CAR_Public/100305.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 5, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 45

                            Headlines

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Consumer Group Sues Health Insurer in Calif.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending
DAISO HOLDING: Paying $2 Million Fine & Halting Toy Imports
FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Continues to Defend "Tabares" Suit
FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Defends "Eller" Suit in Arizona

GROUPON INC: Charged with Systematically Deceiving Its Customers
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Moves to Dismiss Chiropractors' Lawsuit
LOWER MERION: Parent Groups Oppose Class Action Lawsuit
LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls 5,000 Shading Solutions Roman Shades
MEIJER: Recalls 240,000 Innovations & Meijer Shades & Blinds

PEACHTREE PLAYTHINGS: Recalls 127,000 Cartoon Fork & Spoon Sets
POWERWAVE TECH: Court Gives Final Approval to $3.15M Agreement
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Rome Suit Conducting Discovery
PRICELINE.COM INC: To Appeal Jury's Verdict in San Antonio Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Dismissal of Louisville Suit Affirmed

PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in Genesee Suit Currently Ongoing
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Gallup Suit Set March 3 Mediation
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Lyndhurst Suit Remains Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Plaintiff Appeal Dismissal of Jefferson Suit

PRICELINE.COM INC: Has Until March 9 to Respond to New Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: July 19 Trial Date Set in Monroe Suit
STARTEK INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
TOTAL SYSTEM: Holzer Holzer Investigating Securities Fraud Claims
TOWN OF DANVILLE: Notice of Unclaimed Funds for DUI Arrestees

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: ITC Holdings Corp. Records $3.5MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS ALERT: Contractor Fined $136T for Boston Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS ALERT: ALCS Fined $54,937 for Cleanup Breaches in Mass.
ASBESTOS ALERT: 2 Parties Fined $3,800 for Ore. Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS ALERT: Lions Group Fined for Exposing Workers to Hazard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.137B Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA, Insurers Await Ruling on A.P. Green Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Second Phase in Grace Case Concluded Jan. 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Records 1,136 Claims in '09
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Cites $9.24MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Corp. Still Subject to Removal, Tort Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 440 Pending Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8T Claims Ongoing Against Cytec Ind. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Facing 204 Pending Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Ongoing Against Olin Corp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Transocean in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faces 1,041 Actions at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Accrues $13M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Facing 31T Active Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Collects $47Mil Through Dec. 31 for Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windstream Corp. Records $34.8MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.78B for Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Faces 1.9T Asbestos/Silica Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.5MM CAROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco, Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62,360 Claims Ongoing v. CBS Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK, Units Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,104 Active Cases Ongoing v. Leslie at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $2.3Mil for Insurance at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Involved in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR's Current Liability at $12.5M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odyssey Records $386.7M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Still Has 26 Open Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12 Actions Filed in Madison During Feb. 1 to 5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 18 Actions Filed in Madison During Feb. 8 to 12
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Court Disputes Cotton's Death to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indovina Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexander Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Artmeier Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birkhimer Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coen Lawsuit Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodwin Case v. 170 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holland Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neitzelt Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richardson Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walker Action v. 170 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weaver Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brumley Case Filed v. 49 Firms in Jefferson Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Des Moines Local Indicted for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowder to Oversee Ill. Docket Starting Dec. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling, Units Party to Miss. Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Subject to Pending Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Suits Ongoing Against Noble Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $867.2MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,769 Claims Ongoing v. ITT Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Still Party to Cannon Electric Action

                            *********

ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Consumer Group Sues Health Insurer in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that consumer advocates filed a class-action suit
against Anthem Blue Cross on Monday, accusing California's
largest for-profit health insurer of illegally using drastic rate
hikes to force customers into inferior health plans.

The lawsuit, Feller and Freed v. Anthem Blue Cross, Case No.
56-2010-00368587-CU-BT-SIM (Calif. Super. Ct. _____ Cty.), seeks
unspecified restitution for the plaintiffs and a court order
barring future alleged violations of the state health and safety
code.

The suit comes two days before top executives from several major
U.S. health insurers, including Anthem's parent company,
WellPoint Inc., were to meet in Washington with Obama
administration officials to discuss escalating premiums.

Anthem's plan to boost its individual premiums by as much as 39
percent has spawned inquiries by state regulators and
congressional committees. The White House and Democrats on
Capitol Hill also have seized on Anthem's proposed rate hikes in
seeking to bolster support for a renewed drive to overhaul the
nation's health care system.

The lawsuit in California claims Anthem violated state law by
closing certain blocks of its individual health plans to new
members without offering comparable coverage to policyholders who
opted to remain.

Over time, the pool of older, sicker customers who choose to stay
end up trapped in the closed policies, prevented by pre-existing
medical conditions from finding affordable plans elsewhere and
subjected to rising rates until finally forced to accept lesser
insurance or to drop coverage altogether. If they do switch, it
is often to plans with fewer benefits, higher deductibles or
both, the suit says.

                         'GUN TO OUR HEADS'

"Blue Cross has a gun to our heads," Mary Feller of San Rafael,
Calif., one of the named plaintiffs in the suit filed in Ventura
County Superior Court by the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog on
behalf of policyholders.

"We could either stay with our old coverage or switch to a new
policy with much lower benefits. What Blue Cross did not tell us
was that staying with our better policy would mean a 39 percent
rate increase," Feller said in a statement announcing the class-
action complaint.

There was no immediate comment from the insurance company, or
from the state Department of Managed Health Care, which regulates
Anthem Blue Cross policies. But industry executives have said
climbing premiums reflect soaring medical costs.

Since 1993 California law has required insurers to protect
individual policyholders from being caught in circumstances the
industry refers to as a "death spiral," the suit says.

Insurers must either offer customers of closed plans a comparable
alternative or pool the risk of those individuals with customers
in policies that remain open in order to minimize their premium
hikes, the suit says.

About 800,000 Californians hold health insurance policies with
Anthem Blue Cross, accounting for the biggest share of some 2
million people with individual coverage in the state, said Jerry
Flanagan, health care policy director for Consumer Watchdog.

By comparison, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) make up
the bulk of California health plans, covering some 21 million
patients. But individual policies are often the only option for
those who are self-employed or do not receive health care
coverage through their jobs.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal of Denied Class Certification Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of class certification in a lawsuit
against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in California remains
pending, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The lawsuit alleges violations of state laws regarding employee
record-keeping, meal and rest breaks, payment of overtime and
related practices with respect to its employees.

The case seeks damages, penalties and attorney's fees on behalf
of a purported class of the company's present and former
employees.

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the purported
class, and as a result the action can proceed, if at all, as an
action by a single plaintiff.  The plaintiff has appealed the
court's denial of class certification, and the appeal remains
pending.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com/--  
operates fast casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants serving
burritos, tacos, bowls and salads.


DAISO HOLDING: Paying $2 Million Fine & Halting Toy Imports
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Daiso Holding USA Inc., Daiso Seattle LLC, of Seattle, Wash., and
Daiso California LLC, of Hayward, Calif., have agreed to pay a
$2.05 million civil penalty and stop importing children's
products and toys into the United States.  Due to alleged
violations of federal safety laws, the company must now
demonstrate to the Commission that it has sufficient knowledge of
and is in compliance with CPSC safety standards and testing
requirements.

The consent decree resolves CPSC staff allegations that the
company violated federal laws and regulations involving the
safety of children's toys and other products. These violations
include, but are not limited to, importing, distributing and
selling toys with illegal levels of lead content, illegal levels
of lead paint and phthalates, small parts on toys intended for
children younger than three years old, and products that lack
required warning labels


The decree prohibits Daiso from importing or entering into
commerce in the United States, directly or indirectly, any toy or
other children's product until it meets the requirements in the
consent decree. Further, Daiso must retain an independent product
safety coordinator to assist in the creation of a comprehensive
product safety program, conduct a product audit of merchandise to
determine testing and certification requirements and develop and
establish procedures for compliance and reporting.

"This landmark agreement for an injunction sets a precedent for
any firm attempting to distribute hazardous products to our
nation's children" said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "We are
committed to the safety of children's products and we will use
the full force of our enforcement powers to prevent the sale of
harmful products."

"Companies that manufacture and distribute toys should be put on
notice by the government's action today," said Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil
Division. "We will not tolerate our children being exposed to
products that can cause serious injury or worse, and will do
everything in our power to prevent these companies from operating
until they comply with federal safety laws."

Upon completion of the requirements described in the injunction,
the firm has agreed to be further restrained and enjoined from
directly or indirectly importing or distributing children's toys
or products that violate any laws, standards, or bans enforced by
the CPSC.

"This consent decree is an agreement by Daiso to follow best
industry practices. It serves as a declaration that the company
will become more knowledgeable of regulations and comply with
those requirements, which are intended to keep children safe,"
added Chairman Tenenbaum.

The firm, which has conducted business in the U.S. since 2005,
had been previously issued Letters of Advice from CPSC after
examinations at ports and inspections turned up violations. Many
of the violations occurred prior to the enactment of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which reduced allowable
limits of lead and phthalates and increased the Commission's
ability to seek higher penalties.

Daiso voluntarily withdrew all toys and children's products from
its stores before signing the decree, and has initiated a new
product quality and safety program.

The consent decree was filed this week in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California by the Office of Consumer
Litigation of the Justice Department's Civil Division, on behalf
of CPSC. In signing the consent decree, the company does not
admit any violation of law. The consent decree is subject to
court approval and has the force of law when entered by the
court.

CPSC applauds U.S. Customs and Border Protection San Francisco
and Seattle Area Ports for their cooperation and assistance in
this enforcement action.


FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Continues to Defend "Tabares" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
EquiTrust Life Insurance Company continues to defend a case
seeking class action status captioned Tabares v. EquiTrust Life
Insurance Company, et al, Case No. BC39019, according to FBL
Financial Group, Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 5, 2008.

The Tabares suit is a purported California class action on behalf
of all persons who purchased these deferred annuities from
EquiTrust Life:

     -- MarketValue Index,
     -- MarketPower Bonus Index,
     -- MarketBooster Index, and
     -- the MarketTen Bonus Index.

The complaint asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60
or older at the time of purchase.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of all class members
under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq.; compensatory damages for breach of contract; and punitive
damages under a common law cause of action for fraud.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/--  
sells individual life and annuity products principally under the
names, Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial
Services.  These brand identities are represented by the
distribution channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau Life
Insurance Company and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company.  As of
Dec. 31, 2009, the company's Farm Bureau Life distribution
channel consisted of 2,020 agents and agency managers.  These
agents and agency managers sell its products in the Midwestern
and Western sections of the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009,
its EquiTrust Life independent distribution channel consisted of
20,195 independent agents.  The company's product segments
include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive Distribution (Exclusive
Annuity), Traditional Annuity - Independent Distribution
(Independent Annuity), Traditional and Universal Life Insurance
and Variable.


