'the ultimate hardship, the cessation of
business,'" according to the complaint.

But after plaintiff James Hopson was appointed receiver for News-
Journal in 2008, he says, he discovered that Cobb & Cole had
prepared multimillion-dollar severance packages for News-Journal
executives, who took home 13 times their annual base pay.

"On November 2 and 4, 2004 (less than a week prior to the
meditation in the underlying case), NJC had purportedly entered
into grossly excessive compensation agreements with two of its
officers/directors . . . and at least twenty-seven of its
employees," according to the complaint.

Mr. Hopson says the former CEO of News-Journal, Tippen Davidson,
did not have authority to create the severance packages and that
they never were approved by the News-Journal board of directors
or shareholders.

The packages guaranteed News-Journal CFO David Kendall and CEO
Georgia Kaney "lifetime employment at the highest level of the
company at levels of compensation exceeding $200,000 per year,"
according to the complaint.

Cox and Mr. Hopson claim that "executive severance agreements"
would cost News-Journal more than $5 million in payouts, while
"key manager agreements" would cost the company more than $8
million.

When Cox filed a motion to set aside the executive severance
agreements, Cobb & Cole allegedly lied and said that the News-
Journal board had approved the golden parachutes.

"Once Cox learned of the agreements and filed its motion to set
aside on May 23, 2008, Cobb Cole had an irreconcilable conflict
between its representation of NJC and its representation of
Kendell and Kaney in support of their agreements," according to
the complaint.  "While Kendall and Kaney eventually employed
their own individual counsel, Cobb Cole continued to work on
their behalf -- employing expert witnesses, preparing memoranda
of law, attending depositions, appearing at hearings and arguing
in support of the validity of the agreements."

A court voided the agreements because there "was no reasonable
relationship between the services rendered by Kendall and Kaney
and the benefits received by NJC," according to the complaint.

Mr. Hopson and Cox seek damages and an order directing Cobb &
Cole to disgorge the cost of their defense, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and fraudulent transfer.  

A copy of the Complaint in Hopson, et al. v. Cobe & Cole, P.A.,
Case No. 10-cv-00284 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/NewsJournal.pdf

James W. Hopson and the News-Journal Corporation, the Plaintiffs,
are represented by:

          Rutledge R. Liles, Esq.
          Katie L. Dearing, Esq.
          LILES, GAVIN, CONSTANTINO & GEORGE
          225 Water St., Suite 1500
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-634-1100

Plaintiff Cox Enterprises Inc. is represented by:

          John A. DeVault, III, Esq.
          Courtney K. Grimm, Esq.
          BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A.
          The Bedell Building
          101 E. Adams St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-353-0211

               - and -

          Peter C. Canfield, Esq.
          Lesli N. Gaither, Esq.
          DOW LOHNES PPLC
          6 Concourse Parkway, Suite 1800
          Atlanta, GA 30328-6117
          Telephone: 770-901-8800

Cobb Cole is represented by:

          David King, Esq.
          KING, BLACKWELL, DOWNS & ZEHNDER P.A.
          25 East Pine Street
          Orlando, FL 32801


FLORIDA: White House Boys' Class-Action Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Jim Schoettler at The Florida Times-Union reports that a Leon
County judge Tuesday dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by a
group of former Florida reform school students, including several
from Northeast Florida, who claimed they were abused by school
officials decades ago.

The year-old suit filed by the group known as the White House
Boys came long past the four-year statute of limitations for such
claims and had a series of other allegations not supported by
case law, said the group's attorney, Greg Hoag.

The defendants in the suit were a handful of state agencies and
one former school administrator at the Marianna school known by
several names, including the Florida Industrial School for Boys.
About 400 former students, many who attended the school in the
1950s and '60s, joined in the suit.

Mr. Hoag said he expected getting the case to trial would be
difficult because of the time elements and other issues. He said
the former students can now seek financial relief through a
legislative claims bill, which had been placed on hold as the
court action was being litigated.

"We're still holding out hope for that," Mr. Hoag said.


FRANKLIN ELECTRONIC: Reaches Agreement to Settle Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Electronic Publishers, Inc., reached an agreement on
material terms of a settlement in an amended complaint over the
Saunders Group's offer to purchase all the outstanding shares of
the company, according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 8, 2009 a purported class action suit was filed by
Capgrowth Group in the Superior Court of New Jersey naming as
defendants the company and its directors.

The Complaint, filed just days after public disclosure of the
Saunders Group's initial offer to purchase all the outstanding
shares of the company, alleges a breach by the defendant
directors of their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, fair
dealing and due care to the plaintiff.

On Sept. 23, 2009, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
lawsuit, stating, in substance, that the purported class action
was premature and not ripe for adjudication, that pursuant to
Pennsylvania law fiduciary duties are owed by directors to the
company and not directly to shareholders, and that individual
shareholders such as Capgrowth Group are owed no duty in their
individual capacity, and therefore cannot sue in their individual
capacity.

On October 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
which added a derivative count to its lawsuit.  On the same date
it also forwarded a demand to the board of directors of the
company to take appropriate legal action against the individual
members of the Board.

The defendants have withdrawn their Motion to Dismiss the initial
Complaint and have filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, advancing the arguments they made in the initial
Motion to Dismiss and further stating, in substance, that the
plaintiff has not made proper and sufficient demand upon the
company under Pennsylvania law to entitle the plaintiff to
maintain a derivative action.

The parties to the lawsuit have recently reached an agreement on
material terms of a settlement, subject however, to entering into
a final settlement agreement and to court approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the merger agreement
between the company and Saunders has been amended to reduce the
fee payable by the company to Saunders from $650,000 to $325,000
in the event of the termination of the agreement in certain
circumstances, and defendants agreed not to dispute the
contention of plaintiff that the pendency of its lawsuit was a
cause of certain disclosures made in the merger proxy statement.

Franklin Electronic Publishers, Incorporated --
http://www.franklin.com-- designs, develops, publishes and  
distributes electronic information on handheld devices, memory
media cards and via Internet downloads.  Franklin also designs,
develops and licenses to third parties, linguistic technology,
such as spelling error and detection software in 36 languages,
for use in application software, electronic products and on the
Internet.  The company owns or has licenses to publish in
electronic format more than 100 reference titles, including
monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, the Holy Bible, entertainment-oriented
publications (such as The Official Scrabble Dictionary) and its
own multi-language speaking and non-speaking translators. In
addition, it owns or has licenses to distribute in electronic
format, either directly or through third parties, more than
52,000 titles, including reference works and general literature,
via Internet download.


INTEGRATED SILICON: Approval of Settlement Pact Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., continues to await court
approval of the settlement agreement in three lawsuits brought by
direct purchasers in the U.S. relating to the sale and pricing of
static random access memory products, according to the company's
Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,2009.

Thirty-three purported class action lawsuits were filed by U.S.
Direct-Purchaser and U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs against
the company and other SRAM suppliers in various U.S. federal
courts alleging violations of the Sherman Act, violations of
state unfair competition laws, and unjust enrichment relating to
the sale and pricing of SRAM products.

The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in a single federal
court for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The U.S. lawsuits seek treble damages for the alleged damages
sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution,
costs and attorneys' fees, as well as an injunction against the
allegedly unlawful conduct.

As of Aug. 30, 2007, the company was voluntarily dismissed from
all lawsuits brought by the U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs
pursuant to a Tolling Agreement between the company and the U.S.
Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The U.S. Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs agreed not to name the
company as a defendant unless the Tolling Agreement is terminated
according to terms specified in that agreement.

On Jan. 9, 2008, the company was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice from one of the lawsuits brought by the U.S. Direct-
Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The company remains a defendant in three lawsuits brought by the
U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the court certified a class of direct
purchasers.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with the U.S. Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs that remains subject to
approval by the court before it becomes final.  As part of the
agreement, the company will receive a release for all Direct-
Purchaser SRAM claims and do not admit any wrongdoing or
liability.

Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. -- http://www.issi.com/-- is a  
fabless semiconductor company that designs and markets high-
performance integrated circuits for various markets, such as
digital consumer electronics, networking, mobile communications
and automotive electronics.  The company's primary products are
high-speed and low-power static random access memory and low-and
medium-density dynamic random access memory.  It also designs and
markets electrically erasable programmable ready only memory,
SmartCards, controller chips for flash memory sticks and card
reader- writers, and wireless chipsets.


J.M. HALLOWEEN: Ill. Grocery Coupon Lawsuit Now Available
---------------------------------------------------------
As reported in yesterday's edition of the Class Action Reporter,
J.M. Halloween Sales dba Mattress Zone Outlet promised Qiana
Carswell a $500 coupon for groceries following her $599 Mattress
Zone purchase, then said she needed to spend more, and then told
her the coupon issuer went bankrupt.  In response, Ms. Carswell
filed a class action lawsuit.  

A copy of the Complaint in Carswell v. J.M. Halloween Sales,
Inc., Case No. 10CH07533 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available
at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/CCA.pdf


KAHALA CORP: Accused of Unscrupulous Advertising in Ill. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blimpie's "Super Stacked"
sandwiches don't have twice the meat as advertised, a class
action claims in Madison County Court.  The class claims a 12-
inch Blimpie's Best sub contains 50 grams of protein, and a 12-
inch Blimpie's Best Super Stacked sub contains 73 grams of
protein, so it does not have twice as much meat.

Named plaintiffs Ronald Williams and Jennifer Clayton say
Blimpie's advertises its Super Stacked sandwiches as having
double the meat, though they do not.

They also claim that other Super Stacked sandwiches should not be
called that because there are no regular-size sandwiches to which
to compare them.

The class consists of all people who have bought a Blimpie's
Super Stacked sandwich in Illinois.  It seeks an undetermined
amount of damages wants Blimpie's enjoined from advertising its
Super Stacked sandwiches as having double meat.  

