CAR_Public/100507.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 7, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 89

                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Schumacher" Lawsuit
AK STEEL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over Pension Plan
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit by Steel Purchasers in Ill.
AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Health Benefits
BLAIR LLC: Recalls 5,600 Roman Shades

BP PLC: Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group Files Suit in E.D. La.
C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical's Appeal of Junked Suit Pending
C.R. BARD: Not Liable for Hernia Product Claims
CANADA: Sued for Illegally Selling 30% of Chinook Salmon Stocks
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE: Police Dept. Accused of Unlawful Seizures

IOWA TELECOMMS: Inks MOU to Settle Suits Over Windstream Merger
JACK IN THE BOX: Sued for Not Paying All Wages Due
JD FINE & COMPANY: Recalls 1,700 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
KAISER FOUNDATION: Accused of Inflating COBRA Insurance Premiums
MOBIL OIL: Environmental Class Action Filed in N.M.I.

PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
PPG INDUSTRIES: Remains a Defendant in Penn. Antitrust Suit
QUALITY CRAB: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
RADIOSHACK CORP: Calif. App. Ct. Denies Stay in "Brookler" Suit
RADIOSHACK CORP: N.D. Calif. Preliminarily Approves Settlement

REMEC INC: S.D. Calif. Dismissed Securities Suit
SUPERVALU INC: RICO Violations Suit in Wisconsin Remains Stayed
SUPERVALU INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over C&S Transaction
SUPERVALU INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: GRL Properties Fined for Safety Breach in Mich.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chem. Records $727M Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Records $34M Payment at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Records $52Mil Credit at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford's Net Liability at $1.822B at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Facing Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.16B for Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records 90,500 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Records $9.3MM for Cleanup at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Cites $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds American Units Stayed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Cites $72MM Paid Loss, LAE at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Co. Disputing Aqua-Chem, Inc. Demands
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 6,700 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural, Units Still Face Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.6M CAROs at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Involved in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Inc. Faces 11.2T Cases at March 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Facing 23T Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Case v. BorgWarner Pending in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has 32,000 Open Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,794 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Still Subject to Occupational Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Reverses Ruling in Avondale's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Affirms Ruling in NVF Inc.'s Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Mass. Residents Plead Guilty to Violating CAA

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. AG Inks Deal w/ 3 Firms on Air Law Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CertainTeed, LADWP Liable in Evans Injury Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardick Widow Awarded $6Mil in Asbestos Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lofton Awarded $15Mil in Case V. ConocoPhillips
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spokane Airport Penalized for Safety Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Port Clinton Building Costs $42,800
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Court Junks Appeal Over Northshore Mining
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kautz Case v. 40 Firms Filed April 16 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dowdy Case v. 65 Firms Filed April 16 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitts Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 16 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26 New Actions Filed During April 5 - 9 in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Church Fined $12,158 For Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompson Case v. CSX Filed on April 9 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kunkel Case v. 89 Firms Filed April 8 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moseley Archaeologist's Death Linked to Hazard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kugler Claim v. Chevron Filed April 22 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Records $20.58MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $3.8M April 2 Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $24.47Mil March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Cites $338.2M March 31 Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Records $179.3M March 31 Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Inc. Records $778.1MM March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Abex Claims Drop to 17,491 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Facing 27 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 550 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 989 Actions Pending v. TriMas Corp. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crum & Forster Records $260Mil Net Losses, ALAE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Faces 10,300 Cases (38,800 Claims)
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aaron Action Still Ongoing v. Hercules Offshore
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing Against Caterpillar Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Choiniere's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

                            *********

AK STEEL: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Schumacher" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
denied AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan
(AK RAPP) and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee's motion to dismiss a purported class
action filed by William Schumacher, according to the company's
April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Oct. 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK RAPP and AK BPAC in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.

The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to
him and the other class members.

Plaintiff and the other purportedly similarly situated
individuals on whose behalf plaintiff filed suit were excluded by
the Court in 2005 from the suit filed by John D. West, a former
employee of AK Steel Holding Corp., based on previous releases of
claims they had executed in favor of the company.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint based upon a statute of limitations ground.

That motion was denied on March 8, 2010, and defendants filed
their answer to the complaint on March 22, 2010.  No trial date
has yet been set.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over Pension Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corp.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, continues to defend a class action relating to the
benefits of its pension plan.

On Oct. 20, 2005, two individuals filed a purported class action
against AK Steel and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:05-cv-681.

The complaint alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated
the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the
plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan.  On Dec. 19, 2005,
the defendants filed their answer to the complaint.

The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment
on the issue of whether the applicable plan language had been
properly interpreted.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to
the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied.

The defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Report
and Recommendation.  On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order
adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial
summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan
interpretation.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the
Court on October 27, 2008.

The case is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of
damages.  No trial date has been set.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit by Steel Purchasers in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corp., along with other steel manufacturers,
continue to defend purported class actions filed by companies who
purchased steel products.

In September and October, 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding.

The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371,
08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197.

The plaintiffs are companies which claim to have purchased steel
products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the
defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or
pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at
any time from at least as early as January 2005 to the present.

The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and
maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products
in the United States.

On Jan. 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints.

On June 12, 2009, the court issued an Order denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

Discovery has recently commenced.  No trial date has been set.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Health Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corporation continues to defend a purported class action
alleging that AK Steel did not have a right to make changes to
their healthcare benefits.

AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
AK Steel Holding Corp.

On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco
Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel did not have a right
to make changes to their healthcare benefits.

On June 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action seek, among other
things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of
a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding
certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK
Steel with its unions.  The proposed class the plaintiffs seek to
represent would consist of all union-represented retirees of AK
Steel other than those retirees who were included in the class
covered by the Middletown Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits
Litigation.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint and filed a motion for summary judgment which, if
granted in full, would end the litigation.  On Sept. 14, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and
responded to defendant's motion.

On Oct. 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2010
changes to retiree healthcare from taking effect.  On Nov. 25,
2009, AK Steel filed its opposition to the motion for a
preliminary injunction, opposition to plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment, and reply in support of its motion for
summary judgment.

A hearing on the pending motions was held on Dec. 8, 2009.

During the course of the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel notified
the court that the pending motion for a preliminary injunction
was limited to retirees from the company's Butler Works in
Butler, Pennsylvania.

On Jan. 29, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order
granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and
barring the Company from effecting any further benefit reductions
or new healthcare charges for Butler Works retirees until final
judgment in the case.

On Feb. 2, 2010, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal of the
decision to grant the preliminary injunction.  That appeal
remains pending.

Discovery in the underlying case has commenced, but no trial date
has yet been set.