FBL FINANCIAL: EquiTrust Defends "Eller" Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
EquiTrust Life Insurance Company continues to defend a case
seeking class action status captioned Eller, et al. v. EquiTrust
Life Insurance Company, et al, Case No. 4:09-cv-00029 DCB,
according to FBL Financial Group, Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The action was filed in U.S. District Court, District of Arizona,
on Jan. 12, 2009.

The Eller action is a purported national class action defined in
the pleadings to include all persons who purchased EquiTrust Life
index annuities.

Plaintiffs allege two sub-classes, one for all persons age 65 and
older that purchased an EquiTrust Life index annuity contract
with a maturity date beyond the annuitant's actuarial life
expectancy; and a 17-state multi-state class under various
consumer protection and unfair insurance practices statutes.

The Eller case seeks rescission and injunctive relief including
restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf of all class
members, compensatory damages, unjust enrichment and punitive
damages.

FBL Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.fblfinancial.com/--  
sells individual life and annuity products principally under the
names, Farm Bureau Financial Services and EquiTrust Financial
Services.  These brand identities are represented by the
distribution channels of its subsidiaries, Farm Bureau Life
Insurance Company and EquiTrust Life Insurance Company.  As of
Dec. 31, 2009, the company's Farm Bureau Life distribution
channel consisted of 2,020 agents and agency managers.  These
agents and agency managers sell its products in the Midwestern
and Western sections of the United States.  As of Dec. 31, 2009,
its EquiTrust Life independent distribution channel consisted of
20,195 independent agents.  The company's product segments
include Traditional Annuity - Exclusive Distribution (Exclusive
Annuity), Traditional Annuity - Independent Distribution
(Independent Annuity), Traditional and Universal Life Insurance
and Variable.


GROUPON INC: Charged with Systematically Deceiving Its Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit alleging deceptive business practices
places the spotlight on Groupon, Inc., a high-profile tech
startup that purports to have saved consumers close to $100
million dollars since its founding.  Groupon sells gift
certificates to a variety of merchants by sending an e-mail
advertisement to a list of consumers touting big savings through
purchasing the gift certificates that it sells.

Selecting an Industry-Standard Metric for Data Center Efficiency
Learn more, download free white paper.

The nationwide class action lawsuit filed was filed this week in
Cook County, Ill., and claims that Groupon systematically
deceives its customers.  A copy of the Groupon Class Action
Complaint is available at:

     http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/Groupon_Class_Action_Complaint.pdf

According to the lawsuit, Groupon employs a business model where
consumers are enticed to purchase a gift certificate, and after
the consumer agrees to purchase the certificate, Groupon imposes
post-contractual terms on the consumer containing illegal
expiration dates. Groupon expressly advertises itself as a
company that does not impose, in its own words, 'gotchas,' on the
consumer. In clear violation of the law, Groupon imposes illegal
terms or 'gotchas,' post-agreement, on the very consumers it
prides itself on helping.

The suit was brought by Jay Edelson, Esq., and Bill Gray, Esq.,
of Edelson McGuire, LLC.

Edelson McGuire, LLC -- http://www.edelson.com/-- is a leading  
class action firm that focuses on internet, technology, and
privacy issues.  According to Mr. Gray, this suit demonstrates
that companies must do more than promise savings to the
consumers; they must actually take whatever steps are necessary
to ensure that their customers are protected from fraud both
internal and external.

Edelson McGuire, LLC, formerly known as KamberEdelson LLC, is a
commercial litigation and legal and political consulting firm
with attorneys in Illinois, New York, California, and Florida.
The firms attorneys have been recognized as leaders in these
fields by state and federal legislatures, national and
international media groups, the courts and their peers. They have
testified before the United States Senate on class action issues
and have repeatedly been asked to work on federal and state
legislation and policy issues involving banking, cellular
telephony and consumer privacy. Their attorneys have appeared on
hundreds of national and international television and radio
programs to discuss their cases and class action and consumer
protection issues more generally. Their class settlements are
collectively worth over one billion dollars and have changed the
consumer protection policies of numerous industries.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Moves to Dismiss Chiropractors' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison County Record reports that class
action chiropractors claim Liberty Mutual Insurance should have
steered workers compensation patients to them, but according to
the insurer that kind of steering would have broken the law.

"Illinois is an employee choice state for workers compensation
and it is illegal for an employer or insurer to interfere in any
way with an employee's right to choose his or her medical
provider," Tom Keefe of Belleville wrote on Jan. 29.

Mr. Keefe asked Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder to
grant summary judgment in a case she certified as a class action
in 2008.

Chiropractors Thomas Kaltenbronn, Richard Coy and Dale Fischer
claim they joined a preferred provider organization, First
Health, expecting an increase in referrals.

They allege that they did not receive full benefits due to
Liberty Mutual's actions.

The Lakin Law Firm filed suit for them in 2004.

According to Mr. Keefe, the chiropractors received benefits in
the form of directory listings, prompt payments, and reductions
in deductibles and co-payments.

These benefits kept Mr. Kaltenbronn in First Health for 11 years,
Fischer for 10, and Coy for six, Keefe wrote.

Messrs. Kaltenbronn and Coy didn't terminate their memberships
until after they sued, he wrote, and Mr. Fischer hadn't
terminated his when Liberty Mutual deposed him.

Mr. Keefe wrote that Liberty Mutual calculated and billed
premiums based on actual costs.

"Such determinations and payments cannot be undone," he wrote.

The chiropractors can't seek restitution, he wrote, because they
did not disaffirm or void their contracts.

"Plaintiffs cannot disgorge the benefits they received by
remaining in the network for an extended period," he wrote.

"The performance of the parties pursuant to their contracts
cannot be undone going back for more than a decade in time," he
wrote.


LOWER MERION: Parent Groups Oppose Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Hardy at the Philadelphia Inquirer reports that a group of
Lower Merion and Harriton High School parents will meet tonight
to discuss ways to derail the possibility that a federal lawsuit
over laptop spying could lead to a lengthy and expensive class-
action case against their district.

Bryn Mawr resident Michael Boni, one of the organizers, said
yesterday: "We have spoken to our neighbors and friends, and it
seemed that there was a groundswell of opposition to one family
with one lawyer bringing this action on behalf of the community."

He said the parents were "not suggesting there weren't problems"
with how the district has handled the laptop issue. "But we don't
think [a class-action lawsuit] is the answer."

The group, which calls itself lmsdparents.org, is limited to
parents of students at the two high schools. Between 300 and 400
parents had signed on by yesterday afternoon, said Bob Wegbreit,
another founder.

A related group calling itself Parents in Support of the Lower
Merion School District, which said it shared the same objectives,
had garnered more than 700 signatures on an online petition by
yesterday evening.

In Robbins, et al. v. Lower Merion School District, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00665 (E.D. Pa.) (DuBois, J.), filed Feb. 16,
Michael and Holly Robbins said their son Blake had been
confronted in November by a high school assistant principal with
a picture taken of him at his home by his school-issued laptop's
Web cam, showing "improper behavior." The suit contends that the
district could remotely activate the Web cams to spy on users.

The district said it triggered the Web cams only in efforts to
recover stolen or missing computers.

The suit seeks certification as a class action but has not yet
been granted that status by a judge.

Mr. Boni, a lawyer who has litigated class-action lawsuits, said
that if the Robbins lawsuit was not certified as a class action,
"it would limit damages and litigation costs to a great degree."

Mark S. Haltzman, an attorney for the Robbins family, said
yesterday that he had offered to attend the meeting but had
received no response by late afternoon.

Douglas Young, spokesman for the Lower Merion district, said he
was aware of lmsdparents.org but could not comment on its
activities.

Andy Derrow, a Harriton junior's father who has joined the new
group, said yesterday: "There are a lot of us who are incredibly
skeptical of the motives of the Robbins family." He said the
district was a "pioneer" in buying laptops for students to use at
home as well as in school.

"It is so easy to second-guess the decision [to use the laptop
theft-tracking device], but there was no handbook out there for
how to do it," he said. "We are all waiting for all the facts to
be known, but so far, our attitude is that we want to help the
school district fix whatever needs to be fixed and to move on."

The number of people expected at the Narberth meeting was already
over the hall's capacity by yesterday afternoon and only people
who had already signed up to attend would be admitted, Mr.
Wegbreit said.


LUTRON ELECTRONICS: Recalls 5,000 Shading Solutions Roman Shades
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lutron Electronics Co. Inc., of Coopersburg, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,000 Lutron Shading Solutions Roman
Shades manufactured by Virginia Iron and Metal Company Inc.
(VIMCO), of Ashland, Va.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around
his/her neck. Also, in manual Roman shades, strangulations can
also occur if the shade's looped bead chain is not attached to
the wall or to the floor and a child's neck becomes entangled on
the free-standing loop.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

This recall involves all custom-ordered made-to-measure motorized
and manual Lutron Shading Solutions Roman shades. The shades were
sold in a variety of colors, fabrics, and sizes. Nearly all
shades were professionally installed. "Lutron Shading Solutions"
or "Lutron Shading Solutions by VIMCO" is printed on the
packaging.  Pictures of the recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10149.html

The recalled shades were manufactured in the United States and
sold at specialty dealers and Expo Design Centers nationwide from
January 2000 through August 2009 for between $120 and $4,500 per
shade.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and
contact Lutron Electronics to coordinate the removal, repair, and
reinstallation of the shades. Consumers with manual Roman shades
should also immediately check if the tension device is attached
to the looped operating cord and installed into the wall or
floor. If not attached, consumers should contact Lutron
Electronics to receive a free repair kit. If the tension device
is attached but not installed, consumers should immediately
install the device into the wall or floor. If the consumer has
difficulty installing the tension device, contact Lutron for
further instructions.  For additional information, contact Lutron
toll-free at (866) 793-4270 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.lutron.com/CERUSromans


MEIJER: Recalls 240,000 Innovations & Meijer Shades & Blinds
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meijer, of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 240,000 Innovations and "At Home with Meijer" Roman Shades
and Roll-Up Blinds manufactured by Whole Space Industries LTD, of
Centereach, N.Y. Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Roll-up Blinds-Strangulations can occur if the lifting loops
slide off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes
entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places his/her
neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.  
Roman Shades-Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her
neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the
backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and
wraps it around his/her neck.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

This recall involves all Innovations and "At Home with Meijer"
Roman shades and roll-up blinds. The Roman shades are made with
fabric or bamboo and the Roll-up blinds with bamboo. A label
reading "Innovation" or "At Home with Meijer" can be found under
the headrail.  Pictures of the recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10150.html

The recalled blinds and shades were manufactured in Taiwan and
sold at Meijer Stores and Meijer.com between January 2004 and
December 2009 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and the
roll-up blinds and contact the Window Covering Safety Council for
a free repair kit at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/ For additional information,  
contact Meijer at (800) 927-8699 anytime or visit the company's
Website at http://www.meijer.com/


PEACHTREE PLAYTHINGS: Recalls 127,000 Cartoon Fork & Spoon Sets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Peachtree Playthings, of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 127,000 Scooby Doo, Tweety and Batman Fork and
Spoon Sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The middle two prongs of the plastic fork can detach, posing a
choking hazard to children.

