CAR_Public/100430.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, April 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 84

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend Suit by EEOC
ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Rand" Suit in California
ANADIGICS INC: Motion to Dismiss New Jersey Suit Still Pending
ANIMALFEEDS: Sup. Ct. Decertifies Class in Price-Fixing Suit

AWB: Australian Court Approves $40 Million Shareholder Settlement
BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Commercial Texting Suit Resolved for Donations
CELLDEX THERAPEUTICS: CuraGen Acquisition Lawsuits Dismissed
CITIZENS INC: Court Denies Recertification in Insurance Suit

CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violations Suit in Mass.
DEX ONE: Faces Securities Suits in Delaware
DEX ONE: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois
GULFPORT ENERGY: Delaware Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Complaint
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Suit in Pennsylvania

HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Rich" Certification Hearing Set for May 7
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Units Defends "Heffelfinger" Suit in Calif.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Subsidiary Continues to Defend "Karlbom"

HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Unit Defends "George" Suit in New York
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends Inkjet Printer Litigation in Calif.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend "Blennis" Lawsuit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Four Suits in Canada over "Smart Chips" Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Continues to Defend Labor-Related Lawsuits

HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Seeks Approval of Settlement Agreement
MEDQUIST INC: No Decision Yet to Appeal in Dismissed "Kahn" Suit
MERCK & CO: High Court Says N.J. VIOXX Litigation Not Time-Barred
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Paskowitz Appealing Court's Dismissal Order

PACIFIC CAPITAL: California Court Dismisses "Jurkowitz" Suit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold for Too Little, Colo. Suit Says
RALPH'S GROCERY: Proposed Settlement in Disabled Shopper Lawsuits
SHUFFLE MASTER: Defends Consolidated Amended Complaint in Nevada
STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 21,000 Basic Rhythms Drum(TM) Toys

STEVE MADDEN: Continues to Defend "Tahvilian" Suit in California
UNITED RENTALS: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Pending

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: MassDEP Issues $53,937 Fine to Rotation Dynamics

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Facing Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Accrues No Amounts for AMSF Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Provisions Amount to $53Mil at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Motion Slated for May 10

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nationwide Fined GBP4,500 for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1T Claims Filed v. CertainTeed Corp. in 1Q-2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Records $12.5Mil Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR Wins Aussie Court Appeal Over Spin-off Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Finnell's Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Molina's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Beavers Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Decision in Teruel-Armstrong
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Issues Split Rulings in Kuhlman Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Issues Split Ruling in Allen Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $1.049B Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Cites $38MM Litigation Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $829M March 31 NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $300M March 31 NARCO Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bondex Increase to 20,900 at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liability at $1.703B at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Records $49Mil Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Liability at $169MM at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Badger Meter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Coverage Actions Ongoing v. Travelers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Records $74Mil Losses, Expenses Paid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boggs' Case v. 85 Firms Filed April 12 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Files for Bankruptcy Due to 108T Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Affton High School to Cost $86,281
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 8,000 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. AK Steel Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chem. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. PPG Industries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Remand Motion in Luce Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issued in Johns-Manville Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Adamson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Issues Split Ruling in Palmer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beard Action Filed v. 25 Firms in Jefferson Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blake Seeks Help in Payout Case Against Lorival
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PATH Worker's Widow Seeking Retrial in Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Flips $5.6Mil Award in Walton Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. AG Indicts Parker Local for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sicily Court Rules v. Former Execs on April 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windsor Widower Seeks Help in Compensation Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Quaker Chemical

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Accrues $2.1M March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Actions Still Ongoing v. Diamond Offshore
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 516 Exposure Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Facing 14 Claims in 3 States at April 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,400 Cases Pending v. Tyco Int'l. at March 26

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 450 Active Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Mertz Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. District Court OKs Dunkin's Remand Move
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment in Morey Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Lawsuits Filed During March 22-26 in Madison

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowes Action v. James Hardie Filed in Australia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $899Mil for Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP2Mil Awarded to Victims of Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Actions Filed March 29 to April 2 in Madison

                            *********

ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend Suit by EEOC
---------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend a suit filed by
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a former
employee.

A lawsuit was filed in 2001 by the EEOC alleging retaliation
under federal civil rights laws (EEOC I suit) and a class action
filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations (Romero I suit).

In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the
trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other
things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class
of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the
court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the
option of the release signer.

The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must
return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in
exchange for signing the release."  The court also stated that,
"on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims
of age discrimination."

The EEOC and plaintiffs asked the court to clarify and/or
reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the
judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary
judgment.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken
from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus
not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which
granted AIC's summary judgment motions, remanded the cases to the
trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the cases
be reassigned to another trial court judge.

No further developments were reported in Allstate Life Insurance
Company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Allstate Life Insurance Company -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is  
a stock life insurance company.  The company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products.  It conducts substantially all its operations directly
or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  ALIC is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Company, a stock
property-liability insurance company.  


ALLSTATE LIFE: AIC Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Company continues to defend a putative
nationwide class action alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

A putative nationwide class action was filed by former employee
agents alleging various violations of ERISA, including a worker
classification issue.

These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.

This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in 2005.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case.

Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken
from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus
not appealable at this time.

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.

In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision which
granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case to
the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.

No further developments were reported in Allstate Life Insurance
Company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Allstate Life Insurance Company -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is  
a stock life insurance company.  The company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment
products.  It conducts substantially all its operations directly
or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries.  ALIC is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Company, a stock
property-liability insurance company.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Rand" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
American National Insurance Company continues to defend the
matter Rand v. American National Insurance Company, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

American National is a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit, filed Feb. 12, 2009, wherein the Plaintiff proposes to
certify a class of persons who purchased certain American
National proprietary deferred annuity products.

Plaintiff alleges that American National violated the California
Insurance, Business & Professions, Welfare & Institutions, and
Civil Codes through its marketing practices.

Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, restitution, interest,
penalties, attorneys' fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief in an unspecified amount.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 12,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Chartered in 1905, American National Insurance Company --
http://www.anico.com/-- is headquartered in Galveston, Texas.    
American National Insurance Company has evolved into an industry
leader, ranking among the largest of life insurance companies in
the United States, with over $20.1 billion in assets.  American
National Insurance Company is rated A (Excellent) by A.M. Best
Company, and AA- (Very Strong) by Standard & Poor's.


ANADIGICS INC: Motion to Dismiss New Jersey Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANADIGICS, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class
action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, according to the company's March 12,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On or about Nov. 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or about Nov.
21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class action
lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750.

The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were consolidated
under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court dated Nov.
24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with,
among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and
the demand for its products.

On Oct. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, which names the company, a current officer and
a former officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period
that runs from July 24, 2007 through Aug. 7, 2008.

On Dec. 23, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  The motion was scheduled to be fully briefed
by the parties on or before March 30, 2010.

ANADIGICS, Inc. -- http://www.anadigics.com/-- is a leading  
provider of semiconductor solutions in the growing broadband
wireless and wireline communications markets.  The company's
products include power amplifiers, tuner integrated circuits,
active splitters, line amplifiers, and other components, which
can be sold individually or packaged as integrated radio
frequency and front end modules.


ANIMALFEEDS: Sup. Ct. Decertifies Class in Price-Fixing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that in a 5-3
decision with conservatives in the majority, the Supreme Court on
Tuesday made it harder for consumers to join together in
arbitration proceedings with businesses.  The ruling tosses a
decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit decision that allowed class arbitration to proceed in a
dispute between shipping companies and their customers who
accused them of price-fixing.

In 2003, a Department of Justice criminal investigation found
that shipping companies were engaging in an "illegal price fixing
conspiracy," which prompted AnimalFeeds International to file a
putative class action in Pennsylvania Federal Court.

AnimalFeeds supplies raw ingredients like fish oil to animal feed
producers around the world.

The suit was consolidated with others like it, and the company
sought arbitration in New York City on behalf of a class of
purchasers of parcel tanker transportation services.

The parties agreed to submit the question whether their
arbitration agreement allowed for class arbitration to a panel of
arbitrators.

The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for
class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award,
concluding that the arbitrators' award was "made in 'manifest
disregard' of the law."

The 2nd Circuit then reversed, finding that because petitioners
cited no authority in applying a "maritime rule of custom and
usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was
not in manifest disregard of maritime law," according to the
ruling.

The high court found that "imposing class arbitration on parties
who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is consistent
with the Federal Arbitration Act," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for
the majority.

"The differences between bilateral and class-action arbitration
are too great for arbitrators to presume, consistent with their
limited powers under the FAA, that the parties' mere silence on
the issue of class-action arbitration constitutes consent to
resolve their disputes in class proceedings."

Justice Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling
premature.  "When an arbitration clause is silent on the
question, may arbitration proceed on behalf of a class?" she
asked.  "The court prematurely takes up that important question
and, indulging in de novo review, overturns the ruling of
experienced arbitrators."

Justice Ginsburg was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and
Stephen Breyer in the dissent.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate.

A copy of the opinion in Stolt-Nielsen S.A., et al. v.
AnimalFeeds International Corp., No. 08-1198 (U.S.), is available
at:

     http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1198.pdf


AWB: Australian Court Approves $40 Million Shareholder Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Herald and Weekly Times reports that AWB and shareholders
agreed in February to settle the class action seeking
compensation for AWB's failure to disclose Iraqi kickbacks under
the United Nations' Oil For Food Program.

AWB will pay $39.5 million, including interest and costs, to a
group of more than 1,000 shareholders who were involved in the
class action.

The action was launched by retired wheat farmers and former AWB
shareholders John and Kaye Watson, and was claiming over $100
million in losses.

"As a result of the Federal Court approval, the class action
against AWB is dismissed without admission of liability by the
company," AWB said in a statement to the Australian Securities
Exchange.

"There are no outstanding conditions regarding this class
action."

AWB said the amount of the settlement would be provided for as a
significant item in the half year accounts as at March 31, 2010.


BELO CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Payment Violations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corp. continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit
alleging failure to pay wages.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper
carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, Belo, Press Enterprise
Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Riverside.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California
laws by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the
purported class members as independent contractors rather than
employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum,
hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and
allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations
applicable to an employer-employee relationship.

Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages,
unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal
period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses
incurred by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum
wage to all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all
hours worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 12,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Belo Corp. -- http://www.belo.com/-- one of the nation's largest  
pure-play, publicly-traded television companies, owns and
operates 20 television stations (nine in the top 25 markets) and
their associated Web sites.  Belo stations, which include
affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV, reach
more than 14 percent of U.S. television households in 15 highly-
attractive markets.  Belo stations rank first or second in nearly
all of their local markets.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Commercial Texting Suit Resolved for Donations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) obtained dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit filed in March 2009 against the Company, in
the District Court of Central Region, by a plaintiff alleging to
be the Company's subscriber, in connection with allegations that
the Company unlawfully sent its subscribers commercial messages.  
The purported class action was dismissed without prejudice,
following the request of the plaintiff and the Company's
agreement to donate a certain insignificant amount to worthy
causes.

Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the total
amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the plaintiff to
be approximately NIS 800 million.

                         About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., -- http://www.cellcom.co.il/-- was  
established in 1994, and is the leading Israeli cellular
provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.292 million
subscribers (as at December 31, 2009) with a broad range of value
added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming
services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad
and additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile
office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced
infrastructure. The Company operates an HSPA 3.5 Generation
network enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia
services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE and TDMA networks. Cellcom
Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service
infrastructure including telephone customer service centers,
retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed
nationwide. Through its broad customer service network Cellcom
Israel offers its customers technical support, account
information, direct to the door parcel services, internet and fax
services, dedicated centers for the hearing impaired, etc. As of
2006, Cellcom Israel, through its wholly owned subsidiary Cellcom
Fixed Line Communications L.P., provides landline telephone
communication services in Israel, in addition to data
communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both
on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange (CEL).


CELLDEX THERAPEUTICS: CuraGen Acquisition Lawsuits Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class actions against Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.,
relating to its proposed acquisition of CuraGen Corporation has
been dismissed pursuant to an approved settlement agreement,
according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition by Celldex
of CuraGen, a putative class action complaint, Margaret Capps v.
Timothy Shannon, et al., was filed in the Connecticut Superior
Court, Judicial District of New Haven, on June 9, 2009.

A second putative class action complaint, Cheryl Smith v. CuraGen
Corporation, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware on June 15, 2009.

Both lawsuits purported to have been brought on behalf of all
public stockholders of CuraGen, and named CuraGen, all of its
former directors, Celldex, and Celldex's merger subsidiary as
defendants.

On July 21, 2009, the attorneys for the parties in the two
actions executed a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which
such actions were subsequently dismissed with prejudice.

CuraGen agreed to make certain revisions to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus (which was prepared in connection with the
approval by CuraGen's stockholders of the merger and by Celldex's
stockholders of the stock issued to the former stockholders of
CuraGen in the merger) as part of the agreement among the parties
to settle the actions and agreed to pay attorneys' fees and
expenses as awarded by the court, which had been expected to be
$300,000 but ultimately were reduced to $200,000.

On Aug. 27, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to
the court for the action captioned Cheryl Smith v. CuraGen
Corporation, et al, pending in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, and thereafter a fairness hearing was held on Nov.
9, 2009, at which the court approved the settlement of the
Delaware action and thereafter both the Delaware and Connecticut
actions were dismissed.  

Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.celldextherapeutics.com/
-- is the first antibody-based combination immunotherapy company.  
Celldex has a pipeline of drug candidates in development for the
treatment of cancer and other difficult-to-treat diseases based
on its antibody focused Precision Targeted Immunotherapy
Platform.  The PTI Platform is a complementary portfolio of
monoclonal antibodies, antibody-targeted vaccines and
immunomodulators used in optimal combinations to create novel
disease-specific drug candidates.


CITIZENS INC: Court Denies Recertification in Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has
denied the recertification of the class in a lawsuit against
Citizens, Inc., according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed on Aug. 6,
1999 in the Texas District Court, Austin, Texas, now styled
Citizens Insurance Company of America, Citizens, Inc., Harold E.
Riley and Mark A. Oliver, Petitioners v. Fernando Hakim Daccach,
Respondent, in which a class was originally certified by the
trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third
District of Texas.

The company appealed the grant of class status to the Texas
Supreme Court, which on March 2, 2007, reversed the Court of
Appeal's affirmation of the trial court's class certification
order, decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with the Texas Supreme
Court's opinion.