If AK Steel is unable to obtain a reversal of the decision to
impose the preliminary injunction, either in connection with the
final judgment by the trial court or through appeal, then the
negotiated changes to retiree healthcare for the company's Butler
Works retirees would be rescinded and the company's other
postretirement benefit obligation would increase by approximately
$125.0 million based upon current valuation assumptions.  This
amount reflects the current value of the estimated amount of the
additional healthcare costs the company will amortize and pay out
with respect to the Butler retirees over the course of their
remaining lives.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

AK Steel Holding Corporation -- http://www.aksteel.com/-- is a  
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels,
and tubular products through its wholly owned subsidiary, AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel).  The company's operations consist
of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana,
Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon
steels, including coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products,
and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in
hot band, and sheet and strip form.  The company's operations
also include AK Tube LLC (AK Tube), which finishes flat-rolled
carbon and stainless steel at two tube plants, one located in
Ohio and one located in Indiana, into welded steel tubing used in
the automotive, large truck and construction markets.  In
addition, the company's operations include European trading
companies that buy and sell steel and steel products and other
materials.


BLAIR LLC: Recalls 5,600 Roman Shades
-------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Blair LLC, of Warren, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about
5,600 Roman Shades.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her neck between
the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside of the
blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it around
his/her neck.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves three styles of Roman shades; standard,
tasseled and Duppioni.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10217.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and China and
sold through Blair and other retail stores in Warren and Grove
City, Pa., Blair catalogs and www.blair.com between April 2007
and January 2010 for between $15 and $65.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and
contact the Window Covering Safety Council for a free repair kit.
Consumers can call (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit the Council's
Web site at http://www.windowcovering.org/ For more information,  
contact Blair toll-free at (877) 392-7095 between 9:00 a.m. and
9:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Saturday, or visit the
firm's website at http://www.blair.com/ Consumers can also  
contact the firm by email at blairproductrecall@blair.com


BP PLC: Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group Files Suit in E.D. La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group announces that Louisiana
shrimpers, fishermen, charter boat captains, and seafood
processing companies today filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of themselves and other Louisiana residents and businesses that
have suffered economic losses caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil
disaster. Defendants named in the complaint include BP, PLC, and
BP America, Inc., which owns the oil well, Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., which leases the Deepwater Horizon oil
rig to BP, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., which was engaged
in cementing operations at the well, and Cameron International
Corporation, which supplied the blowout preventer valves for the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig that have failed to activate.

"We hope the leak is stopped promptly. However, the wellhead has
not been capped and oil continues to flow unabated into the Gulf
waters," stated Randall A. Smith of Smith & Fawer, L.L.C.,
located in New Orleans, Louisiana. "This unprecedented economic
and ecological disaster, the complaint charges, was the result of
negligence by BP and the other corporations involved in drilling
at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. They failed to take appropriate
measures to prevent damage to the Gulf Coast's marine and coastal
environments."

"As the oil continues to make landfall along the Gulf Coast, it
will cause severe damage to the delicate wetlands and intertidal
zones that line the coast of Louisiana, destroying the habitats
where fish, shellfish, and crustaceans breed, spawn, and mature,"
commented Dawn M. Barrios of the New Orleans, Louisiana law firm
of Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, LLP. "The oil spill and
resulting contamination threatens the livelihoods of thousands of
individuals and businesses who cannot use the Gulf of Mexico and
Louisiana's shore to work and to earn a living."

The complaint, entitled T&D Fishery, LLC, et al. v. BP, PLC, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans, Louisiana.  A copy
of the complaint is available at:

   http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/pdf/20100504-la-complaint.pdf

                   Legal Resources For Victims of
                 the Deepwater Horizon Oil Disaster

The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster poses a severe threat to the
economic welfare of the Gulf Coast, including:

    -- companies and individuals involved in the commercial
       fishing, oyster and shrimping industries;

    -- companies and individuals involved in the wholesale
       seafood processing and packaging industry;

    -- dock and marina owners and operators;

    -- commercial and private boat owners;

    -- restaurants;

    -- property owners and developers; and

    -- city, parish, and state public agencies and governments.

The lawyers of Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group possess the
expertise and financial resources to investigate the case
thoroughly and hold BP and the other defendants accountable for
this horrible disaster.

If you have been adversely impacted by the oil spill, please
visit http://www.gulfoilspilllitigationgroup.com/to learn more  
about your legal rights and to submit a complaint.  A lawyer from
the Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group will review your claim
without charge or obligation.

             About the Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group

The Gulf Oil Spill Litigation Group consists of prominent lawyers
from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee with
extensive experience in environmental contamination litigation,
including cases arising out of Hurricane Katrina and the TVA coal
ash sludge disaster. Members of the litigation group have
successfully prosecuted cases against many of the world's most
powerful corporations.

Adding to the resources of these lawyers is the national
plaintiffs law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
with offices in Nashville, New York, and San Francisco. The
National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser for the past
seven consecutive years as one of the nation's top plaintiffs law
firms.  Lieff Cabraser has played a significant role in achieving
settlements and verdicts valued at more than $62 billion,
including against Exxon on behalf of thousands of fisherman,
landowners, and others whose livelihoods were gravely harmed by
the Exxon Valdez oil disaster.

The lawyers representing the Plaintiffs in T&D Fishery, LLC, et
al. v. BP, PLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01332 (E.D. La.), are:

          Randall A. Smith, Esq.
          Zach Butterworth, Esq,
          J. Geoffrey Ormsby, Esq.
          Hiawatha Northington, II, Esq.
          SMITH & FAWER, L.L.C.
          201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: 504-525-2200

               - and -  

          Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
          Bruce S. Kingsdorf, Esq.
          Zachary L. Wool, Esq.
          BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
          701 Poydras St., Suite 3650
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: 504-524-3300

               - and -  

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          David McMullan, Esq.
          Brian Herrington, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 987
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: 662-834-9168

               - and -  

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT
          P.O. Box 339
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: 662-834-4960

               - and -  

          Zach Butterworth, Esq.
          Gary Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
          HESSE & BUTTERWORTH, PLLC
          841 Highway 90
          Bay St. Louis, MS 39520
          Telephone: 228-466-0020

               - and -  

          Larry D. Moffett, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          265 North Lamar Blvd., Suite R
          P.O. Box 1396
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: 662-232-8979

               - and -  

          Edward C. Taylor, Esq.
          Brenda G. Long, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          1712 15th St., Suite 400
          P.O. Box 416
          Gulfport, MS 39502
          Telephone: 228-864-8117

               - and -  

          Dewitt M. "Sparky" Lovelace, Esq.
          Alex Peet, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          12870 U.S. Highway 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: 850-837-6020

               - and -  

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: 615-515-3393

               - and -  

          Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          150 Fourth Avenue N., Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: 615-313-9000

               - and -  

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: 212-355-9500

               - and -  

          Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St., 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-956-1000


C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical's Appeal of Junked Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of St. Francis Medical Center on the dismissal of the
class action lawsuit against C. R. Bard, Inc., remains pending.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.

