CAR_Public/100312.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, March 12, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 50

                            Headlines

ALCOA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Appeal to Nixed Injunction Claim
ALCOA INC: No Hearing for Motions in Lavoie's Baie Comeau Suit
ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee
CARDINAL HEALTH: Pharmacists Sue Over Franchise Agreement Changes
CLASSMATES ONLINE: Wash. Suit Complains About New Privacy Policy

ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Junked Price-Fixing Suit Pending
ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Monopolization Suit Remains Pending
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 155,000 Gator-Brand Machetes
GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: S.D.N.Y. Certified Female Employee Class
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Chinese Notebook Owners Lodge AQSIQ Complaint

HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Settlement Pending
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Dismissed Ohio Securities Suit Appealed
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Bid to Nix Suits Over Transactions Pending
KELLY SERVICES: Suits Over Wage and Hour Law Violations Pending
KEVIN HOUSER: Accused of Unfair Trade Practices in La. Suit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defends Suit by Ex-Store Managers in Calif.
MILLIPORE CORP: Being Sold to Merck for Too Little, Suit Claims
MEDIVATION INC: Securities Fraud Complaint Filed in N.D. Calif.
MINNESOTA: Suit Complains About Termination of GAMC Program
MODERN WOODMEN: Not Licensed to Sell Insurance, Nev. Suit Claims

OKLAHOMA GAS: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Nixed Certification Pending
OKLAHOMA GAS: Continues to Defend Suit by Customers in Oklahoma
PPG INDUSTRIES: Defending Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Pa.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Associated Press Says Lawsuits May Cost Billions
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sudden Acceleration Suit Filed in S.D. Ind.

TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Brokerage Antitrust Suit
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Received Unclaimed Settlement Refunds in Dec.
WELLCARE HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Eastwood Ent. & Hutton Suit
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Agrees Bank Didn't Overcharge Mortgagors

* Canadian Bar Association Launches Class Action Task Force

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Still Involved in Sealed Air Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal-Mogul Records $40MM Payments from Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Still Involved in Insurance Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has 430 Property Damage Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Still Party to Personal Injury Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Excess Coverage Still at $923M in Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $51.6Mil Libby Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement in NJDEP v. Grace Entered on Oct. 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $352.5M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Foster Wheeler Drop to 125.1T in U.S.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Records $43.5Mil Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 373 Claims Ongoing v. Foster Wheeler U.K. Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PSEG Cites $8MM Assets for Abatement at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dynegy Has $120M Retirement Obligation in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ten Lorillard, Inc. Actions Scheduled for Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Cites $300T Cleanup Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,239 Actions Pending v. GATX, Units at Jan. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Int'l. Still Has Exposure Cases in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation & BGE Facing 494 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Facing 63,887 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Involved in Coverage Action in N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 92,298 Open Claims Pending v. Trane at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alliant Unit Records $1.2Mil Settled Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NiSource Unit Settles $1M for Abatement in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNH Global, Units Still Party to Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Co. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Martin Still Party to Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 25,295 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still Party to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. May Be Subject to Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Facing 5 Pending Cases in State Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Ind. Cites $4.6M Insurance Recoveries in '09
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,550 Cases Ongoing Against Graybar at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cites $24.87MM Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dalmine Still Faces 45 Injury Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 6 Units Still Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Mainland's School to Cost $294,450
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poulton Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torres Awarded $3Mil Compensation in Tex. Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chapman Widow Turns Down GBP1MM in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robinson v. Alton and Southern Filed on Feb. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cates Joins Cooney Firm in 4 St. Clair Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Cases Filed During Feb. 15-19 in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gump Lawsuit Filed in Kanawha County on Feb. 23

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wilson Lawsuit Filed on Feb. 24 in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estep Lawsuit Filed v. 78 Firms in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jarrell Action Filed v. 97 Firms in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Flipped in McCann Case v. Foster Wheeler
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Hall Case

                            *********

ALCOA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Appeal to Nixed Injunction Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. continues to pursue dismissal of appealed to junked
injunctive relief claim in the Hurricane Georges-related class
action, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In September 1998, Hurricane Georges struck the U.S. Virgin
Islands, including the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C. (SCA) facility
on the island of St. Croix.  The wind and rain associated with
the hurricane caused material at the location to be blown into
neighboring residential areas. Various cleanup and remediation
efforts were undertaken by or on behalf of SCA.  A Notice of
Violation was issued by the Division of Environmental Protection
(DEP), of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR)
of the Virgin Islands Government, and has been contested by the
company.

A civil suit was commenced in the Territorial Court of the Virgin
Islands by certain residents of St. Croix in February 1999,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief
for alleged personal injuries and property damages associated
with "bauxite or red dust" from the SCA facility.  The suit,
which has been removed to the District Court of the Virgin
Islands, names SCA, Alcoa Inc., and Glencore Ltd. as defendants,
and, in August 2000, was accorded class action treatment.  The
class is defined to include persons in various defined
neighborhoods who "suffered damages and/or injuries as a result
of exposure during and after Hurricane Georges to red dust and
red mud blown during Hurricane Georges."  All of the defendants
have denied liability, and discovery and other pretrial
proceedings have been underway since 1999.  

In October 2003, the defendants received plaintiffs' expert
reports.  These reports also claim that the material blown during
Hurricane Georges consisted of bauxite and red mud, and contained
crystalline silica, chromium, and other substances.  The reports
further claim, among other things, that the population of the six
subject neighborhoods as of the 2000 census (a total of 3,730
people) has been exposed to toxic substances through the fault of
the defendants, and hence will be able to show entitlement to
lifetime medical monitoring as well as other compensatory and
punitive relief.  These opinions have been contested by the
defendants' expert reports, that state, among other things, that
plaintiffs were not exposed to the substances alleged and that in
any event the level of alleged exposure does not justify lifetime
medical monitoring.

In August 2005, Alcoa and SCA moved to decertify the plaintiff
class, and in March 2006, the assigned magistrate judge issued a
recommendation that class certification be maintained for
liability issues only, and that the class be decertified after
liability issues have been resolved.  This recommendation has
been adopted by the assigned district judge.  Alcoa and SCA have
turned over this matter to their insurance carriers who are
providing a defense. Glencore Ltd. is jointly defending the case
with Alcoa and SCA and has a pending motion to dismiss.

On June 3, 2008, the Court granted defendants' joint motion to
decertify the class of plaintiffs, and simultaneously granted in
part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
new class. Under the new certification order, there is no class
as to the personal injury, property damage, or punitive damages
claims. (The named plaintiffs had previously dropped their claims
for medical monitoring during the course of the briefing of the
certification motions.)  The Court did certify a new class as to
the claim of on-going nuisance, insofar as plaintiffs seek
cleanup, abatement, or removal of the red mud currently present
at the facility.  The Court expressly denied certification of a
class as to any claims for remediation or clean up of any area
outside the facility (including plaintiffs' property).  The new
class may seek only injunctive relief rather than monetary
damages.  Named plaintiffs, however, may continue to prosecute
their claims for personal injury, property damage, and punitive
damages.

On May 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
on the class plaintiffs' sole remaining claim, which sought
injunctive relief.  On May 22, 2009, defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment on the named plaintiffs' claims for personal
injury, property damage, and punitive damages.  On Aug. 28, 2009,
the Court dismissed the named plaintiffs' claims for personal
injury and punitive damages, and denied the motion with respect
to their property damage claims.  On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the class
plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.  As of Oct. 29, 2009,
plaintiffs appealed the Court's summary judgment order dismissing
the claim for injunctive relief.  On Nov. 24, 2009, Alcoa and SCA
filed a motion to dismiss that appeal at the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  

Alcoa Inc. produces alumina (aluminum's principal ingredient,
processed from bauxite) and aluminum. Its operations include
bauxite mining, alumina refining, and aluminum smelting; primary
products include alumina and its chemicals, automotive
components, and sheet aluminum for beverage cans. The Company is
based in New York.


ALCOA INC: No Hearing for Motions in Lavoie's Baie Comeau Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie Comeau has
not yet scheduled a hearing date for Alcoa Inc.'s two motions in
Dany Lavoie's purported class action, according to the company's
Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Inc., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau.  

Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all past, present and future owners,
tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges neighborhood.

He alleges that defendants, as the present and past owners and
operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have negligently
allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the smelter,
specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs", that
have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St. Georges
neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the property of
the putative class and causing health concerns for those who
inhabit that neighborhood.  If allowed to proceed as a class
action, plaintiff seeks to compel additional remediation to be
conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by
them voluntarily, seeks an injunction against further emissions
in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in
consultation with an independent expert, and seeks money damages
on behalf of all class members.

A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification was held
on April 24 to April 26, 2007.  On May 23, 2007, the court issued
its ruling which granted the motion in part and authorized a
class action suit to include only people who suffered property
damage or personal injury damages caused by the emission of PAHs
from the smelter.

On Sept. 13, 2007, the plaintiff filed his claim against the
original defendants, which the court had authorized in May.  On
June 16, 2008, Alcoa filed its Statement of Defense.  On July 15,
2009, plaintiff filed an Answer to Alcoa's Statement of Defense.  
On Oct. 9, 2009, Alcoa filed a Motion for Particulars with
respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiff's Answer.  On Oct. 16,
2009, Alcoa filed a Motion to Strike with respect to certain
paragraphs of plaintiff's Answer.  

Alcoa Inc. produces alumina (aluminum's principal ingredient,
processed from bauxite) and aluminum. Its operations include
bauxite mining, alumina refining, and aluminum smelting; primary
products include alumina and its chemicals, automotive
components, and sheet aluminum for beverage cans. The Company is
based in New York.


ALCOA INC: Continues to Defend Curtis' ERISA Suit in Tennessee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc., continues to defend a class-action suit styled Curtis
v. Alcoa Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010,
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In November 2006, a class action was filed by plaintiffs
representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of
Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Company and spouses and dependents of
such retirees alleging violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor-Management Relations
Act by requiring plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay
health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-
insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs.

Plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care
plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits.

Plaintiffs additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its
fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to
them that their health benefits would never change.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment
of benefits, and attorneys' fees.

Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs' claims as a class
action.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, following briefing and
argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a
plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs' breach of
fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs' jury demand, but
indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of
Sept. 17, 2008.

In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009
and, subsequently, the trial date was moved to Sept. 22, 2009.

In June 2009, the court indicated that it would not use an
advisory jury at trial.

Trial in the matter was held over eight days commencing Sept. 22,
2009 and ending on Oct. 1, 2009 in federal court in Knoxville,
Tennessee before the Honorable Thomas Phillips, U.S. District
Court Judge.

At the conclusion of evidence, the court set a post-hearing
briefing schedule for submission of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law by the parties and for replies to the same.

Post trial briefing was submitted on Dec. 4, 2009. No schedule
was set for handing down a decision.

Alcoa believes that it presented substantial evidence in support
of its defenses at trial.  However, at this stage of the
proceeding, the company is unable to reasonably predict the
outcome.

Alcoa estimates that, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the
maximum exposure would be an additional postretirement benefit
liability of approximately $300 million and approximately $40
million of expense (includes an interest cost component)
annually, on average, for the next 11 years.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq.
          744 Broadway
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: 518-463-7501
          Fax: 518-463-7502
          E-mail: katapano@gmail.com

Representing the defendant is:

          John W. Woods, Jr., Esq.
          Hunton & Williams
          951 East Byrd Street
          Riverfront Plaza East Tower
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Phone: 804-788-8629
          Fax: 804-343-4794
          E-mail: jwoods@hunton.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Pharmacists Sue Over Franchise Agreement Changes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medicine Shoppe and Medicap independent pharmacy franchise owners
from across the nation have joined together in support of a class
action suit in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Ohio against Cardinal Health (NYSE: CAH), Medicine Shoppe Inc.
(MSI), and Medicap Pharmacies Incorporated (MC).  The suit
alleges several specific points of wrongdoing on the part of
CAH/MSI/MC during 2009 when the companies made attempts to re-
negotiate existing franchise agreements and convert to an
alternate form of distribution.

"We are independent pharmacists, taking care of hundreds of
thousands of patients across the country, who feel that our
franchisor has taken every opportunity to hurt our business and
the brand we share," says Stan Winters, who owns the Medicine
Shoppe in Artesia, Calif.  "We intend for this legal action to
clear the slate with Cardinal Health, put an end to their heavy-
handed ways and roll back the predatory pricing on
pharmaceuticals that many stores are forced to accept," he says.  

Mr. Winters is one of several plaintiffs who ultimately represent
more than 600 stores that represent more than $1 billion in
pharmaceutical revenue, primarily from Cardinal Health.  In 2009,
Cardinal Health presented franchisees an offer to reform the
franchise system that Cardinal admitted was greatly challenged by
unprecedented changes in the pharmacy industry, resulting in more
than a 50 percent decline in store count over the past seven to
eight years.

The legal action describes attempts to renegotiate franchise
agreements; in particular, those known as "Option 1 Stores" were
offered a new contract for which they had to pay an "early
termination fee," which in some cases amounted to $1,000,000 or
more, and agree to purchase only from Cardinal Health for
sometimes more than 12 years without a competitive bid. The store
owners were promised that this new system would only be
instituted if at least 95 percent of the owners adopted it.  
CAH/MSI defrauded the "Option 1" stores by accepting tens of
millions of dollars in prepaid franchise fees, never reaching the
95 percent as promised, and proceeding to reduce services across
the board.

Others, described as "Option 3" stores, elected to not convert to
the new offering, yet have suffered damages through the arbitrary
reduction of services.  CAH/MSI further damaged the overall
franchise by introducing a new offer for a flat $499 per month,
in stark contrast to the existing agreements which continue to
require payments up to $25,000 per month or more to carry the
Medicine Shoppe or Medicap brand.  The end result of the 2009
offer was anything but "the common and consistent franchise
agreements" that Cardinal sought.

Independent franchisees continue to support the legal action and
are encouraged to do so by the Pharmacy Franchise Owners
Association-MS and MC, the trade associations for owners of both
Medicine Shoppe and Medicap pharmacies.  Franchisees for Fair
Value is the designation specifically for those owners who are
supporting the class action.


CLASSMATES ONLINE: Wash. Suit Complains About New Privacy Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that to compete
with Facebook, Classmates.com is abandoning the privacy
protections it promised its clients, according to a class action
in Federal Court.

The class claims the new policy "will expose the personal
information of Classmates users to millions of persons who are
unknown to both the users and to Classmates," exposing Classmates
customers to "unwarranted intrusions, harassment and other
harms."