The underlying lawsuit alleged that certain life insurance
policies that we made available to non-U.S. residents, when
combined with a policy feature that allowed certain cash benefits
to be assigned to two non-U.S. trusts for the purpose of
accumulating ownership of the company's Class A common stock,
along with allowing the policyholders to make additional
contributions to the trusts, were actually offers and sales of
securities that occurred in Texas by unregistered dealers in
violation of the Texas securities laws.  The remedy sought was
rescission and return of the insurance premium payments.

On Nov. 16, 2009, the trial court conducted further proceedings
on the case, in order to determine whether the class should be
recertified.

On Dec. 9, 2009, the trial court denied the recertification of
the class.  The remaining plaintiffs must now proceed
individually, and not as a class, if they intend to pursue their
cases against Citizens.  

Citizens, Inc. -- http://www.citizensinc.com/-- is a financial  
services company listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol CIA.  The company expects to achieve its goal, established
nearly a decade ago, to reach $1 billion in assets by the end of
2010, via the worldwide sale of U.S. Dollar-denominated whole
life cash value insurance policies, coupled with the acquisition
of other life insurance companies.  Citizens' Class A common
stock closed at $7.04 on March 10, 2010.


CYNOSURE INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Violations Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against
the company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys fees.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients.  Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of
up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to
$1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations.

Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that
approximately three million facsimiles were sent on the company's
behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals.

On Feb. 6, 2008, several months after the close of discovery, the
plaintiff served a motion for class certification, which the
company opposed on numerous factual and legal grounds, including
that:

     -- a nationwide class action may not be maintained in a
        Massachusetts state court by Dr. Weitzner, a New York
        resident;

     -- individual issues predominate over common issues;

     -- a class action is not superior to other methods of
        resolving TCPA claims; and

     -- Dr. Weitzner is an inadequate class representative.

The company also believes it has have many merits defenses,
including that the faxes in question do not constitute
"advertising" within the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients
had an established business relationship with the company and are
thereby deemed to have consented to the receipt of facsimile
communications.

The Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification
motion on June 17, 2008, but no decision on the motion has been
rendered.

No further developments were reported in the company's March 12,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosure.com/-- develops and  
markets aesthetic treatment systems that are used by physicians
and other practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures to remove hair, treat vascular and pigmented
lesions, rejuvenate the skin, liquefy and remove unwanted fat
through laser lipolysis and temporarily reduce the appearance of
cellulite.  Cynosure's products include a broad range of laser
and other light-based energy sources, including Alexandrite,
pulse dye, Nd:YAG and diode lasers, as well as intense pulsed
light.  Cynosure was founded in 1991.


DEX ONE: Faces Securities Suits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation faces a series of putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Beginning on Oct. 23, 2009, a series of putative securities class
action lawsuits were commenced on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded
securities between July 26, 2007 and the time the company filed
for bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that certain company
officers issued false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and financial condition and seeking damages
and equitable relief.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading  
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products - including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.


DEX ONE: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation faces a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a putative ERISA class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of certain participants in or beneficiaries of
the R.H. Donnelley 401(k) Savings Plan at any time between July
26, 2007 and the time the lawsuit was filed and whose plan
accounts included investments in R.H. Donnelley common stock.

The putative ERISA class action complaint contains allegations
against certain current and former company directors, officers
and employees similar to those set forth in the putative
securities class action lawsuit as well as allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and seeks damages and
equitable relief.

Dex One Corporation -- http://www.DexOne.com/-- is a leading  
marketing services company that helps local businesses reach, win
and keep ready-to-buy customers.  The company's highly-skilled,
locally based marketing consultants offer a wide range of
marketing products and services that help businesses get found
more than 1.5 billion times each year by actively shopping
consumers.  The company offers local businesses personalized
marketing consulting services and exposure across a broad network
of local marketing products - including the company's "official"
print, online and mobile yellow pages and search solutions, as
well as major search engines.


GULFPORT ENERGY: Delaware Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware granted Gulfport
Energy Corp.'s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint over
the pricing of its 2004 rights offering remains pending,
according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On July 27, 2007, Robotti & Company, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware
in and for Kent County, Delaware.

The original complaint alleged a breach of fiduciary duty by the
company and its then present directors in connection with the
pricing of the company's 2004 rights offering.  Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on January 15, 2008, and the company filed a
motion to dismiss in early February 2008 and filed the brief in
support of such motion on April 29, 2008.

The court held a hearing on Oct. 3, 2008, ultimately deciding to
allow the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint Dec. 22, 2008, which
sets forth class action and derivative claim allegations that the
company's then present directors breached their fiduciary duty in
connection with the pricing of the 2004 rights offering.

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on Jan. 19, 2009,
and their brief in support of such motion on Feb. 20, 2009.
Briefing by the parties concluded on April 6, 2009, oral
arguments on the motion were heard by the court on April 22, 2009
and on Jan. 14, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting
defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
case with prejudice.

Gulfport Energy Corp. -- http://www.gulfportenergy.com/-- is an  
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company with its principal producing properties located along the
Louisiana Gulf Coast in the West Cote Blanche Bay (WCBB),
Hackberry fields, and in West Texas in the Permian Basin.  The
company holds a significant acreage position in the Alberta oil
sands in Canada, through its interest in Grizzly Oil Sands ULC,
and in the Bakken Shale, and has interests in entities that
operate in Southeast Asia, including the Phu Horm gas field in
Thailand.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, Gulfport had 25.5 million barrels
of oil equivalent.  The company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Grizzly has approximately 511,000 acres under lease during 2008.  
Grizzly drilled an aggregate of 117 core holes, tested five
separate lease blocks using up to four different rigs, and
undertook a seismic program.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Defends Consolidated Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., continues to defend a suit styled In
re Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. Litigation, Civil Action No. 09-
5262, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Between Nov. 10, 2009, and Dec. 29, 2009, five putative class
actions were filed against the company and its Chief Executive
Officer generally asserting that defendants misrepresented the
status of the company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R).
Each action was purportedly brought on behalf of investors who
purchased the company's publicly traded securities.  The suits
were consolidated by the Court as the "Securities Class Action
Lawsuit."

Also in December of 2009 and January of 2010, three Shareholder
Derivative Complaints were filed against the company and some of
its Officers and Directors.  Those suits also allege that the
defendants caused the company to misrepresent the status of its
New Drug Application for Ampligen(R).  As of March 12, no
defendant had been served with a complaint in the derivative
suits.  On February 12, 2010, the Court consolidated the Class
Action Lawsuit with the derivative suits for purposes of
discovery.

Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.hemispherx.net/-- is an  
advanced specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the
manufacture and clinical development of new drug entities for
treatment of seriously debilitating disorders.  Hemispherx's
flagship products include Alferon N Injection(R) (FDA approved
for a category of sexually transmitted diseases) and the
experimental therapeutics Ampligenr and Alferon(R) LDO.  
Ampligen(R) is an experimental RNA nucleic acid being developed
for globally important debilitating diseases and disorders of the
immune system.  Hemispherx's platform technology includes large
and small agent components for potential treatment of various
severely debilitating and life threatening diseases.  Hemispherx
has an extensive number of patents comprising its core
intellectual property estate and a fully commercialized product
(Alferon N Injection(R)).  The company wholly owns and
exclusively operates a GMP certified manufacturing facility in
the United States for commercial products.













HERLEY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Herley Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action suit
has been denied by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 11,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

In June and July 2006, the company was served with several class-
action complaints against the company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The claims are made under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities during various
periods before June 14, 2006.

All defendants in the class-action complaints filed motions to
dismiss on April 6, 2007.

On July 17, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the company's
and its former Chairman's motion to dismiss and granted, in part,
the other defendants' motion to dismiss.

Specifically, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against
the other defendants and denied the motion to dismiss the Section
20(a) claim against them.

On July 9, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification.

On March 4, 2009, all defendants filed an Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

On May 18, 2009, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their
motion for class certification.  Oral argument regarding the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on July 17,
2009.  On Oct. 9, 2009, the Court issued an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Court certified
a class consisting of all purchasers of Herley stock between Oct.
1, 2001 and June 14, 2006, who sustained a loss as a result of
that acquisition.

On October 30, 2009, the plaintiffs and the company each filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment.

On Jan. 29, 2010, the Court issued an order denying both summary
judgment motions and has set a trial date of mid-July of 2010 for
this action.

Herley Industries, Inc. -- http://www.herley.com/-- is a leader  
in the design, development and manufacture of microwave
technology solutions for the defense, aerospace and medical
industries worldwide.  Based in Lancaster, PA, Herley has seven
manufacturing locations and approximately 1,000 employees.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Rich" Certification Hearing Set for May 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
A May 7, 2010, class certification hearing has been set in a
purported class-action suit filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Hewlett-Packard
Co., according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on May 22, 2006, against the company and
alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to
unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when
printing black and white images and text.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive
class and a California-only damages class.

A class certification hearing is scheduled for May 7, 2010.

The suit is Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 06-cv-03361
(N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213/217-5000
         Fax: 213/217-5010
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq.
         GARCIA LAW FIRM
         One World Trade Center,  Suite 1950
         Long Beach, CA 90831
         Phone: 562-216-5270
         E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Christopher Chorba, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         Fax: 213-229-7520
         E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California's summary judgment ruling in the matter
Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., remains
pending.

The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6,
2007 alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color
printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely,
thus preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly
left in the cartridge.

The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Sept. 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary
judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification as moot.

On Nov. 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named
plaintiff.

On Nov. 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's
summary judgment ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq.
         CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
         GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert Particelli, Esq.
         MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Units Defends "Heffelfinger" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging labor
related violations in California.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code.

Heffelfinger, et al v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior
Court, claiming that certain EDS information technology workers
in California were misclassified exempt employees.

The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in
California.

On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Subsidiary Continues to Defend "Karlbom"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, defends a purported class action styled Karlbom, et
al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The suit was originally filed in the California Superior Court on
March 16, 2009.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Unit Defends "George" Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, defends a purported class action styled George, et
al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was originally filed in the California Superior Court on
April 2, 2009.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Defends Inkjet Printer Litigation in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit
captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, according to the
company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31,
2010.

The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the
smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion
for summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
three motions.

On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
scheduled for April 9, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend "Blennis" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend a suit styled Blennis v.
HP, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 17, 2007, where the plaintiffs are
seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including
enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the
smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Four Suits in Canada over "Smart Chips" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face four purported class-action
lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer
cartridge.

The four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-
Packard (Canada) Co., pending in Canada are:

     -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006,

     -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
        respectively, and

     -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006,

where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification,
restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.

The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things,
that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing
products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to
render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date
that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.  The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the
smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge
to its full capacity or to choose competitive products.

A class authorization hearing for one of the cases pending in
Quebec was tentatively scheduled for Dec. 10, 2009; that hearing
has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Continues to Defend Labor-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California
Labor Code.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA and/or
the California Labor Code.

One suit styled Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic
Data Systems Corporation, is a purported action filed on May 10,
2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in
installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees.

Two other purported collective actions, Steavens, et al. v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Oct. 23, 2007, and
Azar v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Feb. 20,
2009, are also pending in the same court alleging similar facts.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision that denied the class
certification motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in
California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s
Pentium 4 processor remain pending.

The suit, Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co.,
generally alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the
public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact
that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are less powerful
and slower than systems using the Pentium III processor and
processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa
Clara County, California.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave
to file a new motion for class certification.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for nationwide class certification for a third time.

The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider  
of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)
and large enterprises, including customers in the government,
health and education sectors.  The company's offerings span
multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure
technology and business process outsourcing, technology support
and maintenance, application development and support services,
and consulting and integration services; enterprise information
technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and
server technology, networking products and resources, and
software that optimizes business technology investments; personal
computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing-
related products and services.


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Seeks Approval of Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Limelight Networks, Inc., continues to seek approval of a
settlement agreement resolving a consolidated complaint pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according
to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In August 2007, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in
our initial public offering were named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
on behalf of a professed class consisting of all those who were
allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring the company's common
stock in its initial public offering between June 8, 2007 and
Aug. 8, 2007.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages and plaintiffs' costs
and expenses in the litigation.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the company omitted and/or misstated certain
facts concerning the seasonality of its business and that the
loss of revenue with respect to certain customers.  On March 17,
2008, the company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
all of the plaintiffs' claims, and a hearing was held on this
motion on June 16, 2008.

On Aug. 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and
granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15.  
Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and
15, and on Aug. 29, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of
the company.

On Sept. 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and
appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January and
February 2009.

In November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within
the coverage limits of the primary carrier of the company's
directors and officers liability insurance, and the company isw
seeking court approval to finalize the settlement.

Limelight Networks, Inc. -- http://www.limelightnetworks.com/--  
is trusted by the world's most innovative enterprise,
entertainment, technology, and software brands to improve the
performance and profitability of web sites and end-user
experiences.  the company's scalable, on-demand managed
infrastructure solutions provide global reach and consistent high
availability, by routing traffic over a private fiber-optic
backbone rather than through the often-congested, unpredictable
public Internet.


MEDQUIST INC: No Decision Yet to Appeal in Dismissed "Kahn" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Appellate Division has yet to issue a decision on
the appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of an amended class
action complaint against MedQuist, Inc., according to the
company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Jan. 22, 2008, Alan R. Kahn, one of the company's
shareholders, filed a shareholder putative class action lawsuit
against the company, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., the
company's former majority shareholder, and four of the company's
former non-independent directors, Clement Revetti, Jr., Stephen
H. Rusckowski, Gregory M. Sebasky and Scott Weisenhoff.

The action, entitled Alan R. Kahn v. Stephen H. Rusckowski, et
al., Docket No. BUR-C-000007-08, was venued in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County.

In the action, plaintiff purports to bring the action on his own
behalf and on behalf of all current holders of the company's
common stock.  The original complaint alleged that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing,
loyalty, and due care by purportedly agreeing to and initiating a
process for the company's sale or a change of control transaction
which will allegedly cause harm to plaintiff and members of the
putative class.

Plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount, plus costs and
interest, a judgment declaring that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and that any proposed transactions regarding our
sale or change of control are void, an injunction preventing our
sale or any change of control transaction that is not entirely
fair to the class, an order directing us to appoint three
independent directors to our board of directors, and attorneys'
fees and expenses.