The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis Medical Center
as an additional named plaintiff.

The action was re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v.
C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a
class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit.

In September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for
class certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages.  St. Francis alleges that the company
conspired to exclude competitors from the urological catheter
market and that the company sought to maintain market share by
engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust
laws.  St. Francis seeks injunctive relief and has presented an
expert report that calculates damages of up to approximately $320
million, a figure that the company believes is unsupported by the
facts.

The company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.

In September 2009, the District Court granted Bard's summary
judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts in this
action.

St. Francis has appealed the court's decision to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in  
Murray Hill, NJ, is a leading multinational developer,
manufacturer and marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical
technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology and
surgical specialty products.


C.R. BARD: Not Liable for Hernia Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------
The first Multidistrict Litigation trial involving Hernia Product
Claims against C. R. Bard, Inc., has resulted in a judgment that
the company was not liable for the plaintiff's damages, according
to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

As of April 22, 2010, approximately 1,595 federal and 1,505 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,210
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States and three putative class actions in various Canadian
provinces, have been filed or asserted against the company with
respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia
repair implant products (Hernia Product Claims).

One of the U.S. class action lawsuits consolidates nine
previously-filed U.S. class action lawsuits.

The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,
seek:

     (i) medical monitoring,
    (ii) compensatory damages,
   (iii) punitive damages,
    (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation and/or
     (v) attorneys' fees.

The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products.

The company and certain plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal
of approximately 330 lawsuits in the Superior Court of the State
of Rhode Island.  The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes
and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) product beginning in
December 2005.

On June 22, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits pending in federal
courts nationwide into one Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island.  The MDL court subsequently
determined to include other hernia repair products in the MDL
proceeding.

Approximately 1,475 of the state lawsuits, involving individual
claims by a substantially equivalent number of plaintiffs, are
pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with
the remainder in various other jurisdictions.

The company completed its first MDL trial in April 2010 which
resulted in a judgment that the company was not liable for the
plaintiff's damages.  The plaintiff has the right to appeal this
judgment.

The company expects additional trials of a limited number of the
Hernia Product Claims to take place during the remainder of 2010.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in  
Murray Hill, NJ, is a leading multinational developer,
manufacturer and marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical
technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology and
surgical specialty products.


CANADA: Sued for Illegally Selling 30% of Chinook Salmon Stocks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that the Canadian
government illegally sold off 30 percent of publicly owned
Chinook salmon stocks to the United States, fishermen who troll
the coast of British Columbia say in a federal class action.

The West Coast Trollers Association and members Doug Kimoto and
Vic Amos sued Her Majesty the Queen for reducing the total
allowable catch of Chinook by 30 percent for 10 years, starting
in the 2008-2009 season.

The fishermen say government sold the salmon for about $35
million, but refuses to pay the money to class members who were
harmed by the sale.

"(A)ll the communities and people whose livelihood depends on the
West Coast salmon troll fishery have suffered and will suffer a
loss far in excess," of $35 million, the complaint states.

"The defendant's said acts have imperiled the viability of the
West Coast salmon troll fishery and all the communities, peoples
and industries dependant on that fishery."

The class seeks damages, a restraining order and injunction.

A copy of the Complaint in Kimoto, et al. v. Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Canada, Case No. T657-10 (Canada Fed. Ct.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/BCSalmon.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Harvey, Esq.
          MACKENZIE FUJISAWA LLP
          1600-1095 West Pender St.
          Vancouver, BC V6E 2M6
          Telephone: 604-689-3281


CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE: Police Dept. Accused of Unlawful Seizures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Albuquerque and its police
chief arrest and use Mace and excessive force against middle-
school students for minor misbehavior, a class action claims in
Bernalillo County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in M.T. v. The City of Albuquerque, et
al., Case No. CV201005452 (N.M. Dist. Ct., Bernalillo Cty.)
(Nash, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/CivRts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq.
          Shannon Kennedy, Esq.
          THE KENNEDY LAW FIRM
          1000 Second St. NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102


IOWA TELECOMMS: Inks MOU to Settle Suits Over Windstream Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., has entered into a
memorandum of understanding in order to resolve suits filed in
connection with its planned merger with Windstream Corporation,
according to the company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

                  Jasper County Actions

On November 24, 2009, a purported shareholder of Iowa Telecom
filed a petition styled as a class action lawsuit in the Iowa
District Court for Jasper County.

The case is captioned Stephen Smigel on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Iowa Telecommunications Services,
Inc., Alan L. Wells, Kenneth R. Cole, Norman C. Frost, Brian G.
Hart, H. Lynn Horak, Craig A. Lang, Kendrik A. Packer and
Windstream Corporation.

The petition alleges that Iowa Telecom's board members breached
their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger and that
Windstream aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties.  
The petition asserts, among other things, that the consideration
to be paid to Iowa Telecom's shareholders is insufficient.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Merger.

On Dec. 15, 2009, Iowa Telecom moved to dismiss this petition.

Windstream moved to dismiss the petition on Jan. 4, 2010.

Those motions remain pending.

The plaintiff filed a motion for expedited discovery on Dec. 22,
2009.  A hearing was held on the plaintiff's motion for expedited
discovery on January 15, 2010.

The Court decided that it would defer a decision on the motion
for expedited discovery until it decided Iowa Telecom's and
Windstream's motions to dismiss.

On Dec. 4, 2009, a second purported shareholder of Iowa Telecom
filed a petition styled as a class action lawsuit in the Iowa
District Court for Jasper County.

The case is Francine Gerendasy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Alan L. Wells, Kenneth R. Cole,
Norman C. Frost, Brian G. Hart, H. Lynn Horak, Craig A. Lang,
Kendrik E. Packer, Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc.,
Windstream Corporation, and Buffalo Merger Sub, Inc.

Two additional substantially similar petitions were filed in the
Iowa District Court for Jasper County on Dec. 23 and Dec. 29,
2009, respectively.  Each of these petitions contains
substantially similar allegations to the above-described
petition.

On Dec. 11, 2009, a purported shareholder filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.  This
complaint names Iowa Telecom's individual board members, Iowa
Telecom and Windstream as defendants and asserts that Iowa
Telecom's board members breached their fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the Merger.  It also seeks to enjoin the Merger.  On
Dec. 17, 2009, the plaintiff in this action moved for expedited
discovery.

Windstream and Iowa Telecom both responded in opposition to this
motion.

A hearing was held on the plaintiff's motion for expedited
discovery on Jan. 12, 2010.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, ordering that
Windstream's and Iowa Telecom's motions to dismiss would be heard
before any discovery would begin, but that production of
documents would occur on an expedited basis if the Court denies
the motions to dismiss.