Kahala Corp., which operates numerous Blimpie's throughout
Illinois and the U.S., is named as the defendant.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Kahala Corp., Case
No. 10-L-166 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/Blimpies.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark L. Brown, Esq.
          Robert J. Evola, Esq.
          LAKINCHAPMAN, LLC
          300 Evans Ave., P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095-0229
          Telephone: 618-254-1127


LIVEDEAL INC: Continues to Defend GES Suit in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
LiveDeal, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action suit
captioned Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a
consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against the company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court.

GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of
activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

GES is seeking injunctive relief against the company's use of the
checks, as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times
the alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the
class.

LiveDeal has denied the allegations.

The parties have filed dispositive motions and anticipate a
ruling on such motions in early 2010.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com/-- delivers best of  
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant
customers via the Internet.  Through its online property,
LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its
LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks TM products that combine best-of-
breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside
sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need
to create and optimize their Internet search advertising
campaigns.  Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK,
Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: Third-Parties Agree to Pay $38 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Stucke at The Spokesman-Review reports that a $38 million
settlement proposed Tuesday in the Metropolitan Mortgage &
Securities Co. class action lawsuit would help several thousand
investors recoup some losses from Spokane's largest business
collapse.

Investors sued the bankrupted company's outside auditors and
former executives six years ago.  All of that litigation is
consolidated in In re Metropolitan Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-cv-00025 (E.D. Wash.) (Van Sickle, J.).

Mr. Stucke says that the class action case accomplished what
other legal actions brought by the bankruptcy trust and state
insurance officials failed to achieve: Collect money from
accounting giant Ernst & Young.

The lead attorney on the case:

          Bradley B. Jones, Esq.
          GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
          Wells Fargo Plaza
          1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2100
          Tacoma, WAS 98402
          Telephone: (253) 620-6500

said the new settlement includes:

     $14.25 million from Ernst & Young;

     $13.9 million from accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers;

     $5 million from securities underwriter Roth Capital; and

     $5 million from an insurance policy used to cover the cost
        of defending former Metropolitan officials.

The settlement will not pin wrongdoing on any party and moves the
Metropolitan episode toward closure.

The class action suit still has claims involving chief executive
officer C. Paul Sandifur Jr. and a handful of other top
executives.

Mr. Jones, though, said he anticipates settling the allegations
with Sandifur and the others rather than going to trial this
spring.

He does not anticipate reaping a large settlement from Mr.
Sandifur and the others.

The class action settlement will not benefit every investor,
Jones noted. Rulings in the suit narrowed the class to three
groups of investors: those who bought Metropolitan bonds after
May 2002; those who bought preferred shares of Metropolitan stock
after August 2002; and those who bought Summit Securities bonds
after February 2002.

Summit Securities Inc. is the Idaho-based affiliate of
Metropolitan.

"We are very pleased to finally obtain this recovery for the
class," said:

          Tyler S. Weaver, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Telephone: (206) 268-9355

The proposed settlement needs preliminary approval from U.S.
District Judge Fred Van Sickle in Spokane.

If such approval is granted, a mass mailing will be sent this
spring to investors who qualify as members of the class action.
The mailing will include information about how to file a claim
and other details, including a vote on whether to accept the
settlement.

Messrs. Jones and Weaver anticipate the entire matter could be
wrapped up and payments mailed by the end of the year.

In a brief statement, PriceWaterhouse said it "is pleased to be
part of this settlement and is happy to see this case resolved."

After attorney and expert witness fees are paid, the class
members should expect to divvy up between $23 million and $25
million -- or least 16 cents to 20 cents on the dollar, according
to calculations.

The class-action settlement is separate from the three rounds of
payments already made to many investors who became creditors as
part of the Metropolitan bankruptcy.

The $2.3 billion bankruptcy was marred from the outset by an
accounting scandal, a major investigation by the U.S. Securities
& Exchange Commission, an FBI inquiry that resulted in the
conviction of a senior Metropolitan executive, receivership
actions by insurance regulators in three states, numerous
lawsuits and arbitration cases and a tangle of claims and insider
business dealings.

The millions spent on high-stakes litigation unfolded against
this backdrop: Most of Metropolitan's roughly 16,000 investors
were older residents living across the Northwest. Many had
invested their life's savings in a company that once claimed its
unsecured corporate bonds were as safe as certified deposits from
banks.

The collapse of Metropolitan left retirement plans in ruins.

Maggie Y. Lyons, the Plan Administrator and Trustee of The
Metropolitan Creditors' Trust, which is the successor-in-interest
to Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities Co., Inc., acknowledged
that each month she receives notices that at least 15 investors
have died.

Mr. Jones, the lead attorney, said he remained mindful of those
statistics as the case dragged on and on.

"It has been unfortunate in that regard because so many investors
are retired and elderly and we lost many of them on the way to
get here," he said. "We all felt that this settlement is the best
way to avoid appeals and delays."


SUGAR CREEK: Tempo Bank Wants "Consumer Fraud" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Creek Financial Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Tempo
Bank, has filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class action suit,
according to the company's Feb. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In January 2010, Tempo Bank was named as a defendant, along with
other financial institutions and a brokerage firm, in a proposed
class action lawsuit alleging violations of Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and negligence.  The
plaintiff seeks class action status for an alleged 40-100
similarly situated persons.

Sugar Creek Financial Corp. is a bank holding company.  Tempo
Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sugar Creek Financial, which
is a majority owned subsidiary of Sugar Creek MHC.  The company's
business activities primarily consist of the ownership of the
outstanding capital stock of Tempo Bank.  The Bank operates a
full-service branch office in Breese, Illinois.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Suit Complains About Reduced Vehicle Resale Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that while most recent class
actions against Toyota have concentrated on safety problems or
Toyota stock prices, a new class action in Brooklyn Federal Court
seeks damages for the reduced resale value of the roughly six
million vehicles.

A copy of the Complaint in DuBois v. Toyota Motor North America
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00779 (E.D.N.Y.) (Block, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/23/Toyota.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. Haggerty, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. HAGGERTY
          45 Broadway, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 866-960-8648

               - and -

          Tim Howard, Esq.
          John Rimes, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          8511 Bull Headley Rd., Suite 405
          Tallahassee, FL 32312
          Telephone: 850-298-4455

               - and -

          Norwood S. Wilner, Esq.
          WILNER, HARTLEY & METCALF
          3127 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 3
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: 904-446-9817

               - and -

          Stephen A. Sheller, Esq.
          1528 Walnut St., 3rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-790-7300

               - and -

          Richard A. Daynard, Esq.
          400 Huntington Ave.
          Boston, MA 02115
          Telephone: 617-373-2026

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD A. BRODERICK
          727 Atlantic Ave., 2nd Floor
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617-738-7080

               - and -

          Neil S. Sader, Esq.
          THE SADER LAW FIRM
          4739 Belleview Ave., Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112-1364
          Telephone: 816-561-1818

               - and -

          Douglas Lyons, Esq.
          LYONS & FARRAR, P.A.
          325 Calhoun St.
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: 850-222-8811

               - and -

          Eddie Farrah, Esq.
          FARRAH & FARRAH
          10 W. Adams St.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-807-3112

               - and -

          Larry Gornick, Esq.
          LEVIN, SIMES, KEISER & GORNICK, LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 36th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 877-575-4529


WEST CORP: Approval of Settlement in Georgia Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Corp. continues to await approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia of the settlement
agreement in the matter Tammy Kerce v. West Telemarketing
Corporation, Case No. 07-cv-00081, according to West Corp.'s Feb.
12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2007.  Ms. Kerce, a former home
agent, alleges that she was improperly classified as an
independent contractor instead of an employee and is therefore
entitled to minimum wage and overtime compensation.  Plaintiff
sought to have the case certified as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff's suit seeks statutory
and compensatory damages.

On Dec. 21, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification in which she requested that the Court conditionally
certify a class of all West home agents who were classified as
independent contractors for the prior three years for purposes of
notice and discovery.  West filed its Response in Opposition to
the Motion for Conditional Certification on
Feb. 11, 2008.  The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification on May 21, 2008.

Individual agents were sent notice of the suit and provided an
opportunity to join as consenting plaintiffs.  Of the 31,000
agents, approximately 2,800 elected to opt-in to the suit.  The
deadline for joining the FLSA suit expired in December 2008.

Plaintiff Tammy Kerce filed a Motion to Amend her Complaint
seeking to assert a nation-wide class action based on alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and also seeking to add multiple state wage and hour
claims on a class basis.  The Court granted leave to Plaintiff to
amend her Complaint on March 26, 2009, but Plaintiff has not yet
filed her amended complaint.  

Plaintiff's counsel and West entered into a tentative settlement
during mediation held April 24, 2009.

West Corp. -- http://www.west.com/-- is a customer relationship  
management (CRM) solution provider, offering comprehensive
customer service outsourcing programs.


YELP INC: Veterinary Hospital Suit Complains of Extortion
---------------------------------------------------------
Robin Wauters at TechCrunch.com reports that two law firms, Beck
& Lee from Miami, Fla., and The Weston Firm in San Diego, Calif.
filed Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital Inc. v. Yelp Inc., Case No.
10-cv-_____ (C.D. Calif.), on Feb. 23, 2010 -- a class action
lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court alleging unfair business
practices by local business review and rating Web site operator
Yelp.  

The plaintiff in the suit, a veterinary hospital in Long Beach,
Calif., is said to have requested that Yelp remove a negative
review from the Web site, which was allegedly refused by the San
Francisco startup, after which its sales representatives
repeatedly contacted the hospital demanding payments of roughly
$300 per month in exchange for hiding or deleting the review.

Sounds familiar, you say?  You may be thinking of last year, when
East Bay Express ran an explosive story, basically accusing Yelp
of being in the 'Business of Extortion 2.0' which covered similar
ground.  Shortly after reporter Kathleen Richards published the
article, Yelp vehemently denied everything and called her piece
inaccurate.  Now, the company will have to defend itself in court
rather than on its company blog, Ms. Wauters says.  