On June 12, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint against the company, eight of its current and former
directors, and Philips in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division.  In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged
that the company's current and former directors breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and due
care by not providing our public shareholders with the
opportunity to decide whether they wanted to participate in a
share purchase offer with non-party CBaySystems Holdings Ltd.
that would have allowed the public shareholders to sell their
shares of the company's common stock for an amount above market
price.  Plaintiff further alleged that CBaySystems Holdings made
the share purchase offer to Philips and that Philips breached its
fiduciary duties by accepting CBaySystems Holdings' offer.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff sought declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief from all defendants.  Plaintiff
claimed that the company was only named as a party to the
litigation for purposes of injunctive relief.

On July 14, 2008, the company moved to dismiss plaintiff's
amended class action complaint, arguing:

     (1) that plaintiff's amended class action complaint did not
         allege that the company engaged in any wrongdoing which
         supported a breach of fiduciary duty claim and

     (2) that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is not legally
         cognizable against a corporation.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss
on July 21, 2008.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the Court granted the company's motion and the
motions filed by the other defendants and dismissed plaintiff's
amended class action complaint with prejudice.  On Dec. 31, 2008,
plaintiff filed an appeal of the trial court's dismissal order
with the New Jersey Appellate Division.  Thereafter, the parties
briefed all the issues raised in plaintiff's appeal.  In the
company's opposition brief, the company opposed all the arguments
plaintiff raised with respect to the dismissal of the claims
against it.

On Sept. 24, 2009, the Appellate Division held oral argument on
the issues that are the subject of plaintiff's appeal.

MedQuist, Inc. -- http://www.medquist.com/-- is a leading  
provider of medical transcription services, and a leader in
technology-enabled clinical documentation workflow. MedQuist's
enterprise solutions -- including mobile voice capture devices,
speech recognition, Web-based workflow platforms, and global
network of medical editors -- help healthcare facilities improve
patient care, increase physician satisfaction, and lower
operational costs.


MERCK & CO: High Court Says N.J. VIOXX Litigation Not Time-Barred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck is disappointed with this week's ruling from the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision to affirm a lower court's ruling on when
the statute of limitations began to run in a federal securities
class action against the company and certain of its officers and
directors. The effect of the ruling is to return the case to
federal district court in New Jersey for further proceedings.

The original suit, brought by investors, who allege that the
company made material misstatements and omissions regarding the
pain medication VIOXX(R), was dismissed by the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey in 2007, on the ground that
the claims were time-barred under the statute of limitations. In
2008, however, a divided Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the district court's ruling. In May 2009, the Supreme
Court agreed to hear Merck's appeal.

"Merck is disappointed in today's decision, but believes that the
allegations in the complaint are unfounded and will continue to
defend itself vigorously," said Bruce Kuhlik, Merck Executive
Vice President and General Counsel. "The company has already made
a motion to dismiss the operative complaint on numerous other
grounds, and will renew that motion in the district court."

Kannon K. Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly LLP argued the case
before the Supreme Court for Merck.  The company is also
represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

A copy of the opinion in Merck & Co., Inc., et al. v. Reynolds,
et al., No. 08-905 (U.S.), is available at:

     http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-905.pdf

                  Status of Other Litigation

Other shareholder cases relating to Vioxx, including individual
securities actions and claims brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, are still pending in federal
court in New Jersey. In November of 2007, Merck entered into an
agreement to resolve state and federal myocardial infarction and
ischemic stroke personal injury claims filed or tolled by
November 9, 2007. More than 99 percent of all eligible personal
injury claimants enrolled in the program and the program is
proceeding as scheduled with payments expected to be completed
later this year.

                           About Merck

Today's Merck -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global healthcare  
leader working to help the world be well. Merck is known as MSD
outside the United States and Canada. Through our prescription
medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, and consumer care and
animal health products, we work with customers and operate in
more than 140 countries to deliver innovative health solutions.
We also demonstrate our commitment to increasing access to
healthcare through far-reaching policies, programs and
partnerships.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Paskowitz Appealing Court's Dismissal Order
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported shareholder action against Pacific
Capital Bancorp has filed a notice of appeal on the order of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissing the complaint, according to the company's March 12,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 4, 2009, an alleged shareholder of the company filed a
purported shareholder action in federal district court in Los
Angeles, against the company and all of its directors, captioned
Laurence Paskowitz SEP IRA v. Pacific Capital Bancorp, et al.,
Case No. CV 09-6449-ODW.

The complaint alleged that the company's Aug. 31, 2009 Proxy
Statement, with respect to the proposal for shareholder
authorization of a reverse stock split, contained certain
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
certain alleged risks of the reverse stock split.

The complaint asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory
relief based on alleged proxy violations under the federal
securities laws (Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 there under) and under unspecified California law.  
The complaint also asserted a purported class action claim, on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders of the company, for
monetary damages based on alleged breach of an alleged fiduciary
duty of full disclosure under California law.

On Sept. 9, 2009, plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking
a temporary restraining order, as well as an expedited hearing on
a preliminary injunction motion, to prevent the company from
conducting the planned shareholder vote on the reverse stock
split proposal set for Sept. 29, 2009.  On Sept. 11, 2009, the
defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte application.  On
Sept. 14, 2009 the Court denied plaintiff's application in its
entirety.  The scheduled shareholder vote took place on Sept. 29,
2009, and the reverse stock split proposal was approved.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend.

On Oct. 19, 2009, plaintiff filed opposition papers, and on Oct.
26, 2009, defendants filed reply papers.

On Nov. 6, 2009, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  The plaintiff declined to amend the
complaint.

On Dec. 6, 2009, the Court ordered Judgment be entered dismissing
the complaint with prejudice.

On Dec. 31, 2009, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.

Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 46 branches
under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First
National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank,
San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: California Court Dismisses "Jurkowitz" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted Pacific Capital Bancorp's motion to dismiss a purported
securities class action entitled William Jurkowitz v. Pacific
Capital Bancorp, George Leis, David Porter, Sandler O'Neill &
Partners LP and Sandler O'Neill Asset Management LLC, CV 09-06501
RGK (PLAx), according to the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed on Sept. 8, 2009, against the company along
with two of its officers.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, for a purported class period running from April 30,
2009 when the company announced results for the first quarter of
2009, to July 30, 2009 when the company announced results for the
second quarter of 2009.

The complaint alleges that the company and the officer defendants
made knowingly false statements of confidence regarding the
adequacy of loan loss reserves taken in the first quarter of
2009, which plaintiffs contend were proven to be false when the
company announced second quarter results, which included an
additional $117 million reserve.

On Oct. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Jurkowitz complaint.

On Jan. 28, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Counsel as moot.

Pacific Capital Bancorp is the parent company of Pacific Capital
Bank, N.A., a nationally chartered bank that operates 46 branches
under the local brand names of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First
National Bank of Central California, South Valley National Bank,
San Benito Bank and First Bank of San Luis Obispo.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Being Sold for Too Little, Colo. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Qwest Communications is
selling itself too cheaply to CenturyTel, in a $22.4 billion
stock swap of 0.1664 Century shares for each Qwest share,
shareholders say in six class actions in Denver County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds v.
Mueller, et al., Case No. 3309 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Denver Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/27/Qwest.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
          THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
          885 Arapahoe Ave.
          Boulder, CO 80302
          Telephone: 303-861-3003

               - and -

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


RALPH'S GROCERY: Proposed Settlement in Disabled Shopper Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE TO: All individuals who are mobility impaired or use
wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility and who, since
January 17, 2005, have shopped at or attempted to shop at or will
in the future shop at or attempt to shop at any Ralphs store in
California.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.

Class actions entitled Anthony Pereira and American Disability
Institute vs. Ralph's Grocery Company, Case No. CV 07-841 PA
(C.D. Calif.), and Sung Park, Rosaura Navar and American
Disability Institute vs. Ralph's Grocery Company, Case No.
CV 08-02021 CAS (C.D. Calif.), were filed, alleging that Ralphs
Grocery Company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and
other state laws, including the Disabled Persons Act and the
Unruh Act, by failing to make its stores accessible to the
mobility-impaired. These actions seek chain-wide injunctive
relief at all Ralphs stores in California, including the parking
facilities and outdoor seating areas serving the subject stores.  

In both cases, the district court certified the class to seek
injunctive and declaratory relief as well as monetary damages.

The parties to these actions have now agreed to a settlement of
both actions, which the class attorneys have recommended that the
district court approve. The settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing or liability by Defendant who has denied any
wrongdoing. Nevertheless, to avoid the expense and uncertainty of
protracted litigation, the settlement imposes a number of
specific obligations on Defendant with respect to the
accessibility of its Stores, including making necessary
accessibility modifications and third party inspection for
compliance.

Defendant has also agreed to pay the reasonable attorney fees and
costs of the class attorneys. The named plaintiffs in both
actions are settling their individual damages claims and will
receive $4,000.00 each.  The Court will hold a fairness hearing
at the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Spring Street Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street,
Los Angeles, CA 90112 on June 28, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom
15, to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. If approved by the
Court, this settlement will fully settle all claims of all class
members for declaratory and injunctive relief alleged or that
could have been alleged in these actions. No class member will be
able to bring another lawsuit for injunctive or declaratory
relief with respect to the accessibility of any Ralphs Store in
California.  This settlement will extinguish and/or bar past,
pending and future claims/lawsuits for injunctive or declaratory
relief with respect to the accessibility of any Ralphs Store in
California.  With the exception of the named plaintiffs who have
settled their individual damages claim, no class member will
recover statutory damages under the settlement, and nothing in
this settlement shall affect class members' rights to pursue
damages claims that may otherwise exist.  Any class member may
object to approval of this settlement by following the
instructions for objections contained in the Detailed Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement, which is available at no charge
by written request to:

          Evan Smith
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

or by download on the Internet at:

     http://www.RalphsCaliforniaDisabledAccessSettlement.com

or by calling (949) 732-6502.

You must object by May 17, 2010. If you do not timely submit an
objection pursuant to the detailed instructions, you will have
deemed to have forever waived any objections to the settlement.


SHUFFLE MASTER: Defends Consolidated Amended Complaint in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shuffle Master, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated amended
class action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.

On June 1, 2007, a putative class action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws against the company and its Chief
Executive Officer, Mark L. Yoseloff and former Chief Financial
Officer, Richard L. Baldwin, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on behalf of persons who purportedly
purchased the company's stock between Dec. 22, 2006, and March
12, 2007.  The case is entitled Joseph Stocke vs. Shuffle Master,
Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L. Baldwin.  The complaint
asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  These claims allegedly relate to the company's March
12, 2007, announcement that the company would restate its Fiscal
Fourth Quarter and full year financial results.  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages in an unstated amount.  On or about
Aug. 4, 2007, four plaintiffs moved the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff.

On June 12, 2007, a second putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against the company and
Dr. Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada.  The case is entitled Robert
Armistead, Jr. vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and
Richard L. Baldwin.  This lawsuit effectively mirrors the
allegations in the Stocke lawsuit filed against these same
defendants on June 1, 2007, except that the Armistead complaint
was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the company's stock
between March 20, 2006 and March 12, 2007.

On June 25, 2007, a third putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against the company, Dr.
Yoseloff and Mr. Baldwin was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.  The case is entitled Andrew J. Tempel
vs. Shuffle Master, Inc., Mark L. Yoseloff and Richard L.
Baldwin.  This lawsuit is a "copycat" lawsuit of the Stocke
lawsuit filed against these same defendants on June 1, 2007.

On June 22, 2007, a Joint Stipulation was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada providing that all
presently filed and any subsequently filed related class actions
shall be consolidated and captioned In Re Shuffle Master, Inc.
Securities Litigation.  The company was not required to answer,
move against or otherwise respond to any class action complaints
until a consolidated complaint was filed.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Court appointed the "Shuffle Master
Institutional Investor Group," consisting of the Tulsa Municipal
Employees' Retirement Plan and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System, as Lead Plaintiff.  Grant & Eisenhofer is
the Lead Plaintiff's counsel.

A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on
Feb. 5, 2008.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts the same causes of action for
violation of federal securities law as the initial lawsuits and
applies to a class period of Feb. 1, 2006, to March 12, 2007.  
The Consolidated Complaint contains essentially the same material
allegations as in the initial lawsuits and also contains
allegations arising out of the company's acquisition of Stargames
and disclosures concerning the company's internal controls.  This
Consolidated Complaint supersedes all previously filed lawsuits
covering this class period.

On March 25, 2008, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On
March 23, 2009, the Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss.

The Defendants answered on April 29, 2009.  The case is presently
pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2010.

Shuffle Master, Inc. -- http://www.shufflemaster.com/-- is a  
gaming supply company specializing in providing its casino
customers with improved profitability, productivity and security,
as well as popular and cutting-edge gaming entertainment content,
through value-add products in four distinct categories: Utility
products which include automatic card shuffler, roulette chip
sorters and intelligent table system modules, Proprietary Table
Games which include live table game tournaments, Electronic Table
Systems which include various e-Table game platforms and
Electronic Gaming Machines which include traditional video slot
machines for select markets.  The company is included in the S&P
Smallcap 600 Index.


STEP2 COMPANY: Recalls 21,000 Basic Rhythms Drum(TM) Toys
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Step2 Company LLC, of Streetsboro, OH, announced a voluntary
recall of about 21,000 Step2(R) Basic Rhythms Drums(TM).  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The plastic clips used to attach the drumsticks to the drum can
break.  The small broken pieces present a choking to young
children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Step2(R) Basic Rhythm Drums(TM) intended for
preschool age children.  The toy drum is sold with two drumsticks
that can be stored in clips on the side of the drum.  A red
"Step2(R)" logo in printed on the side of the drum.  A Picture of
the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10206.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Toys "R" Us, Burlington Coat Factory and other retail stores
nationwide from August 2009 through March 2010 for between $10
and $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy from children
and contact Step2 to request a replacement toy.  For additional
information, contact Step2 toll-free at (866) 860-1887 between
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.step2.com/


STEVE MADDEN: Continues to Defend "Tahvilian" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Madden, Ltd., continues to defend a class action lawsuit
styled Shahrzad Tahvilian, et al. v. Steve Madden Retail, Inc.
and Steve Madden, Ltd., Case No. BC 414217, pending in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, according to
the company's March 12, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The suit was filed on June 24, 2009, against the company and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Steven Madden Retail, Inc.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges
violations of California labor laws, including, among other
things, that the company failed to provide mandated meal breaks
to its employees and failed to provide overtime pay as required.