                       District Court Actions

On Dec. 16, 2009, another complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa by a purported
shareholder, seeking to enjoin the Merger. It contains
allegations substantially similar to the petitions filed in the
Iowa District Court for Jasper County, alleging that the
individual board members of Iowa Telecom's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger and
that Windstream aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary
duties.

On Jan. 4, 2010, Iowa Telecom and Windstream moved to dismiss
both complaints in the United States District Court.  Those
motions remain pending.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the plaintiffs in the two United States
District Court cases moved to consolidate those two actions and
for the appointment of their attorneys as co-lead class counsel.
The motion to consolidate the two cases was granted on January
12, 2010.

                Memorandum of Understanding

Iowa Telecom, its directors and Windstream believe each of these
lawsuits is without merit.  However, in order to eliminate the
uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further
litigation and to permit the Merger to proceed without possible
delays from litigation, Iowa Telecom and Windstream have entered
into a memorandum of understanding with counsel to the various
plaintiffs to settle the aforementioned actions in exchange for
including additional disclosures set forth in the proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the transaction.

This memorandum of understanding is subject to the terms and
conditions set forth therein, including satisfactory confirmatory
discovery by plaintiffs and approval of the settlement by the
Iowa District Court for Jasper County.

The settlement would result in all of the above actions being
dismissed with prejudice and would become effective only upon
consummation of the Merger.

Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., d/b/a Iowa Telecom --
http://www.iowatelecom.com/-- is a telecommunications service  
provider that offers local telephone, long distance, Internet,
broadband and network access services to business and residential
customers.  The company and its subsidiaries serve over 450 Iowa
communities and 10 Minnesota communities, and employ nearly 800
people.  The company's headquarters are in Newton, Iowa.  The
company trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
IWA.


JACK IN THE BOX: Sued for Not Paying All Wages Due
--------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Amaya, on behalf of himself and others similarly  
situated v. Jack in the Box, Inc., Case No. BC436670 (Calif.  
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 28, 2010), asserts violations
of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.  Mr. Amaya
accuses Jack in the Box of failing to pay proper wages for all
hours worked, failing to compensate employees for overtime hours
worked, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements.  
Mr. Amaya was employed as an assistant manager with the fast food
chain from March 2008 to July 2009, and as a manager from July
2009 to March 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miklos Varga, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MIKLOS VARGA
          15030 Ventura Blvd., Suite 600
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 542-6531
          E-mail: Vargalaw@earthlink.net


JD FINE & COMPANY: Recalls 1,700 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JD Fine & Company, of Concord, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,700 Children's Hooded Velour Sweatshirts with
Drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The hooded sweatshirts have a drawstring at the neck which can
pose a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

This recall involves hooded sweatshirts sold under the "Sweet
Tart" brand name in three styles: G80072873C in navy with
rhinestones in the shape of a star; G80072874M in pink with
rhinestones in the shape of a peace sign; and G80072875F in gray
with rhinestones in the shape of a heart.  The sweatshirts were
sold in children's sizes XS, S, M and L and the name "Sweet Tart"
can be found on the neck label.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Saks Off 5th Avenue outlet stores from July 2009 to April 2010.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard or return the product to the
store where purchased for a refund.  For additional information,
contact JD Fine & Company collect at (925) 521-3300 between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's web site at http://www.sweettartgirl.com/


KAISER FOUNDATION: Accused of Inflating COBRA Insurance Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan, Blue Cross of California dba Anthem Blue Cross and L.A.
Unified School District nearly tripled the cost of COBRA
insurance for a former LAUSD employee, while cutting his
benefits, he claims in a class action in L.A. Superior Court.


MOBIL OIL: Environmental Class Action Filed in N.M.I.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre at the Saipan Tribune reports that former
lawmaker Janet U. Maratita and three other persons filed a class
action suit against Mobil Oil Mariana Islands Inc. for allegedly
secretly neglecting to use proper equipment to ensure that
harmful chemicals do not leak into the environment.

Maratita, Joaquin Q. Atalig, Jose P. Kiyoshi, and Felipe Q.
Atalig filed the lawsuit through counsel Ramon K. Quichocho.

They are suing Mobil for alleged violation of Article I of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Constitution,
negligence, nuisance, battery, and unfair or deceptive business
practices.

They asked the court to shut down Mobil's Saipan terminal and
order the oil company to pay them damages, court costs, and
attorney's fees.

Saipan Tribune tried but failed to get comments from Mobil Oil.

Mobil owns the bulk gasoline terminal at the Puerto Rico Drive in
Saipan's Lower Base area and operates it under a lease with the
Commonwealth Ports Authority. Refined petroleum products are
shipped from the Cabras terminal in Guam to the Saipan terminal.
The Saipan terminal distributes these products by pipeline from
their storage tanks to their loading racks, where the products
are loaded into tank trucks.

According to the plaintiffs, the Saipan terminal loading racks
have been in operation since Dec. 16, 1997, without being
equipped with vapor collection and processing systems as required
by the New Source Performance Standards or the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements.

Since that time, Quichocho said, Mobil has failed to limit
emissions from the loading of liquid product into gasoline tank
trucks to not more than 10 milligrams of total organic compounds
per liter of gasoline loaded-as required by NSPS or NESHAP.

Since June 14, 1998, Quichocho said, the Saipan terminal has been
operating without continuous monitoring systems. He said that
Mobil has failed to conduct NSPS performance tests as its Saipan
terminal's loading racks -- as required by NSPS or NESHAP --
since 1992 and that Mobil has made sure there would no evidence
of the harmful emissions by failing to properly test for
emissions.

Quichocho, on behalf of Kiyoshi, Atalig, and Rabby Syed, also
filed a class action lawsuit against Mobil Oil and Shell in
November 2009 for allegedly colluding to fix fuel prices in the
Commonwealth.


PENNSYLVANIA: Sued for Violating Americans with Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McAuley at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare discriminates against
the mentally retarded and deaf, a class action claims in Federal
Court.  Lead plaintiff Harry M., 67, deaf and mentally retarded,
was placed in a home with a staff that does not know sign
language, according to his next friend, who brought the
complaint.

Harry M. has been unable to maintain or develop his American Sign
Language skills, and all deaf retarded people in assistance
programs are suffering because the state fails to accommodate
their needs and forces them to live "a life of virtual
isolation," according to the complaint.

Harry's next friend James Fatter says the state violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act by placing the "vast majority" of
more than 1,600 deaf recipients of mental retardation services in
homes with staffs who are not fluent in sign language.

This keeps deaf people from having conversations, sharing
feelings, expressing complaints, reporting abuse, explaining
emergencies or communicating virtually anything outside of a
typical routine, according to the complaint.