On Jan. 30, Classmates sent this notice to its customers:

"To make it easier for old friends-including you!-to reunite,
we're coming up with ways to let more people use Classmates from
around the Internet without having to visit Classmates.com.

"To do that, we're about to start making your public Classmates
content available to people using a variety of sites and devices,
including Facebook and the iPhone.  This content can include your
name, photos, community affiliations, and more.

"Of course, we care about your privacy as much as we do your
ability to catch up with your past.  We're updating our privacy
policy to make these new features possible, and you're able to
opt out."

The class claims that this new policy "will have severe, adverse
privacy implications for Classmates Users," that the "opt out"
policy is confusing and insufficient, but that the notice "is
presented in such an innocuous and favorable manner that users
would not even be tempted to 'opt out' of the new policy."

Previously, Classmates users had to sign up for an account before
seeing profiles, and Classmates had the ability to track which
users viewed other users' profiles, according to the complaint.

The policy switch was due to "increasing business pressure from
'social network' Web sites such as Facebook, which also provide a
venue for old friends to reconnect and communicate," according to
the complaint.

"In or about 2009, Classmates began to work on a strategy to tap
into Facebook's more than 100 million users, and direct their
attention to the store of information accumulated over the years
on the Classmates Web site.  It has done this despite the fact
that (unlike Classmates) Facebook has been repeatedly sued for
violating its users' privacy rights and mishandling information
contained on its Web site," the complaint states.

The class seeks damages for violations of the Electronic Data
Privacy Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.  It also wants Classmates
enjoined to send users a detailed explanation of the new privacy
policy before it institutes it.

A copy of the Complaint in Ferguson, et al. v. Classmates Online,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00365 (W.D. Wash.) (Jones, J.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/09/Classmates.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
          1111 Third Ave., Suite 2230
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-652 8660

               - and -

          Roy Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212-867-1156

               - and -

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq.
          PASKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          60 East 42nd St., 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: 212-685-0969

               - and -

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Junked Price-Fixing Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to a decision dismissing a second
consolidated class action complaint Energy Transfer Partners,
L.P., remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit, according to the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s Feb. 24,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

ETP is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Equity.

In October 2007, a consolidated class action complaint was filed
against ETP in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

The action alleges that ETP engaged in intentional and unlawful
manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and options
contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in violation of
the Commodity Exchange Act.

It is further alleged that during the class period from Dec. 29,
2003 to Dec. 31, 2005, ETP had the market power to manipulate
index prices, and that ETP used this market power to artificially
depress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs,
including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit its
natural gas physical and financial trading positions, and that
ETP intentionally submitted price and volume trade information to
trade publications.

The complaint also alleges that ETP violated the CEA by knowingly
aiding and abetting violations of the CEA.

The plaintiffs state that this allegedly unlawful depression of
index prices by ETP manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas
futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the
class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiffs and
all other members of the putative class who sold natural gas
futures or who purchased and/or sold natural gas options
contracts on NYMEX during the class period.

The plaintiffs have requested certification of their suit as a
class action and seek unspecified damages, court costs and other
appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this suit on the
grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
class action complaint.

In response to this new pleading, on May 5, 2008, ETP filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 26, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the
complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
order dismissing the complaint, and on Aug. 26, 2009, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

On Sept. 28, 2009, these decisions were appealed by the
plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and
the appeal is in briefing stage before the court.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. --
http://www.energytransfer.com/-- through its general partnership  
interest in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., transports natural
gas midstream, stores and retails propane in the United States.  
The company, formerly known as La Grange Energy, L.P., was
founded in 2002.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Monopolization Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the dismissal of a class action complaint against
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., alleging monopolization is in
briefing stage before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit, according to the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s Feb. 24,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

ETP is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Equity.

In March 2008, a class action complaint was filed against ETP in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The action alleges that ETP engaged in unlawful restraint of
trade and intentional monopolization and attempted monopolization
of the market for fixed-price natural gas baseload transactions
at the Houston Ship Channel from December 2003 through December
2005 in violation of federal antitrust law.

The complaint further alleges that during this period ETP exerted
monopoly power to suppress the price for these transactions to
non-competitive levels in order to benefit its own physical
natural gas positions.

The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested
certification of its suit as a class action and seeks unspecified
treble damages, court costs and other appropriate relief.  On May
19, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this complaint.  On March
26, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint.  
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on
all causes of action and for antitrust injury, but granted leave
to amend.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend to assert a claim for common law fraud and attached a
proposed amended complaint as an exhibit.  ETP opposed the motion
and cross-moved to dismiss.

On Aug. 7, 2009, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and
granted ETP's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On Sept. 10, 2009, this decision was appealed by the plaintiff to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. --
http://www.energytransfer.com/-- through its general partnership  
interest in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., transports natural
gas midstream, stores and retails propane in the United States.  
The company, formerly known as La Grange Energy, L.P., was
founded in 2002.


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 155,000 Gator-Brand Machetes
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerber Legendary Blades, of Portland, Ore., a division of Fiskars
Brands Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of
about 149,000 Gerber(r) Gator(r) Machete and 6,000 Gator(r)
Machete Jr.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The saw side of the machete can stick in wood during use, and if
the user's hand slips off the handle and slides forward across
the machete blade, this poses a laceration hazard.

Gerber has received five reports of individuals cutting
themselves while using the Gator Machete, all of whom required
stitches. Gerber has received no reports of injuries associated
with use of the Gator Machete Jr.

This recall involves the Gerber Gator Machete and Gator Machete
Jr. with the original handle.  The Gator Machete is approximately
25 1/2" long and the Machete Jr. is approximately 18 3/4" long.
The blade is marked with the "Gerber" trademark. The Gator
Machete and Machete Jr. with a modified handle (an extended hand
guard) are not included in this recall (see picture in recall
announcement). Consumers should visually inspect their machete to
determine if it is included in this recall.  Pictures of the
recalled product are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10157.html

The recalled machetes were manufactured in China and sold at
retail stores nationwide, including The Sportsman's Guide, Dick's
Sporting Goods and Bass Pro Shops/American Rod & Gun, and through
on-line stores from March 2007 through February 2010 for between
$16 and $25.

Consumers should stop using the recalled machetes immediately and
contact Gerber to receive instructions on how to return the
machete for a free replacement machete.  For more information,
contact Gerber Legendary Blades toll-free at (877) 314-9130
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.gerbergear.com/


GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: S.D.N.Y. Certified Female Employee Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of current and former Gristede's female employees has won
its bid to represent a class of female grocery store workers in a
case alleging that the grocery chain and its owner, John
Catsimatidis, violated civil rights laws by segregating women
into lower-paying jobs and failing to promote them to management
positions.

Federal Judge Laura T. Swain of the Southern District of New York
granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion on Monday,
finding that there are common issues as to whether Gristede's
hiring, job placement, and promotion practices are based on
subjective decision-making that is biased against women.

The Court held that the plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence
that Gristede's steers women into cashier positions, regardless
of their qualifications or interests, and that Gristede's
promotes clerks, a position it primarily staffs with men, to
managers. The Court also held that Plaintiffs' statistical
evidence, suggesting that there is virtually zero probability
that the significant disparities in assignment and promotion of
men and women occur by chance, supported their class action bid.

The plaintiffs are Susan Duling, of Manhattan, Margaret Anderson,
of the Bronx, and Lakeya Sewer, also of the Bronx.

The Court cited the plaintiffs' evidence that hiring and
promotion decisions are made by a handful of men who have
unchecked discretion and are subject to little or no oversight,
and that Gristede's fails to provide managers and human resources
employees with anti-discrimination training, post available
positions, or formulate job requirements. The Court also noted
the company's lack of anti-discrimination policies.
Attorneys Adam T. Klein, Justin M. Swartz, Lewis Steel, Cara E.
Greene, and Rachel Bien of Outten & Golden LLP represent the
plaintiffs.

Adam T. Klein said, "Women at Gristede's are disadvantaged from
the moment they hand in their employment applications. And
because promotions are based on a tap-on-the-shoulder system that
favors men, women are unlikely ever to be promoted. Allowing the
case to proceed as a class action is an important step in
righting these wrongs."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 26, 2006, Duling
v. Gristede's Operating Corp., Case No. 06-cv-10197 (S.D.N.Y.),
began in 2006 when two former cashiers sued Gristede's on behalf
of themselves and all other women who worked for the company from
November 2, 2004 through the present.  In January 2010, the Court
allowed the plaintiffs to add John Catsimatidis as an individual
defendant, to add an additional plaintiff, and to request
additional relief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam T. Klein, Esq.
          Lewis Steel, Esq.
          Cara E. Greene, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Chinese Notebook Owners Lodge AQSIQ Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathrin Hille at the Financial Times reports from Beijing that
Chinese lawyers have filed a complaint on behalf of more than 170
consumers against Hewlett-Packard, requesting that the Chinese
government order a recall of allegedly faulty notebook computers.

The move is the first time the world's largest PC brand has faced
organised action from overseas consumers. Ms. Hille says, and it
is a sign that shoppers in the world's most populous market are
increasingly aware of their consumer rights and more willing to
fight for them.

The complaint, seen by the Financial Times, was delivered to the
General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and
Quarantine of the People's Republic of China (AQSIQ) on Monday.

It requests that the quality watchdog investigate the quality of
HP notebooks and order the company to buy back or exchange
allegedly faulty machines bought by the plaintiffs and to
compensate them for losses. It also calls for AQSIQ to request a
recall of the notebooks.

Laweach, a not-for-profit Web site that helped organise laptop
users for the case, said Chinese buyers of certain HP laptop
computers sold since 2007 had faced malfunctioning screens and
overheating problems on a massive scale.

The complaint said the problems were due to faulty graphics cards
produced by Nvidia, a chipmaker which supplies several PC makers
with this component.

In July 2008, Nvidia publicly acknowledged quality problems with
some graphics cards and announced it was paying PC makers to deal
with resulting problems.

The complaint said that although HP had offered an extension of
warranty periods for some notebook models, that was not a
thorough solution to the problem.

"We have also noticed that HP in the US offered consumers
extended warranty periods for even more models and compensated
them for transport costs, but in China, it has not made a
statement or offered services, and openly discriminated against
Chinese consumers," the complaint said.

The lawyer representing the consumers:

          Jiang Suhua, Esq.
          YINGKE LAW FIRM
          2-103/105, Shiqiao World Trade Massion
          No. 16B Dongsanhuan Zhong Rd.
          Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022
          CHINA
          Telephone: 86 10 8776 1162
          E-mail: jiangsuhua@yingkelawyer.com

said the group was not taking HP to court because the absence of
class action in China meant the prospects for such action were
dim. He said he hoped AQSIQ would order a recall, and consumers
could then negotiate compensation with HP.

AQSIQ has increasingly muscled in on consumer rights. So far this
year, in the car market alone, the quality watchdog ordered
recalls of two Mitsubishi models, two Peugeot models, one CitroČn
model and one Chrysler model.

A decision in the HP case would set a new precedent, however, as
Chinese law so far has clear rules only for recalls of cars, food
products, drugs and toys.

"We hope we can set a precedent and help strengthen the
protection of consumer rights in China," said Mr. Jiang.

HP said it was not able to comment by the time of going to press.
AQSIQ declined to comment.

The issue has come to light just as HP announced it would sue
MicroJet Technology, a Taiwanese maker of printer ink cartridges,
and three other companies, alleging their products infringed its
patents.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Consolidated ERISA Suit Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated Employee Retirement Income
Security Act complaint has not been finalized or approved by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according
to Huntington Bancshares Incorporated 's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Between Feb. 20 and 29, 2008, three putative class-action
lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against the company, the Huntington
Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the Huntington
Investment and Tax Savings Plan Administrative Committee, and
certain of the company's officers and directors purportedly on
behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan between
July 1, 2007, or July 20, 2007, and the present.

The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act relating to the
company's stock being offered as an investment alternative for
participants in the Plan.  They seek money damages and equitable
relief.

On May 13, 2008, the three cases were consolidated into a single
action.

On Aug. 4, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a
class period of July 1, 2007 through the present, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the ERISA relating
to Huntington stock being offered as an investment alternative
for participants in the Plan and seeking money damages and
equitable relief.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing with
prejudice the consolidated lawsuit in its entirety, and the
plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  During the pendency of the
appeal, the parties to the appeal commenced settlement
discussions and have reached an agreement in principle to settle
this litigation on a classwide basis for $1,450,000, subject to
the drafting of definitive settlement documentation and court
approval.

The suit is "Riccio v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00165-GLF-TPK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Mark D. Lewis, Esq.
          Kitrick & Lewis Co LPA
          515 E. Main Street, Suite 515
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-7711

               - and -  

          Jeffrey Phillip Harris, Esq.
          Statman Harris & Eyrich
          441 Vine Street
          Suite 3700
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4704
          Phone: 513-621-2666

               - and -

          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 610-667-7706
          Fax: 610-667-7056

Representing the defendants is:

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq.
          Sidley Austin LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-853-7000
          Fax: 312-853-7036


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Dismissed Ohio Securities Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's
dismissal of the consolidated securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is being appealed,
according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Between Dec. 19, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2008, two putative class-
action suits were filed against the company and certain of its
current or former officers and directors purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of securities during the periods from July 20, 2007,
to Nov. 16, 2007, or from July 20, 2007, to Jan. 10, 2008.

These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning our financial results,
prospects, and condition, relating, in particular, to its
transactions with Franklin Credit Management.

On June 5, 2008, the two cases were consolidated into a single
action.

On Aug. 22, 2008, a consolidated complaint was filed asserting a
class period of July 19, 2007 through Nov. 16, 2007, alleging
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5  promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a
series of allegedly false and/or  misleading statements
concerning Huntington's financial results, prospects, and
condition, relating, in particular, to its transactions with
Franklin.  

The action was dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 4, 2009, and the
plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The suit is "Stephen Ellman, et al. v. Huntington Bancshares,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 07-CV- 01276," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Michael
H. Watson, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David P. Meyer, Esq.
          David P. Meyer & Associates Co LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Phone: 614-224-6000
          Fax: 614-224-6066

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert Ward Trafford, Esq.
          Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
          41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
          Columbus, OH 43215-6194
          Phone: 614-227-2000
          Fax: 614-227-2149


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Bid to Nix Suits Over Transactions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss lawsuits filed in connection with Huntington
Bancshares, Inc.'s acquisition of Sky Financial Group, Inc.,
certain transactions between Huntington and Franklin Credit
Management Corp., and the financial disclosures relating to such
transactions are pending.