The company filed an answer in the litigation denying all
allegations stated in the complaint.

The parties have agreed to submit the claim to private mediation,
which was scheduled for March 29, 2010.

The company, with the advice of legal counsel, has evaluated the
liability in this case and believes that it is not likely to
exceed $1 million.  Accordingly, the company accrued $1 million
in the fiscal year 2009.  The accrual is subject to change to
reflect the status of this matter.

Steve Madden, Ltd., designs, sources, markets, and sells fashion-
forward footwear and accessories for women, men and children.  
The shoes and accessories are sold through 85 Company owned
stores (including the company's online store) as well as
department stores, and apparel, footwear, and accessories
specialty stores.  The company's owned brands include Steve
Madden, Steven by Steve Madden, Madden Girl and Big Buddha, among
others.  The company licenses certain of its brands to third
parties for the marketing and sale of certain products, including
for ready-to-wear, outerwear, cold weather accessories, eyewear,
hosiery, and bedding and bath products.  The company is the
licensee of various brands including Olsenboye and Fabulosity for
footwear, handbags and belts, Elizabeth and James and l.e.i. for
footwear, Betsey Johnson for handbags and belts and Daisy Fuentes
for handbags


UNITED RENTALS: Plaintiff's Appeal on Dismissal of Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the second
consolidated amended complaint against United Rentals, Inc.,
remains pending.

Subsequent to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 announcement that
affiliates of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., had notified the
company that they were not prepared to proceed with the purchase
of the company on the terms set forth in the merger agreement,
three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The plaintiff in each of the lawsuits sought to sue on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the company's securities between Aug. 29, 2007 and Nov. 14, 2007.

The lawsuits named as defendants the company, its directors and
certain of its officers and alleged, among other things, that the
named plaintiff and members of the purported class suffered
damages when they purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the company, as a result of false and misleading
statements and/or material omissions relating to the contemplated
merger with affiliates of Cerberus, contained in:

     (i) proxy materials that the Company disseminated and/or
         filed with the SEC in anticipation of the Oct. 19, 2007
         special meeting of stockholders; and/or

    (ii) certain of the Company's filings with the SEC and other
         public statements.

On the basis of those allegations, plaintiff in each action
asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 thereunder; and against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints in these actions sought unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, expenses and fees.

The Court subsequently entered an order consolidating the three
actions and appointed First New York Securities, L.L.C. and Omni
Partners LLP as lead plaintiffs for the purported class.  The
actions are now consolidated under the caption First New York
Securities, L.L.C., et al. v. United Rentals, Inc., et al.

On March 24, 2008, pursuant to a schedule approved by the Court,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which,
among other things:

     (i) amended the purported class period to include
         purchasers of our securities from July 23, 2007 to
         Nov. 14, 2007;

    (ii) dropped as defendants one of our officers and all but
         one of our directors;

   (iii) named as additional defendants Cerberus, certain of its
         affiliates, its chief executive officer and one of its
         managing directors; and

    (iv) withdrew the previously asserted claim under
         Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
         thereunder.

On March 10, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, and
granted lead plaintiffs leave to move to reopen the case within
30 days and to file a proposed amended complaint.

On April 9, 2009, lead plaintiffs moved to reopen the case and
for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint.
With the court's permission, lead plaintiffs filed their second
consolidated amended complaint on April 16, 2009.

The second consolidated amended complaint continued to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder and, among other things:

     (i) amended the purported class period to include
         purchasers of our publicly traded securities from
         Aug. 30, 2007 to Nov. 14, 2007, and

    (ii) dropped as defendants one of the company's directors
         and the Cerberus related defendants.

On Aug. 24, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice and
subsequently entered judgment in favor of defendants.

On Sept. 22, 2009, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the judgment dismissing the consolidated actions.

No further developments were reported in the company's April 21,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Greenwich, Connecticut-based United Rentals, Inc. --
http://www.unitedrentals.com/-- is the largest equipment rental   
company in the world, with an integrated network of 568 rental
locations in 48 states, 10 Canadian provinces and Mexico.  The
company's 8,000 employees serve construction and industrial
customers, utilities, municipalities, homeowners and others.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: MassDEP Issues $53,937 Fine to Rotation Dynamics
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection assessed
a US$53,937 penalty to Rotation Dynamics, an Illinois-based
corporation, for asbestos violations that occurred at the
Company's facility, located at 33 Hayes Memorial Drive in
Marlborough, Mass., according to a MassDEP press release dated
April 20, 2010.

During a March 2008 site inspection, MassDEP inspectors
determined that Company employees had used a forklift to remove a
piece of decommissioned process equipment that contained asbestos
insulation and left it uncontained in the parking lot.

MassDEP observed numerous pieces of dry, friable asbestos
insulation uncontained on the ground in the parking area, exposed
to the ambient air.

Rotation Dynamics was cited for failing to notify MassDEP of a
demolition/renovation operation involving asbestos-containing
materials, as required by law. The Company was also cited for
improper removal and handling of asbestos-containing materials,
improper packaging and storage of asbestos-containing waste
materials, and allowing asbestos-containing materials to be
handled in a manner that caused or contributed to a condition of
air pollution at the site.

Upon discovery of the violations, MassDEP required the Company to
hire a Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety licensed
asbestos contractor to properly remove, package and dispose of
all the asbestos-containing waste on site.

Under the terms of a consent order with MassDEP, the Company will
comply with all applicable regulations in the future and pay
US$30,000 of the assessed penalty. The remaining US$23,937
penalty was suspended pending the Company's compliance with the
terms of the order.

Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, Mass., said, "Corporations in Massachusetts must be
fully aware of their responsibilities under the regulations to
thoroughly inspect process equipment slated to be decommissioned
and removed from their facility for the presence of asbestos-
containing materials.

"Failure to identify and remove asbestos materials prior to
commencing such operations is an extremely serious, and
ultimately a costly oversight that potentially exposes workers
and the general public to a known carcinogen. As this case
illustrates, noncompliance results in significant penalty
exposure, as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal
and monitoring costs."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Goodrich, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages
as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at its
facilities.

A number of these cases involve maritime claims, which have been
and are expected to continue to be administratively dismissed by
the court, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
April 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., Goodrich Corporation serves
regional/business aircraft, original equipment and aftermarket,
helicopters, military, and space markets through its three
aerospace divisions. Its largest unit, Actuation and Landing
Systems, makes fuel systems, aircraft wheels, brakes, landing
gear, and flight control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Facing Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc and certain current and former subsidiaries are still
defendants, along with numerous other third-party companies as
co-defendants, in three multi-party asbestos-related lawsuits
filed in Mississippi.

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.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
three other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against the
Company in litigation in various other jurisdictions.

Based in London, Ensco plc is an offshore drilling contractor. It
owns 46 offshore rigs, including 43 jack-ups, one barge rig, and
two ultra-deepwater semisubmersibles. The Company conducts most
of its drilling business in the Asia/Pacific region (which
includes Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Accrues No Amounts for AMSF Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company, as of March 31, 2010, had not accrued any
amounts related to litigation involving asbestos, in which the
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) is the plaintiff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification.
The district court issued an order on Nov. 3, 2008 denying AMSF's
motion for class certification. AMSF then appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On Feb. 10, 2010, the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying class
certification. AMSF has the opportunity to request additional
review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the district court entered an order staying
proceedings in that court until May 13, 2010, which is the
deadline for AMSF to seek a writ of certiori in the U.S. Supreme
Court.

Based in Houston, Halliburton Company is an oilfield service
company that serves the upstream oil and gas industry with a
complete range of services, from the location of hydrocarbons to
the production of oil and gas. The Company operates in two
segments: Drilling and Evaluation and Completion and Production.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Provisions Amount to $53Mil at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd's total asbestos-related provisions amounted to US$53
million as of March 31, 2010, the same as for the period ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$53 million as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009,
about US$28 million was under Provisions and other current
liabilities and about US$25 million was under Other non-current
liabilities.

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

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

Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created and
funded to settle future asbestos-related claims against CE and
Lummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channeling
injunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos-
related personal injury claims filed against the Company and its
affiliates and certain other entities that relate to the
operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PI
Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively.

Included in the asbestos provisions are two additional payments
of US$25 million each to the CE Asbestos PI Trust. One additional
payment of US$25 million is payable in 2010 as the Company
attained an earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) margin in
excess of nine percent for 2009. The other payment of US$25
million is payable in 2011 if the Company attains an EBIT margin
of 9.5 percent in 2010.

If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to have
defaulted on its asbestos payment obligations, the CE Asbestos PI
Trust may petition the Bankruptcy Court to terminate the CE
channeling injunction and the protections afforded by that
injunction to the Company and other entities of the Company, as
well as certain other entities, including Alstom SA.

Based in Zurich, Switzerland, ABB Ltd specializes in power and
automation technologies that improve the performance of utility
and industry customers, while lowering environmental impact.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing on Congoleum's Motion Slated for May 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Congoleum Corporation's motion, regarding a
settlement agreement with the Chartis Companies, has been
scheduled for May 10, 2010, according to a Company press release
dated April 22, 2010.

On April 16, 2010, the Company filed a motion seeking the
approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey for a settlement agreement with the Chartis Companies.  

Subject to various requirements set forth in the settlement
agreements and the approval of the District Court, the Chartis
Companies have agreed to pay US$40 million over a period of six
years in exchange for a buyback of certain subject insurance
policies.

The US$40 million will be paid into the trust to be formed under
the Company's pending plan of reorganization for distribution to
asbestos claimants. The settlement is subject to court approval
and other conditions.

Based in Mercerville, N.J., Congoleum Corporation makes flooring
products for residential and commercial use, including resilient
sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl
tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products
through about a dozen distributors in more than 40 North American
locations, as well as directly to large market retailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nationwide Fined GBP4,500 for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Building Contractors Limited, on April 22, 2010, was
fined GBP4,500 at Darlington Magistrates' Court, on refurbishment
work that triggered the temporary closure of country club near
Darlington over fears of exposure to asbestos, according to a
Health and Safety press release dated April 22, 2010.

The Company is registered 1640 Parkway, Solent Business Park,
Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, England.

The Company was found guilty, in its absence, of breaching
Regulations 5, 11 and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006, between Jan. 7, 2008 and March 6, 2008.

The Company had been contracted to refurbish Hall Garth Hotel
Golf and Country Club, at Coatham Mundeville, near Darlington.

When HSE inspectors visited the site, they found that work was
carried out without adequate checks for asbestos or asbestos-
containing materials, and served a Prohibition Notice -
immediately stopping construction work. Further investigations
found large amounts of asbestos pipe lagging in walls and floor
voids where work had been undertaken.

HSE worked with local Environmental Health Officers and the hotel
management to ensure that asbestos fibres had not spread to the
occupied areas of the hotel. The hotel was voluntarily closed
while tests were undertaken. Fortunately the test results in the
public areas were negative.

After the case, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise said, "Construction
and maintenance workers are the most at-risk groups from
asbestos-related diseases due to the nature of their work. The
widespread occurrence of asbestos as a product in buildings
constructed or refurbished prior to 2000, means that inadvertent
disturbance of asbestos-containing materials can be frequent and
regular where asbestos products have not been adequately
identified or managed.

"Nationwide Building Contractors could have prevented this risk
and should have ensured that the asbestos containing materials in
the work areas had been identified and, where necessary, removed
-- then the information passed on to those who were liable to
disturb the fabric of the building."

Nationwide Building Contractors Ltd is now in liquidation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1T Claims Filed v. CertainTeed Corp. in 1Q-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some 1,000 asbestos claims were filed against Compagnie de Saint-
Gobain's subsidiary in the United States, CertainTeed
Corporation, in first-quarter 2010, in line with the number of
claims filed in the three months to March 31, 2009.

Taking into account some 1,000 claims settled during this period
(unchanged from first-quarter 2009), the number of claims
outstanding at March 31, 2010 was virtually the same as at Dec.
31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated April 22,
2010.


Based in Courbevoie, France, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, develops,
manufactures, and distributes products for construction,
transportation, industrial, food storage, and solar energy usage.
The Company operates in five sectors: Construction Products,
Building Distribution, Flat Glass, High-Performance Materials,
and Packaging.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Grace Records $12.5Mil Costs at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s net Chapter 11 and asbestos-related costs
were US$12.5 million during the three months ended March 31,
2010, compared with US$48.3 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated April
22, 2010.

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

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

The committee representing general unsecured creditors and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants and the
Representative for Future Asbestos Property Damage Claimants are
not co-proponents of the Plan.

The Plan is consistent with the terms of the previously announced
settlements of the Company's asbestos personal injury liability
and claims related to its former attic insulation product. The
Plan also requires the establishment of two asbestos trusts under
Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to which all present
and future asbestos-related claims would be channeled.

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

At an omnibus hearing on April 19, 2010, the Bankruptcy Court
indicated that it had the necessary submissions from the parties
to the Chapter 11 cases to issue a confirmation ruling, but did
not state when a confirmation ruling could be expected. The
Company is preparing to consummate the Plan as quickly as
practicable following receipt of a confirmation order from the
Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related contingencies amounted
to US$1.7 billion as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.
The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance amounted to
US$500 million.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR Wins Aussie Court Appeal Over Spin-off Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSR Limited won an appeal against an Australian court ruling that
had blocked plans to spin-off the Company's sugar business,
Bloomberg reports.

The Company is Australia's second largest building products
manufacturer.

The appeal judges considered that an "error" was made in the
initial ruling, according to a decision handed down on April 23,
2010 by the Federal Court in Sydney. The Company's mills produce
45 percent of Australia's raw sugar and account for about four
percent of the international trade.

The lower court ruled on Feb. 3, 2010 that the spin-off and
proposed capital reduction would leave the Company with less
capital to meet asbestos-related liabilities.

On April 1, 2010, China's Bright Food Group Co. raised its offer
for the sugar division to AUD1.75 billion (US$1.6 billion) after
the Sydney-based company's preferred plan to separate the unit
was blocked by the court.

"We welcome today's judgment," CSR spokesman Martin Cole said,
"We welcome today's judgment. We had appealed on the basis that
the first judgment contained errors in law and we welcome the
clarification in today's judgment."

In 1855, the Company was formed and known as the Colonial Sugar
Refining Company before changing its name in 1973 after an
expansion into building materials and resource projects.