Harry's individual support plan states that "it is imperative he
be monitored by someone he trusts who is familiar with his level
of sign language at all times, to preserve his health and safety"
and that "he could become anxious and thus exhibit negative
behaviors in attempt to secure his own safety based upon
misperceptions," according to the complaint.

Mr. Fatter says that the daily frustration to which Harry is
subjected caused him to suffer physical injuries when he threw
furniture and hurt his hand because of his inability to
communicate.

Mr. Fatter seeks declaratory judgment and an injunction.  

A copy of the Complaint in M. v. Pennsylvania Department of
Public Welfare, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00922 (M.D. Pa.), is
available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/DeafPa.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carol Horowitz, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF PENNSYLVANIA
          429 Fourth Ave., Suite 701
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-258-2131
          E-mail: chororwitz@drnpa.org

               - and -
          
          Rachel Mann, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF PENNSYLVANIA
          1315 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: 215-238-8070
          E-mail: rmann@drnpa.org


PPG INDUSTRIES: Remains a Defendant in Penn. Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., continues to be a defendant in consolidated
antitrust class action, according to the company's April 26,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass
producers as defendants in purported antitrust class actions.  
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and
conditions of sale of flat glass in the United States in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

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

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

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

PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a coatings and  
specialty products company.  Founded in 1883, the company serves
customers in industrial, transportation, consumer products, and
construction markets and aftermarkets.  With headquarters in
Pittsburgh, PPG operates in more than 60 countries around the
globe.  Sales in 2009 were $12.2 billion.  PPG shares are traded
on the New York Stock Exchange (symbol: PPG).


QUALITY CRAB: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Quality Crab Co. paid
seafood processors they recruited in Mexico less than minimum
wage, demanding "kickbacks" for substandard housing and other
illegal charges to work at its plant in Elizabeth City, N.C., a
class action claims in Raleigh Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Serrano Diaz, et al. v. Quality Crab
Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00015 (E.D.N.C.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/ImmigEmploy.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
          Clermont L. Fraser, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          P.O. Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: 919-856-2165
          E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
                  clermont@ncjustice.org


RADIOSHACK CORP: Calif. App. Ct. Denies Stay in "Brookler" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Appellate Court has denied the joint motion filed
by RadioShack Corp., and the plaintiffs in the matter Brookler v.
RadioShack Corp., to stay the appeal of the plaintiffs on the
class decertification, according to the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The litigation involves allegations that RadioShack violated
California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision
of meal periods.

On Oct. 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
RadioShack's second Motion for Class Decertification in the class
action lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' claims that RadioShack violated California's wage and
hour laws relating to meal periods was originally certified as a
class action on Feb. 8, 2006.  RadioShack's first Motion for
Decertification of the class was denied on Aug. 29, 2007.

However, after the California Appellate Court's favorable
decision on similar facts in Brinker Restaurant Corporation v.
Superior Court, RadioShack again sought class decertification.

Based on the California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker,
the trial court granted RadioShack's second motion.

The plaintiffs in Brookler have appealed this ruling.

Due to the unsettled nature of California state law regarding the
standard of liability for meal period violations, RadioShack and
the Brookler plaintiffs agreed to a stay with respect to the
plaintiffs' appeal of the class decertification ruling, pending
the California Appellate court's decision in Brinker.

The appellate court denied this joint motion, and both parties
have now fully briefed the appellate court.

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is  
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


RADIOSHACK CORP: N.D. Calif. Preliminarily Approves Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement
resolving the purported class action lawsuit Richard Stuart v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al., according to the company's April
26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit was filed on June 7, 2007, against RadioShack based on
allegations that RadioShack failed to properly reimburse
employees in California for mileage expenses associated with
their use of personal vehicles to make transfers of merchandise
between company stores.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.

Following a mediation held on Oct. 5, 2009, the parties reached a
tentative settlement of the lawsuit subject to court approval.

The parties reached agreement on all terms of the proposed
settlement agreement in January 2010, and the plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Preliminary Approval on Feb. 24, 2010.

On April 19, 2010, the court approved plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and set the hearing for
final approval of the settlement for Aug. 6, 2010.  

RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is  
primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics
goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non-
RadioShack branded kiosk operations.


REMEC INC: S.D. Calif. Dismissed Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against REMEC, Inc., has
been dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, according to the company's April 26,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On Sept. 29, 2004, three class actions were filed against the
company and certain former officers alleging violations of
federal securities laws between Sept. 8, 2003 and Sept. 8, 2004.

On Jan. 18, 2005, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, was appointed lead counsel and its client was
appointed lead plaintiff.

After several consolidated and amended complaints were filed,
challenged by the company and dismissed by the court with leave
to amend, the court denied REMEC's motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on Sept. 25, 2006.

REMEC filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
Nov. 6, 2006, denying all liability and asserting certain
affirmative defenses.  The court granted plaintiff's motion for
class-certification on Nov. 21, 2007.

The parties engaged in discovery, including production of
documents, between May 2007 and March 2009.  All discovery,
including expert discovery, is now closed.

There are currently four motions seeking summary judgment or
partial summary judgment pending before the Court, three made by
the defendants and one made by the plaintiffs.  The time period
for filing dispositive motions has closed.

A Pretrial Conference was for Jan. 25, 2010, and Trial was set
for Feb. 23, 2010.

On April 21, 2010 the Court issued an Order on the motions,
granting Defendants' motions for Summary Judgment based on
Scienter and Loss Causation.  The Court dismissed the case with
prejudice, and directed that judgment be entered for Defendants.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days from Notice of Entry of Judgment to
file a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

REMEC maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance, and
has tendered the defense of this lawsuit to its insurance
carriers. The primary insurance carrier has agreed to pay defense
costs and provide coverage of this action, subject to a
reservation of rights.

The suit is In re: REMEC Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
04-CV-1948 (S.D. Calif.) (Miller, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
         MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN, LLP
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: (213) 617-1200
         Fax: (213) 617-1975

              - and -

         David W. Mitchell, Esq.
         LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-4297
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         Fax: 619-231-7423

              - and -

         Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
         Hulett Harper Stewart, LLP
         550 West C Street, Suite 1600
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 338-1133
         Fax: (619) 338-1139

Representing the defendants is:

         Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
         DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY, US, LLP
         401 "B" Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: (619) 699-2700 and (858) 638-6886
         Fax: 858-677-1401


SUPERVALU INC: RICO Violations Suit in Wisconsin Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint were SUPERVALU, Inc., is a defendant and
alleging violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, remains stayed.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC,
Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina
Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the U.S. District
Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
who allege on behalf of a purported class that the company and
the other defendants:

     (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing
         services under the Sherman Act and

    (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the
         plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.

The company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however
all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result
of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Feb. 27, 2010.