Peachtree Playthings has received one report of a middle prong
detaching from the fork. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Scooby Doo, Tweety and Batman plastic
fork and spoon sets. The two-piece set is white plastic with
cartoon images on the handle.  Pictures of the recalled product
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10148.html

The recalled utensils were manufactured in China and sold at
Dollar Tree Stores and Deals during January 2010 for about $1 per
set.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled fork and spoon
sets away from children and return them to Dollar Tree or Deals
for a full refund.  For additional information, contact Peachtree
Playthings at (800) 290-4831 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.peachtreeplaythings.com/or e-mail the firm at  
peachtree@peachtreeplaythings.com


POWERWAVE TECH: Court Gives Final Approval to $3.15M Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted final approval to the
$3,150,000 settlement in Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-0065, according to the company's Feb. 19,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010.

Several purported shareholder class-action complaints were filed
in January, February and March 2007, against Powerwave, its
president and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of
the board of directors and its chief financial officer, in:

     -- Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al.,

     -- Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al.,

     -- Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc.,
        et. al., and

     -- Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et. al.

These lawsuits were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The complaints purport to state claims on behalf of
all persons who purchased Powerwave securities between May 2,
2005, and Oct. 9, 2006.  The essence of the allegations is that
the defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning
the company's projected and actual sales revenues, the
integration of certain acquisitions and the sufficiency of the
company's internal controls.

In June 2007, the four cases were consolidated into one, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed.

In October 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting the same causes of action and purporting to state
claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Powerwave
securities between May 2, 2005 and Nov. 2, 2006.

The essence of the allegations in the amended complaint was that
the defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning
the company's projected and actual sales revenues, the
integration of certain acquisitions and the sufficiency of the
company's internal controls.

In December 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On April 17, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims in connection with the company's
projected sales revenues, but denied defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' other claims.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the defendants answered the amended complaint.

On May 14, 2009, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement
to resolve the consolidated action.

According to the terms of the proposed settlement, the settlement
payment will be funded by the company's directors and officers
liability insurance.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
and provisionally certified a settlement class on June 22, 2009,
and on October 19, 2009 entered a judgment that granted final
approval of the settlement.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sue Lee, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/

               - and -

          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York City 10176
          Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025
          Web site: http://weisslurie.com/


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Rome Suit Conducting Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Rome, Georgia, et. al, v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et. al., are presently conducting discovery.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In the matter City of Rome, Georgia, et. al, v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et. al., the court, on July 10, 2009, lifted the stay it had
entered to require plaintiffs to pursue administrative remedies.  

In lifting the stay, the court relied on recent Georgia Supreme
Court rulings that the administrative process in Georgia can be
exhausted when a municipality issues a notice of assessment.  
Thereafter, the parties agreed to continue the stay of the
litigation, except for limited discovery that would allow the
parties to engage in mediation of the case.

No further updates were reported in priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: To Appeal Jury's Verdict in San Antonio Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc., intends to file an appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the jury's verdict that the
company and the other defendant on-line travel companies in a
class action lawsuit control hotels under the local hotel
occupancy tax ordinances and are, therefore, responsible for
collecting and remitting local hotel occupancy taxes.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

A class action lawsuit styled City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, brought
by the City of San Antonio on behalf of itself and a class of 172
Texas municipalities against the company and other on-line travel
companies.

On Oct. 30, 2009, priceline.com received a jury verdict in the
case.

The jury's verdict found that the company and the other on-line
travel companies that are defendants in the lawsuit control
hotels under the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances and are,
therefore, responsible for collecting and remitting local hotel
occupancy taxes.  The jury rejected the City of San Antonio's
claim for conversion - essentially, that the company and the
other on-line travel companies had collected a tax and "pocketed"
the tax dollars - and for punitive damages.

The court previously had granted plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on Sept. 28, 2009, on a number of defendants'
affirmative defenses, including laches, waiver, estoppel and
statute of limitations, but denied summary judgment on all
remaining issues.

The final amount of the judgment against the company has not been
determined.

The jury found that the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Travelweb LLC, owed the City of San Antonio and the 172 Texas
municipalities that make up the class approximately $2.0 million
for historical damages through May of 2009.  In further
proceedings, the Court will determine, among other things,
whether the occupancy tax ordinance applies to the company's
service fee and the amount of penalties, interest, and attorneys'
fees, which could be significant.

The company recorded a charge to general and administrative
expenses in the amount of $3.7 million related to this judgment
in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009.

No further updates were reported in priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


    
PRICELINE.COM INC: Dismissal of Louisville Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the
decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky dismissing the matter styled Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., according to
priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 30, 2008, in the matter Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., the court granted
the defendants' motion for reconsideration of its prior order
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims brought by
the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, and dismissed
all of that plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

Louisville had previously amended its complaint to drop all class
allegations.

The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims brought by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government.
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants with
prejudice.

Both plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  

Briefing was completed on the appeal on May 11, 2009, and oral
argument took place on Oct. 14, 2009.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court's dismissal and
judgment on Dec. 22, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Nassau Suit Conducting Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter styled County of Nassau, New York v.
Hotels.com, LP, et al., are currently conducting discovery
specific to class certification issues, according to
priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for the County of Nassau's failure to
exhaust its mandatory administrative procedures for tax
collection.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the County of Nassau filed a notice of appeal
of that order.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's
order dismissing the complaint, and remanded with instructions to
consider whether the complaint meets specified jurisdictional
requirements.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the defendants'
petition for rehearing.

The parties are currently conducting discovery specific to class
certification issues.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.

  
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in Genesee Suit Currently Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter County of Genesee, Mich., et al. v.
Hotels.com LP, et al., are still in the process of conducting
discovery.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

On Sept. 21, 2009, defendants answered the complaint.

No further updates were reported in priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Gallup Suit Set March 3 Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Gallup, New Mexico v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., have scheduled mediation for March 3,
2010, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Briefing on plaintiffs' class certification motion was completed
on April 30, 2009.

Also on Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint.  The court granted that motion on Jan. 16,
2009.

On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants answered the First Amended Complaint.

On July 7, 2009 the court entered an order certifying a class.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit entered an order denying defendants' petition to
appeal the order certifying a class.

On Sept. 22, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.

Defendants' opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment
is due on Nov. 13, 2009.

The court has since stayed discovery in the case pending its
decision on the motion for partial summary judgment.

The parties have scheduled a mediation for March 3, 2010.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.

    
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal in Lyndhurst Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the action
styled The Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com
Incorporated, et al., remains pending in the Court of Appeals,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On March 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing to
bring its claims.

On April 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

On July 6, 2009, plaintiff filed their appellate brief.

The defendants' answering brief was filed on Aug. 5, 2009, and
the Township's reply brief was filed on Aug. 19, 2009.

The Court of Appeals has elected to decide the appeal without
oral argument; the appeal remains pending.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.

  
PRICELINE.COM INC: Plaintiff Appeal Dismissal of Jefferson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County, AR, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et
al., has requested the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Arkansas to reconsider its dismissal of the action, according to
priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs served the complaint.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Dec. 4,
2009.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion based on
plaintiffs' failure to timely file an opposition.

The plaintiff thereafter filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on Jan. 22, 2010, and requested that the court reconsider
its dismissal of the action.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Has Until March 9 to Respond to New Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc., has until March 9, 2010, to respond to a new
complaint filed by the County of Lawrence in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, according to the
company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 9, 2009, the County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania styled County of Lawrence v. Hotels.com, L.P., et
al.

On Nov. 17, 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the federal
case, but subsequently filed another complaint, on Nov. 20, 2009,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania,
seeking declaratory and monetary damages relief, as well as
alleging violations of the Pennsylvania hotel occupancy tax code,
conversion and unjust enrichment.

The defendants' response to the complaint is due March 9, 2010.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: July 19 Trial Date Set in Monroe Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
set a trial date of July 19, 2010, in the matter County of
Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et. al., according to
priceline.com Inc.'s Feb. 19, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the County filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  In addition to claims with respect to the application
of the Tourist Development Tax, the complaint also asserted
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief.

On March 30, 2009, the Court dismissed the action because a
scheduling report had not been submitted to the Court.  
Thereafter, on April 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed another
complaint making the same substantive allegations made in its
previous complaint.  On April 24, 2009, defendants moved to
dismiss.  The court granted in part, and denied in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss on Dec. 17, 2009 by dismissing the
plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief.

On Dec. 31, 2009, the defendants answered the amended complaint.

On Jan. 4, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Defendants filed an opposition to class certification on Jan. 14,
2010; and plaintiff's reply was filed on Jan. 22, 2010.  

The court has set a trial date of July 19, 2010.

The parties are currently conducting discovery.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


STARTEK INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave its
final approval for the settlement executed by StarTek, Inc., in
the matter captioned West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund
v. StarTek, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-cv-01265-WDM-MEH, according
to the company's Feb. 19, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company and six of its former directors and officers were
also named as defendants Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al., Case No.
05-cv-_____ (D. Colo.), filed on July 20, 2005.

The two actions have been consolidated by the federal court.  

The consolidated action is a purported class action brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of its
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between Feb.
26, 2003 and May 5, 2005.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the SEC and in press
releases issued during the Class Period, and that as a result,
the market price of the company's common stock was artificially
inflated.

The complaints allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf
of the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.

On March 28, 2008, the motion was denied with respect to the
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except the claim under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissed against two of the
individual defendants.  On the same date, the motion was granted
with respect to the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 without prejudice to plaintiffs filing an
amended complaint with respect to such claims.

On May 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On June 5, 2008, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.

On Nov. 6, 2008, the motion was granted with respect to certain
claims relating to representations regarding the company's
supply-chain management business, but was denied as to all other
claims.

On July 20, 2009, the company executed a Stipulation of
Settlement with lead plaintiffs to settle the litigation.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, defendants will pay
$7.5 million to completely resolve the Litigation, in exchange
for a release of all claims by lead plaintiffs and class members
and a dismissal of the Litigation with prejudice.

The company's primary insurance carrier has contributed
$6.9 million and the company contributed $600,000 to the
Settlement
Fund, as defined in the Stipulation.

The Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement on Oct.
8, 2009.

The completion of the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation
remains subject to various conditions, including notice to the
class members, a final hearing, and final approval by the Court.