The Company's asbestos liabilities are from personal injury
claims related to mining in Australia, and the manufacture and
sale of products containing the material.

A provision of AUD446.8 million had been made as of Sept. 30,
2009 for claims in Australia and the United States, according to
the Company's half-year report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Ruling, Remands Finnell's Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a June 25,
2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Dennis W. Finnell's claims to entitlement to service connection
for gluteal sarcoma and for pulmonary cancer.

The case is styled Dennis W. Finnell, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Frank A. Neberker entered judgment in Case No. 08-2655 on
March 8, 2010.

Mr. Finnell served in the U.S. Navy from June 1974 to June 1978.
Service records show that his military occupational specialty was
that of a shipfitter with training as a hull maintenance
technician.

In his brief, Eric K. Shinseki, conceded that Mr. Finnell was
exposed to radiation, noting that such exposure is demonstrated
in a service personnel record from August and September 1975. Mr.
Finnell filed his original claim for service connection for
gluteal sarcoma in April 2003.

In the August 2003 rating decision denying the claim, the VA
regional office (RO) noted that Mr. Finnell's service records
indicated "the potential for significant contact with asbestos."
The RO acknowledged that, although "[a]sbestos exposure is
recognized to increase the potential for development of certain
respiratory cancers, [VA had not] found any medical information
linking development of liposarcoma (also diagnosed as
myxosarcoma) with such exposure."

In April 2005, the RO denied Mr. Finnell's claim for pulmonary
cancer, finding that that condition had metastasized from his
gluteal sarcoma. Also in that decision, the RO again denied
service connection for Mr. Finnell's gluteal sarcoma.

Mr. Finnell's and Mr. Shinseki's briefs, and a review of the
record on appeal, that part of the Board's June 25, 2008,
decision that denied service connection for a gluteal sarcoma and
for pulmonary cancer was vacated and the matters were remanded
for further adjudication consistent with this decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Molina's Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the May
22, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which ruled
against Mary Lou Molina in an asbestos-related compensation claim
involving veteran Melvin R. Castello.

The case is styled Mary Lou Molina, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Mary J. Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-1612 on
March 11, 2010.

Mr. Castello served in the U.S. Army from August 1961 to August
1963. He died on March 22, 2004. At the time of his death, his
claims for service connection for coronary artery disease,
bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, visual impairment, a low back
disability, and a pulmonary disorder, including as secondary to
exposure to asbestos, were pending on appeal.

On Jan. 22, 2005, Ms. Molina submitted an application for
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits. She also
submitted applications for accrued benefits and burial benefits.
The VA regional office (RO) denied Ms. Molina's claims and she
initiated an appeal.

On May 22, 2008, the Board determined that Ms. Molina failed to
establish entitlement to VA death benefits as the surviving
spouse of Mr. Castello. The Board found that Ms. Molina and Mr.
Castello were not lawfully married, and although living together,
did not hold themselves out as husband and wife.

The Board also concluded that the requirements for service
connection for coronary artery disease, bilateral hearing loss,
tinnitus, visual impairment, a low back disability, and a
pulmonary disorder, including as secondary to exposure to
asbestos, for the purpose of accrued benefits had not been met,
and that Ms. Molina had not established entitlement to VA burial
benefits.

This appeal followed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Beavers Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, upheld
the ruling of the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Tex.,
which granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of several
corporations in an asbestos case styled Gregory A. Beavers, et
al., Appellants v. Aluminum Company of America, et al.,
Appellees.

Judges Nelda V. Rodriguez, Dori Contreras Garza, and Gina M.
Benavides entered judgment in Case No. 13-08-00214-CV on March
11, 2010.

Appellants the case were Gregory A. Beavers; Alfredo A. Aguilar;
Juan R. Curiel; Humberto De La Vina; Lazaro F. Garcia; Consuelo
G. Gutierrez, individually and as representative of the estate of
Alfredo C. Gutierrez; David C. Rodriguez; Gerald D. Sheets;
Samuel S. Steele; and Nabbie Roberts, individually and as
representative of the estate of Raymond J. Roberts.

Appellants filed their fifth amended petition on June 25, 2004,
alleging negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability
claims against 143 defendants, some of which were appellees in
this appeal.

Throughout May and June 2004, appellees filed no-evidence motions
for summary judgment. On June 18, 2004, appellants filed a
collective response attaching evidence as exhibits. In reply,
appellees filed objections to the evidence and motions to strike.
On June 24, 2004, appellants filed a collective response to
appellees' replies.

On June 25, 2004, the trial court heard and considered appellees'
no-evidence motions, appellants' responses, and appellees'
objections and motions to strike appellants' summary judgment
evidence.

On July 15, 2004, the trial court signed and entered a final
judgment sustaining appellees' objections and motions to strike
appellants' responses and exhibits and ordering all of
appellants' summary judgment evidence stricken.

The trial court then granted appellees' no-evidence motions for
summary judgment and rendered judgment that appellants take
nothing from these appellees. Finally, appellants' claims and
causes of action against appellees were severed out and docketed
as a separate action, trial court cause number 04-3820-H.

Appellants appealed from the trial court's judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips Decision in Teruel-Armstrong
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, reversed the
ruling of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which granted summary
judgment in favor of Borg-Warnter Morsetec, Inc., in an asbestos
case styled Viviana Teruel-Armstrong et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc., et al., Defendants and
Respondents.

Judges Joan D. Klein, Patti S. Kitching, and H. Walter Croskey
entered judgment in Case No. B215119 on March 16, 2010.

Viviana Teruel-Armstrong and others appealed summary judgments in
favor of Borg-Warner and Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, in a
wrongful death action arising from exposure to asbestos.

Cristobal Teruel worked as an automobile mechanic in the 1970s
and 1980s, including work at a repair shop owned by Arnold Sutton
from 1976 to 1978. Mr. Teruel was diagnosed with mesothelioma and
died in October 2006 at the age of 74. He was survived by his
wife, Ruth Teruel, and children Viviana Teruel-Armstrong, Mario
Teruel, and Daniela Teruel.

Viviana Teruel-Armstrong, individually and as guardian ad litem
for Ruth Teruel, Mario Teruel, and Daniela Teruel, filed a
complaint against Borg-Warner, Volvo, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors Corporation and others in October 2007. Plaintiffs alleged
15 counts seeking damages for personal injuries and wrongful
death allegedly caused by Cristobal Teruel's exposure to
asbestos.

Borg-Warner filed a summary judgment motion on Nov. 26, 2008,
arguing that in light of the exclusion of plaintiffs' sole
product identification witness, plaintiffs could not prove that
Cristobal Teruel was exposed to any of its products containing
asbestos. Volvo filed a similar motion.

The court entered judgments in favor of those defendants on Jan.
26, 2009 and Feb.3, 2009, respectively. Plaintiffs timely
appealed the judgments.

The judgment was reversed with directions to the trial court to
vacate the order of Nov. 4, 2008, and the orders granting summary
judgment in favor of Borg-Warner and Volvo. Plaintiffs are
entitled to recover their costs on appeal.

Paul & Hanley, Dean A. Hanley, Esq., and Kelly A. McMeekin, Esq.,
represented the Teruels.

Booth, Mitchel & Strange and Christopher C. Lewi, Esq.,
represented Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc.

Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino, Timothy X. Lane, Esq., and
David C. Olson, Esq., represented Volvo Cars of North America,
LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Issues Split Rulings in Kuhlman Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, issued
split rulings in the asbestos case styled Martha Kuhlman,
Individually and as the Special Administrator for the Estate of
Franklin Swindle, Deceased, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc.,
et al., Defendants.

District Judge G. Patrick Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 10-119-GPM on March 9, 2010.

This matter was before the Court on the motion for recusal
brought by Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and the motion for
remand of this case to state court brought by Ms. Kuhlman.

This case, in which Ms. Kuhlman sought damages for the death of
Mr. Swindle, allegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos, was
filed originally in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Ill., and Foster Wheeler removed the
case to this Court.

Foster Wheeler's motion for recusal was denied and Ms. Kuhlman's
motion for remand of this case was granted. This case was
remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit,
Madison County, Ill., for lack of federal subject matter
jurisdiction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. Court Issues Split Ruling in Allen Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, issued split
rulings in the asbestos-related action styled Lorraine Allen,
Executrix of the estate of Donald G. Allen, et al., Plaintiffs v.
General Electric Co., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Christopher F. Droney entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 3:09-cv-372 (CFD) on March 9, 2010.

Lorraine Allen brought this action on behalf of herself and in
her capacity as executrix of the estate of Donald G. Allen
against General Electric Co. (GE), Viad Corp., and Buffalo Pumps,
Inc. in Connecticut Superior Court in January 2009.

Mr. Allen worked for General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat
Division as a sheet metal worker from 1957-1963 and as a
Department Planner from 1963-1992. The complaint alleged that he
developed mesothelioma because he was exposed to asbestos-
containing products made by the defendants during those relevant
time periods.

Mrs. Allen claimed that the defendants violated their duty under
Connecticut law to warn Mr. Allen of the dangers of asbestos
exposure.

On March 6, 2009, Buffalo Pumps filed a notice of removal. Viad
and GE filed motions for joinder in this removal on March 17,
2009 and March 16, 2009, respectively. Mrs. Allen now sought to
remand the case to state court.

The Court found that Buffalo Pumps had met its burden to justify
federal officer removal of this suit from the Connecticut
Superior Court. Accordingly, Mrs. Allen's motion to remand was
denied, and the case will remain in federal court. Both Viad's
motion for joinder and GE's motion for joinder were granted. The
defendants' motions to stay were denied as moot.

Brian P. Kenney, Esq., Christopher Meisenkothen, Esq., of Early,
Ludwick & Sweeney in New Haven, Conn., represented the Allens.

Dan E. Labelle, Esq., Joshua M. Auxier, Esq., of Halloran & Sage
in Westport, Conn., Christopher J. Lynch, Esq., of Leclairryan in
Hartford, Conn., Bryna Rosen Misiura, Esq., Michael D. Simons,
Esq., of Governo Law Firm LLC in Boston, Geoffrey Lane Squitiero,
Esq., of Maher & Murtha in Bridgeport, Conn., represented the
Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $1.049B Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.049 billion as of March 31, 2010, compared
with US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$936 million as of March 31, 2010, compared
with US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Cites $38MM Litigation Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, were US$38 million during the three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$36 million during
the three months ended March 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Cites $829M March 31 NARCO Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded an insurance receivable
corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and
future North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related
asbestos claims of US$829 million as of March 31, 2010 and US$831
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

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

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

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

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan of Reorganization without modification
and approving the 524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor
of NARCO and the Company. In December 2007, certain insurers
filed an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

The Company expects that the stay enjoining litigation against
NARCO and the Company will remain in effect during the pendency
of these proceedings.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009 of
US$1.1 billion.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims have been made. About $100 million of payments due under
these settlements is due upon establishment of the NARCO trust.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records $300M March 31 NARCO Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. says that about US$300 million of
coverage under certain asbestos insurance policies is included in
its North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related insurance
receivable at March 31, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Bondex Increase to 20,900 at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction material business
faced 20,900 unresolved asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2010 and 19,940 unresolved claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, Bendix recorded 644
claims filed and 316 claims resolved and reactivated during the
period. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded
2,697 claims filed and 34,708 claims resolved and reactivated
during the period.

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

From 1981 through March 31, 2010, the Company has resolved about
153,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in
adverse verdicts.

Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal, five
verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claims were
settled and the remaining five have been or will be appealed.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$169 at March 31, 2009
and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2008 are reflected as receivables
in its consolidated balance sheet.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liability at $1.703B at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s liabilities for its Bendix
friction materials business and former unit, North American
Refractories Company (NARCO), were US$1.703 billion during the
three months ended March 31, 2010.

Of the US$1.703 billion, US$575 million related to Bendix and
US$1.128 billion related to NARCO, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on April 23, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's insurance recoveries for Bendix and NARCO were
US$998 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, of
which US$169 million related to Bendix and US$829 million related
to NARCO.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Records $49Mil Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, had reserved US$49 million at March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2010 in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned
by Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company.

The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the
estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters,
which could be material. In the second quarter of 2008,
Generation revised the period through which it estimates that
claims will be presented from 2030 to 2050.

As of March 31, 2010, about US$14 million of the US$49 million
related to 164 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$35 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise
through 2050 based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which
are updated on an annual basis.

Based in Chicago, Exelon Corporation is a utility services
holding company engaged in the generation and energy delivery
businesses. The generation business consists of the electric
generating facilities, the wholesale energy marketing operations
and competitive retail supply operations of Exelon Generation
Company, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Liability at $169MM at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was US$169
million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with
US$210 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 23,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The current portion of the liability was US$13 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$12 million
for the three months ended March 31, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for
asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases, the
claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures.

Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not
specify an amount of alleged damages.

The Company has insurance coverage for a portion of the costs
incurred to resolve asbestos-related claims, and the Company has
recognized an asset for estimated insurance recoveries at March
31, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific
Railroad subsidiary transports coal, chemicals, industrial
products, and other bulk freight over a system of more than
32,000 route miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds of the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Badger Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been
named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

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

Based in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets
products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control
technologies developed both internally and with other technology
companies. Its products are used in a wide variety of
applications, including water, oil and chemicals. Its product
lines fall into two categories: water applications and specialty
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurance Coverage Actions Ongoing v. Travelers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. (TPC), is still involved in asbestos-related
insurance lawsuits that are pending in various courts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This settlement requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC,
subject to a number of significant contingencies. Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements is a final order of
the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and
similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by
prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders).

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

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

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

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

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

On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying
Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of
the order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.
On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.

On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit, requesting further
review of its March 22, 2010 opinion.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court
rulings or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action
cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims. All those
cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.

SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio
state court. Those actions have all been dismissed following
favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides
property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals,
primarily in the United States and in selected international
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Records $74Mil Losses, Expenses Paid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos losses and expenses
paid in the first three months of 2010 were US$74 million,
compared with US$61 million in the same period of 2009, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 23, 2010 with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About 49 percent in the first three months of 2010 (38 percent in
the first three months of 2009) of total net paid losses were
related to policyholders with whom the Company had entered into
settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability.

Net asbestos reserves totaled US$2.684 billion at March 31, 2010,
compared with $2.853 billion at March 31, 2009.