The three putative derivative class-action lawsuits were filed
between Jan. 16, 2008, and April 17, 2008, before:

   1. the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Ohio;

   2. the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio;
      and

   3. the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio.

The suits named as defendants certain of Huntington's current or
former officers and directors, and variously allege breaches of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment.  Huntington is named
as a nominal defendant in each of these actions.

The derivative action filed in the District of Ohio was dismissed
with prejudice on Sept. 23, 2009.  The plaintiff in that action
thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed at the
plaintiff's request on Jan. 12, 2010.  That plaintiff
subsequently sent a letter to Huntington's Board of Directors
demanding that it initiate certain litigation, which letter has
been taken under advisement.

Motions to dismiss the other two actions were filed on March 10,
2008, and Jan. 26, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 18,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Huntington Bancshares, Inc. -- https://www.huntington.com/ -- is
a multi-state diversified financial holding company.  Through its
subsidiaries, the company provides full-service commercial and
consumer banking services, mortgage banking services, automobile
financing, equipment leasing, investment management, trust
services, brokerage services, reinsurance of private mortgage
insurance, reinsurance of credit life and disability insurance,
retail and commercial insurance agency services, and other
financial products and services.  The company has three lines of
business: Regional Banking, Dealer Sales, and the Private
Financial and Capital Markets Group (PFCMG).  A fourth segment,
Treasury/Other, includes the company's treasury function.  The
company's only banking subsidiary is The Huntington National
Bank.


KELLY SERVICES: Suits Over Wage and Hour Law Violations Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative class action litigation against Kelly Services, Inc.,
involving alleged violations of state wage and hour laws, remain
pending.

Certain legal proceedings seek class action status; these matters
individually and in the aggregate seek compensatory, statutory
and/or punitive damages.

During 2008 and 2009, several matters reached the stage in the
litigation process that caused the Company to reassess its
litigation risk and establish reserves which, in the aggregate
accumulated to $27.8 million.

The Company negotiated settlements in the two most significant of
these cases, which received final court approval and were paid by
the 2009 year end.

No additional reserve was taken as a result of the final court
orders, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a  
global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and
territories throughout the world.


KEVIN HOUSER: Accused of Unfair Trade Practices in La. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, New Orleans Saints players Charles Grant
and Jeremy Shockey say their former teammate Kevin Houser took
them to the cleaners in a scheme involving putative film tax
credits.

The men say Mr. Houser was working as an agent in association
with Securities America when he approached them about buying film
tax credits that purportedly were available through Louisiana
Film Studios LLC, a film producer.  They say Mr. Houser claimed
he was working with Wayne Read, a promoter who allegedly owned
Louisiana Film Studios (LFS).

The men say that in December 2008 Mr. Houser told them that Read,
through LFS, had qualified for Louisiana Infrastructure Tax
Credits, which are credits marketable to third parties to raise
capital for LFS, with tax benefits for the purchasers.

The plaintiffs say they understood they were purchasing tax
credits, not investing in LFS or in any studio, motion picture,
production or production company.

In January 2009, the men say, Mr. Grant paid $425,000 to Houser
and Securities America, for which he was to receive $565,000 in
state tax credits.  Mr. Shockey says he paid $85,000 and was to
receive $113,000 in tax credits.

Mr. Grant and Mr. Shockey say they believed their money was to be
placed in escrow and held in trust until the tax credits were
certified by the state and delivered to them by the end of March
2009.

But the men says that Mr. Houser and his wife were creditors of
LFS and had an interest in the cash derived from the sale of tax
credits, but didn't tell Mr. Grant and Mr. Shockey.

At the times, the plaintiffs say, Mr. Houser and his wife owned
47 Construction LLC, which had a multimillion-dollar contract to
improve the film studio operated by LFS, but Houser failed to
tell Grant and Shockey of his relationship to 47 Construction or
of the construction company's relationship to LFS.

Rather than create an escrow account or other device to protect
Mr. Grant and Mr. Shockey's money while they awaited the tax
credits, they say their money was instead "wasted, converted and
dissipated by LFS" and others.

They say they never got the tax credits and Mr. Houser kept some
of their money as a commission or finders fee.

Mr. Houser was the longest-tenured Saints player until he was cut
by the team before the start of the 2009 season, when news of the
tax credit debacle began to surface, according to the Times
Picayune.

In addition to Kevin Houser and Securities America Inc., the
class, estimated at more than 100 people, sued American
International Specialties Lines Insurance Co., Houser's insurance
carrier.  It seeks damages for unfair trade practices and unjust
enrichment.  

A copy of the Complaint in Grant, et al. v. Kevin Houser,
Securities America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00805 (E.D.
La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/09/SaintsTax.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fred L. Herman, Esq.
          Thomas J. Barbera, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRED HERMAN
          1010 Common St., Suite 3000
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: 504-581-7070

               - and -

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN KAT & COTLAR LLP
          820 O'Keefe Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: 504-581-4892


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Defends Suit by Ex-Store Managers in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., intends to defend a putative class
action suit filed by a former store manager and a current
assistant store manager, according to Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

On Sept. 3, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
suit against LLI in the Superior Court of California in and for
the County of Alameda.

The Plaintiffs allege that with regard to certain groups of
current and former employees in LLI's California stores, LLI
violated California law by failing to calculate and pay overtime
wages properly, provide meal breaks, compensate for unused
vacation time, reimburse for certain expenses and maintain
required employment records.

The Plaintiffs also claim that LLI did not calculate and pay
overtime wages properly for certain of LLI's non-exempt
employees, both in and out of California, in violation of federal
law.

In their suit, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, certain
statutory penalties, costs, attorney's fees and injunctive
relief.

LLI removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Toano, Va.-based Lumber Liquidators Inc is a specialty retailer
of hardwood flooring in the United States. It offers hardwood
flooring products from more than 25 domestic and exotic wood
species in both prefinished and unfinished brands of various
widths and lengths.


MILLIPORE CORP: Being Sold to Merck for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Millipore Corp. is selling
itself too cheaply to Merck, for $7.2 billion, or $107 a share,
shareholders say in Middlesex County Court, Boston.

A copy of the Complaint in United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers
and Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Millipore Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-0855 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/09/SCAMarch9.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Lagorio, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          63 Atlantic Ave.
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 800-361-5096

               - and -         

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-394-3399


MEDIVATION INC: Securities Fraud Complaint Filed in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and other lawyers
filed Applestein v. Medication, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), on behalf of purchasers of Medivation,
Inc. common stock during the period between July 17, 2008, and
March 2, 2010, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint as available at:

          http://www.csgrr.com/cases/medivation/

The complaint charges Medivation and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Medivation is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development of small molecule drugs for the treatment of
Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and castration-
resistant prostate cancer.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug
Dimebon. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public about the
effectiveness of Dimebon as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease,
making it impossible for shareholders to gain a meaningful or
realistic understanding of the drug's progress toward FDA
approval and market success. Then, on March 3, 2010, before the
market opened, defendants were forced to publicly disclose that
Dimebon did not meet primary and secondary goals in a Phase 3
trial for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. As
a result of this news, Medivation's stock plummeted $27.15 per
share to close at $13.10 per share on March 3, 2010 -- a one-day
decline of 67% on volume of 45 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Medivation common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia -- http://www.csgrr.com/-- a 180-lawyer firm with  
offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.


MINNESOTA: Suit Complains About Termination of GAMC Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that the
"poorest of the poor" Minnesotans will be cut off from state-
funded health care because Gov.  Tim Pawlenty cut $16 million
from the state medical assistance program, a class action claims
in Ramsey County Court.

Recipients of the General Assistance Medical Care Program (GAMC)
-- 60 percent of whom suffer from a "diagnosed mental illness"
and 30 percent of whom have some form of "chronic physical
illness" --  will lose their medical care on April 1, the class
claims.  Ninety percent of GAMC recipients live on $226 a month
or less, according to the complaint.

The co-defendant Department of Human Services plans to
"transition GAMC recipients to another state-operated medical
program," but "the proposed transition leaves so many gaps in
coverage," the class claims.

Named plaintiff James Beede, a Vietnam Veteran, lives on $203 per
month.  He says that if he loses GAMC on April 1, "his ability to
pay for dental and other medical needs would be at risk."

Gov. Pawlenty cut more than $381 million from GAMC from the 2001
budget, allowing $345 million to remain for the 2010 program.  He
then "announced that he would unallot a portion of the
appropriation that he had just signed into law," rather than veto
the items, to try to make an end run around the Legislature's
power to override his vetoes, the class claims.

Facing a budget deficit in June 2009, Department of Management
and Budget Commissioner Thomas Hanson "proposed a series of
spending reductions, including a $236 million reduction in human
services spending," according to the complaint.  Gov. Pawlenty
then "unalloted" $15.9 million from the GAMC program.

Although more than $26 million explicitly appropriated by the
Legislature for GAMC in 2010 will remain at the end of March,
Commissioner Mr. Hanson's February 2010 financial report states
that this money will be used for a different purpose," the
complaint states.

The class says the "unallotment" is illegal, and that the $42
million in total funding -- should the $16 million be restored --
is "more than enough to continue the program through the month of
April."

The class seeks declaratory judgment and an injunction.  It
claims Gov. Pawlenty violated the separation of powers doctrine
of the Minnesota Constitution, and state budget law.

Copies of the Summons and the Complaint in Fischer, et al. v.
Pawlenty, et al., Case No. 62cv-10-1830 (Minn. Dist. Ct., Ramsey
Cty.), are available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/09/MinnMed.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Fargione, Esq.
          Anne Quincy, Esq.
          MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          430 First Ave. North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-1780
          Telephone: 612-746-3763


MODERN WOODMEN: Not Licensed to Sell Insurance, Nev. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Modern Woodmen of
America and its agent Narcisa Dolly Flores sold thousands of life
insurance policies in Nevada without a license to do so, a class
action claims in Clark County Court, Las Vegas.

A copy of the Complaint in Yabut, et al. v. Modern Woodmen of
America, et al., Case No. A-10-611258-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark
Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/09/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Jesse M. Sbaih, Esq.
          JESSE SBAIH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          The District at Green Valley Ranch
          170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
          Henderson, NV 89012
          Telephone: 702-896-2529


OKLAHOMA GAS: Plaintiffs' Appeal of Nixed Certification Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling is pending on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
on the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas' denial of the
class certification in class action petition involving OGE
Energy, according to the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.'s Feb. 18,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy were served
with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.

On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class
certification.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon
Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation,
on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed
a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and
the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003.

In its amended petition (the "Fourth Amended Petition"), the
company and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE
Energy's subsidiary entities remained as defendants.

The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition seeks class certification
and alleges that approximately 60 defendants, including two of
OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the
volume of natural gas.

The Fourth Amended Petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy,
aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment.  In their
briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also
allege a claim for conversion.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The
plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and
the parties fully briefed these same issues.

A hearing on class certification issues was held April 1, 2005.

In May 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is
claiming entitlement to participate in the putative class action.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law on class certification were filed in 2007.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for reconsideration of the
court's denial of class certification.

On Feb. 10, 2010, the court heard arguments on the rehearing.  No
ruling on this motion has been made.

OGE Energy is the parent company of Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company, which serves approximately 776,000 customers in a
service territory spanning 30,000 square miles in Oklahoma and
western Arkansas, and of Enogex LLC, a natural gas pipeline
business with principal operations in Oklahoma.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Continues to Defend Suit by Customers in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. continues to defend a putative
class action alleging that the company improperly charged sales
tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.

On June 19, 2006, two company customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on the Company's electric bills.

The plaintiffs claim that the company improperly charged sales
tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.

The plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges,
contending that such fees are more than is allowed under Oklahoma
law.

The company's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial
judge.

The company filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma Supreme
Court asking the court to direct the trial court to dismiss the
class action suit.

In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the
District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the
complaint of billing practices is determined by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission.

In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the
OCC asking the OCC to modify its order which authorized the
company to collect the challenged franchise fee charges.

A procedural schedule and notice requirements for the matter were
established by the OCC on Dec. 4, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, the Oklahoma Attorney General, the company,
OG&E Shareholders Association and the Staff of the Public Utility
Division of the OCC all filed briefs arguing that the application
should be dismissed.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held before an
administrative law judge on March 26, 2009.  

On June 30, 2009, the ALJ issued a report recommending that the
application be dismissed.

On July 9, 2009, the applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and a
hearing on this matter was scheduled for Nov. 5, 2009.

On Dec. 9, 2009, the OCC issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' request for a modification of the OCC order which
authorizes the Company to collect and remit sales tax on
franchise fee charges.  In its Dec. 9, 2009 order, the OCC
advised the plaintiffs that the ruling does not address the
question of whether the company's collection and remittance of
such sales tax should be discontinued prospectively.  

On Dec. 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion at the Oklahoma
Supreme Court asking the court to deny the company's writ of
prohibition and to remand the cause to the District Court.  On
Dec. 29, 2009, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared the
plaintiffs' motion moot.  

On Jan. 27, 2010, the OCC Staff filed a motion asking the OCC to
dismiss the cause and close the cause at the OCC.  If the OCC
Staff's motion is granted, the plaintiffs would be required to
file a new cause in order to ask for prospective relief.  In its
motion, the OCC Staff stated that the plaintiff's counsel advised
the OCC Staff counsel that the plaintiffs have no desire to seek
a determination regarding prospective relief from the OCC.  It is
unknown whether the plaintiffs will attempt to continue the
District Court action, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010,
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

OGE Energy is the parent company of Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company, which serves approximately 776,000 customers in a
service territory spanning 30,000 square miles in Oklahoma and
western Arkansas, and of Enogex LLC, a natural gas pipeline
business with principal operations in Oklahoma.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Defending Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated purported
class-action lawsuit alleging antitrust violations in Pittsburgh,
Pa.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass
producers as defendants in purported antitrust class actions.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and
conditions of sale of flat glass in the United States in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into one federal
court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Many allegations in the complaints are similar to those raised in
ongoing proceedings by the European Commission in which fines
were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of
alleged antitrust violations.  PPG is not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe.  PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998.

A complaint containing allegations substantially similar to the
U.S. litigation was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor,
Ontario, Canada in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass
in Canada.

PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or conduct on its part in the
operation of its flat glass businesses that violated any
antitrust laws, according to the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global  
supplier of protective and decorative coatings.  The company
operates in six segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial
Coatings, Architectural Coatings, Optical and Specialty
Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass.  The Performance
Coatings, Industrial Coatings and Architectural Coatings segments
supply protective and decorative finishes for customers in a
range of end use markets, including industrial equipment,
appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions
and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment;
automotive original equipment, and other industrial and consumer
products.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Associated Press Says Lawsuits May Cost Billions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Curt Anderson and Greg Bluestein at The Associated Press report
that Toyota owners claiming that massive safety recalls are
causing the value of their vehicles to plummet have filed at
least 89 class-action lawsuits that could cost the Japanese auto
giant billions, according to a review of cases, legal precedent
and interviews with experts.