StarTek, Inc. -- http://www.startek.com/-- is a leading provider  
of high value business process outsourcing services to the
communications industry.  Since 1987 StarTek has partnered with
its clients to solve strategic business challenges so that fast-
moving businesses can improve customer retention, increase
revenue and reduce costs through an improved customer experience.  
These robust solutions leverage industry knowledge, best business
practices, highly skilled agents, proven operational excellence
and flexible technology.  The StarTek comprehensive service suite
includes customer care, sales support, complex order processing,
accounts receivable management, technical support and other
industry-specific processes.  Headquartered in Denver, Colorado,
StarTek provides these services from 19 operational facilities in
the U.S., Canada and the Philippines.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Holzer Holzer Investigating Securities Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is investigating potential violations
of the federal securities laws by Total System Services, Inc.
(NYSE: TSS).  The investigation focuses on whether a series of
statements made by Total System between July 28, 2009 and January
21, 2010 regarding the Company, its prospects and its operations
complied with the federal securities laws.

If you invested in Total System common stock during the time
period referenced above and have questions concerning our
investigation, or if you have information relevant to the
investigation, you are encouraged to contact Holzer Holzer &
Fistel, LLC and its attorneys Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. or
Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at mfistel@holzerlaw.com,
or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation. More information about
the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and
upon request from the firm. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC has paid
for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and
Michael I. Fistel, Jr. is the attorney responsible for its
content.


TOWN OF DANVILLE: Notice of Unclaimed Funds for DUI Arrestees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Danville, Calif., has been holding in its treasury
unclaimed funds for at least three years.  The total amount of
unclaimed funds held totals $20,053.73 and is being held for
potential claimants in the class action lawsuit, Montgomery v.
Town of Danville, Contra Costa County Superior Court #C05-00660.
The funds are available to individuals who were arrested for
driving under the influence, was billed for the cost of the
arrest and paid all or some of that amount to the Town of
Danville from and after August 9, 2000. The Town has identified
but been unable to locate 47 potential claimants of these funds.

If you have a legal interest in these unclaimed funds, you may
file a claim with the Town's Treasurer.  The claim must be in
writing and include the following information: your name,
address, the amount of your claim and any information to help
establish that you are one of the unlocated individuals.  The
written claim should be mailed to Elizabeth Hudson, Town
Treasurer, 510 La Gonda Way, Danville CA 94526 and must be
received by the Town by April 9, 2010.  After April 9, 2010, all
remaining unclaimed funds shall become the property of the Town
pursuant to Government Code Section 50050.  If you have any
questions regarding these funds or the basis for the lawsuit, you
may contact City Attorney Robert Ewing at (925) 314-3383.


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: ITC Holdings Corp. Records $3.5MM ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement obligations were US$3.5
million as of Dec. 31, 2009 and US$2 million as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has identified conditional asset retirement
obligations primarily associated with the removal of equipment
containing polychlorinated biphenyls and asbestos.

COMPANY PROFILE:

ITC Holdings Corp.
27175 Energy Way
Novi, Mich. 48377
Tel. No.: (248) 946-3000

Description:
The Company owns and operates 2,800 miles of power transmission
lines in southeastern Michigan (including Detroit and Ann Arbor).
The Company also operates regulated, high-voltage transmission
systems in Michigan's Lower Peninsula and portions of Illinois,
Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri serving a combined peak load in
excess of 25,000 MW.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Contractor Fined $136T for Boston Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has proposed US$136,000 in fines against William
A. Berry & Son Inc. for 19 alleged violations of workplace health
and safety standards while removing asbestos-containing material
at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, Mass., in September 2009,
according to an OSHA press release dated March 1, 2010.

Brenda Gordon, OSHA's area director for Boston and southeastern
Massachusetts, said, "Asbestos is well recognized as a health
hazard since inhalation of asbestos fibers may lead to lung
cancer and other diseases. OSHA standards are designed to
minimize the risk of exposure and its potential impact on
workers' health, but they are effective only so long as employers
adhere to them."

OSHA's inspection found that Berry employees were removing
laboratory ventilation hoods with asbestos-containing panels
without proper respiratory protection and required safeguards to
minimize exposure.

Specifically, the contractor failed to conduct an initial
asbestos exposure assessment and monitor the worksite daily for
asbestos exposure, establish regulated work areas, provide
protective clothing and a decontamination area, use HEPA vacuums
to collect debris and clean workers' clothing, label containers
of asbestos-containing materials, train employees in asbestos
work, and ensure that the site was inspected and the work
overseen by a competent person. Several respirator-related
deficiencies also were identified.

As a result, OSHA has issued William A. Berry & Son one willful
citation, with a US$55,000 fine, for not establishing a regulated
work area and 17 serious citations, with US$80,000 in fines, for
the remaining items.

The employer also has been issued one other-than-serious
citation, with a US$1,000 fine, for not providing OSHA injury and
illness logs in a timely manner.

William A. Berry & Son Inc. has 15 business days from receipt of
its citations and proposed penalties to comply, participate in an
informal conference with the OSHA area director, or contest the
findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission.

The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Braintree Area Office.

COMPANY PROFILE:

William A. Berry & Son, Inc
99 Conifer Hill Dr.
Danvers, Mass. 01923
Tel. No.: 978-774-1057

Description:
Berry offers construction management and renovation services to
health care companies, universities, and businesses in
Massachusetts, as well as in Connecticut, Maine, and other
northeastern states.


ASBESTOS ALERT: ALCS Fined $54,937 for Cleanup Breaches in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
assessed a US$54,937 penalty to ALCS, Inc. for multiple
violations of state asbestos regulations that occurred during
work the company conducted at the former Hendries Ice Cream plant
in Southborough, Mass., according to a MassDEP press release
dated Feb. 25, 2010.

In July 2008, MassDEP received a complaint from the Southborough
Fire Department about an improper asbestos removal project being
conducted at the former Hendries site. Firefighters had observed
the illegal asbestos removal activity while responding to an
electrical explosion at the property.

MassDEP conducted an inspection and found that the building was
undergoing extensive interior demolition, and that asbestos-
containing insulation was being removed dry, without any work
area containment or air filtration.

Additionally, MassDEP observed dry, friable asbestos waste
materials uncontained on floors inside the building, on the
facility's loading dock, and in bags inside an open-top dumpster
at the site - all violations of asbestos regulations.
       
Upon discovery of the violations, MassDEP halted the demolition
operation, and required the owners to hire a Massachusetts
Division of Occupational Safety-licensed asbestos contractor to
properly remove, package and dispose of all the asbestos-
containing waste at the site, and to decontaminate all affected
areas of the facility and the dumpster.

ALCS, Inc. was cited for failing to provide advance notification
to MassDEP of the demolition and of a demolition/renovation
operation involving asbestos-containing materials. They were also
cited for improperly removing and handling asbestos-containing
materials, improper handling, packaging, storing and disposing of
asbestos-containing waste materials, and allowing asbestos-
containing materials to be handled in a manner that caused or
contributed to a condition of air pollution at the site, located
at One Harvest Lane.
       
Under the terms of a negotiated settlement, MassDEP suspended
US$39,937 of the assessed penalty provided that the company has
no further violations for one year.

COMPANY PROFILE:
ALCS, Inc.
1569 Edgefield Hwy
Aiken, S.C.
29801-8003
Tel. No.: (803) 648-4445

Description:
The Company is a scrap metal salvage firm.


ASBESTOS ALERT: 2 Parties Fined $3,800 for Ore. Cleanup Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued
penalties totaling US$3,800 to two separate parties involved in
an asbestos removal project in the Marion County community of
Jefferson, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated March
1, 2010.

DEQ issued a US$1,800 penalty to Delta Management Co. LLC for
allowing someone other than a licensed asbestos abatement
contractor to perform an asbestos abatement project on property
at 759 North Sunrise Drive. DEQ also issued a US$2,000 penalty to
Robert Floyd Davis, of Jefferson, for performing an asbestos
abatement project without first obtaining the required license
from DEQ.

The penalties stem from the September 2009 demolition of a
single-wide mobile home on the property in Jefferson. Delta
Management Co. controls the property and is thus responsible for
ensuring that asbestos on the property is properly managed.

Delta Management Co. hired Mr. Davis for the demolition work. Mr.
Davis and his associates demolished the mobile home under Delta
Management's supervision, removing about 20 square feet of
roofing material coated with asbestos-containing silver paint.
Neither Mr. Davis nor his associates were licensed by DEQ to
perform asbestos abatement projects.

Because the asbestos waste was improperly handled and because the
project did not comply with asbestos regulations, asbestos fibers
were likely released into the atmosphere.

Delta Management Co. paid the penalty on Feb. 10, 2010. Mr. Davis
did not appeal the penalty by the deadline, and the full penalty
amount is now due.

COMPANY PROFILE:

Delta Management Co. LLC
203 East Reserve Street
Vancouver, Wash.
98661-3869
Tel. No.: (360) 696-4448


ASBESTOS ALERT: Lions Group Fined for Exposing Workers to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lions Group Inc. was handed a CAD50,000 penalty after Canadian
Ministry of Labour inspectors found workers demolishing a Whitby
building were exposed to asbestos, durhamregion.com reports.

Lions Group was fined under the Occupational Health and Safety
Act. The fine was levied on Feb. 22, 2010 in provincial offences
court in Whitby by Justice of the Peace Jack Leblanc after a
guilty plea from the Company.

The charge arose from a June 27, 2008 incident in which Ministry
inspectors found five Lions Group workers had not protected
themselves from asbestos-laden material while demolishing the
Whitby building. The Company was found liable for the breach.

In addition to the fine, Justice Leblanc imposed a 25 percent
victim fine surcharge on the Company.

COMPANY PROFILE:

Lions Group Inc.
10795 Highway 9
Caledon, Ontario
Canada
Tel. No.: (416) 245-0000
Fax: (416) 766-2110

Description:
The Company demolishes structures. The Company services also
include asbestos, lead and mould abatement and soil remediation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.137B Net Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's net asbestos-related reserves
amounted to US$1.137 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$1.202 billion as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 23, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's net asbestos reserves were US$1.091 billion as of
Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company recorded US$79 million of unfavorable asbestos-
related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation is an
insurance holding company. Its property and casualty insurance
operations are conducted by Continental Casualty Company (CCC)
and The Continental Insurance Company (CIC). Loews Corporation
owned about 90 percent of the Company's outstanding common stock
as of Dec. 31, 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA, Insurers Await Ruling on A.P. Green Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation and other insurers continue to await
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on the confirmation of
A.P. Green's Plan of Reorganization.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company announced it had resolved asbestos-
related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow-Liptak Corporation.

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval on Aug. 18, 2003. The debtor's plan of reorganization
includes an injunction to protect the Company from any future
claims.

The bankruptcy court issued an opinion on Sept. 24, 2007
recommending confirmation of that plan. On July 25, 2008, the
District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling.

Several insurers have appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. That appeal was argued on May 21, 2009.

Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation is an
insurance holding company. Its property and casualty insurance
operations are conducted by Continental Casualty Company (CCC)
and The Continental Insurance Company (CIC). Loews Corporation
owned about 90 percent of the Company's outstanding common stock
as of Dec. 31, 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Second Phase in Grace Case Concluded Jan. 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation says that the second phase of the Plan
of Reorganization confirmation hearing of W. R. Grace & Co.
concluded in January 2010.