The lawsuit essentially alleges that the heavily funded startup
runs an "extortion scheme" and has "unscrupulous sales practices"
in place to generate revenue, in which the company's employees
call businesses demanding monthly payments in the guise of
advertising contracts, in exchange for removing or modifying
negative reviews.  

A Yelp representative tells Ms. Wauters that: "Yelp provides a
valuable service to millions of consumers and businesses, based
on trusted content.  This is evidenced by advertisers and non-
advertisers, who each have negative and positive reviews.  While
we haven't seen the suit yet, anyone can file one, and since the
allegations are false we will dispute them aggressively.  The
class action lawsuit comes mere weeks after Yelp took a large
investment from Elevation Partners, and months after we reported
the company walked away from a $550 million Google acquisition
deal."

"We believe that Yelp's sales tactics amount to high-tech
extortion," observed:

          Jared H. Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS
          Courthouse Plaza Building
          28 West Flagler Street, Suite 555
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-0072

which filed the lawsuit along with The Weston Firm.  "The victims
tend to be small businesses, such as our client, who often have
no choice but to pay Yelp exorbitant sums in order to prevent
further harm to their livelihoods."

Mr. Beck's co-counsel:

          Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
          The Weston Firm
          888 Turquoise Street
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 488-1672

said, "We are asking the court to certify a nationwide class and
enter an injunction to bring a stop to Yelp's wrongful conduct. I
urge any other small business that has been victimized by these
tactics to contact my law office."


* Class Action Pros Give New Ont. R. Civ. Proc. Mixed Reviews
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl-Lynn Carlson at The Financial Post reports that changes to
the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure have provided class-action
defence lawyers with better ammunition when seeking to knock out
suits early in the litigation game.

Under Section 20 of Ontario's new Rules of Civil Procedure. which
came into effect in January, judges are empowered to make
findings on the credibility of evidence if either the plaintiff
or the defendant makes a motion for a summary judgment. The rule
allows a judge to dismiss a claim and stop a case dead in its
tracks before a motion for certification is heard. It was used
recently in one case by a hospital to end a class suit.

"Class actions are relatively easy to get certified in Ontario,"
said:

          Barry Glaspell, Esq.
          BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS
          Scotia Plaza
          40 King Street West
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 367-6000

in Toronto, a regional leader in the firm's large class-action
group headed by:

          Timothy O. Buckley, Esq.
          BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS
          Scotia Plaza
          40 King Street West
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 367-6000

"So what we will be increasingly seeing are summary judgment
motions in class actions to dismiss all or part of the claim that
shouldn't go to trial because there's no genuine issue requiring
a trial. They can be dealt with more summarily and that's
consistent with the class-action notion of efficient use of
judicial resources."

Another lawyer:

          Glenn Smith, Esq.
          LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP
          130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 2600
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 3P5
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 865-9500

says the summary judgment rule enables defendant counsel to seek
the dismissal of some cases before reaching the trial stage.

"The summary judgment procedure will weed out cases with no
merit," he says.

However:

          James C. Orr, Esq.
          KIM ORR BARRISTERS P.C.
          200 Front Street West, suite 2300
          P.O. Box #45
          Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3K2
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 596-1414

which exclusively represents plaintiffs in class actions, is
skeptical.

"The summary judgment rule will have an impact but I have, I
admit, a cynical view," he said. "I think it will be negative for
the process because most motions that are brought by defendants
are brought for two reasons: to delay, and to try to wear down
the plaintiffs financially, as they usually have a significant
financial advantage."

As summary judgments are also subject to appeal, matters have the
potential to be even further delayed, Mr. Orr said.

Nonetheless, Mr. Smith said there are additional rules that
require experts to sign a form for the court pledging their
objectivity that will also serve to help with class-action
lawsuits, he said.

"Experts have to fill out a form reminding them their first duty
is to the court and not to the lawyer who retained them. The
lawyers are adversarial but the expert should not be."

The procedural reforms were introduced following a four-year
Civil Justice Reform Project headed by Honourable Coulter
Osborne, former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario. They are
designed to empower judges to expedite matters so trials don't
plod on for years.

From a plaintiff lawyer's perspective:

          Jay Strosberg
          SUTTS STROSBERG LLP
          600 - 251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (519) 258-9333
said the changes should be of tremendous assistance in
determining the merits of cases early on.

"If your case isn't strong at the outset, you probably want to
know about it. If you have a slam dunk from a plaintiff's
perspective, you want to know early, as do the defendants. But if
you have an air ball, you also want to know," he said, leveraging
a basketball analogy.

"The class members and the class counsel are not well served
litigating a case for years and putting in a tremendous amount of
resources."

However, Mr. Orr thinks it will be used to delay legitimate
cases. "I think you're going to see a lot of delay in this
litigation resulting from defendants trying to use this rule to
their advantage, not by getting a summary judgment, but only to
achieve a delay."

Even if the plaintiff believes a defendant is requesting a
summary judgment to delay the case, it's a difficult argument to
assert.

"Plaintiffs can only recover indemnity costs if they can prove
the defendant brought the motion for the purpose of creating a
delay, and how do you do that? A lot of the playbook that I've
seen so far is just about stringing things out and maximize their
financial advantage," he said.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Continues to Face Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., for over 30 years, is still a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 18, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations
by plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each
50 percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April
16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against
the Company, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served
on the Company.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. supplies
paints, coatings, optical products, specialty materials,
chemicals, glass and fiber glass. The Company has more than 140
manufacturing facilities and equity affiliates and operates in
more than 60 countries. Sales in 2009 were US$12.2 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers' Net Reserves at $2.758Bil at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net reserves for asbestos
exposure claims amounted to US$2.758 billion at and for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$2.914 billion at and for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 18 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Net asbestos losses paid were US$341 million in 2009, US$658
million in 2008 and US$317 million in 2007. Asbestos payments in
2008 included the Company's one-time net payment of US$365
million associated with the settlement of the ACandS, Inc.
matter.

About 41 percent in 2009, about 59 percent in 2008 and about 20
percent in 2007 of total net paid losses related to policyholders
with whom the Company had entered into settlement agreements
limiting the Company's liability.

The Company had 1,715 asbestos-related policyholders at and for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 1,674 policyholders
at and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Company and PPG Industries, Inc., along
with about 30 other insurers of PPG, agreed in principle to an
agreement to settle asbestos-related coverage litigation under
insurance policies issued to PPG. The tentative settlement
agreement has been incorporated into the Modified Third Amended
Plan of Reorganization proposed as part of the Pittsburgh Corning
Corp. ("PCC", which is 50 percent owned by PPG) bankruptcy
proceeding.

Under the proposed Amended Plan, which was filed on Jan. 30,
2009, PCC, along with enumerated other companies (including PPG
as well as the Company as a participating insurer), are to
receive protections afforded by Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code from certain asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

Under the agreement in principle, the Company has the option to
make a series of payments over the next 20 years totaling about
US$620 million to the Trust to be created under the Amended Plan,
or it may elect to make a one-time discounted payment, which, as
of June 30, 2010, would total about US$443 million (about US$414
million after reinsurance).

The agreement in principle with PPG is subject to numerous
contingencies, including final court approval of the Amended
Plan, and the Company has no obligation to make the settlement
payment until all contingencies are satisfied.

Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a
holding company principally engaged, through its subsidiaries, in
providing commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, government units,
associations and individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Facing Insurance Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. continues to be subject to
aggressive asbestos-related litigation, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 18, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Company subsidiary Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and
other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies Inc. (SPC))
in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases
subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by
inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. The
plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers.

Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of
asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state
courts. These suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory
and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.

Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against
TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in these suits are collectively
referred to as the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the
bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville
Corporation issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the
prosecution of the Statutory Actions (but not the Hawaii
Actions), the Common Law Claims and an additional set of cases
filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio, and enjoining
certain attorneys from filing any further lawsuits against TPC
based on similar allegations. Notwithstanding the injunction,
additional common law claims were filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement requires a payment
of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.

Among the contingencies for each of these settlements is a final
order of the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these
claims, and similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC,
are barred by prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (1986
Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the
pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common
Law Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order).

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order. On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties
to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en
banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment,
which were denied.

TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second
Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions were
granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
Company, reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision,
finding that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the
Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law
Claims against TPC. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.

However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues. Accordingly, the
settlements are not yet final.

On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying
Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of
the order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.
Oral argument on the issues remaining to be considered on remand
took place on Oct. 22, 2009. The parties await a decision from
the Second Circuit.

Headquartered in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. is a
holding company principally engaged, through its subsidiaries, in
providing commercial and personal property and casualty insurance
products and services to businesses, government units,
associations and individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Goodyear Tire Drop to 90,200 in 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company dropped to 90,200 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009
from 99,000 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according
to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 18, 2010 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 96,700 asbestos claims during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 1,600
new claims filed and 10,400 claims settled or dismissed. Payments
amounted to US$20 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,600
new claims filed and 23,000 claims settled or dismissed during
the year. Payments amounted to US$23 million.

The Company is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to certain asbestos products manufactured by the
Company or present in certain of its facilities. Typically, these
lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state
and Federal courts.

To date, the Company has disposed of about 82,500 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement. The sum of the Company's accrued asbestos-related
liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs,
totaled about US$349 million through Dec. 31, 2009 and US$325
million through Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$136
million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$132 million at Dec. 31, 2008. The
portion of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos
claims and related defense costs was US$70 million at Dec. 31,
2009 and US$71 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's liability with respect to asserted claims and
related defense costs was US$66 million at Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$61 million at Dec. 31, 2008. At Dec. 31, 2009,
the Company estimates that it is reasonably possible that its
gross liabilities, net of its estimate for probable insurance
recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts by US$15 million.

The Company had recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims
of US$69 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$65 million at
Dec. 31, 2008. Of these amounts, US$11 million at Dec. 31, 2009
and US$10 million at Dec. 31, 2008 were included in Current
Assets as part of Accounts receivable.