Those estimates do not include potential payouts for wrongful
death and injury lawsuits, which could reach in the tens of
millions each.

Still, the sheer volume of cases involving U.S. Toyota owners
claiming lost value -- six million or more -- could prove far
more costly, adding up to losses in excess of $3 billion for the
automaker.

Such class-action lawsuits "are more scary for Toyota than the
cases where people actually got injured," said Tom Baker, a
University of Pennsylvania law professor. "A super-big injury
case would be $20 million. But you could have millions of
individual car owners who could (each) be owed $1,000. If I were
Toyota, I'd be more worried about those cases."

As Toyota continues to deal with the recalls and wavering public
confidence in its vehicle safety, its biggest financial fight may
be in the courtroom. A key decision could come at a March 25
hearing in San Diego, where a panel of federal judges will
consider whether to consolidate the mushrooming cases into a
single jurisdiction.

After that, a judge will decide whether all claims filed by
Toyota owners nationwide can be combined in a single legal action
-- known as "certifying a class" -- and whether the claims have
enough merit to move toward either trial or settlement.

Toyota owners suing the company contend their vehicles have
dropped in value because of the recalls and that Toyota knew all
along about safety problems but concealed them from buyers. They
point to evidence such as Kelley Blue Book's decision this month
to lower the resale value of recalled Toyotas an average of 3.5
percent, ranging from $300 less for a Corolla to $750 less for a
Sequoia.

The lawsuits started appearing on state and federal dockets last
fall, when Toyota began recalling some 8 million vehicles
worldwide because of persistent complaints about sudden
unintended acceleration. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration reports that 52 people have died in accelerator-
related crashes.

The AP conducted an extensive review of federal court filings and
uncovered a total of 89 class-action lawsuits filed nationwide as
of Monday.  Toyota attorneys said last week in a court filing
that the company is aware of 82 such cases.

One leading attorney in the class-action effort, Northeastern
University law professor Tim Howard, said the number of owners
claiming economic damages because of the recalls could reach 6
million. If each were awarded $500 -- likely a conservative
estimate -- Toyota would have to fork over $3 billion in economic
loss damages alone.

This does not include possible payouts in wrongful death or
injury cases as well as lawsuits filed by shareholders claiming
losses from share prices that have tumbled more than 16 percent
since January as concerns linger over if the company has recalled
all the vehicles it needs to and if it found the right fix.

One Prius driver said on Monday his car sped out of control on a
San Diego County freeway, and came to a safe stop after a 30 mile
ride. The incident occurred two weeks after he had taken his
vehicle in for repairs at a dealership and was turned away.

                        Jackpot for lawyers?

Corporations often settle big cases rather than risk an even
bigger damage award at a trial.

Automakers in the past have been forced to pay vehicle owners for
lost value because of safety problems. Ford, for example, agreed
in 2008 to compensate 800,000 Explorer owners who sued because of
rollover dangers. That settlement provided owners only with
vouchers of between $300 and $500 to buy new Ford products.

In that case, the lawyers received about $25 million in fees and
costs, and the Toyota case could result in a similar windfall for
attorneys. A study by the Federal Judicial Center concluded
attorneys in class-action lawsuits typically get fees between 27
percent and 30 percent of what they recover in damages - which
could reach $1 billion in a $3 billion settlement.

Toyota could end up facing an even bigger payoff if a judge
decides attorneys' fees should be added to any plaintiffs' award.

The San Diego hearing will be conducted before the seven-member
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which decides whether
similar lawsuits filed in multiple federal districts should be
centralized in one location for pretrial motions, hearings and
the like. A federal judge would be chosen to determine whether
the Toyota cases should be certified as a class action and make
other key rulings, such as deciding on a likely Toyota motion to
dismiss.

Under federal law, a class action must have 100 or more
plaintiffs, damages sought must exceed $5 million and the judge
must be persuaded the claims are identical or very similar. If a
class is not certified, each lawsuit would have to be pursued on
its own.

Toyota has so far recalled 5.6 million vehicles in the U.S.
because of problems caused by what it says are accelerator pedals
that become sticky or get trapped under floor mats.

Another 437,000 Prius models have been recalled worldwide for
what Toyota says is an antilock-braking glitch.

The vast majority of lawsuits claiming economic loss stem from
the accelerator problems, and many contend the company's effort
to fix floor mats or accelerator pedals are insufficient. Dozens
of lawsuits claim Toyota has ignored problems with its electronic
throttle system.

Separately, NHTSA is looking into claims from more than 60 Toyota
owners that their vehicles continue to surge forward unexpectedly
despite having their vehicles repaired.

Toyota has denied that its electronic throttle is to blame and
has been focused on dealing with the recalls - a strategy that
could affect the outcome of the lawsuits.

"Toyota's strategy (should be) to fix them, fix them immediately
and at no cost, and do it as quickly and effectively as you can
so after the dust settles, your car's value won't have
depreciated much," said Edward C. Martin, a law professor at
Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham,
Alabama.

"We do not believe that electronics are at the root of this
issue," Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said Monday.

In some of the lawsuits, Toyota owners seek additional damages
because they're afraid to drive what they call "defective and
dangerous" cars, while still others claim insurance premiums will
likely go up.

"My wife has been worried about it for a while. She's eight
months pregnant and she's terrified to drive the car now," said
Jerry Borbon, a Miami lawyer who is still driving his 2008 Toyota
Prius and is a plaintiff in a potential class-action lawsuit.

"We thought about trying to get rid of it, but we're stuck with
it," he said, adding Toyota's damaged reputation has made it hard
to sell the vehicle. "I don't feel secure in the car and I don't
want my wife driving it."

"There are a lot of unknowns and the big questions are what did
Toyota know when," said Catherine Sharkey, a professor at the New
York University School of Law. "If it turns out that Toyota had
knowledge of these defects and did not act soon enough, then the
best strategy is settlement."


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sudden Acceleration Suit Filed in S.D. Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------
WIBC 93.1 FM reports that a Carmel, Inc., woman is one of dozens
of people across the nation who have filed class action lawsuits
against Toyota.

The suits come as the automaker struggles to recover from a
massive recall involving sticky accelerator pedals.

Indianapolis attorney:

          Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
          Cohen & Malad, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481

represents Judy Enderle.  He says her lawsuit maybe combined with
the dozens of others that have been filed so far.

A hearing is set for March 25 before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in San Diego in MDL No. 2151 to decide
how to proceed with lawsuits filed against Toyota in federal
court or successfully removed from state to federal court.  

Mr. Pavlack says Toyota has not been honest about the problems
with the cars and have not done enough to address those issues.

The cases could cost the Japanese automaker more than $3 billion,
The Associated Press reports.  

Mr. Pavlack filed Enderle V. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00142 (S.D. Ind.) (Barker, J.), on Feb. 3,
2010.


TRAVELERS COMPANIES: Awaits Ruling on Brokerage Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
continue to await a ruling from the Third Circuit, , according to
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the company
and/or certain of its affiliates, by plaintiffs who allegedly
purchased insurance products through one or more of the defendant
brokers.

The plaintiffs alleged that various insurance brokers conspired
with each other and with various insurers, including the Company
and/or certain of its affiliates, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.

To the extent they were not originally filed there, the federal
class actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and were consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings with other class actions under the caption In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.

On Aug. 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the above-referenced class actions, filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint naming various
brokers and insurers, including the Company and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages,
permanent injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement
of profits, interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  All
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.  

After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on Aug. 31, 2007 and the
RICO claims on Sept. 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.  
The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Oral argument
before the Third Circuit took place on April 21, 2009.  

Additional individual actions have been brought in state and
federal courts against the Company involving allegations similar
to those in In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, and
further actions may be brought.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides commercial auto, property,
workers' compensation, marine, and general and financial
liability coverage to companies in North America and the United
Kingdom. The Company also offers surety and fidelity bonds as
well as professional and management liability coverage for
commercial operations. The Company is based in New York.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Received Unclaimed Settlement Refunds in Dec.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2009, had received $3.6
million in refunds of unclaimed settlement funds based on
instructions from the Court Appointed Disbursing Agent to the
settlement funds escrow agent.

The Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trinity Marine
Products, Inc., were co-defendants in a class-action lawsuit
filed in April 2003 entitled Waxler Transportation Company, Inc.
v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., et al.

A settlement of this case was approved by the court and became
final Feb. 13, 2008.

The CADA prepared an Allocation Plan and Distribution Plan for
the disbursement of settlement compensation that was approved by
the court on Nov. 14, 2008.

Trinity Industries, Inc. -- http://www.trin.net/-- is a holding  
company of diversified industrial companies.  Trinity
manufactures and sells railcars and railcar parts, inland barges,
concrete and aggregates, highway products, beams and girders used
in highway construction, tank containers and structural wind
towers.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Eastwood Ent. & Hutton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated putative class action
complaint filed against WellCare Health Plans, Inc., according to
the company's Feb. 18, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

Putative class action complaints were filed in October 2007 and
in November 2007.  These putative class actions, entitled
Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et al. and Hutton v.
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
against the company, Todd Farha, its former chairman and chief
executive officer, and Paul Behrens, its former senior vice
president and chief financial officer.  Messrs. Farha and Behrens
were also officers of various subsidiaries of the company.  

The Eastwood Enterprises complaint alleges that the defendants
materially misstated our reported financial condition by, among
other things, purportedly overstating revenue and understating
expenses in amounts unspecified in the pleading in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

The Hutton complaint alleges that various public statements
supposedly issued by defendants were materially misleading
because they failed to disclose that we were purportedly
operating our business in a potentially illegal and improper
manner in violation of applicable federal guidelines and
regulations.  The complaint asserts claims under the Exchange
Act.  

Both complaints seek, among other things, certification as a
class action and damages.  

The two actions were consolidated, and various parties and law
firms filed motions seeking to be designated as Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel.  In an Order issued in March 2008, the Court
appointed a group of five public pension funds from New Mexico,
Louisiana and Chicago (the "Public Pension Fund Group") as Lead
Plaintiffs.  

In October 2008, an amended consolidated complaint was filed in
this class action against the company, Messrs. Farha and Behrens,
and adding Thaddeus Bereday, a former senior vice president and
general counsel, as a defendant.  

In January 2009, the company and certain other defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint,
arguing, among other things, that the complaint failed to allege
a material misstatement by defendants with respect to our
compliance with marketing and other health care regulations and
failed to plead facts raising a strong inference of scienter with
respect to all aspects of the purported fraud claim.  The court
denied the motion in September 2009, and the company and the
other defendants filed answers to the amended consolidated
complaint in November 2009.  

Separately, in October 2009, an action was filed against us in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entitled Behrens,
et al. v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc. in which the plaintiffs,
Messrs. Behrens, Bereday, and Farha, seek an order requiring the
company to pay their respective expenses, including attorney
fees, in connection with litigation and investigations in which
the plaintiffs are involved by reason of their service as our
directors and officers. Plaintiffs further challenge the
company's right, prior to advancing such expenses, to first
submit their expense invoices to its directors' and officers'
insurance carrier for their preliminary review and evaluation of
the adequacy of the description of services in the invoices and
of the reasonableness of those expenses.

WellCare Health Plans, Inc. -- http://www.wellcare.com/--  
provides managed care services exclusively for government-
sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on Medicaid and Medicare.  
Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, WellCare offers a variety of
health plans for families, children, and the aged, blind, and
disabled, as well as prescription drug plans.


WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Agrees Bank Didn't Overcharge Mortgagors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a
class action accusing Wells Fargo of charging excessive
underwriting fees.  The three-judge panel said the law "does not
reach the practice of 'overcharging.'"

Lead plaintiffs Alinda and Armando Martinez said they were
charged an $800 underwriting fee when they refinanced their
mortgage through Wells Fargo.  They said the fee was "unfair,"
"fraudulent" and "illegal," because it wasn't related to the
bank's actual underwriting costs.

They filed a class action on behalf of California mortgage
borrowers who were similarly "overcharged" by Wells Fargo,
according to the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte granted the bank's motion for
dismissal, ruling that "even if Wells Fargo had overcharged the
Martinezes for its services, it did not violate RESPA (Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act) in doing so because Wells Fargo
provided a service in exchange for a fee."

Judge Whyte also dismissed the Martinezes claims of unlawful
conduct and fraud, because they failed to show "an underlying
illegal predicate act."

The appellate panel in San Francisco upheld Judge Whyte's ruling,
saying the law only bars lenders from accepting money "where no
service whatsoever is performed in exchange for that money."

Writing for the 9th Circuit panel, U.S. District Judge Barbara
Lynn said the law "cannot be read to prohibit charging fees,
excessive or otherwise, when those fees are for services that
were actually performed."

The Martinezes also argued that Wells Fargo's overcharges and
failure to disclose its actual costs constituted unlawful
practices.  Federal law requires the bank to "conspicuously and
clearly itemize all charges imposed upon the borrower."

The bank insisted that it must disclose only what it charges the
customer, not its own costs.

The Martinezes argued, unsuccessfully, that the distinction
between a "charge" and a "cost" is hypertechnical.

"It is beyond dispute that there is a difference between what a
business 'charges' its customers for a service or product, and
what the service or product 'costs' the business," Judge Lynn
wrote.  "That difference is called 'profit.'"

A copy of the opinion in Martinez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 07-17277 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?5814

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Joseph D. Daley, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Robert B. Bader, Esq.
          Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
          William F. Sheehan, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          101 California St., Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-733-6000


* Canadian Bar Association Launches Class Action Task Force
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Middlemiss at the Financial Post's Legal Post reports that
the Canadian Bar Association, it has struck a blue-chip task
force to address issues around national class actions.

Currently, there is no system in place for establishing a
national class action. It's a legal free for all. Lawyers simply
file in a single or multiple provinces and compete to see who
runs the case. Sometimes judges will name a case a national class
suit or simply carve out different provinces, leaving it to
judges in those locations to rule on the case as it pertains to
the local residents. It's led to some nasty jurisdictional dust
ups both between judges in different courts and among lawyers.
There are often multiple class suits underway in various
provinces all centred on the same issues and defendant lawyers
and their corporate clients are often left stuck in the middle
fighting it out across the country.