SUPERVALU Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $39 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,290 stores
composed of approximately 1,160 traditional retail stores,
including 840 in-store pharmacies; 1,190 hard-discount stores, of
which 855 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,940 independent
stores serviced primarily by the company's traditional food
distribution business.  SUPERVALU has approximately 160,000
employees.


SUPERVALU INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over C&S Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERVALU, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated complaint in
relation to a 2003 transaction between the company and C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the
company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the company and
C&S Wholesale, was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate
markets.

In the 2003 transaction, the company purchased certain assets of
the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's
bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the company to
C&S which were located in New England.

Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar
complaints in other jurisdictions.  The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities
that the company and C&S purchased from the other.  Plaintiffs
are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 26, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Feb. 27, 2010.

SUPERVALU Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $39 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,290 stores
composed of approximately 1,160 traditional retail stores,
including 840 in-store pharmacies; 1,190 hard-discount stores, of
which 855 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,940 independent
stores serviced primarily by the company's traditional food
distribution business.  SUPERVALU has approximately 160,000
employees.


SUPERVALU INC: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint against SUPERVALU, Inc.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
has been dismissed by the plaintiff voluntarily, according to the
company's April 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb.
27, 2010.

In July 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the company, an officer and the Executive Chairman of the Board
alleging fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act.

In October 2009, the lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleged that the company withheld negative
information from the market by inflating its fiscal 2010 guidance
in order to complete the company's note offering which closed on
May 7, 2009.

On Jan. 13, 2010, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit
without prejudice and as of April 26, 2010, to date has not re-
filed the action.

SUPERVALU Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is one of the  
largest companies in the U.S. grocery channel with estimated
annual sales of $39 billion.  SUPERVALU serves customers across
the United States through a network of approximately 4,290 stores
composed of approximately 1,160 traditional retail stores,
including 840 in-store pharmacies; 1,190 hard-discount stores, of
which 855 are operated by licensee owners; and 1,940 independent
stores serviced primarily by the company's traditional food
distribution business.  SUPERVALU has approximately 160,000
employees.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that the main
lesson taught at Trump University "is how to spend more money
buying more Trump seminars," a class action claims in Federal
Court.  Tarla Makaeff says she spent nearly $60,000 on seminars
at the school founded and chaired by Donald Trump, but that the
"'1-year apprenticeship'" she was promised turned out to be "just
a 3-day seminar" which "consisted of no practical insights and no
mentorship, but rather excursions to the Home Depot and 'mentors'
who either recommend real estate deals that they stood to benefit
from financially, or quickly disappeared and failed to return
calls."

Ms. Makaeff, the named plaintiff, says Trump U advertises itself
as a "complete real estate education," a chance to "Learn from
the Master ... the next best thing to being his Apprentice," with
"free" introductory courses.

Trump University claims to be "'driven by the mission to train,
educate and mentor entrepreneurs on achieving financial
independence through real estate investing."  But it's actually
"anything but," Ms. Makaeff says, citing her "excursions to the
Home Depot".

Ms. Makaeff says she paid $1,495 for the "free" 3-day seminar,
which was little more than an infomercial.  At the "seminar," she
says, Trump University representatives induced her and others to
shell out $35,000 for the Trump University "Gold Program."

Ms. Makaeff says Trump's reps told her to raise her credit-card
limits so she could "enter into 'real estate transactions.'"

Ms. Makaeff says she signed up for the Gold Program after Trump
University speaker Tiffany Brinkman "guarantee(d)" her that her
first real estate deal would earn her $35,000, "so she could
immediately pay off her Trump University debt, leaving only
profits for the future."

But Ms. Makaeff says she never made any money.  The day she
signed up for the Gold Program, she says, she was assigned two
"mentors," who "would only speak to plaintiff for 2-3 minutes,
offering no practical advice.  After that, although they were
supposed to provide 'mentorship' to plaintiff for a full year,
they mostly disappeared."

When she complained, Ms. Makaeff says, "power team" mentor Tad
Lignell offered to help her, but "then engaged in misappropriate
conduct and misadvised her regarding a property in Las Vegas in
which he had a personal financial interest."

Ms. Makaeff says she pulled out of that deal when she discovered
that Mr. Lignell's real estate agent had "fraudulently and
illegally altered the real estate documents she had previously
signed at the escrow office."

Ms. Makaeff demands punitive class damages for breach of
contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and bad faith, and
refunds on the money they paid to Trump University.

Trump University and Does 1-50 are the only named defendants.
Donald Trump is not named as a defendant, though the 31-page
complaint describes him as its "founder and chairman."

"Trump University is more like an infomercial, selling
nonaccredited products, such as sales workshops, luring customers
in with the name and reputation of its founder and chairman,
billionaire land mogul Donald J. Trump," the complaint states.  

A copy of the Complaint in Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00940 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/TrumpU.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Eck, Esq.
          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Alreen Haeggquist, Esq.
          ZELDES & HAEGGQUIST, LLP
          625 Broadway, Suite 906
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-342-8000
          E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com
                  helenz@zhlaw.com
                  alreenh@zhlaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: rjensen@rgrdlaw.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation continues to remain a defendant in numerous
related antitrust lawsuits connection with the pricing of
compressors from 1996 to 2009, according to the company's April
26, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Since the government investigations became public in February
2009, the company has been named as a defendant in numerous
related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking
damages in connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996
to 2009.  Several other compressor manufacturers who are the
subject of the government investigations have also been named as
defendants in the litigation.

United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf of purported
purchasers and containing class action allegations have been
combined in one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/--  
manufactures and marketa major home appliances, with annual sales
of approximately $17 billion in 2009, 67,000 employees, and 67
manufacturing and technology research centers around the world.  
The company markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air,
Amana, Brastemp, Consul, Bauknecht and other major brand names to
consumers in nearly every country around the world.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: GRL Properties Fined for Safety Breach in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (DELEG)
Director Stanley "Skip" Pruss, on May 4, 2010, announced the
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA)
cited GRL Properties, LLC, of Grand Rapids, Mich., with
US$115,000 in proposed penalties, according to a MIOSHA press
release dated May 4, 2010.

The Company was penalized for allegedly failing to adequately
protect employees and the general public from serious asbestos
hazards at the John Bean Building in Lansing, Mich.

Mr. Pruss said, "These proposed fines reflect the fact that the
company knew there was asbestos-containing material in the John
Bean Building and yet did not take appropriate action to protect
the workers removing the material or their tenants. This
indifference will not be tolerated. Effective protective measures
must be in place and in use when necessary to protect workers and
the general public."