The Company said it believes that, at Dec. 31, 2009, it had about
US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos
products claims, in addition to limits of available primary
insurance policies. Some of these excess policies provide for
payment of defense costs in addition to indemnity limits.

A portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the US$69 million insurance receivable recorded at
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis, and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at Dec.
31, 2009.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
develops, manufactures, markets and distributes tires for most
applications. The Company also markets and manufactures rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. Its 2009 net sales
were US$16.3 billion, and its net loss in 2009 was US$375
million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Spends $2.9M for Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation spent US$2,904,000 for asbestos coverage
litigation during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with US$4,905,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Feb. 18,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$1,845,000 during the three months ended Oct. 2, 2009, compared
with US$5,148,000 during the three months ended Sept. 26, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company spent US$11,742,000 for asbestos coverage litigation
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$17,612,000
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Asbestos liability and defense income was US$1,107,000 during the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2009. Asbestos liability and defense
costs were US$1,987,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31,
2008.

Asbestos liability and defense income was US$2,193,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Asbestos liability and defense costs
were US$4,771,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation makes critical
fluid-handling products and technologies. Through its global
operating subsidiaries, the Company manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power
generation, commercial marine, global naval and general
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $34.866Mil Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$34,866,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$28,574,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed on Feb. 18, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's current accrued asbestos liability was
US$28,103,000 as of Oct. 2, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
13, 2009)

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$408,903,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$328,684,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008.

The Company's current asbestos insurance asset was US$30,606,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$26,473,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008. The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$28,991,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$36,371,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was
US$358,843,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$277,542,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008. The Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable was US$16,878,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation makes critical
fluid-handling products and technologies. Through its global
operating subsidiaries, the Company manufactures positive
displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power
generation, commercial marine, global naval and general
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Inc., Units Still Party to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiaries, as premises owners, continue to
be defendants in several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf
of persons alleging injury predominantly as a result of
occupational exposure to asbestos at various company facilities.

In addition, an Alcoa subsidiary company has been named, along
with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern
complaint where the Company's involvement is not evident. Since
1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed.

To date, the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every case
that was actually placed in line for trial. The Company, its
subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had numerous
insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for
asbestos based claims.

Many of these policies provide layers of coverage for varying
periods of time and for varying locations.

Headquartered in New York, Alcoa Inc. produces and manages
primary aluminum, fabricated aluminum, and alumina combined,
through its active and growing participation in all major aspects
of the industry: technology, mining, refining, smelting,
fabricating, and recycling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp.'s Liability at $20.58MM at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$20,587,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$19,644,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed on Feb. 18, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$19,644,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
6, 2009)

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$6,944,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$4,632,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables
amounted to US$20,466,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$4,632,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$6,944,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$4,632,000 as of Dec. 31,
2008.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products
for applications in diverse markets including: communications
infrastructure, consumer products, portable communications, mass
transit, defense, automotive, and sustainable energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural, Units Party to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
continue to be involved in various claims relating to the
exposure of asbestos and silica to seamen who sailed on the Great
Lakes vessels formerly owned and operated by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries.

The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs
Steamship Company have been named defendants in 487 actions
brought from 1986 to date by former seamen in which the
plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses
allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos
fibers while serving as crew members aboard the vessels
previously owned or managed by our entities until the mid-1980s.

All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict
proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose docket
now includes a total of over 30,000 maritime cases filed by
seamen against ship-owners and other defendants. All of these
cases have been dismissed without prejudice, but could be
reinstated upon application by plaintiffs' counsel.

By court orders on Oct. 29, 2009 and Jan. 4, 2010, the court
reinstated a total of 760 cases in three groups. The Company is a
defendant in eight cases that have been reinstated.

The plaintiffs in these reinstated cases have been ordered to
file notices in each case identifying the remaining defendants
they intend to pursue and serve the remaining defendants with a
medical diagnosis or opinion upon which the plaintiffs intend to
rely within 10 days of filing the notice. Defendants in each case
will then have the opportunity to file answers and procedural
motions.

It is anticipated that scheduling orders will be issued in each
group of cases providing discovery, motion practice and
settlement discussions to occur during 2010, with unsettled cases
going to trial beginning at the end of 2010. The claims in the
eight reinstated cases involve allegations with respect to lung
cancer, asbestosis and pleural changes of varying severity.

The claims against the Company's entities are insured in amounts
that vary by policy year. However, the manner in which these
retentions will be applied remains uncertain.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.
is a mining and natural resources company that produces iron ore
pellets in North America, supplies direct-shipping lump and fines
iron ore out of Australia, and produces metallurgical coal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Inc. Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be party to unresolved legal
actions, including asbestos-related, that arise in the normal
course of business.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Peoria, Ill., Caterpillar Inc. makes
construction, mining, and logging machinery; diesel and natural
gas engines; industrial gas turbines; and electrical power
generation systems. The Company has plants worldwide and sells
its equipment globally via a network of 3,500 locations in 180
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 75,030 Open Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 75,030 unresolved asbestos claims
at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 75,706 unresolved claims at Dec.
31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb.
19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 75,357 unresolved asbestos claims at Sept. 30,
2009, compared with 82,823 claims at Sept. 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits allege personal injury resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek
both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on the Company's premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 8,455
claims filed and 9,131 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. Claimants with claims against both the Company and
Amchem numbered to 24,146 and there were 50,844 individual
claimants at Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 200, the Company recorded 10,922
claims filed and 25,538 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise
resolved. Claimants with claims against both the Company and
Amchem numbered to 24,213 and there were 51,493 individual
claimants at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and
polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Cites $839M Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$839 million at Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 19, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2009, about 23 percent of the recorded liability
related to pending claims and about 77 percent related to future
claims.

The Company recorded defense costs of US$62 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$60 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company recorded resolution costs of US$94 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$116 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact
for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$58
million in 2009, US$53 million in 2008 and US$84 million in 2007.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and
polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Cites $84MM Receivable at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$84 million at Dec. 31,
2009 and US$403 million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers with
settlement agreements totaled US$448 million at Dec. 31, 2009, of
which US$91 million were receivables for defense costs and US$357
million were receivables for resolution costs.

Receivables for costs submitted to insurance carriers with
settlement agreements totaled US$272 million at Dec. 31, 2008, of
which US$28 million were receivables for defense costs and US$244
million were receivables for resolution costs.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are converted into
the most widely used plastics resins: polyethylene and
polypropylene. The Company also produces ethylene oxide and
ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers and antifreeze. The
Company is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds American Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit, which is pending in a West Virginia
court and filed against Reynolds American Inc. subsidiaries: R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc., is
still stayed.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, W.Va., the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified
amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., Reynolds American Inc. is a
holding company whose operating subsidiaries include the second
largest cigarette manufacturer in the United States, R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, and the second largest smokeless
tobacco products manufacturer in the United States, American
Snuff Company, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Records $96MM Total Liability in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's total asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$96 million during the year ended December 2009, compared with
US$124 million during the year ended December 2008, according to
the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The current liability amounted to US$10 million during the year
ended December 2009, compared with US$11 million during the year
ended December 2008.

During the year ended December 2009, liabilities related to
incurred-but-not-reported asbestos claims were US$43 million and
liabilities related to asserted claims were US$53 million.

During the year ended December 2008, liabilities related to IBNR
claims were US$54 million and liabilities related to asserted
claims were US$70 million.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corporation's rail and
intermodal businesses provide rail-based transportation services
including traditional rail service and the transport of
intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Occupational Claims v. CSX Drop to 3,782 in '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos and occupational claims against CSX Corporation dropped
to 3,782 during the fiscal year ended December 2009 from 4,904
during the fiscal year ended December 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the year ended December 2009, the Company recorded 298 new
claims filed, 184 claims settled, and 1,236 claims dismissed.
During the year ended December 2008, the Company recorded 400 new
claims filed, 392 claims settled, and 6,092 claims dismissed.

In 2008, about 5,700 of the dismissed claims were asbestos claims
related to the Company's previously owned international container
shipping business. The claims were administratively dismissed for
lack of medical evidence. The remaining open asbestos claims
related to the shipping business are about 117. The Company had
about US$3 million reserved for these shipping business claims at
December 2009 and 2008, respectively.

During 2009, the Company reduced its reserves for asbestos and
occupational injuries by US$43 million. Asbestos reserve
reductions of US$24 million were primarily related to about 1,500
claims that were deemed to have no medical merit and therefore
have been determined to have no value.

Reserves for asbestos related claims were US$96 million at
December 2009 and US$124 million at December 2008. Reserves for
all other occupational claims were US$63 million at December 2009
and US$80 million at December 2008.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corporation's rail and
intermodal businesses provide rail-based transportation services
including traditional rail service and the transport of
intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide's Insurance Case Ongoing in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related comprehensive
insurance coverage is still continuing in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for
various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely
collection of insurance proceeds (Insurance Litigation).

The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and do not otherwise have
agreements in place with the Corporation regarding their
asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate an
orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies and
to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Since the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements
with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation, including settlements reached with two significant
carriers in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., CSX Corporation's rail and
intermodal businesses provide rail-based transportation services
including traditional rail service and the transport of
intermodal containers and trailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Corp. Still Party to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. has been named as a defendant in pending
asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple
defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, 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, however, could result in additional actions
being brought against the Company.

Headquartered in Akron, Ohio, FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities
provide electricity to 4.5 million customers in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The Company's domestic power plants
have a total generating capacity of more than 14,170 MW, most
generated by coal-fired plants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Has $948MM Retirement Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement liability was
US$948 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$859 million at
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


These liabilities primarily relate to nuclear generation plant
decommissioning, land reclamation related to lignite mining,
removal of lignite/coal-fueled plant ash treatment facilities and
generation plant asbestos removal and disposal costs.