The CBA said the current system impedes justice and creates
confusion for the public. "The public, plaintiffs and defendants,
the judiciary and the litigation bar are becoming increasingly
frustrated by jurisdictional overlap caused by provincial class
actions claiming to represent national classes," said CBA
President Kevin Carroll. "Rules for the proper management of such
cases are necessary."

The task force will be chaired by:

          Sylvie Rodrigue, Esq.
          OGILVY RENAULT LLP
          Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower
          200 Bay Street, Suite 3800
          P.O. Box 84
          Toronto, Ontario M5J 2Z4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 216-4000

It will focus on two possible solutions. The short-term solution
is establishing a judicial protocol to ensure better co-
ordination between the courts in different provinces, and to
avoid duplication as well as inefficiencies in the trying of a
case.

The long-term plan is to develop rules for establishing a
national class system, which could withstand a constitutional
challenge. Provincial Superior Courts are constitutionally
limited in how wide they can cast their rulings to impact non-
residents. So there would have to be uniform legislation and
amendments adopted to class action legislation in each province
to make it fly.

The task force will operate in two phases. The first involves
broad consultations with stakeholders that will lead to the
judicial protocol. The second will urge legislative reform.

The task force comprises some heavy hitters on the bench,
including:

     -- Chief Justice of Ontario Warren K. Winkler,

     -- British Columbia Chief Justice Robert J. Bauman,

     -- Saskatchewan Chief Justice Robert D. Laing,

     -- Quebec Superior Court Justice Louis Lacoursiere, and

     -- New Brunswick Supreme Court Justice Jean-Paul Albert
        Ouellette.

There are also legal heavyweights from both the plaintiff and
defence side of the class action bar from across the country,
including:

          Marie Audren, Esq.
          BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
          1000 de La Gauchetiere Street West, Suite 900
          Montreal, Quebec H3B 5H4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (514) 879-1212

               - and -  

          Kirk M. Baert, Esq.
          KOSKIE MINSKY LLP
          20 Queen Street West
          Suite 900, Box 52
          Toronto, Ontario M5H 3R3
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 977-8353

               - and -  

          Daniel Belleau, Esq.
          BELLEAU LAPOINTE
          306, Place d'Youville, Suite B-10
          Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2B6
          CANADA
          Telephone: (514) 987-6700

               - and -  

          Andrew D. Borrell, Esq.
          FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN LLP
          2900-550 Burrard Street
          Vancouver, BC V6C 0A3
          CANADA
          Telephone: (604) 631-3131

               - and -  

          Ward K. Branch, Esq.
          BRANCH MACMASTER
          1410 - 777 Hornby Street
          Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 1S4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (604) 654-2999

               - and -  

          D. Brian Foster, Esq.
          FRASER MILNER CASGRAIN LLP
          15th Floor, Bankers Court
          850 - 2nd Street SW
          Calgary, Alberta T2P 0R8
          CANADA
          Telephone: (403) 268-7000

               - and -  

          Rodney L. Hayley, Esq.
          LAWSON LUNDELL LLP
          Suite 1600 Cathedral Place
          925 West Georgia Street
          Vancouver, BC V6C 3L2
          CANADA
          Telephone: (604) 685-3456

               - and -  

          Andre Lesperance, Esq.
          LAUZON BELANGER INC.
          286 Saint-Paul West, Suite 100
          Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2A3
          CANADA
          Telephone: (514) 844-4646

               - and -  

          S. Gordon McKee, Esq.
          BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP
          199 Bay Street
          Suite 2800, Commerce Court West
          Toronto ON M5L 1A9
          CANADA
          Telephone: (416) 863-2400

               - and -  

          Simon V. Potter, Esq.
          MCCARTHY TETRAULT
          1000 De La Gauchetiere Street West, Suite 2500
          Montreal, Quebec H3B 0A2
          CANADA
          Telephone: 514-397-4100

               - and -  

          Harvey T. Strosberg, Esq.
          SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP
          600 - 251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4
          CANADA
          Telephone: (519) 258-9333

               - and -  

          Raymond F. Wagner, Esq.
          WAGNER & ASSOCIATES
          PO Box 756, Central RPO
          Halifax NS B3J 2V2
          CANADA
          Telephone: (902) 425-7330

The task force will begin its work this spring with an eye on
completing the judicial protocol by August 2011.


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Still Involved in Sealed Air Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA is still party to litigation
with Sealed Air Corporation to confirm its entitlement to
indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses and expenses
incurred by the Company on pre-Merger tax liabilities and Merger-
related claims.

The Company was originally formed as a result of a series of
transactions it completed under the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between W. R.
Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE (Merger). At the time of the Merger,
a Grace subsidiary known as W. R. Grace &  Co.-Conn. had, and
continues to have, significant liabilities arising out of
product-liability related litigation (including asbestos-related
actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims unrelated to
National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), which was Grace's dialysis
business prior to the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to
indemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of
Grace, whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations. Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on
April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace and
FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace & Co.-
Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the
W. R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, alleging that the Merger was a fraudulent
conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and
constituted a conspiracy. All those cases have been stayed and
transferred to or are pending before the U.S. District Court as
part of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co.
bankruptcy estate and Grace in the matters pending in the Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings for the settlement of all fraudulent
conveyance and tax claims against it and other claims related to
the Company that arise out of the bankruptcy of Grace.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended
(Settlement Agreement), fraudulent conveyance and other claims
raised on behalf of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with
prejudice and the Company will receive protection against
existing and potential future Grace-related claims, including
fraudulent conveyance and asbestos claims, and indemnification
against income tax claims related to the non-NMC members of the
Grace consolidated tax group upon confirmation of a Grace
bankruptcy reorganization plan that contains those provisions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total of
US$115 million without interest to the Grace bankruptcy estate,
or as otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation. No
admission of liability has been or will be made.

The Settlement Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District
Court. Subsequent to the Merger, Grace was involved in a multi-
step transaction involving Sealed Air Corporation. The Company is
engaged in litigation with Sealed Air to confirm its entitlement
to indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses and expenses
incurred by the Company relating to pre-Merger tax liabilities
and Merger-related claims.

Under the Settlement Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that
satisfies the conditions of the Company's payment obligation,
this litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

Headquartered in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG
& Co. KGaA is a dialysis provider. Its staff treats about 190,000
patients a year at some 2,500 dialysis clinics worldwide, 1,700
of which are based in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal-Mogul Records $40MM Payments from Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation recorded payments from U.S. Asbestos
Trust of US$40 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$225 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

All asbestos-related personal injury claims against the Debtors
will be addressed by the U.S. Asbestos Trust or the U.K. Asbestos
Trust in accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Company
Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs), and those claims will be treated
and paid in accordance with the terms of the Plan, the CVAs, and
their related documents.

All asbestos property damage claims against the Debtors have been
compromised and resolved through the Plan and the CVAs.

Accordingly, the Debtors have not recorded an asbestos liability
as of Dec. 31, 2009 or Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Southfield, Mich., Federal-Mogul Corporation
supplies powertrain and safety technologies, serving the world's
foremost original equipment manufacturers of automotive, light
commercial, heavy-duty, agricultural, marine, rail, off-road and
industrial vehicles, as well as the worldwide aftermarket.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Still Involved in Insurance Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. continues to be
involved in claims litigation (including asbestos-related), both
as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for
third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer
defending coverage claims brought against it.

The Company accounts for such activity through the establishment
of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves.

The Company has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs
asserting that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the
dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade
practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders
in the underlying asbestos cases.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services
Group, Inc. offers personal and commercial insurance products,
including homeowners, auto, and workers' compensation. Through
its Hartford Life subsidiary, the Company offers individual and
group life insurance, annuities, asset management, retirement
plans, and mutual funds (managed both in-house and by other
groups including Wellington Management).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has 430 Property Damage Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2009, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
asbestos-related Property Damage Claims subject to the March 31,
2003 bar date remain outstanding.

The Company said that, as of Oct. 30, 2009, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003 bar date remain
outstanding. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2009)

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 375 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$144 million.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally
seek to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing,
containing or repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the
affected buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases filed prior to the
April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without
payment of any damages or settlement amounts; judgments after
trial were entered in favor of the Company in nine cases;
judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases for a total of US$86.1 million; 207 property damage
cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million; and 16 cases
remain outstanding (including the one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to ZAI (Zonolite Attic
Insulation) and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products (two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI). About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class actions in
2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported
class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes
in Canada. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have
been stayed.

In October 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions
filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and
factual issues regarding the ZAI claims. In December 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that,
although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release
asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of
harm from ZAI.

The ZAI claimants sought an interlocutory appeal of the opinion
and order with the District Court, but that request was denied.
In the event the Joint Plan is not confirmed, the ZAI claimants
have reserved their right to appeal such opinion and order if and
when it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI
PD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than
Oct. 31, 2008. About 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior
to the Oct. 31, 2008 claims bar date and, as of Dec. 31, 2009 an
additional 1,300 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.

On Dec. 13, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the
Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, approved the Amended Settlement that
would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims on the terms of the Joint
Plan.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009
as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims. About 13,100 Canadian
ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the bar date and, as of Dec.
31, 2009, an additional 1,000 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed.

Under the Amended Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims filed
before Dec. 31, 2009 would be eligible to seek compensation from
the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. produces and
sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global
basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Still Party to Personal Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. is still involved in asbestos personal injury
claims, in which the claimants allege adverse health effects from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by
the Company.

Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 Bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
PI Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or
settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products
were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about
163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through settlements and
judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million. As of the Filing
Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against the Company.

The Company said it believes that a substantial number of
additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing
Date and Dec. 31, 2009 had such PI Claims not been stayed by the
Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. produces and
sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global
basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Excess Coverage Still at $923M in Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2009, there remains
about US$923 million of excess asbestos-related coverage from 53
presently solvent insurers.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, there remained about US$923 million of
excess coverage from 53 presently solvent insurers. (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 27, 2009)

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims. For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972
has been exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985
available for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985,
insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid
and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate
amount available under these settlement agreements is about
US$440 million.

Presently, the Company has no agreements in place with insurers
with respect to about US$483 million of excess coverage. Those
policies are at layers of coverage that have not yet been
triggered, but certain layers would be triggered if the Prior
Plan were approved at the recorded asbestos-related liability of
US$1.70 billion.

In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. The
Company has filed and continues to file claims in the insolvency
proceedings of these carriers.

In November 2006, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with an underwriter of a portion of its excess insurance
coverage. The insurer paid a settlement amount of US$90 million
directly to an escrow account in respect of claims for which the
Company was provided coverage under the affected policies.

In October 2009, in compliance with the settlement agreement, the
Company transferred about US$3.7 million of the accrued interest
to an agent of the underwriter. Due to the open contingencies for
the release of the amount in the escrow account, the Company has
not recorded this amount or reduced its asbestos insurance
receivable balance.

Under the Joint Plan, the amount in the escrow account would be
assigned to the PI Trust. The escrow account balance at December
31, 2009 was about US$93.5 million, including interest earned on
the account.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. produces and
sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global
basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $51.6Mil Libby Cleanup Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in
Libby, Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite
processing sites outside of Libby, was US$51.6 million at Dec.
31, 2009 and US$48.4 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby was US$52.2
million at Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2009)

During 2008, the Company paid US$250 million plus accrued
interest of about US$2 million pursuant to an agreement (EPA Cost
Recovery Agreement), between the Company and the U.S. Department
of Justice to settle the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
cost recovery claims for all past and future remediation costs
with respect to the Company's former Libby operations, except for
those relating to the Grace-owned Libby vermiculite mine.

During 2009, the Company learned that EPA may reinvestigate about
100 former or currently operating plants at which vermiculite
concentrate from the Grace-owned Libby vermiculite mine was
expanded. Of these expansion plants, seven are currently owned by
the Company.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. produces and
sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global
basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement in NJDEP v. Grace Entered on Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co., two of its former employees and the New Jersey
of Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), on Oct. 19,
2009, entered into a stipulation in the amount of US$1 million
that would resolve the NJDEP's claims and all related litigation,
including the appeals pending in the Third Circuit.

In 2005, the NJDEP filed a lawsuit against the Company and two
former employees (N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection v. W. R.
Grace & Co. et al.).

The suit seeks civil penalties for alleged misrepresentations and
false statements made in a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation Report and Negative Declarations submitted by Grace
to the NJDEP in 1995 pursuant to the New Jersey Industrial Site
Recovery Act.

The Company submitted the report, which was prepared by an
independent environmental consultant, in connection with the
closing of the Company's former vermiculite expansion plant in
Hamilton Township, N.J. In 2005, the Bankruptcy Court stayed this
lawsuit.

In April 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling stating that
the lawsuit filed by the NJDEP was in violation of the automatic
stay and enjoining further pursuit of all claims in the lawsuit.
In March 2009, the Delaware District Court upheld the Bankruptcy
Court's ruling.

In April 2009, the NJDEP appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In April 2007, New Jersey filed
a motion for leave to file a late proof of claim in the amount of
US$31 million with respect to substantially the same claims set
forth in the lawsuit described in the preceding paragraph.

In August 2007, the Bankruptcy Court denied this motion and the
District Court affirmed this ruling on appeal in March 2008. In
April 2008, New Jersey appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The settlement amount is payable to NJDEP upon the Company's
emergence from bankruptcy.

Headquartered in Columbia, Md., W. R. Grace & Co. produces and
sells specialty chemicals and specialty materials on a global
basis through its two operating segments, Grace Davison and Grace
Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $352.5M Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted
to US$352,537,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$355,779,000 as of Dec. 26, 2008, according to the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$325,401,000 as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
6, 2009)

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable amounted to US$244,265,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$281,540,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Some of the Company's U.S. and U.K. subsidiaries are defendants
in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits and out-of-court informal
claims pending in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to have
arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with
work allegedly performed by the subsidiaries during the 1970s and
earlier.

Net asbestos-related provision amounted to US$26,265,000 during
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$6,607,000
during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an
international engineering and construction contractor that
designs, builds, and upgrades industrial processing facilities
and manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Foster Wheeler Drop to 125.1T in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United States faced
125,100 open asbestos claims during the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009, compared with 130,760 open claims during the fiscal
years ended Dec. 26, 2008.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company noted
4,410 new claims filed and 10,070 claims resolved. During the
fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2008, the Company noted 4,950 new
claims and 5,530 claims resolved.

The Company's U.S. subsidiaries faced 129,300 open asbestos
claims during the fiscal quarter and nine months ended Sept. 30,
2009, compared with 130,370 claims during the fiscal quarter and
nine months ended Sept. 26, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Nov.
20, 2009)

Of the open claims, the Company's subsidiaries are respondents in
about 30,400 open claims wherein the Company has administrative
agreements and are named defendants in lawsuits involving about
94,700 plaintiffs.