On Nov. 23, 2009, the MIOSHA Asbestos Program began a complaint
investigation involving an allegation that asbestos insulated
piping was being removed improperly by a tenant (Property Shield,
LLC) at the John Bean Building, at 1305 S. Cedar, in Lansing. The
building is owned by GRL Properties, LLC, and is managed by GRL
Properties Management Co., LLC, and has a variety of tenants.

Statements from Property Shield representatives indicated they
had an agreement with the building owner and building manager to
remove abandoned steel piping in the facility for half the money
received for the scrap metal. They said representatives of GRL
Properties, LLC, assured them that insulation on the piping was
cardboard and not an asbestos-containing material (ACM) thermal
system insulation (TSI).

The MIOSHA investigation found the building was not completely
inspected for asbestos, and the building inspection information
the building owner had was not conveyed to employees working in
the facility or tenants occupying the facility. As a result, a
major asbestos fiber release episode occurred, potentially
exposing employees and building tenants to asbestos.

GRL Properties, LLC, and GRL Properties Management Company, LLC,
and their other affiliated companies have extensive citation
histories involving asbestos violations that go back to 1996.  

GRL Properties, LLC, received a total of three alleged Willful
violations with a proposed penalty of US$105,000. The Company
also received five alleged serious violations with a proposed
penalty of US$10,000. The total proposed penalty for the Company
is US$115,000.

The Company has 15 working days from receipt of the citations to
comply or contest the violations and penalties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chem. Records $727M Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$727 million as of March 31, 2010, compared
with US$734 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company
press release dated April 28, 2010.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$313 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$330
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Midland, Mich., The Dow Chemical Company's diversified
portfolio of specialty chemical, advanced materials, agro-
sciences and plastics businesses delivers technology-based
products and solutions to customers in about 160 countries and in
high growth sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings
and agriculture. In 2009, the Company had annual sales of US$45
billion and employed about 52,000 people worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Records $34M Payment at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. says that asbestos-related cash payments
during the first quarter of 2010 were US$34 million, down
slightly from US$35 million during the first quarter of 2009,
according to a Company press dated April 28, 2010.

The deferred amount payable for previously settled claims was
US$31 million at the end of the first quarter, down from US$36
million at year-end 2009.

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first three months of
2010 were about 40 percent lower than the same period last year.

The Company's current portion of asbestos-related liabilities was
US$175 million as of March 31, 2010, the same as for the period
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$276.2 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$310.1
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes recyclable
glass containers. Established in 1903, the Company employs more
than 22,000 people with 78 plants in 22 countries. In 2009, net
sales were US$7.1 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Records $52Mil Credit at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated, in the first quarter of 2010, recorded a
net asbestos-related credit of US$52 million (US$33 million
after-tax) due largely to the change in terms of a proposed
settlement, according to a Company press release dated April 28,
2010.

During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded an asbestos litigation charge of US$4 million.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) which might
arise from PCC products or operations (the 2003 Plan).

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan. On Jan. 10, 2008, some of the
parties in the proceeding advised the Bankruptcy Court that they
had made substantial progress on an amended plan of
reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) that resolved issues raised
by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003 Plan.

As a result of progress in the parties' continuing negotiations,
the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now represents
the most probable outcome of this matter and the probability that
the 2003 plan will become effective has diminished.

The proposed settlement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the
Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe, N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed series of
cash payments recorded at present value.

Based in New York, Corning Incorporated creates and makes
keystone components that enable high-technology systems for
consumer electronics, mobile emissions control,
telecommunications and life sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford's Net Liability at $1.822B at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos
liability was US$1.822 billion for the three months ended March
31, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on
April 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Hartford Financial Group, Inc.'s net asbestos-related
liability amounted to US$1.892 billion for three months and year
ended Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2010).

Based in Stamford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. is an insurer offering personal and commercial life and
property/casualty insurance products. Through its Hartford Life
subsidiary, the Company offers individual and group life
insurance and annuities, as well as the financial services
mentioned in its name (asset management, retirement plans, and
mutual funds).


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

No other asbestos-related matters were reported in the Company's
quarterly report, filed on April 28, 2010, with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Based in Clayton, Mo., Olin Corporation's Chlor Alkali Products
unit makes chemicals used to make bleach, water purification and
swimming pool chemicals, pulp and paper processing agents, and
PVC plastics. The Company also makes Winchester-branded
ammunition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Reserves $1.16B for Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$1.16 billion at March 31, 2010 and US$1.18 billion at Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April
28, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Net of reinsurance recoverable, the reserves were US$587 million
at March 31, 2010 and US$600 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

About 61 percent of the total net asbestos and environmental
reserves at March 31, 2010 were for incurred but not reported
estimated losses.

Based in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a personal
lines insurer. The Company's Allstate Protection segment sells
auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products
in Canada and the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Records 90,500 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company faced 90,500 pending asbestos-
related claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with 90,200 claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 28,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 400 new claims filed and 100 claims settled/dismissed.
Payments were US$12 million.

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

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

To date, the Company has disposed of about 82,600 claims by
defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into
a settlement. The sum of its accrued asbestos-related liability
and gross payments to date, including legal costs, totaled about
US$355 million through March 31, 2010 and US$349 million through
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and
unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling US$130
million at March 31, 2010 and US$136 million at Dec. 31, 2009. At
March 31, 2010, the Company estimates that it is reasonably
possible that its gross liabilities, net of its estimate for
probable insurance recoveries, could exceed its recorded amounts
by US$15 million.

The Company recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of
US$69 million as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Of these
amounts, US$11 million was included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts receivable at March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company said it believes that, at March 31, 2010, it had
about US$180 million in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos
products claims, in addition to limits of available primary
insurance policies. A portion of the availability of the excess
level policies is included in the US$69 million insurance
receivable recorded at March 31, 2010.

The Company also had about US$15 million in aggregate limits for
products claims, as well as coverage for premise claims on a per
occurrence basis, and defense costs available with its primary
insurance carriers through coverage-in-place agreements at March
31, 2010.

General and product liability - discontinued products includes
charges for claims against the Company related primarily to
asbestos personal injury claims, net of probable insurance
recoveries. The Company recorded US$7 million in the first three
months of 2010 (US$8 million in the first three months of 2009)
of expense related to asbestos claims.

In addition, the Company recorded US$3 million of income related
to probable insurance recoveries in each of those periods.

Based in Akron, Ohio, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
manufactures tires. The Company has a broad global footprint with
57 manufacturing facilities in 23 countries, including the United
States. The Company operates business through four operating
segments: North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa
Tire; Latin American Tire; and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Records $9.3MM for Cleanup at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded US$9.3 million in
"Accounts payable and other" as of March 31, 2010 for asbestos
and environmental cleanup, compared with US$7.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded US$3.9 million in "Other long-term
liabilities" as of March 31, 2010 for asbestos and environmental
cleanup, compared with US$3.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

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

Based in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-
mile U.S. portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum
pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and
operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans some 3,500
miles across North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Cites $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million
per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 29,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials.