Headquartered in Dallas, Energy Future Holdings Corp. is a
holding company conducting operations principally through its
Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC and its TCEH and
Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd's Provisions Totaled $53Mil at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd recorded total asbestos-related provisions of US$53
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$54 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed
on Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Of the total at Dec. 31, 2009, about US$28 million related to
provisions and other current liabilities and about US$25 million
related to non-current liabilities.

Of the total at Dec. 31, 2008, about US$4 million related to
provisions and other current liabilities and about US$50 million
related to other non-current liabilities.

The Company's Combustion Engineering, Inc. subsidiary (CE) was a
co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller
number of claims were also brought against the Company's former
Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the
Company.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE
plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization
(collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and
Aug. 31, 2006, respectively.

Included in the asbestos provisions above are two additional
payments of US$25 million each to the CE Asbestos PI Trust for
which the Company is liable on a contingent basis. One additional
payment of US$25 million is payable in 2010 or 2011 if the
Company attains an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)
margin of 9 percent for 2009 or 14 percent in 2010.

The other payment of US$25 million is payable in 2011 if the
Company attains an EBIT margin of 9.5 percent in 2010.

Headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd specialized in
power and automation technologies. The Company works with
customers to engineer and install networks, facilities and plants
with particular emphasis on enhancing efficiency, reliability and
productivity for customers who generate, convert, transmit,
distribute and consume energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Reserves $12.11M for Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation's reserve for asbestos litigation amounted
to US$12,111,000 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$11,705,000 at
Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving
exposure to asbestos. These cases involve exposure to asbestos in
premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
subsidiaries of the Company. Nearly all of these cases are
pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple
defendants.

The Company provided an undiscounted liability related to
premises asbestos claims of US$13.6 million at year-end 2009 and
US$13.2 million at year-end 2008.

The receivable for these recoveries related to premises asbestos
liabilities was US$9.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$9.5
million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Richmond, NewMarket Corporation is a holding
entity for two operating subsidiaries: Afton Chemical and Ethyl.
Afton Chemical manufactures petroleum additives used to improve
the performance of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels and as a
lubricant in motor oil, fluids, and grease. Ethyl's main product
is the antiknock additive tetraethyl lead (TEL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Records $7.3Mil for Cleanup at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$7.3 million in
"Accounts payable and other" as of Dec. 31, 2009 for asbestos and
environmental cleanup, compared with US$5.5 million as of Dec.
31, 2008.

The Company recorded US$3.4 million in "Other long-term
liabilities" as of Dec. 31, 2009 for asbestos and environmental
cleanup, compared with US$2.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of contaminated
sites, asbestos containing materials, management of hazardous
waste material disposal, outstanding air quality measures for
certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets, and
penalties the Company has been or expect to be assessed.

Headquartered in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is a
publicly traded limited partnership that owns and operates crude
oil and liquid petroleum transportation and storage assets, and
natural gas gathering, treating, processing, transportation and
marketing assets in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Still a "Premises Defendant" in Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation continues to be a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner. None of the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the
cases and payment of any amounts due to the claimants.

In its 14-year experience with tendering these cases, the Company
has not made any payment with respect to any tendered asbestos
cases. The Company said it believes that the prior owners have
the intention and ability to continue to honor their indemnity
obligations.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 18
cases tendered during period, 20 cases resolved during period and
1,138 unresolved at end of period. During the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, the Company recorded 21 cases tendered during period, 73
cases resolved during period and 1,140 cases unresolved at end of
period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$16 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$16 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. The Company has made no accruals
with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of Dec.
31, 2009.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded three
cases filed during period, seven cases resolved during period and
30 cases unresolved at end of period. During the year ended Dec.
31, 2008, the Company recorded 8 case filed during period, four
cases resolved during period and 43 cases unresolved at end of
period.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation
manufactures differentiated organic chemical products and
inorganic chemical products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Has 167 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had about 167 pending asbestos claims as of
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 163 pending claims as of Dec. 31,
2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 19,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

About 201 asbestos claims were pending against the Company as of
Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Of the 167 claims pending as of Dec. 31, 2009, 55 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought, 109 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (about 1.8 percent of
the pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these three claims, two claims allege compensatory and
punitive damages of US$20 million; and one claim alleges
compensatory and punitive damages of US$1 million and an
unspecified amount of exemplary damages, interest and costs.
These three claims name from nine to 76 defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was able to
have 96 claims dismissed and settled 22 claims. For the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2008, about 83 claims were dismissed and four
were settled.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled. Those settlements totaled about
US$7.6 million in 2009, compared with about US$1.5 million for
2008.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products
for applications in diverse markets including: communications
infrastructure, consumer products, portable communications, mass
transit, defense, automotive, and sustainable energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites 22,829 Abex Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at Dec. 31, 2009, recorded 22,829
pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation
to Pneumo-Abex Corporation (Pneumo).

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products
business to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued
businesses (including the Abex Friction product line obtained
from Pneumo-Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through
subsidiary companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was
sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
Aug. 17, 1998 (1998 Agreement).

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that Cooper may have to Pneumo unde a
1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company
and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject
to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement.

As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex Friction product line (Abex Claims),
the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant
insurance for those claims. Based on information provided by
representatives of Federal-Mogul and recent claims experience,
from Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2009, a total of 147,740 Abex
Claims were filed, of which 124,911 claims have been resolved.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, 1,565 claims were filed and
2,424 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average
indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,106 before
insurance. A total of US$167.7 million was spent on defense costs
for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2009.

Existing insurance coverage currently provides about 30 percent
recovery of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex
Claims due to exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and
litigation with certain excess insurers, although, in certain
periods, insurance recoveries can be higher due to new
settlements with insurers.

Headquartered in Dublin, Cooper Industries plc's electrical
products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as
lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and
distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and
industrial use. Its other main business segment manufactures
power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-
it-yourself and commercial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites $784.5MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, as of Dec. 31, 2009, estimates that the
undiscounted liability for pending and future asbestos-related
indemnity and defense costs for the next 45 years will be
US$784.5 million, according to the Company's annual report filed
on Feb. 19, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

This amount includes accruals for unpaid indemnity and defense
costs at Dec. 31, 2009 which are not significant.

Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

Although it said it believes that its estimated liability for
pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the
best estimate of its future obligation, the Company utilized
scenarios that it believes are reasonably possible that indicate
a broader range of potential estimates from US$505 million to
US$877 million (undiscounted).

Headquartered in Dublin, Cooper Industries plc's electrical
products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as
lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and
distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and
industrial use. Its other main business segment manufactures
power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-
it-yourself and commercial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites $179.3M Receivable at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc's asbestos-related receivables for
recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to US$179.3 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009, of which US$64.6 million relate to costs
previously paid or insurance settlements.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$680 million.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers may defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the
Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months. About 90 percent
of the US$179.3 million receivable from insurance companies at
Dec. 31, 2009 is due from domestic insurers whose AM Best rating
is Excellent (A-) or better.

Headquartered in Dublin, Cooper Industries plc's electrical
products segment makes circuit protection equipment, as well as
lighting fixtures, wiring devices, and other power management and
distribution equipment for residential, commercial, and
industrial use. Its other main business segment manufactures
power tools for the industrial market and hand tools for the do-
it-yourself and commercial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Class Certification in AMSF Case OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, upheld the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which
denied The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) class
certification in a case filed against Halliburton Co.

The case is styled The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund,
Inc., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. Halliburton Co.; David J. Lesar,
Defendants-Appellees.

Circuit Judges Reavley, Clement and Southwick entered judgment in
Case No. 08-11195 on Feb. 12, 2010.

AMSF filed this putative securities fraud class action as lead
plaintiff against Halliburton and David Lesar, the Chief
Operating Officer and then CEO during the class period, alleging
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10(b)-5.

AMSF claimed that Halliburton made false statements about three
areas of its business:

-- Halliburton's potential liability in asbestos litigation,

-- Halliburton's accounting of revenue in its engineering and
   construction business, and

-- The benefits to Halliburton of a merger with Dresser
   Industries.

AMSF contended that investors lost money when Halliburton issued
subsequent disclosures correcting the false statements and the
market declined following the negative news.

Caryl L. Boies, Esq., Sashi Bach Boruchow, Esq., Carl E.
Goldfarb, Esq., of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Fort Lauderdale,
Fla., FL, David Boies, Esq., of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P.
in Armonk, N.Y., represented AMSF.

Robb L. Voyles, Esq., Jessica B. Pulliam, Esq., of Baker Botts,
L.L.P. in Dallas, Scott Daniel Powers, Esq., of Baker Botts,
L.L.P. in Austin, Tex., David D. Sterling, Esq., of Baker Botts,
L.L.P. in Houston, represented for Halliburton Co.

Robert Alan York, Esq., Donald E. Godwin, Esq., Jenny LaNell
Martinez, Esq., of Godwin Ronquillo, PC in Dallas, represented
Mr. Lesar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Has $2.8MM Potential Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2009,
it has recorded and asbestos liability of US$2.8 million,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 22, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The liability was related to potential future asbestos abatement
activities at the Company's Properties.

Headquartered in Chattanooga, Tenn., CBL & Associates Properties,
Inc. is a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real
estate investment trust. The Company owns, develops, acquires,
leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls, open-air
centers, community centers and office properties. Its properties
are in 27 states, but are primarily in the southeastern and
midwestern United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Accrues $5.3Mil Liability in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas, Inc. had accrued $5.3 million as of the end of
fiscal year 2009 (US$5.1 million as of the end of fiscal year
2008) related to product liability, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 22, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

These accruals primarily relate to probable asbestos claim
settlements and legal defense costs.

The Company has certain indemnification obligations related to
product liability and toxic tort claims that might emanate out of
the 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex Corporation. Other companies
not owned by or associated with the Company also are responsible
to Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all asbestos product
liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex after a certain date
in 1998, except for certain claims indemnified by the Company.