On March 22, 2002, a direct action was filed in Montana by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of Grace) and their spouses
against the Company, Maryland Casualty, and the State of Montana.

The case is styled Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al.
and was filed in the First Judicial District Court of Lewis &
Clark County, Mont.

This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn of or
otherwise protect Grace employees from the dangers of asbestos at
a W. R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby, Mont.

The Montana direct action is currently stayed because of Grace's
pending bankruptcy. On April 7, 2008, Grace announced a
settlement in principle with the asbestos personal injury
claimants committee subject to confirmation of a plan of
reorganization by the bankruptcy court.

The confirmation hearing is held in two phases. The first phase
was held in June 2009.

Headquartered in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation is an
insurance holding company. Its property and casualty insurance
operations are conducted by Continental Casualty Company (CCC)
and The Continental Insurance Company (CIC). Loews Corporation
owned about 90 percent of the Company's outstanding common stock
as of Dec. 31, 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Records 1,136 Claims in '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc. had 1,136 outstanding asbestos
claims at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 2,037 claims at Dec. 31,
2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 129 claims received during
year and 1,030 claims closed during year. The average gross loss
settlement on closed claims was US$54,000 and the gross amount
paid to administer closed claims was US$88,645,000. Net survival
ratio was 9.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 124 claims received during
year and 264 claims closed during year. The average gross loss
settlement on closed claims was US$32,000 and the gross amount
paid to administer closed claims was US$110,582,000. Net survival
ratio was 15.

In the past, the Company was the insurer of various distributors
of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and, in some
cases, the manufacturers of these products. Over the last 20
years, an increasing number of asbestos claims have been made
against the insurance industry. While most of its claims are the
result of incidental exposure, the Company insures a former
manufacturer of asbestos related products, which comprises about
half of the Company's outstanding claims.

Favorable emergence on our reported claims resulted in a
reduction in incurred losses in 2009 of about US$2.9 million, net
of reinsurance. At Dec. 31, 2009, asbestos claims constituted 22
percent of the Company's US$41.6 million net environmental
reserves compared to 29 percent of US$44.1 million net
environmental reserves at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Branchville, N.J., Selective Insurance Group,
Inc. is a holding company for seven insurance subsidiaries that
principally offer property and casualty insurance products and
services in the East and Midwest of the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Cites $9.24MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves for
losses and loss expenses were US$9,244,000 at Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$12,969,000 at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's gross asbestos reserves for losses and loss
expenses were US$11,056,000 at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$14,269,000 at Dec. 31, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's reserves for environmental claims
amounted to US$50.5 million on a gross basis (including case
reserves of US$16.5 million and IBNR (incurred-but-not-reported)
reserves of US$34 million) and US$41.6 million on a net basis
(including case reserves of US$11.4 million and IBNR reserves of
US$30.2 million).

About 647 asbestos claims are with one insured, an asbestos
gasket manufacturer with related case reserves of US$900,000. The
total case reserves for asbestos related claims amounted to
US$2.9 million on a gross basis and US$2.3 million on a net
basis.

Headquartered in Branchville, N.J., Selective Insurance Group,
Inc. is a holding company for seven insurance subsidiaries that
principally offer property and casualty insurance products and
services in the East and Midwest of the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Corp. Still Subject to Removal, Tort Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp. is still subject to environmental site cleanup,
asbestos removal and mass tort claims and exposures through its
commercial umbrella, general liability and discontinued assumed
casualty reinsurance lines of business.

Most of the exposure is in the excess layers of the Company's
commercial umbrella and assumed reinsurance books of business.

Net loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) payments were
US$33,905,000 from inception-to-date at Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with US$31,067,000 from inception-to-date at Dec. 31, 2008.

Net unpaid losses and LAE were US$48,056,000 from inception-to-
date at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$45,176,000 from
inception-to-date at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Peoria, Ill., RLI Corp. underwrites selected
property and casualty insurance through major subsidiaries
collectively known as RLI Insurance Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 440 Pending Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unites States Steel Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2009, was a
defendant in about 440 active asbestos cases involving about
3,040 plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed
on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2008, the Company was a defendant in about 450 active
cases involving about 3,050 plaintiffs.

During 2009, settlements and dismissals resulted in the
disposition of about 200 claims and the Company paid about US$7
million in settlements. New filings added about 190 claims.

Almost 2,560, or about 84 percent, of these claims are pending in
jurisdictions, which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs. Most of the claims filed in 2009, 2008 and 2007
involve individual or small groups of claimants.

These asbestos cases allege respiratory and other diseases based
on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is currently a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 210 plaintiffs
allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 400
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 450 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$13 million.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation is
an integrated steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products
with major production operations in North America and Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8T Claims Ongoing Against Cytec Ind. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 8,100 claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the nine months
ended Sept. 30, 2009, the same as for the period ended June 30,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200
claims closed and 100 claims opened. During the year ended Dec.
31, 2008, the Company recorded 200 claims closed and 100 claims
opened.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company has been named
as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos.

The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the
Company owns or formerly owned or from products that the Company
formerly manufactured for specialized applications.

The Company recorded an asbestos liability of US$45 million at
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$51.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.
The related insurance receivable was US$26.5 million as of Dec.
31, 2009, compared with US$32 million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a
specialty chemicals and materials company focused on developing,
manufacturing and selling value-added products. Its products
serve end markets including aerospace, adhesives, automotive and
industrial coatings, construction, chemical intermediates, inks,
mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Facing 204 Pending Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in about 204 pending
lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according
to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, to date, the Company has secured dismissals with
prejudice and without prejudice in about 139 and 119 lawsuits,
respectively.

The Company is also currently in discussions for similar
dismissal of several other lawsuits and has not been found liable
or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any case.

Headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation's
general industrial markets primarily consist of metallurgical
services for high-performance automotive, construction, marine,
simulation, and test equipment, as well as motor and machine
control systems for commercial HVAC systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suits Still Ongoing Against Olin Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are still defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current
business activities.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Clayton, Mo., Olin Corporation's Chlor Alkali
Products manufactures and sells chlorine and caustic soda, sodium
hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and
potassium hydroxide. Winchester products include sporting
ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military
ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Transocean in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries still face asbestos-
related lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi.

In 2004, several of the subsidiaries were named, along with
numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints filed on
behalf of 769 plaintiffs and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud
during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities
between 1965 and 1986.

A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial,
subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a
separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints
were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts.

The amended complaints resulted in one of the subsidiaries being
named as a direct defendant in seven cases. The Company has or
may have an indirect interest in an additional 17 cases. The
complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with
drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence,
products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the
Jones Act and general maritime law.

The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages. In each of these cases, the complaints have
named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies
that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.

None of the cases in which one of the subsidiaries is a named
defendant has been scheduled for trial in 2010, and the
preliminary information available on these claims is not
sufficient to determine if there is an identifiable period for
alleged exposure to asbestos, whether any asbestos exposure in
fact occurred, the vessels potentially involved in the claims, or
the basis on which the plaintiffs would support claims that their
injuries were related to exposure to asbestos.

In 2009, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi-
plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated
defendant companies which allegedly manufactured drilling-related
products containing asbestos. The Company was not a defendant in
either of these cases.

One of the cases resulted in a substantial jury verdict in favor
of the plaintiff, and this verdict was subsequently vacated by
the trial judge on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet
its burden of proof.

While the court's decision is consistent with the Company's
general evaluation of the strength of these cases, it has not
been reviewed on appeal. The second case resulted in a verdict
completely in favor of the defendants.

There have been no other trials involving any of the parties to
the original 21 complaints.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. is an
international provider of offshore contract drilling services for
oil and gas wells. As of Feb. 2, 2010, the Company owned, had
partial ownership interests in or operated 138 mobile offshore
drilling units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faces 1,041 Actions at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Transocean Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2009, was a
defendant in about 1,041 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the
Company estimates that there are about 2,623 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits.

The subsidiary, as of Sept. 30, 2009, was a defendant in 1,045
asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2009)

The subsidiary is involved in lawsuits arising out of the
subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction and
refurbishment of major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in
its litigation, funding from settlements with the primary
insurers and funds received from the cancellation of certain
insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous
other companies, in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result
of exposure to asbestos.

For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided
with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine
whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the
subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their
alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was
filed against this subsidiary in 1990.

Through Dec. 31, 2009, the amounts expended to resolve claims
(including both attorneys' fees and expenses, and settlement
costs) have not been material, and all deductibles with respect
to the primary insurance have been satisfied. The subsidiary
continues to be named as a defendant in additional lawsuits. The
subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in insurance limits
potentially available to the subsidiary.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. is an
international provider of offshore contract drilling services for
oil and gas wells. As of Feb. 2, 2010, the Company owned, had
partial ownership interests in or operated 138 mobile offshore
drilling units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Accrues $13M Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's current asbestos personal injury
liability amounted to US$13 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with US$19 million at Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos personal injury liability was
US$100 million at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$105 million as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed about 24,000 people in 23 countries and operated
106 major facilities throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Facing 31T Active Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 31,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at Dec. 31, 2009 and at Dec. 31,
2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company had about 31,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

For 2009, about 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled
and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or
without payment. The Company has accrued US$113 million for
indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future
claims at Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$124 million at Dec. 31,
2008.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had recorded US$58 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and
projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, compared
with US$63 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed about 24,000 people in 23 countries and operated
106 major facilities throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Collects $47Mil Through Dec. 31 for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation, through Dec. 31, 2009, had collected
the entire US$47 million paid to claimants with respect to Center
for Claims Resolution (CCR) asbestos claims, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Through Sept. 30, 2009, the Company had collected the entire
US$47 million paid to claimants with respect to CCR asbestos
claims. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

After the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) discontinued
negotiating shared settlements for asbestos claims for its member
companies in 2001, some former CCR members defaulted on the
payment of their shares of some settlements and some settling
claimants sought payment of the unpaid shares from other members
of the CCR at the time of the settlements, including from the
Company.

The Company has been working with the CCR, other former CCR
members, the Company's insurers and the claimants over a period
of several years in an effort to resolve these issues.

Efforts to recover additional CCR-related payments from surety
bonds and other claims are continuing. Additional recoveries are
not assured and accordingly have not been recorded at Dec. 31,
2009.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
axle, driveshaft, structural, sealing and thermal management
products for global vehicle manufacturers. At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company employed about 24,000 people in 23 countries and operated
106 major facilities throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windstream Corp. Records $34.8MM ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation recorded asset retirement obligations of
US$34.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$44.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's AROs include legal obligations to remediate the
asbestos in certain buildings if the Company were to abandon,
sell or otherwise dispose of the buildings and to dispose of its
chemically-treated telephone poles at the time they are removed
from service.