Based in New York, The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides
property and casualty insurance products and services to
businesses, government units, associations and individuals,
primarily in the United States and in selected international
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boggs' Case v. 85 Firms Filed April 12 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Deborah E. Boggs, Administratrix of
the Estate of James A. Boggs, deceased vs. 20th Century Glove
Corporation, Allied Glove Corporation, Anchor Packing Company, et
al. was filed on April 12, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Boggs was a production foreman and plant operator at Conoco
Venco in Moundsville and was diagnosed with asbestosis and lung
cancer.

Mrs. Boggs claims the 85 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Boggs' lung injuries and death. She seeks a jury trial to resolve
all issues in her asbestos-related case.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., and Scott S.
Segal, Esq., represent Mrs. Boggs.

Case No. 10-C-685 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durabla Files for Bankruptcy Due to 108T Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Durabla Manufacturing, a Pennsylvania company that manufactured
sealing products, filed for bankruptcy under the weight of
108,000 asbestos lawsuits, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia, who
responsible for asbestos claims nationwide, was notified on April
12, 2010 of Durabla's bankruptcy.

Asbestos litigation has bankrupted 89 companies in 28 years,
according to the Crowell Moring firm in Washington. Among the
earliest was Johns-Manville in 1982; and among the latest was
General Motors in 2009.

Durabla received its first asbestos claim in 1980, Mark Eckard of
Wilmington wrote for owner David Moser on Jan. 7, 2010.

Primary coverage of US$8.5 million lasted until 2002, Mr. Eckard
wrote, paying 16,017 claims at an average of US$531. Durabla had
closed about 62,000 cases without payment by then, he wrote, but
about 79,000 cases remained open between 2002 and 2009.

Durabla showed a profit in 2002, Mr. Eckard wrote, and retained
earnings of US$1,113,555. The Company showed a profit three of
the next four years, he wrote, but sales did not cover overhead
and Durabla ceased operation in 2007.

The Company has spent cash and marketed securities to wind up its
affairs, defend litigation and protect insurance coverage, Mr.
Eckard wrote. As of last June 30, 2009, he wrote, the Company had
US$318,847 in cash and US$1.5 million in coverage.

Mr. Moser started an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court,
seeking a declaration that he would not have to defend asbestos
suits individually. Mr. Eckard wrote that as Durabla exhausted
coverage in 2008, claimants started suing Mr. Moser and two
companies as alter egos.

Durabla lawyer Chad Toms, Esq., of Wilmington did not submit a
list of creditors to bankruptcy court, instead identifying 20
firms with the most plaintiffs.

Weitz and Luxenberg, of New York, leads the group with 33,649
plaintiffs. Jaques Admiralty Law Firm of Detroit nearly matches
that, with 33,111. Peter Angelos, Esq., and Peter Nicholl, Esq.,
of Baltimore represent about 8,000 and 7,000. Morris, Sakalarios
and Blackwell of Hattiesburg, Miss., represents about 5,000.

About 4,000 suits come from other Mississippi firms: Conway and
Martin of Gulfport; Byrd and Associates of Jackson; Foster Law
Group of Ocean Springs; and Porter and Malouf of Ridgeland.

Brent Coon and Associates of Dallas represents about 3,000, and
so does Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer of New York.

Motley Rice of Mount Pleasant, S.C., did not make the list, but
it entered an appearance in bankruptcy court 15 days after
Durabla filed its petition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Affton High School to Cost $86,281
----------------------------------------------------------------
The abatement of asbestos at the Affton High School in
Washington, Mo., is estimated at US$86,281, the South County
Times reports.

The Affton School Board at its April 2010 meeting chose Spray
Services, a Washington, Mo., contractor, to abate the asbestos
discovered in 2009 when the district took on the US$750,000 task
of replacing the boilers at the 55-year-old Affton High School.

Spray Services, owned and operated by James Bennight, submitted
the low bid of US$86,281. Seven contractors bid on the asbestos
work, with the remaining six bids ranging from US$160,777 to
US$97,287.

Building Committee Chairman Tom Bellavia said work on the project
should begin in May 2010, but he noted "there is a small risk
construction bids for the boiler replacements might exceed
project cost estimates. As a precaution, actual asbestos
abatement and demolition work will not begin until construction
bids have been awarded."

District Business Manager John Brazeal explained the asbestos
work would be included in the overall project, which is to be
funded through a zero-interest loan from the state and possibly
an additional grant from Laclede Gas Company, which offers money
for public projects geared at energy efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Still Faces 8,000 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 8,000 asbestos-related claims during
the three months ended March 31, 2010, the same as for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on April 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company, like many other industrial companies, has been named
as one of hundreds of defendants in lawsuits filed in the U.S. by
persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos. The claimants
allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the Company owns
or formerly owned or from products that it formerly manufactured
for specialized applications.

Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against the
Company have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by the
Company.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$44.9 million at March 31,
2010 (US$45 million at Dec. 31, 2009) and the insurance
receivable related to the liability as well as claims for past
payments was US$24.3 million at March 31, 2010 (US$26.5 million
at Dec. 31, 2009).

Based in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemicals and materials company that sells its products
to diverse major markets for aerospace composites, structural
adhesives, automotive and industrial coatings, chemical
intermediates, electronics, inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. AK Steel Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's subsidiary, AK Steel Corporation
(or its predecessor, Armco Inc.), since 1990, has been named as a
defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, there were about 426 such lawsuits pending
against AK Steel. Most of these lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of people who claim to have been exposed to asbestos while
visiting the premises of a current or former AK Steel facility.

About 40 percent of these premises suits arise out of claims of
exposure at a facility in Houston that has been closed since
1984.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chem. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company, from time to time, is part to, or
targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and proceedings,
including product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent
and intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental,
antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters.

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

Based in Kingsport, Tenn., Eastman Chemical Company produces
chemicals, fibers, and plastics. Among the Company's operating
segments are its CASPI (coatings, adhesives, specialty polymers,
and inks), Specialty Plastics (engineering polymers), and Fibers
(acetate tow and textile fibers) units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. PPG Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., for more than 30 years, continues to face
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
April 26, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


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

The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50 percent
shareholders of PC. The Company has denied responsibility for,
and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC
products.

As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos
claims against it, the Company was one of many defendants in
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims
served on the Company.

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

Based in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. serves customers in
industrial, transportation, consumer products, and construction
markets and aftermarkets. The Company operates in more than 60
countries. Sales in 2009 were US$12.2 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Affirms Remand Motion in Luce Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted
Charles and Jean Luce's motion to remand an asbestos case to
California Superior Court, in which the motion was filed on Feb.
10, 2010.

The case is styled Charles Luce and Jean Luce, Plaintiffs v. A.W
Chesterton Company, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered judgment in Case No. C-
10-0174 MMC on March 16, 2010.

General Electric Company had filed opposition to the remand
motion, in which CBS Corporation had joined. The Luces had filed
a reply. The Court deemed the matter suitable for decision on the
parties' respective written submissions and vacated the hearing
scheduled for March 19, 2010.

In their complaint, the Luces alleged that each plaintiff had
been injured as a result of Mr. Luce's exposure to products
containing asbestos. CBS removed the complaint from state court.

In its Notice of Removal, CBS asserted that its predecessor
Westinghouse Electric Corporation is a "person" who acted under
an officer of the U.S. Navy, in that "Westinghouse acted under
the direction of [the Navy]" when it "construct[ed] its marine
steam turbines for the Navy."

The complaint named over 30 defendants, some of which were sued
in their capacity as successors-in-interest to one or more
entities.

The Luces motion to remand was granted and the complaint was
hereby remanded to the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of San Francisco.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Split Rulings Issued in Johns-Manville Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued split rulings
in a case involving asbestos-related matters, which is part of
John-Manville Corporation's bankruptcy.

Judges Guido Calabresi and Richard C. Wesley entered judgment in
Docket Nos. 06-2103-bk, 06-2118-bk, 06-2186-bk on March 22, 2010.

This was an appeal from a March 28, 2006 order of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, which
affirmed in part and vacated in part an Aug. 17, 2004 order of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York,
which granted Travelers' motions for approval of a settlement
agreement and for entry of a "Clarifying Order."

For almost 30 years, the Johns-Manville Corporation and its
insurers had sought to navigate the monumental liability arising
out of its production of a once-valued substance--asbestos.

The district court's March 28, 2006 order was affirmed as to the
Objecting Plaintiffs and reversed as to Chubb Corporation. The
case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Adamson Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the ruling of a trial
court, which granted summary judgment in favor of six defendant
corporations in an asbestos case styled Adamson v. General
Electric, et al.

Relative to this appeal, the trial court granted summary judgment
to FMC Corporation and five defendants who have manufactured
asbestos-containing products in the past: A. W. Chesterton
Company, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, CBS Corporation (a
successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation), General Electric
Company, and Union Carbide Corporation.

Judges A. Harris Adams, G. Alan Blackburn and Sara L. Doyle
entered judgment in Case No. A09A2302 on March 22, 2010.

John H. Adamson contracted and died from mesothelioma. Prior to
his death, he sued numerous parties allegedly responsible for his
contact with asbestos. After his death, his son John D. Adamson
took over the litigation as the executor of the estate. At issue
in this appeal was whether the trial court properly granted
summary judgment to six of the defendants.

John H. Adamson, who was born on Oct. 25, 1925, worked as an
electrician and an electrical crew supervisor for his entire 35-
plus year career. From the early-1950s to 1967, he spent between
70 and 80 percent of his time at The National Test Reactor
Station in Arco, Idaho known as "The Site" and the rest of the
time at "a few jobs that I had back in around Pocatello and Idaho
in a place called Soda Springs [a Monsanto Phosphate Plant]. I
[also] worked on a phosphate plant [run by FMC Corporation]."

From 1967 through his retirement, John H. Adamson worked as a
supervisor for an electrical contractor named EBASCO Services,
which designed and built electrical power houses. During this
time, he often worked in electric generating facilities. He
stated several times that as a supervisor he did not do any
hands-on work and that he had, at times, hundreds of electricians
working for him. During this time, John H. Adamson worked at many
sites, and in his entire career, he worked at 18 or more job
sites.

In his complaint, John H. Adamson alleged that throughout his
career, he came into contact with "asbestos related materials and
other asbestos containing products mined, manufactured,
processed, imported, converted, compounded, sold or distributed
by" each of 119 named defendants as well as an unknown number of
unidentified defendants.

The trial court had denied summary judgment for some of the
defendants and granted summary judgment for others; some parties
had settled.

Wendell K. Willard, Esq., Robert Cape Buck, Esq., G. Patterson
Keahey, Esq., Gary M. DiMuzio, Esq., and Benjamin Ballenger,
Esq., represented the Adamson estate.

John Durand Dalbey, Esq., Amy Elizabeth Fouts, Esq., Nickolas
P.T. Chilivis, Esq., Erin Elaine Shofner, Esq., Sara Ann Evans,
Esq., Jennifer Maureen Techman, Esq., and Robert A. Barnaby II,
Esq., represented General Electric and other defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Issues Split Ruling in Palmer Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued
split rulings in the asbestos case styled Ronald Palmer and Carol
Palmer, Plaintiffs v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered judgment in Case No. C-
10-0712 MMC on March 18, 2010.

Before the Court was Ronald and Carol Palmer's "Motion to Remand;
for Costs and Fees; [and] for Issuance [of] Order to Show Cause
Re: Sanctions," filed Feb. 26, 2010.

Pneumo Abex LLC and Ford Motor Company had filed separate
oppositions, to which the Palmers had filed a single reply.

In their complaint, initially filed in state court, the Palmers
alleged that each plaintiff had been injured as a result of Mr.
Palmer's exposure to products containing asbestos. The complaint
named over 60 defendants. On Feb. 19, 2010, Abex removed the case
to district court, stating in its Notice of Removal that on Feb.
18, 2010, shortly before a jury trial was set to begin in state
court, plaintiffs, through counsel, informed the state court that
plaintiffs had, in Abex's words, "either dismissed or entered
into binding and enforceable settlement agreements with all
defendants," other than Abex, Ford, Carlisle Corporation, Kelsey-
Hayes Company, and Maremont Corporation (collectively, "Removing
Defendants").

The Palmers' motion for remand and for an award of costs and fees
was hereby granted in part and denied in part.

To the extent the motion sought an order remanding the action,
the motion was hereby granted, and the action was hereby remanded
to the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the
County of San Francisco.

To the extent the motion sought an award of fees and costs, the
motion was hereby denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beard Action Filed v. 25 Firms in Jefferson Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Beard, on behalf of Claris J. Beard Jr., on April 16,
2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 25 defendant
Corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Michael Beard filed the second asbestos lawsuit. Claris J. Beard
Jr. had already settled his claim for a non-malignant asbestos-
related disease, but died of a different malignant disease,
according to the complaint.

Michael Beard claims Claris J. Beard Jr. developed the asbestos-
related disease after working near asbestos-containing products
during his work as an insulator, operator and laborer.

Michael Beard seeks actual and exemplary damages, plus costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest and other relief to which he may
be entitled.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr. Esq., and Aaryn K. Giblin, Esq., of Provost
and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will represent Michael
Beard.

Case No. E186-572 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.

Manufacturer defendants are A.O. Smith Corp., Ametek, Bayer
Cropscience, Certainteed Corp., Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Corp. and Union Carbide Corporation.

Equipment defendants are Babcock Borsig Power, CBS Corp., Cleaver
Brooks, Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., General Electric Corp.,
Goulds Pumps, Henry Vogt Machine Co., Ingersoll-Rand Co. and Zurn
Industries.

Foster Wheeler Corporation is the sole contractor and equipment
defendant while Crane Co. is the only manufacturer and equipment
defendant and Treco Construction Services is the only contractor
defendant. Anco Insulation is the sole distributor defendant.


Premises defendants include Chevron U.S.A., Citgo Petroleum
Corp., Conoco Phillips Co., E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co.,
Entergy Gulf States and Oxy U.S.A.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blake Seeks Help in Payout Case Against Lorival
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Blake, the daughter of Edna White, who died on asbestos-
related lung cancer in Greater Manchester, England, appeals for
any of Mrs. White's former work colleagues to come forward in
Mrs. Blake's claim for asbestos compensation, BBC News reports.

Mrs. White died in May 2009 at the age of 68. She worked at
Lorival Plastics in Bolton in the late 1960s.

Mrs. Blake seeks more information about Mrs. White's time at the
firm as she believes this was where her mother came into contact
with the asbestos fibers.