The Company also has additional amounts accrued for legal and
other costs associated with currently open claims and their
related costs. These amounts are included in the total
liabilities of US$30.4 million accrued as of the end of fiscal
year 2009.

In addition to the known and probable asbestos claims, the
Company may be subject to additional asbestos claims that are
possible for which no reserve had been established as of the end
of fiscal year 2009. These additional reasonably possible claims
are primarily asbestos-related and the aggregate exposure related
to these possible claims is estimated to be in the range of US$4
million to US17 million.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, PepsiAmericas, Inc. manufactures,
distributes and markets a portfolio of beverage products in the
United States and Central and Eastern Europe, and distributes
snack foods in certain markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philips Records EUR81Mil Receivable at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. says that, at Dec. 31, 2009,
the recorded receivable from insurance carriers, for which
asbestos settlement agreements have been reached, amounted to EUR
81million (EUR34 million at Dec. 31, 2008).

Over the past decade, judicial proceedings were brought in the
United States, relating primarily to the activities of the
Company's U.S. subsidiary TH Agriculture & Nutrition L.L.C.
(THAN) prior to 1981. These proceedings involved allegations of
personal injury from alleged exposure to asbestos distributed by
THAN.

THAN's businesses, including those which gave rise to these
alleged liabilities, were completely sold in 1984 and its ongoing
operations were not material to its parent, Philips Electronics
North America Corporation (PENAC), or the Company.

In previous years, certain of the asserted claims were settled;
additionally various other alternatives for resolving pending and
future claims were explored. In the fourth quarter of 2008, THAN
filed a prepackaged plan of reorganization in the Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Plan became effective on Nov. 30, 2009, after having been
approved by the Bankruptcy Court (May 2009) and the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (October 2009).

Under the terms and conditions of the Plan, an Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust was established in accordance with section 524(g) of
the Bankruptcy Code to assume, liquidate and satisfy all THAN-
related asbestos liabilities. The Trust has been funded with
US$900million (EUR597 million) contributed by PENAC and THAN.

Additionally, under the Plan, PENAC has forgiven certain debt of
THAN, assumed certain liabilities from THAN, and transferred its
ownership interest in THAN to a trust associated with the
Asbestos Personal Injury Trust.

Under the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court issued a permanent
injunction that directs to the Trust all claims alleging personal
injury or death from exposure to asbestos distributed by THAN and
bars all related litigation against THAN, its affiliates
(including PENAC and the Company) and certain third parties.

In connection with these matters, a credit to income from
operations in the amount of EUR1 million was recorded in 2009
(2008: EUR353 million, 2007: EUR 4million). As of Dec. 31, 2009,
all PENAC obligations related to THAN's asbestos liabilities were
fully settled.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the recorded provision for loss contingencies
with respect to asbestos product liability amounted to EUR624
million. During 2009, costs of EUR9 million were incurred with
respect to litigation, claims administration, insurance
recoveries, and bankruptcy-related matters (2008: EUR24 million;
2007: EUR27 million).

In prior years, legal proceedings were commenced against certain
third-party insurance carriers which had provided various types
of product liability coverage to PENAC and THAN. During 2009 and
the last several years, agreements were reached with certain
insurance carriers resolving disputes with respect to the
interpretation and available limits of the policies, amounts
payable to PENAC and THAN, and terms under which future
settlements and related defense costs are reimbursable.

In conjunction with these settlements, insurance recoveries of
EUR65 million were recognized in 2009 (EUR89 million was
recognized in 2008 and EUR16 million was recognized in 2007).
Insurers paid EUR21 million in 2009 (EUR113 million was paid in
2008 and EUR27 million was paid in 2007) for asbestos-related
defense and indemnity costs.

Insurance receivables have not been recorded from non-settling
insurance carriers. Litigation against non-settling insurance
carriers continues to be pursued.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (Royal Philips Electronics N.V.) is a Health and
Well-being company. With sales of EUR23 billion in 2009, the
Company specializes in cardiac care, acute care and home
healthcare, energy efficient lighting solutions and new lighting
applications, as well as lifestyle products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to face
lawsuits in New York State and federal courts, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities
(Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc.).

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions
of dollars. However, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

In 2008, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is US$9 million.

In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos. Under current rate
agreements, CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets
(for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its
asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded US$10 million as accrued
liability for asbestos suits, about US$10 million regulatory
assets for asbestos suits, US$113 million accrued liability for
workers' compensation, and US$37 million regulatory assets for
workers' compensation.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded US$10 million as accrued
liability for asbestos suits, about US$10 million regulatory
assets for asbestos suits, US$114 million accrued liability for
workers' compensation, and US$38 million regulatory assets for
workers' compensation.

At Dec. 31, 2009, CECONY recorded US$9 million as accrued
liability for asbestos suits, about US$9 million regulatory
assets for asbestos suits, US$108 million accrued liability for
workers' compensation, and US$37 million regulatory assets for
workers' compensation.

At Dec. 31, 2008, CECONY recorded US$9 million as accrued
liability for asbestos suits, about US$9 million regulatory
assets for asbestos suits, US$109 million accrued liability for
workers' compensation, and US$38 million regulatory assets for
workers' compensation.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about
1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Still Facing 100 Steam Main Rupture Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 lawsuits continue to be pending against Consolidated
Edison, Inc. concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison
Company of New York's steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in
July 2007.

It has been reported that one person died and others were injured
as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the area were
damaged. Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos. The response to the incident required the
closing of several buildings and streets for various periods.

The suits seek unspecified compensatory and, in some cases,
punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and
business interruption.

The Company has not accrued a liability for the suits. The
Company has notified its insurers of the incident and said it
believes that the policies in force at the time of the incident
will cover most of the Company's costs.

Headquartered in New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main
subsidiary, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes
electricity to more than 3.2 million residential and business
customers in New York City; it also delivers natural gas to about
1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Inc. Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Incorporated, over the past several years and
continuing in 2009, has been named a defendant in cases where the
plaintiffs allege asbestos-related injuries from exposure to
asbestos products or exposure to asbestos while working at job
sites.

The claims vary widely and often are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company. None of the claimants
seeks damages from the Company individually, and the Company is
generally one of numerous defendants.

Many of the cases filed against the Company have been voluntarily
dismissed, although it has settled some cases. The settlements it
has paid have been covered mostly by insurance.

To date, no asbestos case against the Company has gone to trial.

Headquartered in Naperville, Ill., OfficeMax Incorporated
provides office supplies and paper, print and document services,
technology products and solutions and office furniture to large,
medium and small businesses, government offices and consumers.
Customers are served by about 31,000 associates through direct
sales, catalogs, the Internet and retail stores.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22,000 Premises, Product Claims Ongoing v. FMC
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 22,000 premises and product asbestos claims were pending
against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions, as of Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 22,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company faced about 29,000 pending
premises and product asbestos claims in several jurisdictions.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009)

Like hundreds of other industrial companies, the Company has been
named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or
death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of the
Company or to asbestos-containing components installed in
machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued
operations.

The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or
operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component
parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the
Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these
components.

Recently, a few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed
against equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed
by other companies on such machinery and equipment. The bulk of
the claims against the Company to date have been dismissed
without payment.

To date, the Company has had discharged about 85,000 asbestos
claims against it, the overwhelming majority of which have been
dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff. Settlements by
the Company with claimants to date have totaled about US$31
million.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, FMC Corporation is a diversified
chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial
markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and
market-leading products. The Company operates in three business
segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and
Industrial Chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 17,191 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2009, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by 17,191 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 255
claims from those previously reported.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by 17,446
plaintiffs, which was a net decrease of 136 claims from those
previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2009)

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 38,465 of those
claims were dismissed, 12 were tried to defense verdicts, four
were tried to plaintiff verdicts, one was resolved by agreement
for an immaterial amount and 563 were decided in favor of the
Company following summary judgment motions.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.
is a broad-line manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting
products. Welding products include arc welding power sources,
wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction
equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Kodak Co. Records $62Mil ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company recorded asset retirement obligations of
US$62 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$67 million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 22, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's asset retirement obligations primarily relate to
asbestos contained in buildings that the Company owns. In many of
the countries in which the Company operates, environmental
regulations exist that require the Company to handle and dispose
of asbestos in a special manner if a building undergoes major
renovations or is demolished.

Otherwise, the Company is not required to remove the asbestos
from its buildings.

Headquartered in Rochester, N.Y., Eastman Kodak Company provides
imaging technology products and services to the photographic and
graphic communications markets. The firm has restructured itself
to focus more on sales of digital cameras and imaging systems. It
operates through three segments: Consumer Digital Imaging Group;
Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment Group; and Graphic
Communications Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Ruling in Hall Action v. Warren Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, affirmed the
ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in an asbestos
case styled Bertie G. Hall, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Warren
Pumps LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Doi Todd, Chavez, and Boren entered judgment in Case No.
B208275 on Feb. 16, 2010.

Alfred Hall, husband of Bertie Hall, died of mesothelioma caused
by workplace exposure to asbestos. Mrs. Hall sued four
manufacturers of pumps and valves for Mr. Hall's injuries. None
of the defendants manufacture asbestos products.

The trial court gave judgment to defendants. The court found that
defendants had no liability because they did not manufacture,
sell or distribute the asbestos products that injured Mr. Hall,
nor did they have a duty to warn about using
asbestos products with their pumps and valves.

The court rejected Mrs. Hall's theory that defendants could be
liable for harmful asbestos products they neither made nor sold
if they could foresee the use of such products with their
equipment. The Appeal Court agreed and affirmed the judgment.

Mr. Hall joined the U.S. States Navy in 1944. Starting in 1945,
he served as a fireman and machinist mate on numerous Navy ships,
working in boiler rooms and engine rooms. He retired from
military service in 1964. He worked as a stationary engineer at a
B.F. Goodrich tire manufacturing facility from 1969 until 1988.
He was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma in January
2007 and died on Aug. 31, 2008.