Headquartered in Little Rock, Ark., Windstream Corporation is a
telecommunications company that provides phone, high-speed
Internet and digital television services. The Company also offers
IP-based voice and data services and advanced phone systems and
equipment to businesses and government agencies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.78B for Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation had gross asbestos reserves of US$1.780
billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$1.933 billion during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company had net asbestos reserves of US$1.180 billion during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.228 billion
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's reserves for asbestos claims were US$1.16 billion
at Sept. 30, 2009, compared with US$1.23 billion at Sept. 30,
2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2009)

Asbestos reserves reestimates in 2009 were US$8 million
favorable. In 2009, the asbestos net three-year survival ratio
decreased due to lower reserve levels as the result of loss
settlements.

During the last three years, 61 direct primary and excess
policyholders reported new claims, and claims of 79 policyholders
were closed, decreasing the number of active policyholders by 18
during the period. The 18 decrease comprised 15 from 2009, nine
from 2008 and six from 2007. The decrease of 15 from 2009
included 20 new policyholders reporting new claims and the
closing of 35 policyholders' claims. At Dec. 31, 2009, IBNR
(incurred but not reported) represented 62 percent of total net
asbestos reserves.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 814 new
claims; 1,325 closed; 8,252 claims pending; and 469 claims closed
without payment. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company
recorded 601 new claims; 1,077 claims closed; 8,780 claims
pending; and 800 claims closed without payment.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a
publicly-held personal lines insurer in the United States.
Customers can access Allstate products and services such as auto
insurance and homeowners insurance through more than 14,000
exclusive Allstate agencies and financial representatives in the
United States and Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Faces 1.9T Asbestos/Silica Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., as of Feb. 2, 2010, is named in cases filed
on behalf of about 1,900 plaintiffs in which there is an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and silica.

As of Feb. 3, 2009, the Company was named in cases filed on
behalf of about 2,200 plaintiffs in which there is an allegation
of exposure to asbestos and silica. (Class Action Reporter, March
13, 2009)

The Company has been named, along with numerous other
nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various
states involving asbestos and silica. These lawsuits typically
assert claims of personal injury arising from alleged exposure to
asbestos and silica as a consequence of products purportedly
distributed by the Company.

In 2009, lawsuits relating to asbestos and silica and involving
about 470 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company,
typically based on the lack of product identification.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., W.W. Grainger, Inc.
distributes facilities maintenance products and provides related
services and information used by businesses and institutions
primarily in the United States, Canada, Japan and Mexico to keep
their facilities and equipment running.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) and certain of its
affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

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

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

Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation provides equipment and services for the
global rail industry. In 2009, the Company had sales of about
US$1.4 billion and net income of about US$115.1 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company and its operations, from time to time,
are parties to or targets of lawsuits, claims, investigations and
proceedings, including asbestos, product liability, personal
injury, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,
environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment
matters.

No further asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Kingsport, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Company is a
global chemical company that manufactures and sells chemicals,
plastics, and fibers. The Company has 11 manufacturing sites in
seven countries that supply chemicals, plastics, and fibers
products to customers throughout the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.5MM CAROs at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation says that the estimated fair value of
conditional asset retirement obligation (CARO) liabilities was
US$3.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009 and US$3.3 million at Dec. 31,
2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The estimated fair value of the Company's CAROs at Sept. 30, 2009
was US$3.4 million. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

The Company has CAROs at several of its fabricated products
facilities. The vast majority of those CAROs consist of
incremental costs that would be associated with the removal and
disposal of asbestos (all of which is believed to be fully
contained and encapsulated within walls, floors, roofs, ceilings
or piping) at certain of the older plants if such plants were to
undergo major renovation or be demolished.

There are currently plans for such renovation or demolition at
certain facilities and management's current assessment is that
certain immaterial CAROs may be triggered during the next seven
years.

Accretion of CARO liabilities (recorded in Cost of products sold)
was US$200,000 for 2009, US$300,000 for 2008 and US$200,000 for
2007.

Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Kaiser Aluminum
Corporation's primary line of business is the production of semi-
fabricated specialty aluminum products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco, Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Many legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may be
brought against Sunoco, Inc. arising out of its current and past
operations, including matters related to allegations of exposures
of third parties to toxic substances (such as benzene or
asbestos) and general environmental claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum
refiner and marketer and chemicals manufacturer with interests in
logistics and cokemaking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62,360 Claims Ongoing v. CBS Corp. at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending about 62,360 asbestos claims as of
Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 68,520 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company had about 61,820 pending asbestos claims as of Sept.
30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial
ships.

During 2009, the Company received about 4,200 new claims and
closed or moved to an inactive docket about 10,370 claims.

The Company's total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
about US$17.8 million for 2009 and US$15 million for 2008.

Headquartered in New York, CBS Corporation CBS Corporation is
comprised of the following segments: Television, Radio, Outdoor,
Interactive and Publishing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fluor Corp. Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation continues to be a defendant in various lawsuits
wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust
due to work that the Company may have performed at various
locations.

The company has substantial third party insurance coverage to
cover a significant portion of existing and any potential cost,
settlements or judgments.

Headquartered in Irving, Tex., Fluor Corporation is a holding
company that owns the stock of a number of subsidiaries. The
Company is a professional services firms, providing engineering,
procurement, construction and maintenance as well as project
management services on a global basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK, Units Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in a
number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Many of these lawsuits either relate to businesses which were
acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were
manufactured or sold by the Company or relate to previously owned
businesses of the Company which are under new ownership.

In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers or new
owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed to
indemnify the Company against these claims (Indemnified Claims).
The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being
defended by, such sellers and new owners.

These sellers and new owners have met their obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe
such parties would fail to fulfill their obligations in the
future; however, one of these companies filed for bankruptcy
liquidation in 2007.

To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a
result of any asbestos-related lawsuit.

Headquartered in Paoli, Pa., AMETEK, Inc. manufactures electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in
North America, Europe, Asia and South America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,104 Active Cases Ongoing v. Leslie at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that, as of the end of fiscal
2009 (Dec. 31, 2009), subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. was a
named defendant in 1,104 active, unresolved asbestos-related
claims filed in California, Texas, New York, Massachusetts, West
Virginia, Rhode Island, Illinois and 23 other states.

About 597 of these claims involve claimants allegedly suffering
from (or the estates of decedents who allegedly died from)
mesothelioma. In addition to these claims, Leslie remains a named
defendant in about 4,700 unresolved asbestos-related claims filed
in Mississippi.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Leslie had 687 claims filed and
551 claims resolved and dismissed. Net pre-tax asbestos expense
was US$54,079,000.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Leslie had 688 claims filed,
427 claims dismissed, 968 open claims, and 502 open mesothelioma
claims. Net pre-tax asbestos expense was US$8,311,000.

During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two verdicts
that, if allowed to stand, would result in a liability to Leslie
of about US$3.8 million. Although Leslie accrued a liability
during 2007 for each of these verdicts, both verdicts were
appealed and, during November 2009, the California Court of
Appeals issued its final ruling reversing one of the two
judgments against Leslie.

As a result of this ruling, during the fourth quarter of fiscal
2009, the Company reduced the accrued liability associated with
Leslie's asbestos claims by US$1.3 million. On the remaining
verdict, appellate arguments have not yet been scheduled. Leslie
has recorded US$500,000 in accrued interest for the remaining
outstanding adverse verdict.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, Leslie has recorded asbestos liabilities for
resolution of pending and future claims anticipated to be filed
through the next five years of US$60.3 million (US$12.5 million
short-term and US$47.8 million long-term) compared to US$19.2
million as of Dec. 31, 2008.

The US$60.3 million liability as of Dec. 31, 2009 is comprised of
US$39.8 million for the estimated cost of resolving those future
claims filed during the next five years, US$14.9 million for the
estimated cost of resolving existing claims, US$3 million related
to the remaining adverse verdict on appeal, and US$2.5 million
for incurred but unpaid legal costs.

Asbestos related insurance receivable amounts totaled US$4.6
million (all short-term) as of Dec. 31, 2009 compared to US$10.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2008. The US$4.6 million receivable as of
Dec. 31, 2009 is comprised of US$1.4 million for existing claims,
US$1.1 million related to adverse verdict and US$2.1 million for
incurred but unpaid legal costs.

Leslie's net asbestos liability was US$55,646,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009, compared with US$8,480,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells valves and other highly
engineered products and sub-systems that control the flow of
fluids safely and efficiently in the energy, aerospace and
industrial markets. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and Flow Technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $2.3Mil for Insurance at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2009, the
aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash basis) remaining on
subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of asbestos
insurance was about US$2.3 million.

After giving effect to the Company's accrual for an adverse
verdict currently on appeal, the remaining amount of Leslie's
primary layer of insurance is about US$1.4 million.

Leslie estimates that it may be able to recover from its excess
carriers about US$18 million associated with defense and
resolution of its pending asbestos claims and those claims
anticipated to be filed during the next five years.

As of Sept. 27, 2009, the aggregate amount of indemnity (on a
cash basis) remaining on Leslie's primary layer of asbestos
insurance was about US$3.2 million. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
6, 2009)

Headquartered in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells valves and other highly
engineered products and sub-systems that control the flow of
fluids safely and efficiently in the energy, aerospace and
industrial markets. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and Flow Technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spence, Hoke Still Involved in Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that asbestos-related claims have
been filed against two of its subsidiaries, Spence and Hoke,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company acquired Spence in 1984 and Hoke in 1998.

Headquartered in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells valves and other highly
engineered products and sub-systems that control the flow of
fluids safely and efficiently in the energy, aerospace and
industrial markets. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and Flow Technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR's Current Liability at $12.5M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability amounted
to US$12,476,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$9,310,000
as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$11,605,000 as of
Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

The Company's long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$47,785,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$9,935,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$12,070,000 as
of Sept. 27, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

Headquartered in Burlington, Mass., CIRCOR International, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells valves and other highly
engineered products and sub-systems that control the flow of
fluids safely and efficiently in the energy, aerospace and
industrial markets. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and Flow Technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odyssey Records $386.7M Losses, LAE at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s gross asbestos-related unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses amounted to US$386,735,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$360,733,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's gross unpaid asbestos-related losses and LAE were
US$333,475,000 during the nine and three months ended Sept. 30,
2009, compared with US$346,267,000 during the nine and three
months ended Sept. 30, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2009)

The Company's net asbestos-related losses and LAE amounted to
US$241,572,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$230,486,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Net losses and LAE incurred for asbestos claims increased US$40
million for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 and US$41 million during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of Dec. 31, 2009 is seven years.

The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of Dec. 31,
2009 was 1,744, amounting to US$211.3 million in gross case
losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims accounted
for 10.1 percent of the gross case reserves, with an average
reserve of US$2.1 million.

The number of asbestos claims, with case reserves, as of Dec. 31,
2008 was 1,672, amounting to US$204.8 million in gross case
losses and LAE reserves. The largest 10 reported claims accounted
for 11.6 percent of the gross case reserves, with an average
reserve of US$2.4 million.