Lorival Plastics closed a number of years ago, but Mrs. Blake
wants their insurers, Aviva, to admit the firm's liability.

Mrs. White, who was a full-time carer for her husband, went from
having an active and outgoing lifestyle, to gasping for breath
and not being able to feed or dress herself as the disease took
over. She was diagnosed in September 2008.

It is believed asbestos was used in the Lorival factory, which
specialized in injection-molded plastic products, to manufacture
toilet cisterns and Mrs. Blake believes Mrs. White came into
contact with it there.

An Aviva insurance spokesman confirmed the firm was representing
Lorival Plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PATH Worker's Widow Seeking Retrial in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Olson, the widow of Alan Olson, who was a PATH (Port
Authority Trans-Hudson) maintenance worker, seeks a new trial
after a juror admitted to siding with PATH in an asbestos case to
expedite deliberations, The Jersey Journal reports.

A hearing on the motion is slated for April 30, 2010.

Mrs. Olson, of Palisades Park, N.J., seeks US$1.3 million in
damages from PATH, alleging that Mr. Olson's lung cancer was the
result of working with asbestos and inhaling diesel fumes.

Gregory Shaffer, Esq., an attorney with Woodbridge-based Wilentz,
Goldman & Spitzer, representing Mrs. Olson, filed a motion with
Hudson County Superior Court Judge Bernadette DeCastro seeking a
new trial after receiving an e-mail from an unidentified juror on
March 22, 2010.

Mr. Olson worked as a PATH maintenance and sanitation worker in
Hudson and Essex counties from 1986 to 2004, when he died at the
age of 47.

The jury voted 7-1 on March 16, 2010 against Mrs. Olson's claims
under the Federal Employers' Liability Act that the Port
Authority did not provide a safe working environment or properly
warn her husband, who was a smoker, of the increased risk of lung
cancer when exposed to asbestos.

Had the juror who e-mailed Mr. Shaffer not switched sides, a 6-2
vote would have been insufficient for a verdict under state law.

In his brief, Mr. Shaffer did not identify the juror, but cites
the e-mail, in which the juror states, "Everything that was
presented to us, I had in your favor."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Flips $5.6Mil Award in Walton Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California appeals court wiped away Edward and Carol Walton's
US$5.6 million judgment in an asbestos liability case, the
Courthouse News Service reports.

The Waltons won their case for negligence and strict liability
over the William Powell Co. They had contended that Mr. Walton
had contracted lung cancer from asbestos-laden materials
associated with valves that were made by Powell.

Mr. Walton worked with the materials during his service in the
Navy from 1946 to 1968. He spent the next 31 years running a
painting company, during which time he also worked with asbestos-
laden products.

The Waltons sued 46 defendants, but Powell was the one remaining
by the middle of the trial, and the only one ordered to pay the
US$5.6 million judgment.

On appeal, Justice Nora Manella ruled that Powell was not liable
for Mr. Walton's injuries, and overturned the award. She ruled
that Mr. Walton was injured by the asbestos insulation around
Powell's valves, not by the valves themselves.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. AG Indicts Parker Local for Safety Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced on April 15,
2010 that attorneys from the office's Criminal Justice Section
have secured an indictment from the Statewide Grand Jury against
a Parker, Colo., man suspected of contributing to the release of
a hazardous substance by misleading state officials, according to
a Colorado AG press release dated April 15, 2010.

According to the indictment, Michael Merit falsely claimed to be
a certified asbestos inspector between Nov. 1, 2007 and Jan. 30,
2008 in order to obtain work in connection with the demolition of
a mobile home park in Elizabeth, Colo.

Once hired by the demolition company, Mr. Merit is suspected of
performing the wrong tests to determine if asbestos was present
in the mobile homes. Mr. Merit is then suspected of delivering
the improper test results to the demolition company, which used
them to apply for a demolition permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment.

According to the five-count indictment, the demolition company,
the Resource Center, leveled three mobile homes, which resulted
in the airborne release of asbestos. Following a tip, the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment tested
demolition site and determined that asbestos levels at levels
high enough to pose a substantial threat to human health and the
environment.

The Office of the Attorney General investigated the case and
secured the indictment with the assistance of the Colorado
Environmental Crime Task Force, the Air Quality Unit of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Special
Investigations.

Prosecutors from the Office of the Attorney General will present
its case in Elbert County District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sicily Court Rules v. Former Execs on April 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2010, a Sicilian court jailed three former
executives of Fincantieri, a shipbuilding company, for negligent
homicide after 37 workers died from exposure to asbestos, the
ANSA news agency reports.

The report said the sentences ranged from three years to seven
and a half for the three Fincantieri executives, adding that they
were ordered to pay several million euros in damages.

Among the beneficiaries was a national insurer for workplace
accidents that was a civil plaintiff in the case.

Prosecutors said Fincantieri continued using asbestos until 1999,
three years after the hazardous building material was outlawed in
Italy.

The 37 workers died from lung cancer, while another 26 suffered
from asbestos-related diseases resulting from exposure asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windsor Widower Seeks Help in Compensation Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Windsor, the widower of Margaret Windsor, a former factory
worker who was exposed to asbestos, is appealing for Mrs.
Windsor's former colleagues to help in his fight for
compensation, The Sentinel reports.

Mrs. Windsor died at the age of 73 from mesothelioma in April
2009. An inquest resulted in a verdict of industrial disease.

Mr. Windsor believes his wife was exposed while working at
Enderley Mills, Newcastle, England, from 1951 to 1979.

The textile factory has since been demolished, but Mr. Windsor
has instructed law firm Irwin Mitchell to take legal action
against its former owners.

The couple, who were married for more than 50 years, met while
they were working at the factory.

Mr. Windsor, of Clayton, says Mrs. Windsor was mostly employed as
a button holder in a room where asbestos was present in the
pipes, roof and machinery.

Lawyer Iain Shoolbred, who is representing Mrs. Windsor's family,
said, "Every year this disease kills thousands of innocent
victims who were exposed through the air that they breathed while
at work.

"In order to obtain justice for Mr. Windsor and his family, it is
vital to obtain further information about working practices at
Enderley Mills in the 1960s and 1970s."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Quaker Chemical
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was
acquired in 1978 and sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, continues to be a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received. To date, the overwhelming majority of these
claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been
no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US$8.5 million (excluding defense costs).


Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in
certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued
against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the
defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the
subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary.

In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary for US$15
million in late 2005 and US$20 million in the first quarter of
2007.

The payments under the latest settlement and release agreement
were structured to be received over a four-year period with
annual installments of US$5 million, the final installment which
was received in the first quarter of 2010.

The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be
used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the
subsidiary's asbestos litigation. During the third quarter of
2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier
entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which
the carrier will pay 27 percent of defense and indemnity costs
incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with
asbestos bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years
beginning July 1, 2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may
choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding
the application of the policy limits. The Company also said it
believes, that if the coverage issues under the primary policies
with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the
subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary
may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund
established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's
primary insurers.

Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the
assets and coverage available to the subsidiary.

Based in Conshohocken, Pa., Quaker Chemical Corporation provides
process chemicals, chemical specialties, services, and technical
expertise to a wide range of industries-including steel,
automotive, mining, aerospace, tube and pipe, coatings and
construction materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Accrues $2.1M March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at March 31, 2010, had
accrued about US$2.1 million for asbestos-related liability and
related expenses, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had accrued about US$1.9 million
for asbestos-related liability and related expenses. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010)

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

Through March 31, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,900
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,500 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through March 31, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

Based in The Hague, The Netherlands, Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. is an integrated engineering, procurement and
construction (EPC) provider and major process technology
licensor. The Company provides conceptual design, technology,
engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction,
commissioning and associated maintenance services to customers in
the energy and natural resource industries.


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

The plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Company expects to receive complete defense and indemnity
from Murphy Exploration & Production Company under the terms of
the Company's 1992 asset purchase agreement with them.

Based in Houston, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. provides
contract drilling services to the energy industry around the
globe and is a leader in offshore drilling with a fleet of 47
offshore rigs currently consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, 14
jack-ups and one drillship.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 516 Exposure Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation and several of its U.S. subsidiaries, as of
March 31, 2010, are defendants in about 516 asbestos cases,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 27,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, 17 new cases were
filed against the Company and 27 cases were resolved.

Celanese Ltd. and CNA Holdings, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2009, faced
about 526 asbestos cases. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2010)

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

Based in Dallas, Celanese Corporation is a global integrated
chemical and advanced materials company. The Company's business
involves processing chemical raw materials, like methanol, carbon
monoxide and ethylene, and natural products, including wood pulp,
into value-added chemicals, thermoplastic polymers and other
chemical-based products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ladish Facing 14 Claims in 3 States at April 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladish Co., Inc., as of April 27, 2010, has 11 individual claims
pending in Mississippi, two individual claims pending in Illinois
and one individual claim pending in Wisconsin, for a total of 14
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos
cases. The Company has never manufactured or processed asbestos.
The Company's only exposure to asbestos involves products the
Company purchased from third parties.

Based in Cudahy, Wis., Ladish Co., Inc. designs, produces and
markets forged and cast metal components for load-bearing and
fatigue-resisting applications in the jet engine, aerospace and
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4,400 Cases Pending v. Tyco Int'l. at March 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. says that, as of March 26, 2010, there
were about 4,400 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against it and
its subsidiaries, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Each lawsuit typically includes several claims, and the Company
has determined that there were about 5,600 claims outstanding as
of March 26, 2010.

As of Sept. 25, 2009 and Dec. 25, 2009, the Company faced about
4,200 asbestos lawsuits against it and its subsidiaries. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 5, 2010)

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure
to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with
asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-parties.

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

As of March 26, 2010, the Company's estimated net liability of
US$51 million was recorded within the Company's Consolidated
Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future claims and
related defense costs of uS$227 million, and separately as an
asset for insurance recoveries of US$176 million.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 450 Active Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2010, was a
defendant in about 450 active asbestos cases involving about
3,010 plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on April 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active
cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs.

Almost 2,560, or about 85 percent, of these claims are currently
pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive
numbers of plaintiffs.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company recorded 105 claims dismissed,
settled and resolved and 75 new claims. Amounts paid to resolve
claims were US$2 million.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200 claims dismissed,
settled and resolved and 190 new claims. Amounts paid to resolve
claims were US$7 million.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of about 200
plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

Based in Pittsburgh, United States Steel Corporation produces and
sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular
products, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in
North America also include transportation services (railroad and
barge operations), real estate operations and engineering
consulting services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court OKs Summary Judgment in Mertz Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the ruling of the
District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District,
which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in an
asbestos lawsuit filed by Shirley Mertz on behalf of her husband
Allen Mertz.

The judicial panel entered judgment in Case No. 20090031 on March
24, 2010.

Mr. Mertz worked as a pipefitter for more than 30 years, during
which he was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured, sold, or distributed by the Defendants. He was
diagnosed with lung cancer in 1995 and died of the disease in
1996.


Mrs. Mertz alleges that Mr. Mertz's doctors never informed him or
any family member that his lung cancer was related to his
exposure to asbestos. Rather, she alleged that she first learned
of a possible connection with asbestos sometime after 2000, when
a former co-worker of her husband suggested that she "check into"
whether Mr. Mertz's lung cancer was related to his exposure to
asbestos at work.

In 2003, after reviewing the medical records, a doctor provided a
written report indicating Mr. Mertz's exposure to asbestos "was a
significant causative factor in his lung cancer."

Mrs. Mertz brought this survival action on behalf of Mr. Mertz's
estate in 2005, alleging Mr. Mertz's exposure to the Defendants'
asbestos-containing products caused his cancer and death. Several
of the Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending the
action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The district court concluded that, as a matter of law, Mr. Mertz
and his family knew by 1995 that his cancer was related to his
exposure to asbestos and that they were by that time aware of
facts about his asbestos- related disease to put them on notice a
potential claim existed.

The district court therefore concluded the six-year statute of
limitations had expired before this action was commenced in 2005
and ordered summary judgment be entered dismissing Mrs. Mertz's
action as to all Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. District Court OKs Dunkin's Remand Move
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland
Division, granted Patrick and Mary Dunkin's motion to remand an
asbestos-related lawsuit.

The case is styled Patrick Dunkin, et al., Plaintiff v. A.W.
Chesterton Co., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong entered judgment in Case
No. C 10-458 SBA on March 19, 2010.

The Dunkins filed an asbestos personal injury action in state
court against various Defendants. During trial, one of the non-
diverse Defendants informed the trial court that it had reached a
settlement with Plaintiffs.

As a result of that announcement, Defendant Honeywell
International f/k/a AlliedSignal Inc., successor-in-interest to
The Bendix Corporation (Honeywell) removed the action to this
Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Mr. Dunkin is a 63-year old male who is dying from
mesothemelioma. On June 30, 2009, the Dunkins filed a Complaint
for Personal Injury against 33 Defendants in Alameda County
Superior Court.

On Feb. 1, 2010, J.T. Thorpe & Sons, Inc. advised the court that
it had settled with the Dunkins, which then excused Thorpe from
further appearances. The Dunkins did not file a dismissal as to
Thorpe, however.

On Feb. 2, 2010, Honeywell filed a Notice of Removal ostensibly
on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. In the Notice of Removal,
Honeywell alleged that Thorpe was the only remaining non-diverse
Defendant, and that Thorpe's settlement with Mr. Dunkin created
completed diversity because the four remaining, non-settling
Defendants (Dana Companies, LLC; Parker-Hannafin Corporation; and
Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust) were diverse from
Plaintiffs. The Dunkins now moved to remand the action.

It was ordered that the Dunkins's Motion to Remand was granted.
The instant action was remanded forthwith the Alameda County
Superior Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment in Morey Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case styled Norman
Morey, Plaintiff v. Somers Central School District, Joanne
Marien, Superintendent of the Schools, and Kenneth Crowley,
Assistant superintendent for Business, sued in their individual
capacities, Defendants.

District Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered judgment in Case No. 06
Civ. 1877(PGG) on March 19, 2010.

Norman Morey worked as a custodian for the Somers School District
from 1984 until his January 2004 termination. Beginning in
November 1995, and continuing until his termination, he served as
head custodian at the District's High School. During the relevant
time period (May 2003 to January 2004) Defendants Joanne Marien
and Kenneth Crowley served, respectively, as District
Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Business.