Total asbestos-related assets amounted to US$274 million during
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$284.8
million during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Total asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$376.5 million
during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$385.3 million during the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2008.

Open U.S. asbestos claims not valued in the liability numbered to
94,740 during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
84,830 claims during the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2008.

Open U.S. asbestos claims valued in the liability numbered to
30,360 during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
45,930 during the fiscal year ended Dec. 26, 2008.

The Company recorded a charge of US$26.4 million in fiscal year
2009 primarily for increased asbestos defense costs projected
through fiscal year 2024 and the Company's rolling 15-year
asbestos liability estimate.

The amount paid for asbestos litigation, defense and case
resolution was US$63.5 million in fiscal year 2009, US$70.6
million in fiscal year 2008, and US$86.7 million in fiscal year
2007. In fiscal year 2009, payments made exceeded proceeds from
settlements with the Company's insurers by US$24.4 million.
Through Dec. 31, 2009, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were
about US$692.3 million and total cumulative defense costs paid
were about US$315.6 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$141.6 million relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$234.9 million relating to future unasserted
claims through fiscal year-2024.

The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost
per resolved claim through Dec. 31, 2009 has been about US$2,800.

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an
international engineering and construction contractor that
designs, builds, and upgrades industrial processing facilities
and manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Records $43.5Mil Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG, as of Dec. 31, 2009, estimated the value of
its unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing
litigation in New York state court with its subsidiaries'
insurers at US$43.5 million.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the Company estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$25.9 million. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2009)

The litigation relates to the amounts of insurance coverage
available for asbestos-related claims and the proper allocation
of the coverage among the subsidiaries' various insurers and the
subsidiaries as self-insurers.

Over the last several years, certain of the Company's
subsidiaries have entered into settlement agreements calling for
insurers to make lump-sum payments, as well as payments over
time, for use by the subsidiaries to fund asbestos-related
indemnity and defense costs and, in certain cases, for
reimbursement for portions of out-of-pocket costs previously
incurred.

In fiscal year 2006, the Company was successful in its appeal of
a New York state trial court decision that previously had held
that New York, rather than New Jersey, law applies in the
coverage litigation with the subsidiaries' insurers, and as a
result, the Company increased its insurance asset and recorded a
gain of US$19.5 million.

On Feb. 13, 2007, the subsidiaries' insurers were granted
permission by the appellate court to appeal the decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. On Oct. 11,
2007, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the appellate court
decision in the Company's favor.

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an
international engineering and construction contractor that
designs, builds, and upgrades industrial processing facilities
and manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 373 Claims Ongoing v. Foster Wheeler U.K. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom
faced 373 open asbestos-related claims as of Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, 932 claims have been brought against the U.K.
subsidiaries.

The Company's subsidiaries in the U.K. faced 371 open asbestos
claims as of Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2009)

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded total liabilities of
US$39.3 million comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open (outstanding) claims of US$10.3 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through fiscal
year 2024 of US$29 million.

Of the total, US$3.5 million was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$35.8 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
consolidated balance sheet.

An asset in an equal amount was recorded for the expected U.K.
asbestos-related insurance recoveries, of which US$3.5 million
was recorded in accounts and notes receivable-other and US$35.8
million was recorded as asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable on the consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment.

If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$57.9 milion.

Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an
international engineering and construction contractor that
designs, builds, and upgrades industrial processing facilities
and manufactures power equipment through its two business units:
Global Engineering & Construction and Global Power.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PSEG Cites $8MM Assets for Abatement at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated's regulatory assets
for asbestos abatement amounted to US$8 million as of both Dec.
31, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Newark, N.J., Public Service Enterprise Group
Incorporated's regulated subsidiary Public Service Electric and
Gas (PSE&G) transmits and distributes electricity to 2.1 million
customers and natural gas to 1.7 million customers in New Jersey.
Non-regulated subsidiary PSEG Power operates the Company's
generating plants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dynegy Has $120M Retirement Obligation in 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc.'s asset retirement obligations (including asbestos-
related) amounted to US$120 million during the year ended Dec.
31, 2009, compared with US$127 million during the year ended Dec.
31, 2008.

The Company's AROs relate to activities like ash pond and
landfill capping, dismantlement of power generation facilities,
future removal of asbestos containing material from certain power
generation facilities, closure and post-closure costs,
environmental testing, remediation, monitoring and land and
equipment lease obligations.

Headquartered in Houston, Dynegy Inc. is a holding company and
conducts substantially all of its business operations through its
subsidiaries. The Company's primary business is the production
and sale of electric energy, capacity and ancillary services from
its fleet of 18 power plants in six states totaling about 12,300
MW of generating capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ten Lorillard, Inc. Actions Scheduled for Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of Feb. 22, 2010, ten asbestos-
related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 29, 2009.

As of Oct. 26, 2009, eight asbestos-related Filter Cases were
scheduled for trial. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2009)

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco Company and
the Company by individuals who seek damages resulting from their
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into
filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by
Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than
50 years ago. Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 31 such cases.

The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two
that also name Lorillard Tobacco. Since Jan. 1, 2008, Lorillard
Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of
about US$12.9 million in settlements to finally resolve about 60
claims. Since Jan. 1, 2008, verdicts have been returned in two
Filter Cases.

During September 2008, a jury in the District Court of Bexar
County, Tex., returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in the
case of Young v. Lorillard Tobacco Company. Plaintiffs in the
Young case did not pursue an appeal and that matter is concluded.

During January 2010, a jury in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco in
the case of Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al. In the case
of Cox, the deadline for plaintiffs to pursue an appeal had not
expired as of Feb. 22, 2010.

Headquartered in Greensboro, N.C., Lorillard, Inc. manufactures
cigarettes. Newport, its flagship menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand, sells menthol and is the second largest selling
cigarette brand overall in the United States based on gross units
sold in 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Cites $300T Cleanup Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation's subsidiary Cleco Power LLC's liability for
removal of asbestos is estimated at US$300,000 at both Dec. 31,
2009 and Dec. 31, 2008, according to the Company's 2009 annual
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and
environmental obligations, Cleco Power determined that a
liability exists for cleanup and closing costs of solid waste
facilities associated with its generating stations that use
lignite and coal for fuel.

Applying these guidelines, Cleco Power determined that a
liability exists for costs which may be incurred in the future
for removal of asbestos from its general service buildings, the
removal of transmission towers on leased rights-of-way and for
the abatement of PCBs in transformers.

Headquartered in Pineville, Cleco Corporation is a public utility
holding company that holds investments in several subsidiaries,
including Cleco Power LLC and Cleco Midstream Resources LLC,
which are its operating business segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,239 Actions Pending v. GATX, Units at Jan. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 1,239 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX
Corporation and its subsidiaries as of Jan. 26, 2010, according
to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and its subsidiaries, as of Feb. 6, 2009, faced 1,240
pending asbestos-related cases. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27,
2009)

Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury relating to
asbestos. In these cases, the plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory or premises
liability or, in the case of American Steamship Company (ASC),
the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain
maritime employees.

Out of the total number of pending cases, 1,215 are Jones Act
claims, most of which were filed against ASC prior to the year
2000.

During 2009, eleven new cases were filed, and 13 cases were
dismissed or settled. During 2008, ten new cases were filed, and
four cases were dismissed or settled. During 2007, 18 new
asbestos-related cases were filed and eight cases were dismissed
or settled.

For this three-year period, the aggregate amount paid to settle
asbestos-related cases filed against the Company and its
subsidiaries was less than US$90,000.

In addition, demand has been made against the Company for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain former subsidiaries of the
Company.

Headquartered in Chicago, GATX Corporation leases, operates and
manages long-lived, widely used assets in the rail, marine and
industrial equipment markets. The Company has three financial
reporting segments: Rail, Specialty and American Steamship
Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Int'l. Still Has Exposure Cases in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco International plc and certain current and former
subsidiaries continue to be defendants in three multi-party
asbestos suits filed in the Circuit Courts of Jones County
(Second Judicial District) and Jasper County (First Judicial
District), Miss.

Filed during 2004, the lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of
monetary damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal
injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and
associated facilities during the period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual
plaintiffs. Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in
Mississippi state courts and three are pending in the U.S.
District Court as a result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company. While several cases
have been selected for trial during 2010 and 2011, none of the
cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are
included within those selected cases.

The three cases removed from state court have been assigned to
the Multi-District Litigation 875, which is currently before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Although the Houston law firm representing these three plaintiffs
filed a Motion to Remand, seeking to bring the cases back to
Mississippi state court, the U.S. District Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion by order dated Dec. 10, 2009.

Headquartered in London, Ensco International plc is an offshore
contract drilling company. As of Feb. 15, 2010, the Company's
offshore rig fleet included 42 jackup rigs, four ultra-deepwater
semisubmersible rigs and one barge rig. Additionally, the Company
has four ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rigs under construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation & BGE Facing 494 Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 494 individuals who were never employees of Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. or subsidiary Baltimore Gas Electric Company
(BGE) have pending asbestos claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.

Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard. In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.

To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority
has been resolved.

Headquartered in Baltimore, Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is
an energy company that conducts its business through various
subsidiaries including a merchant energy business and Baltimore
Gas and Electric Company (BGE).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Facing 63,887 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc faced 63,887 open asbestos claims at Dec. 31,
2009, compared with 63,309 open claims at Dec. 31, 2008,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 26, 2010
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 4,821 new claims filed;
2,514 claims settled; and 1,729 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31,
2008, the Company recorded 4,567 new claims filed; 3,693 claims
settled; and 41,861 claims dismissed.

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.

The vast majority of those claims has been filed against either
Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and
generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained
in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane,
primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes.

Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago
to Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has resolved (by settlement or
dismissal) about 256,000 claims arising from the legacy Ingersoll
Rand businesses.

The total amount of all settlements paid by the Company
(excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance carriers is
about US$410 million, for an average payment per resolved claim
of US$1,595. The average payment per claim resolved during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009 was US$12,136.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's liability for asbestos related
matters and the asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$1.113 billion and US$424.2 million,
respectively, compared with US$1.195 billion and US$423.8 million
at Dec. 31, 2008.

The income associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos
related claims after insurance recoveries totaled US$12.5 million
at Dec. 31, 2009.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos
related claims after insurance recoveries total US$7.4 million at
Dec. 31, 2008.

At Dec. 31, 2009, over 91 percent of the open claims against the
Company are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed
on inactive or deferral dockets and the majority of which have
little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly
in light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of
those claims.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc's business
segments consist of Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions,
Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. The Company
designs, manufactures, sells and serves a portfolio of industrial
and commercial products that include brand names like Club Car,
Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Involved in Coverage Action in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in
litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims.

The insurance carriers named in this suit have challenged Trane's
right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various
primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking
coverage for environmental claims (NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. The environmental
claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been
resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later resolution.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add claims
for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities against
16 additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.

Trane engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time.

Trane has now settled with most of the insurers in the NJ
Litigation, collectively accounting for about 95 percent of its
recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of
Jan. 31, 2010. Most, although not all, of Trane's settlement
agreements constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which
the insurer signatories agree to reimburse Trane for specified
portions of its costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and Trane
agrees to certain claims-handling protocols and grants to the
insurer signatories certain releases and indemnifications.

More specifically, effective Aug. 26, 2008, Trane entered into a
coverage-in-place agreement (August 26 Agreement) with the
following five insurance companies or groups: 1) Hartford; 2)
Travelers; 3) Allstate (solely in its capacity as successor-in-
interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company); 4)
Dairyland Insurance Company; and 5) AIG.

In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Trane entered into a settlement
agreement with Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest
Reinsurance Company, both members of the Everest Re group,
resolving all claims in the NJ Litigation involving policies
issued by those companies (Everest Re Agreement).

On Jan. 26, 2009, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with Columbia Casualty Company, Continental Casualty
Company, and Continental Insurance Company (CNA Agreement), and
agreed to a dismissal without prejudice of its environmental
claims against CNA. Trane also has reached a coverage-in-place
agreement, effective Dec. 15, 2009, with Century Indemnity
Company and International Insurance Company (Century-
International Agreement).

The Century-Indemnity Agreement has an initial term of three
years, which renews automatically for successive three year terms
unless either Trane or the insurer signatories elect to forward
to the other party a notice of non-renewal. Most recently,
effective Feb. 4, 2010, Trane reached an agreement with certain
London market insurance companies (LMC Agreement) that resolved
all claims against the policies at issue.

The LMC Agreement provides for the periodic reimbursement by the
insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for asbestos
bodily injury claims based on the attainment of certain aggregate
indemnity and defense payment thresholds, and in exchange for
certain releases and indemnifications from Trane.

Trane also reached agreement on Dec. 31, 2009 with Harper
Insurance Company, a party to the LMC Agreement, for the buy-out
of Harper's obligations to Trane under the LMC Agreement and for
certain releases and indemnifications from Trane in exchange for
a one-time cash payment by Harper.

Trane remains in settlement negotiations with the few insurer
defendants in the NJ Litigation not encompassed within the August
26 Agreement, the Everest Re Agreement, the CNA Agreement, the
Century-International Agreement and the LMC Agreement.

Trane also is pursuing claims against the estates of insolvent
insurers in connection with its costs for asbestos bodily injury
claims.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc's business
segments consist of Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions,
Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. The Company
designs, manufactures, sells and serves a portfolio of industrial
and commercial products that include brand names like Club Car,
Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 92,298 Open Claims Pending v. Trane at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 92,298 open asbestos claims were pending against Ingersoll-
Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., at Dec. 31, 2009, compared
with 100,309 open claims at Dec. 31, 2008.

From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
through Dec. 31, 2009, the Company has resolved about 86,646 (by
settlement or dismissal) claims arising from the legacy Trane
business.

The Company and its insurance carriers have paid settlements of
about US$148 million on these claims that represent an average
payment per resolved claim of US$1,710.

At Dec. 31, 2009, Trane had 2,343 new claims filed; 1,042 claims
settled; and 9,312 claims dismissed. At Dec. 31, 2008, Trane had
3,705 claims filed; 677 claims settled; and 13,930 claims
dismissed.

Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc's business
segments consist of Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions,
Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. The Company
designs, manufactures, sells and serves a portfolio of industrial
and commercial products that include brand names like Club Car,
Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alliant Unit Records $1.2Mil Settled Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Interstate Power and
Light Company, in 2009, recorded liabilities settled of US$1.2
million due to expenditures for asbestos and lead remediation at
its Sixth Street and Prairie Creek Generating Stations.