Gross case reserves increased in 2009, as newly reported claims
and additional reported reserves on existing claims were greater
than claim payments in the year. The asbestos open claim count
increased by 72, or 4.3 percent, during calendar year 2009.

Based on an aggregation of claims by insured, the Company's 10
largest insured involvements accounted for 38 percent of its
gross case reserves as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 36.9
percent as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.
provides both treaty and facultative reinsurance to property and
casualty insurers and reinsurers. The Company also writes
insurance business through its offices throughout the United
States and in London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Still Has 26 Open Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 26 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 25,
2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 26 pending asbestos cases. (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009)

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials.

To date, four asbestos cases have been dismissed.

The Company has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date. The
aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these
cases since inception was about US$100,000, the majority of which
has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992.

Headquartered in New York, Minerals Technologies Inc. is a
resource- and technology-based company that develops, produces
and markets worldwide a broad range of specialty mineral,
mineral-based and synthetic mineral products and supporting
systems and services. The Company has two reportable segments:
Specialty Minerals and Refractories.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12 Actions Filed in Madison During Feb. 1 to 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Feb. 1, 2010 through Feb. 5, 2010, about 12
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-115) Donald and Sharon Berlin of Ohio claim
   Mr. Berlin developed mesothelioma after his work as a member
   of the Army Reserves, as an employee of U.S. Phosphate, as a
   pipefitter helper at Shannon Steel, as a maintenance painter
   at General Motors and as an independent contractor at General
   American Transportation. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Berlins.

-- (Case No. 10-L-120) Laura Boyle of Michigan claims her
   deceased father, Angelo Cuchetti, developed lung cancer after
   his work as a pipefitter and home remodeler. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Boyle.

-- (Case No. 10-L-132) Douglas Bradford of South Carolina, a
   carpenter, laborer and maintenance man, claims mesothelioma.
   Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Bradford.

-- (Case No. 10-L-114) John L. Huff of California, a pipe
   assembler at Johns Manville and a clerk at the U.S. Postal
   Service, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mr. Huff.

-- (Case No. 10-L-109) Josephine Klapperich of Minnesota, a
   cashier, clerk, welder, nurse's aid and nursery worker,
   claims mesothelioma. Christopher P. Guinn, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Ms. Klapperich.

-- (Case No. 10-L-112) Judy McCoy of Missouri claims her
   deceased husband, Richard D. McCoy, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a laborer, welder, iron worker and home
   remodeler. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq.,
   of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. McCoy.

-- (Case No. 10-L-128) Larry E. Morgan of Missouri, a laborer,
   rigger, crane helper, welder, pipefitter helper, millwright
   helper, ditch digger, carpenter, track repairer and crane
   helper, claims lung cancer. Michael R. Bilbrey, Esq., Timothy
   P. Hulla, Esq., James R. Stever, Esq., Robert B. Ramsey,
   Esq., and Michael V. Oltmann, Esq., of the Law Offices of
   Michael R. Bilbrey in Glen Carbon, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Morgan.

-- (Case No. 10-L-110) Edna Sponsler of Ohio claims her deceased
   son, Gregory Sponsler, developed mesothelioma after his work
   as a laborer and truck driver. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq.,
   of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Sponsler.

-- (Case No. 10-L-123) Gene and Mary Taylor of South Carolina
   claim Mr. Taylor developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   painter, construction worker, laborer, operator and truck
   driver. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent the Taylors.

-- (Case No. 10-L-121) Shawn Thomas of Indiana claims her
   deceased husband, Paul E. Thomas, developed lung cancer after
   his work as a laborer, steel worker and home remodeler.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd of East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Thomas.

-- (Case No. 10-L-113) Benjamin C. Valentine of Missouri, a
   laborer and home remodeler, claims lung cancer. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Valentine.

-- (Case No. 10-L-130) Max and Renee Wotnoske of Wisconsin claim
   Mr. Wotnoske developed mesothelioma after his work as an
   automobile mechanic. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., represent the Wotnoskes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 18 Actions Filed in Madison During Feb. 8 to 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Feb. 8, 2010 through Feb. 12, 2010, about 18
new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-134) Gloria Ballentine of Illinois claims her
   deceased father, John J. Ballentine Sr., developed lung
   cancer after his work as a motor sergeant, as an employee for
   R&S Printing Company and as a worker for Arnold Real Estate.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Ms. Ballentine.

-- (Case No. 10-L-167) Geraldine R. and Forrest Blazer of Ohio
   claim Mrs. Blazer developed mesothelioma after she was
   secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her father's
   work as a shipbuilder for Bethlehem Steel and through her
   husband's work as an asphalt worker for Brewer and Brewer and
   as a construction worker for V.N. Holderman. Elizabeth V.
   Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Blazers.

-- (Case No. 10-L-150) Lori L. and David H. Carlson of North
   Dakota claim Mrs. Carlson developed mesothelioma after her
   work at a mink ranch, as a secretary at Concordia College, as
   an employee at FRS Industries and as a waitress at Old Cafe.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Carlsons.

-- (Case No. 10-L-154) Christina Carver of Arizona claims her
   deceased husband, Michael Carver, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a mechanic, equipment operator, laborer and
   truck driver. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq.,
   of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Carver.

-- (Case No. 10-L-157) Barbara Jane Edwards of Virginia, a
   seamstress for Sales Knit Mill, a seamstress for Bristol
   Manufacturing, a seamstress for Virginia Apparel, a door
   frame assembler for Continental Homes, a frame cutter and
   sander for Guyer-Roberts Mirror Frames and a sander for Lane
   Furniture, claims mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
   and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli
   and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs.
   Edwards.

-- (Case No. 10-L-142) Judith Harris of Indiana, a secretary,
   claims mesothelioma. Jackalyn A. Olinger, Esq., and Nate
   Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis, will represent
   Mrs. Harris.

-- (Case No. 10-L-144) Robert and Kathie Highland of Arkansas
   claim Mr. Highland developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   welder and pipefitter at Farmland Industries and as a welder
   and pipefitter at Koch Industries. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and
   Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Highlands.

-- (Case No. 10-L-133) Peter and Marvis Jenkins claim Mr.
   Jenkins developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer,
   foundry worker, mechanic and equipment operator. Richard L.
   Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and
   Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent the Jenkinses.

-- (Case No. 10-L-136) Gregory S. and Debra K. Keasler of
   Alabama claim Mr. Keasler developed lung cancer after his
   work as a laborer for Weyerhaeuser Company, as a carpenter
   for National Mortgage Development Construction, as a
   carpenter for Sparks and Bolling Construction Company, as a
   carpenter for Bolling Construction Company, as a carpenter
   and owner of Greg Keasler Construction Company and as a shade
   tree mechanic. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Keaslers.

-- (Case No. 10-L-147) Marlene Kunkel of Minnesota claims the
   recently deceased Lloyd Kunkel developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a member of the U.S. Army, as a laborer and as a
   farmer. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint,
   Esq., of Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Kunkel.

-- (Case No. 10-L-159) Karen and Steve Melock of South Carolina
   claim Mrs. Melock developed mesothelioma after her work as a
   machine operator, inspector, social worker and administrative
   assistant. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent the Melocks.

-- (Case No. 10-L-146) Peggy Moody of Texas claims the deceased
   Atwood Moody developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   member of the United States Marine Corp and as a butcher.
   Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
   Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Moody.

-- (Case No. 10-L-164) Jerri Paulk of Montana claims her
   deceased mother, Eunice Satterlee, developed mesothelioma
   after her work as a riveter and nurses aide. Myles L.
   Epperson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Paulk.

-- (Case No. 10-L-151) Melvin and Ella Schultz of Texas claim
   Mr. Schultz developed mesothelioma after his work as an
   electrician, craft supervisor, job superintendent and project
   manager at Brown and Root. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Schultzes.

-- (Case No. 10-L-135) James Charles and Pamela B. Smith of
   Pennsylvania allege Mr. Smith developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a member of the U.S. Navy, as a machinist mate on
   the U.S.S. Soley, as a salesman and store manager for RCP
   Electronics, as a salesman for Homelite Power Equipment and
   as an outside sales representative for Cooper Industries.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Smiths.

-- (Case No. 10-L-143) Melvin and Marilyn Smotherman of Michigan
   claim Mr. Smotherman developed mesothelioma after his work in
   the U.S. Air Force and as a sheet metal worker. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
   Smothermans.

-- (Case No. 10-L-153) Patsy Warwick of Tennessee, a machine
   operator, janitor and cashier, claims mesothelioma. Brian J.
   Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Warwick.

-- (Case No. 10-L-149) David Lee Worthington and Doris Ann
   Wilkey of Florida claim Mr. Worthington developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a laborer for Griffin
   Construction, as an electrical apprentice for A&W Wiring, as
   an electrician for IBEW Local 1701, as an electrician for
   Progress Energy and as a home improvement worker. Elizabeth
   V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Worthington and Ms. Wilkey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Court Disputes Cotton's Death to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court of Australia ruled that Paul Cotton, a long-time
smoker, is more likely to have died from cancer caused by
cigarettes than from exposure to asbestos, the Australian
Associated Press reports.

Although not absolutely ruling out asbestos as the cause of Mr.
Cotton's fatal cancer, judges found that it may have only
contributed to it. The ruling means Mr. Cotton's former employers
would not have to pay compensation. Neither will the company that
supplied concrete pipes containing asbestos - Amaca, formerly
James Hardie.

Mr. Cotton smoked up to 20 cigarettes a day for 26 years.

The case was originally launched by Mr. Cotton. However,
following his death, was sustained by the executor his estate.

The executor sued two former employers plus Amaca, alleging
negligence in that Mr. Cotton was exposed to asbestos fibers.

Between 1975 and 1978, Mr. Cotton worked at the South Australian
Engineering and Water Supply Department, where he worked with
asbestos cement pipes manufactured by Amaca.

Between 1990 and his death in 2002, Mr. Cotton worked for West
Australian company Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd, where he
was also exposed to asbestos.

The WA Supreme Court found that all three defendants had been
negligent and breaches of duties of care owed to Mr. Cotton had
resulted in his being exposed to respirable asbestos fiber. They
caused or materially contributed to his contraction of lung
cancer.

A majority of the Court of Appeal of the WA Supreme Court
dismissed appeals against the finding of negligence. The case
then went to the High Court, where judges considered the central
question of whether it had been shown that it was more probable
than not that exposure to asbestos was a cause of Mr. Cotton's
lung cancer.

The seven judges unanimously ruled it was more probable that
smoking caused his cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indovina Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Philip B. Indovina Sr. and
Maryann Indovina, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation,
A.O. Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was
filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Ft. Myers, Fla., couple claims during Mr. Indovina's
employment with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos
dust, which caused his asbestosis and lung cancer.

The Indovinas seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Indovinas.