During his employment, but before becoming head custodian at the
high school, Morey received district-sponsored training
concerning the handling, inspection, and management of asbestos.

In May 2003, Mr. Morey received a phone call stating that there
was a "mess" in the high school gymnasium that required his
attention. Later that day, Mr. Morey showed Mr. Ness where the
insulation had come loose. He also alleged that he told Mr. Ness
"that the gym should have been closed down until it was
determined [whether the material] was asbestos ... via air
samples or what have you."

During the first week of September 2003, Ms. Marien removed Mr.
Morey from his duties at the high school and instructed him to
remain at home. On Sept. 18, 2003, Mr. Morey and his union
representative met with Defendants Ms. Marien and Mr. Crowley,
and Marien served Morey with disciplinary charges.

It was undisputed that the alleged asbestos incident in the gym
was not discussed at the meeting or addressed in the disciplinary
charges. These charges were later rescinded because the Board of
Education had not yet approved them.

On Oct. 8, 2003, Mr. Morey was suspended and re-served with
disciplinary charges.

Mr. Morey filed this Section 1983 action on March 9, 2006. On
June 12, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Judge Conner
denied the motion in an opinion dated March 21, 2007.

Judge Conner held that collateral estoppels based on the Section
75 and Article 78 proceedings did not bar Mr. Morey's First
Amendment retaliation claim, that Mr. Morey's statements
regarding possible asbestos in the high school are
constitutionally protected because they involve a matter of
public concern, and that the Complaint alleged sufficient facts
to demonstrate a causal connection between the protected speech
and his termination.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Lawsuits Filed During March 22-26 in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of March 22, 2010 through March 26, 2010, a total
of 17 asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-335) Boris Belenky of Michigan, a plumber
   from, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., and Sean M.
   Keene, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Belenky.

-- (Case No. 10-L-328) Ruby K. Bivens claims her deceased
   husband, Donald A. Bivens, developed lung cancer after his
   work as a boiler operator for Federal Paper Board and for
   Caterpillar. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Bivens.

-- (Case No. 10-L-334) Anthony and Rochelle M. Contreras claim
   Mr. Contreras developed lung cancer after his work as a
   taper, sander and drywall installer. Richard L. Saville Jr.,
   Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in
   Alton, Ill., will represent the Contreras couple.

-- (Case No. 10-L-331) Sammy Corbin of Texas, who is a weigh
   clerk, order clerk and laborer, and a roofer, claims lung
   cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Corbin.

-- (Case No. 10-L-346) Ronald and Penny Defelippo of Wisconsin
   claim Mr. Defelippo developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a member of the U.S. Navy, as a general laborer on
   construction sites, as a letter carrier at the U.S. Postal
   Service, as a computer programmer/analyst, as a computer
   programmer and analyst and as a consultant. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Defelippos.

-- (Case No. 10-L-338) David S. and Faye V. Foster claim Mr.
   Foster developed mesothelioma after his work as an
   electrician in the International Brotherhood of Electrical
   Workers; as an attendant and mechanic at Detroit Beach
   Sunoco, Dodes Mobil and Gordon and Lee service stations; as
   an electrician in the IBEW No. 8; and as a self-employed real
   estate agent. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., W. Mark Lanier, Esq.,
   Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T.
   Richard, Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., and Lauren H. Ware,
   Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston, will represent the
   Fosters.

-- (Case No. 10-L-343) Michael Gross of Pennsylvania, a laborer,
   heavy equipment operator, utility mechanic and fire equipment
   inspector, claims mesothelioma. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq.,
   Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and D. Todd Matthews, Esq., of Saville
   and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Gross.

-- (Case No. 10-L-330) Christina Jackson of California claims
   her deceased father, John O'Brien, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as an electrician. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent
   Mrs. Jackson.

-- (Case No. 10-L-339) Karen Lamke of Illinois claims the
   deceased Gretchen Lamke developed mesothelioma after she was
   secondarily exposed to asbestos through her father, who
   worked as a press operator and mechanic. T. Barton French
   Jr., Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis, will represent
   Ms. Lamke.

-- (Case No. 10-L-324) Karen Lamke as next friend of minor James
   Tolley claims the recently deceased Gretchen Lamke developed
   mesothelioma after she was secondarily exposed to asbestos
   fibers through her father, Jim Lamke, who worked as a press
   operator and mechanic. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Nate
   Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis will represent
   Ms. Lamke.

-- (Case No. 10-L-336) Abundio and Celeste Luna of Texas claim
   Mr. Luna developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   sandblaster, as a truck unloader, as a railroad worker, as an
   operator and laborer, as a concrete worker, as a heavy
   equipment operator, as a painter and laborer, as a laborer
   and operator at an asphalt plant, as an assistant supervisor
   performing building and road construction, as a truck driver
   and as a maintenance worker. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and
   Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and
   Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Lunas.

-- (Case No. 10-L-327) Monica Meyer of Oklahoma claims her
   deceased father, Michael L. Thomas, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a carpenter for Hough Drywall, as a
   carpenter for the Indiana Housing Authority, as a carpenter
   for Hough Drywall and as a worker for Gibson and Lewis.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mrs. Meyer.

-- (Case No. 10-L-333) Johnie Morrow of California, a laborer at
   Hud-Vice Papermill, an attendant at a service station, a
   welder, a stock control clerk, a laborer and shipping clerk,
   a truck driver, a supervisor, a fork lift operator and a
   shadetree mechanic, claims mesothelioma. Randy L. Gori, Esq.,
   of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Morrow.

-- (Case No. 10-L-342) Shirley D. Nall of Washington claims her
   deceased husband, Alvin W. Nall, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a member of the U.S. Navy and as an electrician,
   laborer, driver, installer and operator. Richard L. Saville
   Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Joseph P. Whyte, Esq.,
   of Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Nall.

-- (Case No. 10-L-344) James L. and Kathleen Smith of Tennessee
   claim Mr. Smith developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   gas attendant at Martin Oil, as a laborer in the
   warehouse/supply division of International Harvester, as a
   file clerk/contract purchaser at International Harvester, as
   a bus driver at Pace Bus Co. and as a laborer at a sewage
   treatment plant. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq.,
   of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Smiths.

-- (Case No. 10-L-337) Paul Theisen of Wisconsin, a mechanic and
   a pipefitter, claims mesothelioma. Andrew O'Brien, Esq.,
   Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
   Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
   Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will represent Paul
   Theisen.

-- (Case No. 10-L-347) Mark and Sue Wiese of Michigan claim Mr.
   Wiese developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer at
   Jahr Roofing; as a pipefitter at DeFoe Ship Building; as a
   teamster at the Teamsters' Union; as a boiler inspector; as a
   construction worker at Ewald Boiler; and as a floor
   installer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent the Wieses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lowes Action v. James Hardie Filed in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Lowes, a 40-year-old man from Perth, Australia, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against James Hardie Industries N.V.,
according to the Law Offices of Gregg J. Borri.

Mr. Lowes was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He seeks just
compensation for the hardships brought on by his illness.

Mr. Lowes claimed that he contracted the disease as a result of
being exposed to asbestos at a very young age, while visiting the
Castledare Miniature Railway in Wilson, Western Australia, during
his childhood.

As reported by the media, land near the railways was used as a
dumping site for asbestos tailings from the Hardie factories
during the 1960s. They did not allow the toxic waste to be dumped
near their own factories, rather, they carelessly dumped it on
land near an orphanage.

Mr. Lowes was exposed to the deadly asbestos fibers when his
parents took him to play at that orphanage.

According to Mr. Lowes' legal representative Michael Joseph,
Hardie was well acquainted with the health hazards associated
with asbestos exposure and yet continued to recklessly dump the
toxic waste. Mr. Joseph asserted that the Company had remained
unsuccessful in its duty to care and he "couldn't imagine a more
tragic case" as regards his client.

Although he has been living with a lot of pain since 2006, Mr.
Lowes was only properly diagnosed in March 2009. He was reported
to have undergone a radical surgery to remove asbestos-affected
organs. He was forced to step down from his post at work after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr. Lowes has sought record damages from the Company for exposing
him to the toxic mineral, asbestos. Damages have been claimed
taking into consideration the pain of being diagnosed with such a
serious health ailment at a relatively young age and of being
rendered unable to work.

Mr. Lowes' lawyer said that the case was a little different from
other cases related to asbestos exposure as Mr. Lowes was exposed
to asbestos fibers in his early childhood.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $899Mil for Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$899
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$796 million as of
March 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated April
27, 2010.

The Company's noncurrent asbestos litigation reserve was US$906
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$807 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2010)

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$478
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$440 million as of
March 31, 2009.

The Company's noncurrent asbestos insurance receivable was US$484
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$447 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2010)

Based in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical
products, services and solutions for many of the world's most
essential industries. The Company operates through five
commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland
Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials,
Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP2Mil Awarded to Victims of Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNISON revealed that nearly GBP2 million has been awarded to
members who have suffered from deadly asbestos-related diseases
in 2009 alone, according to a UNISON press release dated April
27, 2010.

The figure, released on International Workers Memorial Day (April
28, 2010), highlights the risk that many workers face just doing
their day-to-day jobs.

General Secretary, Dave Prentis, will join public sector staff
across the United Kingdom in a minute's silence at midday, to
remember colleagues who have become victims of asbestos and other
work-related diseases or those killed or injured in the
workplace.

The United Kingdom's largest public sector union has fought for
justice for thousands of workers, who have been put in danger by
their employers, including staff who had suffered permanent
injuries as a result of violence while on duty.

In the case of asbestos, many generations of workers have been
exposed to it in oil refineries, hospitals, chemical plants,
schools, building sites, shipyards, factories, building sites and
while taking their lunch in canteens.

Dave Prentis said, "Health and safety has barely been mentioned
during the election campaign, but we want to see preventable
accidents becoming a priority. Tighter regulations and more
inspections - which have declined dramatically - would help
tackle the problem.

"It is shocking that so many workers have died, or been seriously
injured, because employers have failed to take the necessary
steps to protect them. Too many employers put short-cuts before
the safety of their staff and many workers still suffer in
silence, losing their physical and mental health before
management are forced to take action."

Regional breakdown for the compensation awarded for UNISON
members suffering from asbestos related diseases, like
mesothelioma, asbestosis and pleural thickening, in the last
year:

-- Eastern (GBP255,961.82)

-- East Midlands (GBP140,949)

-- Greater London (GBP106,013.50)

-- Northern, Northeast and Cumbria (GBP394,761.10)

-- South West (GBP108,000)

-- Wales (GBP85,000)

-- West Midlands (GBP140,078)

-- Yorkshire and Humber (GBP599,868.17)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Actions Filed March 29 to April 2 in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of March 29, 2010 through April 2, 2010, a total
of 17 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-367) Orlene Dicks of Florida claims her
   deceased husband, Emory Lee Dicks, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a boatswain's mate and truck driver. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mrs. Dicks.

-- (Case No. 10-L-352) Mildred Dubois of Pennsylvania, an
   assembly worker, laborer, waitress and secretary, claims
   mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Dubois.

-- (Case No. 10-L-373) Robert Franke of Texas, a pipe fitter,
   claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Franke.

-- (Case No. 10-L-354) Billy R. and Edwina C. Hadley of Arizona
   claim Mr. Hadley developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   pipefitter. Ross D. Stomel, Esq., of Shrader and Associates
   in Houston, will represent the Hadleys.

-- (Case No. 10-L-369) James Hall of Tennessee claims his
   deceased wife, Ina Hall, developed mesothelioma after her
   work as a secretary and taster. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Hall.

-- (Case No. 10-L-351) William Harris of Illinois, a machine
   operator and janitor, claims mesothelioma. W. Brent Copple,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Harris.

-- (Case No. 10-L-341) Mary Rita Herzog of Wisconsin claims her
   deceased father, Donald Lettenberger, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as an insulator and as a salesman. Andrew
   O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
   Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J.
   FitzGerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will
   represent Mrs. Herzog.

-- (Case No. 10-L-355) Teresa Montesano of California claims her
   deceased husband, Ronney Montesano, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a member of the U.S. Navy, as a mill work
   performer and as a worker at Gray's Harbor, as an insulator,
   as a home remodeler and as an automotive repair worker. Randy
   L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs.
   Montesano.

-- (Case No. 10-L-368) Marie Odom of Georgia claims her deceased
   husband, Bobby Odom, developed lung cancer after his work as
   an electrician. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Odom.

-- (Case No. 10-L-353) Lawrence Pool III of Minnesota claims his
   deceased father, Lawrence Pool II, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a bricklayer and metallurgist. G. Michael
   Stewart, Esq., and Jill Price, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Pool.

-- (Case No. 10-L-361) Carol Scott of Missouri claims her
   deceased husband, Robert Scott, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a sales clerk at J.B. Russell Lumber Co., as a
   factory worker at Lyons Die Casting, performing various jobs
   at Armco Steel, as an employee at McDonald's, as a mechanic
   operator/laborer/torch man/crane operator, as a small engine
   mechanic at Feldman Brothers, as a general manager at Feldman
   Brothers, as a project manager at Pre-Fabricated Steel/Kan
   Build, as a store manager at Orscheln Farm and Home, as a
   department manager at Lowe's Home Improvement and as a truck
   driver for the Department of Transportation. Randy L. Gori,
   Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Scott.

-- (Case No. 10-L-372) Darmel Shaffer of British Columbia, an
   insulator, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Shaffer.

-- (Case No. 10-L-360) Jess Solomon of Colorado, a carpenter,
   concrete worker and farmer, claims lung cancer. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
   in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Solomon.

-- (Case No. 10-L-357) Edward Uriano of Connecticut, who worked
   as a laborer and construction worker, claims mesothelioma.
   Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of
   Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Uriano.

-- (Case No. 10-L-375) Bonnie Voseberg of Iowa claims her
   deceased husband, Richard Voseberg, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a dryer operator. Robert Phillips, Esq.,
   and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent
   Mrs. Voseberg.

-- (Case No. 10-L-348) William and Kimberly Webb of Washington
   claim Mr. Webb developed mesothelioma after his work as an
   inspector, laborer, tech support engineer/electronics
   technician and radio and electronics installer. Timothy F.
   Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent the Webbs.

-- (Case No. 10-L-362) Roberta Wright of Virginia claims the
   deceased William Anderson Sr. developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a laborer, driver and operator. Richard L.
   Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and Joseph P. Whyte,
   Esq., of Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Wright.

                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy 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  * * *