The remediation was required as a result of the impacts of the
severe Midwest flooding at these generating stations in June
2008.

In 2008, IPL recorded changes to liabilities incurred of US$3.2
million, revisions in estimated cash flows of US$6.7 million and
liabilities settled of US$10.6 million due to asbestos and lead
remediation as a result of the impacts of the severe Midwest
flooding at these generating stations in June 2008.

Headquartered in Madison, Wis., Alliant Energy Corporation's
primary focus is to provide regulated electricity and natural gas
service to about one million electric and about 412,000 natural
gas customers in the Midwest through its two public utility
subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NiSource Unit Settles $1M for Abatement in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc.'s subsidiary, Northern Indiana Public Service
Company, performed retirement activities associated with a
landfill and asbestos removal resulting in settlements of US$1
million for 2009.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 26, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Merrillville, Ind., NiSource Inc. is an energy
holding company whose subsidiaries provide natural gas,
electricity and other products and services to about 3.8 million
customers located within a corridor that runs from the Gulf Coast
through the Midwest to New England.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNH Global, Units Still Party to Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNH Global N.V. and its subsidiaries are party to various legal
proceedings in the ordinary course of business, including:
asbestos; product warranty; environmental; dealer disputes;
disputes with suppliers and service providers; workers
compensation; patent infringement; and customer and employment
matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual report filed on Feb. 25, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, CNH Global N.V. is a
global, full-line company in both the agricultural and
construction equipment industries. Its global scope and scale
includes integrated engineering, manufacturing, marketing and
distribution of equipment on five continents. The Company
organizes its operations into three business segments:
agricultural equipment, construction equipment and financial
services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Co. Still Subject to Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company has been the target of asbestos litigation
and, as a result, is a defendant in various actions for injuries
claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and
other products containing asbestos.

Asbestos was used in brakes, clutches, and other automotive
components from the early 1900s.

Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health
problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component
parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos
products in the Company's facilities, or asbestos aboard its
former maritime fleet.

Most of the asbestos litigation the Company faces involves
individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of its
vehicles over the years.

Headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., Ford Motor Company produces
cars and trucks. The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in
other businesses, including financing vehicles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lockheed Martin Still Party to Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies in recent years, Lockheed
Martin Corporation is still a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated
into its premises and certain historical products.

The Company has never mined or produced asbestos and no longer
incorporates it in any currently manufactured products. The
Company has been successful in having a substantial number of
these claims dismissed without payment.

The remaining resolved claims have settled for amounts that are
not material individually or in the aggregate. A substantial
majority of the asbestos-related claims have been covered by
insurance or other forms of indemnity.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin Corporation is a
global security company that is engaged in the research, design,
development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of
advanced technology systems and products. The Company also
provides management, engineering, technical, scientific,
logistic, and information services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 25,295 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 25,295 unresolved asbestos during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 35,357 claims 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.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 3,323
claims filed and 13,385 claims resolved. The average cost of
resolved claims amounted to US$11,106.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the Company recorded 4,729
claims filed and 6,926 claims resolved. The average cost of
resolved claims amounted to US$5,378.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants
in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos.

For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
on Oct. 14, 2009, that asbestos-related costs should be allocated
among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation and that the
subsidiary has rights to excess insurance policies purchased by a
former owner of the business.

Based upon this ruling mandating an "all sums" allocation, as
well as the language of the underlying insurance policies and the
determination that defense costs are outside policy limits, the
Company, as of Oct. 2, 2009, increased its future expected
recovery percentage from 67 percent to 90 percent of asbestos-
related costs following the exhaustion in the future of its
primary and umbrella layers of insurance and recorded a pretax
gain of US$17.3 million. The subsidiary expects to be responsible
for about 10 percent of all future asbestos costs.

In November 2008, the subsidiary entered into a settlement
agreement with the primary and umbrella carrier governing all
aspects of the carrier's past and future handling of the asbestos
related bodily injury claims against the subsidiary. As a result
of this agreement, during the third quarter of 2008, the Company
increased its insurance asset by US$7 million attributable to
resolution of a dispute concerning certain pre-1966 insurance
policies and recorded a corresponding pretax gain.

The additional insurance will be allocated by the carrier to
cover any gaps in coverage up to US$7 million resulting from
exhaustion of umbrella policies and/or the failure of any excess
carrier to pay amounts incurred in connection with asbestos
claims. The Company reimbursed the primary insurer for US$7.6
million in deductibles and retrospective premiums in the fourth
quarter of 2008 and has no further liability to the insurer under
these provisions of the primary policies.

This subsidiary's primary and umbrella insurance coverage was
exhausted in the first quarter of 2010. No cost sharing or
allocation agreement is currently in place with the Company's
excess insurers. However, certain excess insurers have stated
that they will abide by the Delaware Chancery Court's recent
coverage rulings, including its ruling that the subsidiary may
seek insurance coverage from the Company's excess insurers on and
"all sums" basis and that they will defend and/or indemnify the
subsidiary against asbestos claims, subject to their reservation
of rights.

In 2003, the other subsidiary brought legal action against a
large number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a
variety of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims asserted against it. For this subsidiary it
was determined by court ruling in the fourth quarter of 2007,
that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts
will apply.

Further court rulings in December 2009 clarified the allocation
calculation related to amounts currently due from insurers as
well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed for
asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods.

As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2009, the Company increased
its receivable for past costs by US$11.9 million and decreased
its insurance asset for future costs by US$9.8 million and
recorded a pretax gain of US$2.1 million. The subsidiary expects
to responsible for about 14 percent of all future asbestos-
related costs.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Industries Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc. or its subsidiaries has been named
defendants in some asbestos-related cases, according to the
Company's annual report filed on Feb. 26, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in
certain U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims against
numerous industrial companies.

No significant resources have been required by the Company to
respond to these cases and Roper said it believes it has valid
defenses to such claims.

Headquartered in Sarasota, Fla., Roper Industries, Inc. is a
diversified growth company that designs, manufactures and
distributes energy systems and controls, scientific and
industrial imaging products and software, industrial technology
products and radio frequency (RF) products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. May Be Subject to Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domtar Corporation may be subject to asbestos-related personal
injury litigation arising out of exposure to asbestos on or from
its properties or operations, and may incur substantial costs as
a result of any defense, settlement, or adverse judgment in such
litigation.

The Company has incurred, and expects that it will continue to
incur, significant capital, operating and other expenditures
complying with applicable environmental laws and regulations as a
result of remedial obligations.

The Company incurred about US$71 million of operating expenses
and US$2 million of capital expenditures in connection with
environmental compliance and remediation for 2009.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had a provision of US$111
million for environmental expenditures, including certain asset
retirement obligations (such as for land fill capping and
asbestos removal) (US$99 million as of Dec. 31, 2008).

Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, Domtar Corporation
manufactures and markets uncoated freesheet paper in North
America. The Company also manufactures papergrade, fluff and
specialty pulp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chiquita Facing 5 Pending Cases in State Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chiquita Brands International, Inc. faced five asbestos-related
cases that are pending in state courts in various stages of
activity, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb.
26, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced six asbestos-related cases in various stages of
activity in state court. (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009)

For more than 20 years, a number of claims have been filed
against the Company on behalf of merchant seamen or their
personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure
to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned ships at
various times from the mid-1940s until the mid-1970s. The claims
are based on allegations of negligence and unseaworthiness.

In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants,
including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing
asbestos, as well as other ship owners.

Over the past 12 years, about 26 state court cases have been
settled and 41 state court cases have been resolved without any
payment. In addition to the state court cases, there are about
5,330 federal court cases, most of which are currently inactive
(known as the MARDOC cases).

The MARDOC cases are managed under the supervision of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Federal
Court). In 1996, the Federal Court administratively dismissed all
then-pending MARDOC cases without prejudice for failure to
provide evidence of asbestos-related disease or exposure to
asbestos.

Under this order, all MARDOC cases subsequently filed against the
Company have also been administratively dismissed. Recently the
Court has begun to reinstate the MARDOC cases, and 24 MARDOC
cases have been reinstated against the Company. Upon
reinstatement, cases will not proceed without showing some
evidence of asbestos-related disease, exposure to asbestos and
service on the Company's ships.

Five of the reinstated cases have been dismissed without any
settlement payment. It is contemplated that the Court will
continue to activate more cases during 2010.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Chiquita Brands International,
Inc. markets and distributes bananas and other fresh produce sold
under the Chiquita and other brand names in nearly 80 countries
and of packaged salads sold under the Fresh Express and other
brand names primarily in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Ind. Cites $4.6M Insurance Recoveries in '09
----------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. recorded recoveries of US$4.6 million in 2009
(US$3 million, or US$0.06 per share, net of income taxes) and
US$9.6 million in 2008 (US$6.2 million, or US$0.13 per share, net
of income taxes).

Insurance recoveries relate to amounts the Company received from
certain of its former insurance carriers, and relate principally
to the recovery of prior lead pigment and asbestos litigation
defense costs incurred by the Company.

Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc. is engaged in the
component products (security products, furniture components and
performance marine components), chemicals (TiO2) and other
businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,550 Cases Ongoing Against Graybar at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2009, faced 2,550
asbestos-related cases, of which about 2,400 are individual cases
and 150 are class actions, according to the Company's annual
report filed on March 9, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2008, the Company faced 2,339 asbestos-related
actions, of which 2,194 were individual cases and 145 were class
actions. (Class Action Reporter, April 3, 2009)

These cases allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries
resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold
by the Company. More claims will likely be filed against the
Company in the future.

The Company's insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so.  

Headquartered in St. Louis, Graybar Electric Company, Inc.
distributes electrical, communications and data networking
products, and provides related supply chain management and
logistics services, primarily to electrical and comm/data
contractors, industrial plants, telephone companies, federal,
state and local governments, commercial users, and power
utilities in North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Cites $24.87MM Dec. 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liability
amounted to US$24,874,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$23,758,000 as of Dec. 31, 2008, according to a Company report,
on Form 8-K, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 5, 2010.

The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$24,860,000 as of
Sept. 30, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2009)

Headquartered in Long Island City, N.Y., Standard Motor Products,
Inc. manufactures engine management and air conditioning
replacement parts for the automotive aftermarket. Customers are
auto parts warehouse distributors (CARQUEST and NAPA) and auto
parts retailers (Advance Auto Parts and AutoZone).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dalmine Still Faces 45 Injury Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A.'s subsidiary organized in Italy, Dalmine S.p.A., as
of Dec. 31, 2009, faced 45 pending asbestos claims, of which none
are covered by insurance, according to a Company report, on Form
6-K, filed on March 4, 2010 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, Dalmine faced 45 asbestos-related claims,
none of which were covered by insurance. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 20, 2009)

Dalmine is currently subject to 13 civil proceedings for work-
related injuries arising from the use of asbestos in its
manufacturing processes during the period from 1960 to 1980. In
addition, another 32 asbestos related out-of-court claims have
been forwarded to Dalmine.

During 2009, 12 new claims were filed, no claims were
adjudicated, six claims were settled all of which were paid,
three claims were rejected and 13 claims were dismissed.

Aggregate settlement costs to date for the Company are EUR8.5
million (US$12.3 million). Dalmine estimates that its potential
liability in connection with the claims not yet settled is about
EUR12.8 million (US$18.4 million).

Headquartered in Luxembourg, Tenaris S.A. manufactures and
distributes seamless steel pipe products. Most of its products
are oil country tubular goods company (OCTG) meant for the energy
industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 6 Units Still Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are still named as
defendants in lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal
injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products
manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation
and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by
insurance subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's
business unit.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., IDEX Corporation is an applied
solutions business that sells pumps, flow meters and other
fluidics systems and components and engineered products to
customers in a variety of markets around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in
numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances.

These cases are pending in courts in various states. In all of
these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense.

These cases are in various pre-trial stages, according to the
Company's annual report filed on March 1, 2010 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wis., Bucyrus International
Inc. designs and manufactures mining equipment for the extraction
of coal, copper, oil sands, iron ore and other minerals in major
mining centers throughout the world. The Company also provides
the aftermarket replacement parts and service for this equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Mainland's School to Cost $294,450
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mainland Board of Education in Linwood, N.J., voted to award
a US$292,450 asbestos abatement bid to Abate Tech Inc. of
Lumberton at its meeting last March 8, 2010, ShoreNewsToday.com
reports.

The next lowest bidder offered to do the project for US$329,000.

Board president John Medica said, "The asbestos is mainly in
floor tiles in some of the classrooms built in the 1980s. They
cannot remove it when the kids are in school and so that is going
to get done over Easter break."

Mr. Medica said Controlled Environmental Systems had actually
placed a lower bid, but had mistyped the bid resulting in a
mistakenly low price. The Board voted to reject the bid due to
the error.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poulton Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Blackpool Coroner's Court heard that the death of
77-year-old Alexander Lawson Ross, an electrical engineer from
Poulton, England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos,
The Gazette reports.

Mr. Ross died on Jan. 16, 2010 at Trinity Hospice, Bispham, after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma. He had worked as an electrical
engineer until he retired in 1994.

Mr. Ross worked for companies including British Nuclear Fuels at
Springfields, often with asbestos lagging, and three power
stations while they were being constructed - including Heysham.
He became ill in May 2009 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma in
November 2009.

Consultant pathologist Dr. Mark Sissons said he found a large
tumor on Mr. Ross' right lung and fibrous plaques on the lungs
indicating asbestos. There was evidence of infection on the lung
surface by mesothelioma.

Blackpool Coroner Anne Hind, recording a verdict of death by
industrial disease, said mesothelioma was a "terrible illness."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Torres Awarded $3Mil Compensation in Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Brownsville, Tex., jury, on March 6, 2010, awarded US$3 million
in past and future damages to Oscar Torres who suffers from
asbestos-related cancer, according to a Williams Kherkher Hart
Boundas, LLP press release dated March 6, 2010.

In finding for Mr. Torres and his wife Dora, the jury assigned 45
percent fault to Union Carbide Corporation, 45 percent fault to
Garlock Sealing Technologies, and 10 percent fault to Brown &
Root. The jury awarded the Torreses US$1 million in past damages
and US$2 million for future damages.

In the 1970s, as an employee of Brown & Root, Mr. Torres worked
at the Union Carbide plant in Brownsville, Tex. There, he came in
contact with defective Garlock products containing asbestos and
was exposed to asbestos fibers.