Respondents were Warren Pumps LLC; Yarway Corporation; IMO
Industries Inc.; and Crane Co.

The Halls filed this tort suit in 2007. The trial court
bifurcated proceedings. The threshold issue presented for the
court's determination was whether the Halls could make a showing
of exposure to asbestos-containing products for which respondents
could be held responsible. The court conducted a seven-day bench
trial on this issue.

At the conclusion of the Halls' case, respondents made a motion
for judgment. The court found that all of the Asbestos Products
that Mr. Hall was exposed to were manufactured by third parties,
and purchased and supplied by the Navy or by Goodrich.
Respondents had no control over the type of insulation, packing
or gaskets purchased and used by Mr. Hall's employers.

The court concluded that there was nothing inherently dangerous
about the Equipment manufactured by respondents. As a result, the
Halls failed to establish threshold exposure to Asbestos Products
attributable to respondents. Further, respondents' duty to warn
about the risks of asbestos ended after removal of the Asbestos
Products originally shipped with the Equipment.

The judgment is affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in White's Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, reversed the
ruling of the Circuit Court of McLean County, which favored
plaintiff Rose White, in an asbestos case filed against Garlock
Sealing Technologies, LLC.

The case is styled Rose White, Individually and as Administratrix
of the Estate of Don R. White, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Steigmann, Myerscough and Appleton entered judgment in
Case No. 4-09-0036 on Feb. 8, 2010.

During an October 2008 wrongful-death jury trial based upon
asbestos exposure (which was the second jury trial in this case),
the trial court sanctioned Garlock for failing to produce a
witness. The court entered judgment against Garlock on the issues
of liability and causation and ordered the case to proceed on the
issue of damages only. The jury subsequently awarded Mrs. White
US$500,000 in damages.

Garlock appealed, arguing that (1) the trial court erred by
finding that Garlock violated Rule 237(b); (2) if this court
agrees and orders a new trial, Garlock should be allowed to
introduce evidence of decedent's exposure to other sources of
asbestos; and (3) if this court affirms the court's Rule 237(b)
finding, the Appeal Court should order remittitur.

On Oct. 15, 2009, the jury returned a verdict for Mrs. White in
the amount of US$500,000. The court later reduced the judgment to
US$466,666.66 under a setoff.

The matter was remanded and a new trial was ordered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Royal Air Force Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 80-year-old Peter Gordon
Harding, a retired Royal Air Force officer, was linked to
workplace exposure to asbestos, chesterfirst reports.

Mr. Harding served the British Royal Air Force for more than 26
years at various locations across the world. He had also worked
for Cheshire County Council before retiring in 1988.

Mr. Harding developed a cough several years ago which did not go
away. His health deteriorated and he died on Oct. 29, 2009. The
Chester inquest was told Mr. Harding had worked as an airman in
communications as a telegraphist.

Mr. Harding's widow, Sylvia Harding, said he had at one point
been positioned in Maastricht where he worked in a communications
bunker underground. She said, "That's where I believe he came
into contact with asbestos. I have discovered talking to people
it was a known fact.

"He did say the piping there was lagged. Another chap said he
could see it in the atmosphere. In fact, the Americans would not
even work in there. When he became ill the RAF awarded him a
disability pension."

Pathologist Dr. Natalie Meara, who carried out a post-mortem
examination, determined cause of death was malignant
mesothelioma, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kettering Resident's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Tracey Carpenter, a 43-year-
old mother from Kettering, England, was linked to exposure to
asbestos, LawyersandSettlements.com reports.

The inquest heard that Ms. Carpenter had been exposed to asbestos
as a child through her father's work clothes, which she used to
help launder.

The Northants Evening Telegraph summarized proceedings at an
inquest into the death of Ms. Carpenter, held the day before at
Kettering Magistrates Court. A statement written by Ms. Carpenter
before she died detailed probable exposure to asbestos fibers in
her past.

Ms. Carpenter wrote that her father, Charles Fairey, labored as a
crane driver at a British Steel plant from 1956 through 1980. He
died that same year at the age of 56. No cause was given for his
death. However, Ms. Carpenter remembered her father arriving home
from his job wearing dusty clothing, which she would help launder
as a child.

Asbestos lawsuits representing Ms. Carpenter's estate have also
been in contact with Clifford Gunn, an individual who worked with
Ms. Carpenter's father and who was also diagnosed with asbestos
mesothelioma.

During the inquest into Ms. Carpenter's death, Coroner Anne
Pember stated, "[Carpenter] was only 43 years old and, sadly
having been exposed to asbestos when the dangers were not known,
developed a horrendous disease for which there is no cure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caversham Resident's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 17, 2010 inquest heard that the death of Harold Jelliman,
of Caversham, England, was linked to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Reading Post reports.

The 78-year-old Mr. Jelliman died on May 9, 2009 after developing
mesothelioma at the Sue Ryder Care Hospice in Nettlebed, South
Oxfordshire.

Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner held an inquest into Mr.
Jelliman's death. He recorded that Mr. Jelliman died of the
industrial disease mesothelioma, developed as a result of
exposure to asbestos during his working life.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Four Men Indicted for Cleanup Breaches in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An 11-count indictment was unsealed on Feb. 19, 2010 charging
four individuals with conspiracy, violations of the Clean Air
Act, and making false statements for their roles in a scheme to
improperly remove and dispose of asbestos from multiple
condominiums in Florida, according to a U.S. Department of
Justice press release dated Feb. 19, 2010.

John Loder, 43, of Redington Beach, Fla.; Stephen J. Spencer, 48,
of Clearwater, Fla.; Guy Gannaway, 53, of Safety Harbor, Fla.;
and Keith McConnell, a/k/a "Animal," 54, of Largo, Fla., were
charged in the indictment.

According to the indictment, Mr. Loder and Mr. Spencer were
members of an entity called Sun Vista Development Group LLC,
which was created to carry out the day-to-day operations and
administrative work associated with the purchase, renovation and
resale of large-scale condominium developments.

Two of these developments were Barefoot Beach Resort, formerly
known as Indian Pass Apartments, in Indian Shores, Fla., and
Shore Club Pasadena, formerly known as Pasadena Apartments, in
Pasadena, Fla.

Mr. Gannaway was the owner of Gannaway Builders Inc., a
construction company hired as the general contractor for both
Barefoot Beach Resort and Shore Club Pasadena. Mr. McConnell was
a supervisory employee of Gannaway Builders Inc. Units at these
developments had ceilings coated with a "popcorn"-texture that
contained greater than one percent asbestos.

According to the indictment, from November 2004 to Dec. 10, 2004,
the defendants directed renovation work to begin at Barefoot
Beach Resort without first conducting an asbestos survey for the
building.

From Dec. 10, 2004 until April 2005, the defendants discussed the
asbestos at Barefoot Beach Resort and rejected at least one bid
for complete removal of the asbestos-containing ceiling material
from Barefoot Beach Resort. They decided, instead, to cover the
existing ceilings with a new layer of drywall using Gannaway
Builders employees and subcontractors to install the new drywall.

The indictment alleges that the work practice standards for
asbestos, developed as part of the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, were not followed while the
renovation was performed at Barefoot Beach Resort between Nov.
15, 2004, and Sept. 15, 2005.

In some units, the asbestos-containing popcorn ceiling material
was completely removed following a roof leak on or about June 24,
2005, also without following the asbestos work practice
standards. Additionally, the indictment alleges that the
defendants made and caused others to make false statements to the
Pinellas County Air Quality Division in response to a notice of
violation issued to Sun Vista Development Group and Gannaway
Builders on Nov. 18, 2005.

Further, according to the indictment, from May 25, 2005 to Nov.
30, 2006, the defendants directed renovation work at Shore Club
Pasadena without removing the asbestos-containing ceiling
material prior to activity that disturbed the material. The
renovation work that caused improper disturbances to the
asbestos-containing material occurred without the presence of a
properly trained on-site representative.

All four defendants are charged with conspiracy to violate the
Clean Air Act and to make false statements. The indictment
additionally charges Mr. Loder and Mr. Spencer with five counts
of violating the Clean Air Act and one count of making a false
statement.

The indictment charges Mr. Gannaway with eight counts of
violating the Clean Air Act and two counts of making a false
statement. The indictment further charges Mr. McConnell with
eight counts of violating the Clean Air Act and one count of
making a false statement.

The maximum penalty for each count of the indictment includes
five years in prison and a US$250,000 fine.

This case was investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Criminal Investigation Division with assistance from the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It is being prosecuted by
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and
the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garside's Death Linked to Exposure to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Kenneth Garside, a former
naval worker from the United Kingdom, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, Asbestos.Net reports.

Mr. Garside died from mesothelioma in February 2008. He was 84 at
the time of his death.

Working as a shipwright is what exposed Mr. Garside to asbestos
particulate. Anyone who worked on or near a ship, especially in
the construction or routine maintenance of a ship, like Mr.
Garside did, would have breathed in the asbestos fibers on a
regular basis.

In Mr. Gardside's case, the coroner who performed the inquest,
David Horsley, recorded a verdict of industrial disease. He said,
"e would have had decades of exposure to asbestos through his
working life. He spent most of his working life in close
proximity to it. I can conclude very safely that he died due to
industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Merchant Mariner's Son Awarded $9Mil Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in Baltimore awarded Leroy Conway, Jr. more than US$9
million for being exposed to asbestos during his youth and
contracting mesothelioma thereafter, Asbestos.com reports.

The jury's decision awarded Leroy Conway, Jr. US$9.3 million for
pain and suffering and an extra US$636,688 for medical expenses.

Leroy Conway, Jr. was 10 years old when he was initially exposed
to asbestos. At the time the exposure occurred, his father, Leroy
Conway, was serving on the S.S. Baltimore Trader, an oil tanker
that was owned and operated by ATTRANSCO, Inc.