Case No. 10-C-0256 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexander Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Hugo T. Alexander and Leigh
Alexander, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O.
Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was
filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Mingo County couple claims during Mr. Alexander's employment
with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos dust, which
caused his asbestosis and lung cancer.

The Alexanders seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Alexanders.

Case No. 10-C-250 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Artmeier Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Charles G. Artmeier vs. 20th
Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, Ajax
Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

The Martinsville man claims during his employment with the 170
defendants, he was exposed to asbestos dust, which caused his
asbestosis and lung cancer.

Mr. Artmeier seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
his asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent Mr. Artmeier.

Case No. 10-C-251 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Birkhimer Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Ruben B. Birkhimer and Tammi
L. Birkhimer, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O.
Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was
filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Fruitland Park, Fla., couple claims during Mr. Birkhimer's
employment with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos
dust, which caused his asbestosis and laryngeal cancer.

The Birkhimers seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Birkhimers.

Case No. 10-C-252 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coen Lawsuit Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Ester R. Coen, Executrix of
the Estate of James E. Coen, deceased vs. 20th Century Glove
Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic
Corporation, et al. was filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Pine Grove woman claims during her late husband's employment
with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos dust, which
caused his asbestosis and lung cancer.

Mrs. Coen seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding the
asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent Mrs. Coen.

Case NO. 10-C-253 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodwin Case v. 170 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Kimberly Goodwin,
Administratrix of the Estate of Kenneth W. Goodwin, deceased vs.
20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, Ajax
Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was filed in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., on Feb. 10, 2010, The West Virginia Record
reports.

The Kennedy Township, Pa., woman claims during her late husband's
employment with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos
dust, which caused his asbestosis and lung cancer.

Mrs. Goodwin seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
the asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq. represent Mrs. Goodwin.

Case No. 10-C-254 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Holland Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Terry J. Holland and Kay L.
Holland, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith
Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was filed on
Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

The Edgewater, Fla., couple claims during Mr. Holland's
employment with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos
dust, which caused his asbestosis.

The Hollands seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Hollands.

Case No. 10-C-0255 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neitzelt Case Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Charles E. Neitzelt and Lois
L. Neitzelt, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O.
Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was
filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Wheeling couple claims during Mr. Neitzelt's employment with
the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos dust, which caused
his asbestosis and lung cancer.

The Neitzelts seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Neitzelts.

Case No. 10-C-0257 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Richardson Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Wilbur L. Richardson and Nancy
J. Richardson, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O.
Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was
filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Bellaire, Ohio, couple claims during Mr. Richardson's
employment with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos
dust, which caused his asbestosis and lung cancer.

The Richardsons seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Richardsons.

Case No. 10-C-0258 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walker Action v. 170 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Lester I. Walker and Beverly
A. Walker, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O.
Smith Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was
filed on Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Girard, Ohio, couple claims during Mr. Walker's employment
with the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos dust, which
caused his asbestosis.

The Walkers seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., represent the Walkers.

Case No. 10-C-0259 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weaver Action Filed v. 170 Firms in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled John E. Weaver and Ethel M.
Weaver, his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith
Corporation, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was filed on
Feb. 10, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

The Follansbee couple claims during Mr. Weaver's employment with
the 170 defendants, he was exposed to asbestos dust, which caused
his asbestosis and mesothelioma.

The Weavers seek a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding
their asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., Lee W. Davis,
Esq., and Scott S. Segal represent the Weavers.

Case No. 10-C-260 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brumley Case Filed v. 49 Firms in Jefferson Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Brumley, on behalf of Jimmy Brumley, filed an asbestos-
related lawsuit against 49 defendant corporations on Feb. 24,
2010 in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

Jimmy Brumley worked as a union insulator from 1953 until his
retirement in 1998, where Curtis Brumley says Jimmy Brumley was
exposed to asbestos-containing products.

Curtis Brumley claims the defendants failed to warn users of
their dangerous products and of the life-threatening health
hazards of the products.

As a result of his exposure, Jimmy Brumley developed
mesothelioma, causing him to suffer conscious pain and suffering,
emotional anxiety and mental distress and to incur medical costs
before his death, the suit states.

Curtis Brumley seeks US$50 million in compensatory damages and
US$50 million in punitive damages, plus costs, interest and for
other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Susannah B. Chester, Esq., and Charles E. Valles, Esq., of Waters
and Kraus in Dallas and Paul D. Henderson, Esq., of Orange, Tex.,
represent Curtis Brumley.

Case No. A186-121 has been assigned to Judge Bob Wortham, 58th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Des Moines Local Indicted for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
A resident of Des Moines, Iowa, 60-year-old Robert Knapp, was
indicted in a U.S. District Court with 11 counts of violating the
Clean Air Act, Mesothelioma reports.

Mr. Knapp and his project supervisor, 50-year-old Russell Coco,
face criminal indictment for their roles in failing to abide by
regulations governing the removal, transport and disposal of
asbestos-containing material while they worked on the Equitable
Building in Des Moines.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokesperson said that federal
prosecutors have pursued more than 50 such cases over the last
five years, including the current case against Mr. Knapp, who has
also been the target of an investigation by the state Department
of Natural Resources after they received an anonymous tip
regarding his company's practices regarding asbestos remediation
projects.

Both Mr. Knapp and Mr. Coco are expected to plead not guilty to
the charges.

In 2009, Mr. Knapp agreed to pay a fine of US$500,000 to Iowa
authorities for improperly disposing of asbestos during the
Equitable Building project, a state record at that time. However,
he will still face charges in federal court for violating the
provisions of the Clean Air Act regarding asbestos removal.

If he is convicted on all 11 counts, Mr. Knapp could be sentenced
to more than 50 years in prison and more than US$2.5 million in
fines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowder to Oversee Ill. Docket Starting Dec. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting Dec. 1, 2010, Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara
Crowder will oversee Madison County, Ill.'s asbestos docket, The
Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The assignment was announced on Feb. 11, 2010 by Madison County
Chief Judge Ann Callis' office.

Madison County has one of the busiest asbestos dockets in the
nation. Last year's asbestos filings topped those in 2009 by more
than 200 cases. The county's asbestos count peaked in 2003 at 953
cases filed.

Judge Crowder will step into the asbestos judge role that will be
left vacant once Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack
retires.

Judge Callis began transferring cases from Judge Stack's docket
to her own in December 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling, Units Party to Miss. Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries continue
to be defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi.

In August 2004, the Company was notified that certain of its
subsidiaries have been named, along with other defendants, in
several complaints that have been filed in the Circuit Courts of
the State of Mississippi by several hundred persons that allege
that they were employed by some of the named defendants between
1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in
offshore drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and
in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other
equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability and claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in
which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of
action allegedly accrued. Subsequent to the filing of amended
complaints, the Company has joined with other co-defendants in
filing motions to compel discovery to determine what plaintiffs
have an employment relationship with which defendant, including
whether or not any plaintiffs have an employment relationship
with subsidiaries of the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date,
about 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its
affiliates as a defendant. Discovery is proceeding in groups of
60 and none of the plaintiff complaints naming the Company are
included in the first 60 (Group I).

The initial discovery of Group I resulted in certain dismissals
with prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two
withdraws from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group
I. Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21,
2008. Out of the 60 plaintiffs selected, the Company was named in
one suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
US$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a company,
which the Company acquired in 1996.

Headquartered in Houston, Parker Drilling Company provides
contract drilling and drilling-related services. The Company has
operated in 53 foreign countries and the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Subject to Pending Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries are
subject to pending litigation raising various environmental and
health and safety claims, including certain asbestos-related
claims.

Management said it believes that most of the claimants were
assembly workers at the major U.S. automobile manufacturers. Most
of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
various products that allegedly containing asbestos.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in
the past. Many of these cases have been dismissed without any
payment whatsoever. Moreover, there is significant insurance
coverage with solvent carriers with respect to these claims.

Headquartered in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.
supplies automotive systems, modules and components to global
automotive original equipment manufacturers and related
aftermarkets. Of the Company's 2009 sales, about 58 percent were
in Europe, 25 percent were in North America, 12 percent were in
Asia, and 5 percent were in the rest of the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Suits Ongoing Against Noble Corp. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at Dec. 31, 2009, there were about
39 asbestos-related lawsuits in which the Company is one of many
defendants, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 26, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Sept. 30, 2009, there were 38 asbestos lawsuits in which the
Company was one of many defendants. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
13, 2009)

From time to time, the Company is a party to various lawsuits
that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek
an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the states of Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. Exposure related to these lawsuits is not
currently determinable.

Headquartered in George Town, Cayman Islands, Noble Corporation
is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil and gas industry.
The Company performs contract drilling services with its fleet of
62 mobile offshore drilling units located worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $867.2MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$867.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$225.9
million as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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

Net asbestos-related costs were US$237.5 million during 2009,
compared with US$14.3 million during 2008.

During 2009, the Company recorded asbestos-related costs of
US$237.5 million, primarily related to the estimated liability,
net of expected recoveries from insurance coverage and former ITT
entities, for claims projected to be filed against the Company
over the next 10 years.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation designs,
manufactures, and sells engineered products. The Company provides
services in three vital markets: global defense and security,
water and fluids management, and motion and flow control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,769 Claims Ongoing v. ITT Corp. at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation faced 104,769 claims as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with 103,006 claims as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to
the Company's annual report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 106,121 open asbestos claims as of Sept. 30,
2009, compared with 103,626 claims as of Sept. 30, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009)

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company noted 4,274 new claims, 1,081
settlements, and 4,728 dismissals. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the
Company noted 6,332 new claims, 1,736 settlements, and 4,158
dismissals.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of the
Company's products sold prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party, e.g., a gasket, which contained
asbestos.

To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material
and was non-friable. In certain other cases, it is alleged that
former ITT companies were distributors for other manufacturers'
products that may have contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or
Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, in
a large majority of the 104,679 pending claims against the
Company, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury.
Many of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets
(including 44,303 claims in Mississippi).

The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of
resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the
Company. As a result, management believes that about 90 percent
of the 104,679 open claims have little or no value. The average
payment per resolved claim for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009 was
US$11,600 (US$7,700 for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008).

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation designs,
manufactures, and sells engineered products. The Company provides
services in three vital markets: global defense and security,
water and fluids management, and motion and flow control.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Still Party to Cannon Electric Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation continues to be party to product liability
litigation styled Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.

The Company commenced the litigation on Feb. 13, 2003 in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. The suit seeks recovery of costs
related to asbestos product liability loses.

During this coverage litigation, the Company has entered into
coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE in April 2004,
Wausau in September 2004 and Utica Mutual in February 2007. These
agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's legacy
asbestos liabilities.

The Company is prepared to pursue legal remedies against the
remaining defendants where reasonable negotiations are not
productive.

Headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation designs,
manufactures, and sells engineered products. The Company provides
services in three vital markets: global defense and security,
water and fluids management, and motion and flow control.

                            *********

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  * * *