Steve Kherkher, Esq., Troy Chandler, Esq., and Devin McNulty,
Esq., from the Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP law firm
represented Mr. Torres.

The case, styled Oscar Torres and spouse Dora v. Union Carbide
Corporation, et al (case no. 2009-06-3742-A), was tried in front
of Judge Ben Euresti of the 107th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chapman Widow Turns Down GBP1MM in Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian Chapman turned down a potential GBP1 million compensation
payout over her husband John Chapman's asbestos death because she
refuses to fuel the United Kingdom's "compensation culture,"
Times Online reports.

The 82-year-old Dr. Chapman died in June 2009 of mesothelioma. He
worked as a doctor. He developed the condition more than 50 years
ago while training in a London hospital that was built using
asbestos.

An inquest into Dr. Chapman's death at Dorset County Hall in
Dorchester, England, was told how he trained at Middlesex
Hospital in Camden, London, in the early 1950s. While there, he
came into repeated contact with asbestos, which led to
mesothelioma in his later years.

Dr. Chapman complained of tightness of the chest shortly before
his diagnosis but died at the Joseph Weld Hospice in Dorchester
on June 6, 2009.

Michael Johnston, the West Dorset Coroner, told the hearing, "I
will record the cause of death as malignant mesothelioma due to
exposure to asbestos while at work, which means that my verdict
is that he died from an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robinson v. Alton and Southern Filed on Feb. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin J. Robinson and his wife, Jo Ann Robinson, on Feb. 26,
2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against The Alton and
Southern Railway Company in Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

The Robinsons allege that Mr. Robinson developed asbestosis after
he was exposed to asbestos fibers throughout the course of his
work for the Company.

The Robinsons claim Mr. Robinson began working as a switchman for
the Company in 1955 and continued to work in that capacity until
1992. During the course of his employment, he worked around
asbestos-containing products, including pipe and block
insulation, gaskets, packing, cements, brake shoes and brake
linings.

During his employment, Mr. Robinson remained unaware of the
dangers of asbestos and later developed body and respiratory
system problems, including asbestosis, which he was diagnosed
with on Aug. 28, 2009, the complaint says.

In the three-count suit, the Robinsons seek a judgment of more
than US$150,000.

Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill.,
will represent the Robinsons in Case No. 10-L-206.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cates Joins Cooney Firm in 4 St. Clair Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy L. Cates of the Cates Law Firm in Swansea, Ill., joined the
Chicago asbestos firm of Cooney and Conway in filing four
asbestos suits in St. Clair County Circuit Court against
corporations including Union Carbide Corporation, John Crane
Inc., Georgia-Pacific LLC, A.W. Chesterton Co. and Bondex, Inc.,
The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

In all of cases, the plaintiffs assert the mesothelioma with
which they or their deceased loved ones developed was wrongfully
caused.

In the first lawsuit, Mary K. Van Slyke claims her deceased
husband, George Van Slyke, was diagnosed with the disease on May
13, 2009 and died on July 14, 2009. She says her husband worked
from 1944 until 1979 in various capacities including as a
steelworker, railroad worker and Navy machinist mate at various
locations.

In the second complaint, Donald Renken claims he was diagnosed
with the disease on Nov. 12, 2009. He says he worked from 1934
until 1979 in various capacities, including as a farmer and
minister.

In the third suit, Walter Barutha claims he was diagnosed with
the disease on Sept. 17, 2009. He says he worked in various
capacities, including as an electrician, from 1931 until 1979. He
was also secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through his
father, Walter Barutha Sr., who worked as a powerhouse worker at
various locations from 1931 until 1972.

In the fourth complaint, Alice Phillips claims she was diagnosed
with the disease on Aug. 29, 2009. She says she worked as a home
remodeler at various locations from 1947 until 1978. She was also
secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her husband, John
Phillips, who worked as a plumber, fitter, boiler man and HVAC
man at various locations from 1947 until 1980, the suit states.

In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek a judgment in excess of
the jurisdictional limits of St. Clair County Circuit Court, plus
costs.

Ms. Cates, who has litigated several large settlement class
action cases locally, has not filed any asbestos cases in recent
times.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Cases Filed During Feb. 15-19 in Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Feb. 15, 2010 through Feb. 19, 2010, a total
of 14 new asbestos lawsuits were filed in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-191) Edward C. and Carol Bagley of Wisconsin
   allege Mr. Bagley developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   mechanic at Bob Weimer/Prim Farms, as a laborer at Chapman
   Foundry, as a laborer at Badger Ordinance Works, as a laborer
   at Speed Queen Factory, as a truck driver and mechanic at
   Brake Bush Bros., as a farmer in Wisconsin, as a drywaller,
   carpenter and roofer and as a shade tree mechanic. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Bagleys.

-- (Case No. 10-L-176) John J. Carpenter of Illinois, a worker
   at Walworth's Foundry, a member of the U.S. Navy and a self-
   employed farmer, claims lung cancer. Elizabeth V. Heller,
   Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Carpenter.

-- (Case No. 10-L-177) Robert Hamilton of Florida, a lab
   technician, field wireman and engineer, claims mesothelioma.
   Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Hamilton.

-- (Case No. 10-L-175) Joseph E. Harlan of Texas alleges his
   deceased father, William T. Harlan Sr., developed lung cancer
   after his work as a member of the U.S. Air Force, as a paper
   bundler for Southern Advanced Bag and Paper Company, as a
   material handler for W. Horace Williams and as a ship
   carpenter for Pennsylvania Shipyard. Elizabeth V. Heller,
   Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Harlan.

-- (Case No. 10-L-192) Donald Lamb of Rhode Island, a
   construction worker and laborer, claims mesothelioma. Myles
   L. Epperson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Lamb.

-- (Case No. 10-L-189) James O. and Marcia K. Patton of Illinois
   claim Mr. Patton developed lung cancer after his work in the
   U.S. Navy, as a fireman and electrician striker and as an
   automotive mechanic at Penney's Auto Center. T. Barton French
   Jr., Esq., and Nate Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St.
   Louis, will represent the Pattons.

-- (Case No. 10-L-180) James A. Robinette of Missouri, a
   carpenter and residential and industrial worker, claims
   mesothelioma. Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq.,
   Christina J. Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq.,
   and Gerald J. FitzGerald, Esq., of the O'Brien Law Firm in
   St. Louis, will represent Mr. Robinette.

-- (Case No. 10-L-187) Darla Salazar claims her deceased
   husband, Carmelo Salazar-Garcia, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a construction laborer at KD Construction, as a
   maintenance worker at Ft. Clark Springs Association, as a
   painter for various construction companies, as a door
   manufacturer at Coco Corporation, as a construction laborer
   for Friendship Builders, as a cutter and welder, as a steel
   worker at Modern Drop Forge and as a shadetree mechanic.
   Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Ms. Salazar.

-- (Case No. 10-L-182) Rebecca Sparks of Pennsylvania alleges
   her deceased father, Raymond Sparks, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a laborer and maintenance man. Brian J.
   Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd will represent Ms. Sparks.

-- (Case No. 10-L-171) Robert Sparks of California, a pipe
   burner trainee, truck driver and furnace installer, claims
   mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and Christopher J.
   Levy, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Sparks.

-- (Case No. 10-L-183) Ural and Beverly Williams of Ohio allege
   Mr. Williams developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   mechanic, welder and machinist. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and
   Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent the
   Williamses.

-- (Case No. 10-L-179) Loraine Zamber of Wisconsin alleges her
   deceased husband, Gerald Zamber, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as an aviation technician, fire control officer,
   economist and pipeline worker. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., and Sean
   M. Keane, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Zamber.

-- (Case No. 10-L-190) Edwin and Gloria Zavadil of Missouri
   allege Mr. Zavadill developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a seaman in the U.S. Navy, as a fireman for the St. Louis
   Fire Department, as a maintenance worker for various
   apartment complexes, as a drywaller and home remodeler and as
   a shadetree mechanic. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian
   and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
   Zavadils.

-- (Case No. 10-L-186) Thomas and Alice Zimmer of Wisconsin
   allege Mr. Zimmer developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   delivery man at a grocery store and service man at
   Leisgang's/Ken's Standard Service Station, as a punch press
   and power shear operator at Trane Company, as a machinist
   mate, as a tool and die maker at Wilson-Hurd Manufacuring, as
   a tool and die maker at Zell Machine Industries, as a
   researcher and developer at Fleckenstein and as a worker at
   Outboard Marine Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gump Lawsuit Filed in Kanawha County on Feb. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Tina M. Gump and Steven Gump vs. 20th
Century Glove Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, Ajax
Magnethermic Corporation, et al. was filed on Feb. 23, 2010 in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Mrs. Gump's father worked at various places as a laborer, pot man
and crane operator. Her asbestos exposure occurred while she was
residing in her father's home by being exposed to asbestos-
containing dust on her father's clothing, which he carried home
on himself after work, according to the suit.

Mrs. Gump now has asbestosis and mesothelioma. The Gumps seek a
trial by jury 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 the Gumps.

Case No. 10-C-339 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wilson Lawsuit Filed on Feb. 24 in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed by Darren R. Wilson was filed on Feb.
24, 2010 in Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

The suit was filed by Darren R. Wilson, Executor of the Estate of
Richard R. Wilson, deceased, and Darren R. Wilson and Derek R.
Wilson, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Karen J. Wilson,
deceased, his wife.

The suit was filed against Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc.;
Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire; Crane Co.; Eaton
Corporation; Ford Motor Company; Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company; Honeywell International, Inc.; Ingersoll-Rand Company;
McCord Corporation; McCord Gasket Corporation; Nitro Industrial
Coverings, Inc.; Ohio Valley Insulating Company; Textron, Inc.;
UB West Virginia, Inc.; and Vimasco Corporation.

Richard R. Wilson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on
Nov. 20, 2007, and died Feb. 28, 2008. The plaintiffs claim the
defendants were negligent in failing to advise Richard R. Wilson
of the dangerous characteristics of their asbestos and asbestos-
related products.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. Aaron J.
DeLuca, Esq., represents the plaintiffs.

Case No. 10-C-350 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estep Lawsuit Filed v. 78 Firms in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Marvin Estep, Executor of the Estate
of Wilford Estep vs. A.W. Chesterton Company, Aurora Pump
Company, Brand Insulations, et al. was filed on Feb. 24, 2010 in
Kanawha County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Marvin Estep claims the 78 defendant corporations are responsible
for Wilford Estep's lung cancer and death. Wilford Estep smoked
one pack of cigarettes per day from 1945 until 1963, but quit,
according to the suit.

Marvin Estep seeks a trial by jury to resolve all issues involved
in the asbestos case.

Thomas P. Maroney, Esq., and Victoria Antion, Esq., represent
Marvin Estep.

Case No. 10-C-359 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jarrell Action Filed v. 97 Firms in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Dovenor E. Jarrell and Mary J. Jarrell
vs. A.W. Chesterton Company, Ajax Magnethermic Corporation,
AmChem Products, et al. was filed on Feb. 25, 2010 in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Jarrells claim the 97 defendant corporations caused Mr.
Jarrell's lung cancer. He claims he smoked cigarettes for 10
years, but quit in 1975.

The Jarrells see a trial by jury to resolve all issues involved
in their asbestos case.

Thomas P. Maroney, Esq., and Victoria Antion, Esq., represent the
Jarrells.

Case No. 10-C-367 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Flipped in McCann Case v. Foster Wheeler
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California reversed the ruling of the Court
of Appeal in an asbestos case styled Terry McCann et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant and
Respondent.

Judges Ronald M. George, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter,
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Ming W. Chin, Carlos R. Moreno, and
Carol A. Corrigan entered judgment in Case No. S162435 on Feb.
18, 2010.

This case presented a choice-of-law issue arising in a lawsuit
filed by Terry McCann to recover damages for an illness,
mesothelioma. Although the complaint sought recovery from
numerous defendants, the issue before the Supreme Court related
solely to the potential liability of a single defendant, Foster
Wheeler LLC, a company that specially designed, manufactured, and
provided advice regarding the installation of a very large boiler
at an oil refinery in Oklahoma in 1957.

At the time the boiler was being installed at the Oklahoma
refinery, Mr. McCann, then an Oklahoma resident and a newly hired
engineering sales trainee employed by the construction company
that was installing the boiler, allegedly was exposed to asbestos
at various times over a two-week period while he observed the
application of asbestos insulation to the boiler by an
independent insulation contractor.

Eighteen years later, in 1975, after working at various jobs in
Minnesota and Illinois, Mr. McCann moved to Dana Point, Calif.,
to take a position as executive director of Toastmasters
International. In 2005, after having retired from his
Toastmasters position in 2001 and continuing to reside in
California, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

A few months later, Mr. McCann filed this action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, naming numerous defendants, including
Foster Wheeler.

Prior to trial, Foster Wheeler moved for summary judgment on
various grounds, including that Mr. McCann's action against it
was governed by, and barred under, an Oklahoma statute of repose
that required any cause of action against a designer or
constructor of an improvement to real property to be filed within
10 years of the substantial completion of the improvement.

The trial court found that Foster Wheeler was a designer of an
improvement to real property within the meaning of the Oklahoma
statute of repose and entered judgment dismissing Foster Wheeler
as a defendant in Mr. McCann's underlying action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court
erred in determining that Oklahoma law rather than California law
should apply in these circumstances.

On petition by Foster Wheeler, the Supreme Court granted review
primarily to consider whether the Court of Appeal was correct in
determining (1) that Oklahoma's interest in the application of
its statute of repose is substantially limited to application of
the statute to companies headquartered in Oklahoma and does not
equally encompass out-of-state companies who design or construct
improvements to real property located in Oklahoma, and (2) that
California's interests, rather than Oklahoma's interests, would
be more impaired by the failure to apply the respective state's
law on the facts presented here.

On Sept. 22, 2008, Mr. McCann filed a motion in this court,
requesting that the Supreme Court take judicial notice of both
the motion to substitute filed in the Court of Appeal and the
Court of Appeal's order granting the motion.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed and the matter
was remanded to that court with directions to address Mr.
McCann's additional contention that the trial court erred in
finding that the boiler in question constituted an improvement to
real property within the meaning of the relevant Oklahoma statute
of repose.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Hall Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California,
affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
which granted summary judgment in Defendants' favor in asbestos
case filed by Bertie Hall on behalf of her late husband, Alfred
Hall.

The case is styled Bertie G. Hall, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
Warren Pumps LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Roger W. Boren, Kathryn Doi Todd, and Victoria M. Chavez
entered judgment in Case No. B208275 on Feb. 16, 2010.

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

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

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

                            *********

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  * * *