During Leroy Conway's employment as an engineman on the ship, he
often worked in areas that commonly contained asbestos materials.
After coming home from work, Mr. Conway would carry asbestos dust
on his clothes, which is how Leroy Conway Jr. was exposed.


Now 45 years old, Leroy Conway Jr. was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma in May 2007 and has undergone surgery to remove one
of his lungs. Since receiving the diagnosis, Leroy Conway Jr. has
been unable to work due to the symptoms associated with the
illness.

During the case, former captain of the S.S. Baltimore Trader
acknowledged that the presence of asbestos was known, but neither
the Company nor other members on board knew the dangers
associated with asbestos until 1980 at the earliest.

The jury, however, found ATTRANSCO to be guilty after claiming
the Company acted with negligence by failing to warn workers and
their families about the hazards of asbestos.

ATTRANSCO was the sole defendant named in the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roach Case Filed v. 14 Firms in Ill. on Feb. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aubrey and Olive Roach, on Feb. 17, 2010, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 14 defendant corporations in St. Clair
County Circuit Court, Ill., The St. Clair Record reports.

The Roaches claim Mr. Roach was diagnosed with lung cancer in
December 2008. They say Mr. Roach worked from 1946 until 1949 for
the U.S. Army and from 1949 until 1977 as a combat vehicle
mechanic for Red River Army Depot. While working, Mr. Roach was
exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos
fibers.

In the six-count lawsuit, the Roaches seek sums in excess of
US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$100,000 and compensatory damages in excess of US$100,000. They
also seek punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter the
defendants from their misconduct.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., represent the Roaches in Case
No. 10-L-76.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Millbury Local Fined $20.4T for Cleanup Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) has assessed a US$20,400 penalty to Cliff Fogg of
Millbury, Mass., for violations of state asbestos regulations
that occurred during work that he conducted at the AM Castle and
Company location on Quinsigamond Avenue in Worcester, according
to a MassDEP press release dated Feb. 24, 2010.

MassDEP determined that Mr. Fogg removed asbestos-containing
floor tiles from the site and placed the asbestos waste materials
in a roll-off container for disposal. MassDEP inspected the work
area and observed that asbestos-containing waste materials left
at the site had not been properly handled, packaged and labeled
as required by the regulations.

The owner of the property, AM Castle and Company, was required to
retain the services of a Massachusetts Division of Occupational
Safety-licensed asbestos contractor to properly handle, package
and dispose of all the asbestos waste.

MassDEP penalized Mr. Fogg for failing to notify MassDEP of a
demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing
materials, for improper handling and packaging of asbestos-
containing waste materials, and for the improper storage of
asbestos-containing waste materials at the site.
       
Regulations require notification to MassDEP 10 working days in
advance of commencing asbestos removal, as well as proper
removal, handling, packaging, labeling and storage/disposal of
asbestos waste materials.

Proper packaging and labeling of asbestos waste are critical
measures that prevent the release of, and the potential exposure
to, asbestos fibers.

Martin Sunberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, said, "Contractors must be fully aware of their
responsibilities under the regulations to thoroughly inspect any
areas of buildings that they will be renovating for the presence
of asbestos-containing materials.

"Failure to identify and remove asbestos materials prior to
demolition or renovation is an extremely serious, and ultimately
a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers, tenants and
the general public to a known carcinogen. Noncompliance with the
asbestos regulations will result in significant penalty exposure,
as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal and
monitoring costs."

Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos
containing materials, proper removal, handling, packaging,
storage and disposal procedures, or the asbestos regulations are
encouraged to contact the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office for
assistance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Orchard Still Has 8,000 Actions From Vapor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Coporation's subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp.,
continues to be a defendant in more than 8,000 lawsuits involving
claims of asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor
Corporation, a former subsidiary that the Company divested in
1990.

Virtually all of the asbestos suits involve numerous other
defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The claims generally allege that Vapor sold products that
contained components, such as gaskets, which included asbestos,
and seek monetary damages. Neither the Company nor Vapor is
alleged to have manufactured asbestos.

Several thousand claims have been dismissed with no payment and
no claim has gone to jury verdict. In a few cases, claims have
been filed against other Brunswick entities, with a majority of
these suits being either dismissed or settled for nominal
amounts.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., Brunswick Corporation is a
manufacturer and marketer of recreation products including marine
engines, boats, fitness equipment and bowling and billiards
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transatlantic Cites $163M at Dec. 31 for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.'s net loss reserves include amounts
for risks relating to environmental impairment and asbestos-
related illnesses totaling US$163 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and
US$152 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

This includes US$30 million at Dec. 31, 2009 (US$$28 million at
Dec. 31, 2008) relating to such losses occurring in 1985 and
prior.

As Transatlantic Reinsurance Company (TRC), the major operating
subsidiary of the Company, commenced operations in 1978, the
great majority of the Company's environmental and asbestos-
related net loss reserves arose from contracts entered into after
1985 that were underwritten specifically as environmental or
asbestos-related coverages rather than as standard general
liability coverages, where the environmental or asbestos-related
liabilities were neither clearly defined nor specifically
excluded.

Headquartered in New York, Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. operates
through its subsidiaries, Transatlantic Reinsurance, Putnam
Reinsurance and Trans Re Zurich. The companies offer reinsurance
for property/casualty products, including general liability,
medical malpractice, architects' and engineers liability,
automobile liability, and surety lines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Ongoing v. Flowserve Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a number of
pending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple
claimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and distributed by the Company in the past.

While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally
declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this
trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not
increase.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were primarily encapsulated and used as components of process
equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers occurred
during the use of this equipment.

Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Flowserve Corporation is a
manufacturer and aftermarket service provider of comprehensive
flow control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 560 Lawsuits Pending v. MeadWestvaco at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2009, faced about 560
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company faced 570 outstanding asbestos
lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company
has been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants.

Management said it believes that the Company has substantial
indemnification protection and insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to
asbestos claims.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$19 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., MeadWestvaco Corporation is a
global packaging company that provides packaging solutions to
many brands in the healthcare, personal care and beauty, food,
beverage, media and entertainment, home and garden, tobacco, and
commercial print industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Facing Actions in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is still one of several unrelated
defendants in lawsuits filed in the Circuit Courts of the State
of Mississippi alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed
or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and, in the
Company's case, allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized
aboard the Company's offshore drilling rigs.

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The Company expects to receive complete defense
and indemnity from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under
the terms of its 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Headquartered in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a
global offshore oil and gas drilling contractor with a fleet of
47 offshore rigs consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 14 jack-ups
and one drillship.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 26,084 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are 26,084 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 23, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company faced 26,142 pending asbestos
personal injury claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2009)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.
In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

Most of the asbestos complaints pending against the Company have
been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York complaints
contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million or US$25
million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the individual
plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without specifically
identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's
asbestos exposure.

Of the pending cases at Dec. 31, 2009, about 25,576 were pending
in the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York
State. The other claims, totaling 508, are filed in various
counties in a number of state courts, and in certain Federal
District Courts (including New York), and those complaints
generally assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York
State court cases or do not state any amount claimed.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial in 18,366 cases.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 443 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.  

Headquartered in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corporation is a
diversified, multinational provider of industrial services and
engineered products. The Company's operations fall into three
reportable segments: Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Metals and
Harsco Rail. The Company has locations in 51 countries, including
the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Cites $1.9M Liability, Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at Dec. 31, 2009, had accrued
about US$1.9 million for asbestos-related liability and related
expenses, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb.
23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$1.8 million
for liability and related expenses. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
6, 2009)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed
at various locations. It has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,800
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,400 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through Dec. 31, 2009, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

Headquartered in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge &
Iron Company N.V. is an engineering, procurement and construction
(EPC) company. The Company is also a major process technology
licensor, delivering comprehensive solutions to customers in the
energy and natural resource industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc.
continues to be a defendant in numerous multi-claimant or multi-
defendant lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated
into or sold with a very limited number of the Company's
products, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb.
23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and
markets products incorporating liquid flow measurement and
control technologies serving markets worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Facing 426 Exposure Actions at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's subsidiary, AK Steel (AK Steel)
Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2009, faced 426 pending asbestos
lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb.
23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, AK Steel Corporation faced 437 pending
asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2009)

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Most of these suits
have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have been
exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current or
former AK Steel facility.

About 40 percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of
exposure at a facility in Houston that has been closed since
1984. About 130 of the 426 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2009 in
which AK Steel is a defendant include specific dollar claims for
damages in the filed complaints. Those 130 cases involve a total
of 2,489 plaintiffs and 17,089 defendants.

About 119 of the 130 cases involve claims of US$200,000 or less,
six involve claims of between US$200,000 and US$5 million, two
involve claims of between US$5 million and US$15 million, and
three involve claims of US$20 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 252 new
claims filed, 179 pending claims disposed of and US$700,000 as
total amount paid in settlements. During the year ended Dec. 31,
2008, the Company recorded 41 new claims filed, 39 pending claims
disposed of and US$700,000 as total amount paid in settlements.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel.

Headquartered in West Chester, Ohio, AK Steel Holding Corporation
is a fully-integrated producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless
and electrical steels and tubular products through its wholly
owned subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Temple-Inland Still Involved in Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. continues to be a defendant in various
lawsuits involving alleged workplace exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 23, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or
operated by the Company. It does not manufacture any products
that contain asbestos, and all its cases in this area are limited
to workplace exposure claims.

Historically, the Company's aggregate annual settlements related
to asbestos claims have been about US$1 million. The number of
claims has remained relatively constant in the past few years.

Headquartered in Austin, Tex., Temple-Inland Inc. manufactures
corrugated packaging and building products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Petroleum Still Party to Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is still a defendant in various
personal injury claims, including claims by employees of third-
party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene.

These employees worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Tex., Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation is an independent oil and gas exploration and
production company, with 2.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent
(BOE) of proved reserves as of Dec. 31, 2009.


                            *********

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  * * *