The Company has, in the past, performed remediation of such
environmental matters, and is not aware of any significant
remaining potential liability relating to these environmental
matters. The Company may be required in the future to perform
testing relating to these matters.

Based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust
has a primary investment focus on retail shopping malls and strip
and power centers located in the eastern half of the United
States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region. As of March 31,
2010, the Company's portfolio consisted of a total of 54
properties in 13 states.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Cites $72MM Paid Loss, LAE at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos-
related paid losses and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) were US$72
million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 29, 2010 with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company recorded net asbestos incurred losses and LAE were
US$2 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010.

Based in Stamford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services Group,
Inc. is an insurer offering personal and commercial life and
property/casualty insurance products. Through its Hartford Life
subsidiary, the Company offers individual and group life
insurance and annuities, as well as the financial services
mentioned in its name (asset management, retirement plans, and
mutual funds).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Co. Disputing Aqua-Chem, Inc. Demands
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company continues to dispute former subsidiary
Aqua-Chem, Inc.'s (n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) claims over Aqua-
Chem's demands for about US$10 million for out-of-pocket asbestos
litigation-related expenses.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem.
A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside
suppliers. Several years after the Company sold this entity,
Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a
component of some of the gaskets.

In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the Company that it
believed the Company was obligated for certain costs and expenses
associated with its asbestos litigations. Aqua-Chem demanded that
the Company reimburse it for about US$10 million for out-of-
pocket litigation-related expenses.

Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing
obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses
that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or
for which there is no insurance.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem.

In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16
defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem
and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers,
including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow
account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims
against Aqua-Chem.

On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.

The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for one-hundred percent of Aqua-
Chem's losses up to policy limits. The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement.

Based in Atlanta, The Coca-Cola Company owns and markets
nonalcoholic beverage brands and is a manufacturer, distributor
and marketer of concentrates and syrups used to produce non-
alcoholic beverages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Facing 6,700 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2010, Owens-Illinois, Inc. has determined that it
is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
about 6,700 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on April 29, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company a defendant in lawsuits filed in numerous state and
federal courts by persons alleging bodily injury (including
death) as a result of exposure to dust containing asbestos
fibers.

From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold about US$40 million of a high-
temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958.

The Company is also a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of March
31, 2010, has disposed of the asbestos claims of about 379,000
plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per
claim of about US$7,600. Deferred amounts payable totaled about
US$30.7 million at March 31, 2010 (US$36.3 million at Dec. 31,
2009) and are included in the foregoing average indemnity payment
per claim.

Beginning with the initial liability of US$975 million
established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of about
US$3.65 billion through 2009, before insurance recoveries, for
its asbestos-related liability.

Based in Perrysburg, Ohio, Owens-Illinois, Inc. makes recyclable
glass containers. Established in 1903, the Company employs more
than 22,000 people with 78 plants in 22 countries. In 2009, net
sales were US$7.1 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural, Units Still Face Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are
still party to claims relating to the exposure of asbestos and
silica to seamen who sailed on the Great Lakes vessels formerly
owned and operated by certain of the Company's subsidiaries.

The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs
Steamship Company have been named defendants in 448 actions
brought from 1986 to date by former seamen in which the
plaintiffs claim damages under federal law for illnesses
allegedly suffered as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos
fibers while serving as crew members aboard the vessels
previously owned or managed by the Company's entities until the
mid-1980s.

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

By a series of court orders, the court has been reinstating cases
and dismissing other cases without prejudice. The Company is a
defendant in 14 cases that have been reinstated and 25 cases that
have been dismissed.

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

It is anticipated that scheduling orders will be issued in each
group of cases providing discovery, motion practice and
settlement discussions to occur during 2010, with unsettled cases
going to trial beginning at the end of 2010.

The claims in the 14 reinstated cases involve allegations with
respect to lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural changes of varying
severity.

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

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an
international mining and natural resources company. A member of
the S&P 500 Index, the Company produces iron ore pellets in North
America, a major supplier of direct-shipping lump and fines iron
ore out of Australia, and a significant producer of metallurgical
coal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.6M CAROs at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's estimated fair value of conditional
asset retirement obligation (CARO) liabilities was US$3.6 million
at March 31, 2010 and US$3.5 million at December 31, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 28,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

For locations where there are no current plans for renovations or
demolitions, the most probable scenario is that such CARO would
not be triggered for 20 or more years, if at all.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Still Involved in Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits and claims (including asbestos-related actions)
arising in the normal course of business continue to be ongoing
against Mine Safety Appliances Company.

These lawsuits are primarily product liability claims.

The Company is presently named as a defendant in about 2,600
lawsuits, primarily involving respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company. Collectively,
these lawsuits represent a total of about 11,900 plaintiffs.

About 90 percent of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs alleging
they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging they
suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in
part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company.

Consistent with the experience of other companies involved in
silica and asbestos-related litigation, in recent years there has
been an increase in the number of asserted claims that could
potentially involve the Company.

Based in Pittsburgh, Mine Safety Appliances Company Mine Safety
Appliances Company develops, manufactures and supplies products
that protect people's health and safety. Its comprehensive line
of safety products is used by workers around the world in the
fire service, homeland security, construction, and other
industries, as well as the military.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Inc. Faces 11.2T Cases at March 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 11,200 asbestos liability cases pending against
Covidien Public Limited Company's subsidiary, Mallinckrodt Inc.,
as of March 26, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on April 30, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Dec. 25, 2009, about 11,000 asbestos liability cases were
pending against Mallinckrodt. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29,
2010)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. Most
of the cases involve product liability claims, based principally
on allegations of past distribution of products incorporating
asbestos.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property. Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.

The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal
injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to
products containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been
dismissed by the courts.

The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims.

Based in Dublin, Ireland, Covidien Public Limited Company
supplies health care providers with everything from generic
pharmaceuticals and disposable medical products to diagnostic
imaging contrast agents and surgical devices. The Company has
global manufacturing operations and markets its products in more
than 140 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Still Facing 23T Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, had
about 23,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April 29,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

Of the 23,000 outstanding claims at March 31, 2010, about 12,000
were pending in three jurisdictions, where significant tort and
judicial reform activities are underway.

In 2010, of the 260 claims resolved, 61 (23.5 percent) resulted
in any payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the
Company. In 2009, of the 5,300 claims resolved, about 223 (4.2
percent) resulted in any payment being made to a claimant by or
on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were covered by the Company's primary layer
insurance coverage, and these carriers administered, defended,
settled and paid all claims under a funding arrangement.

In June 2004, primary layer insurance carriers notified the
Company of the alleged exhaustion of their policy limits. This
led the Company to access the next available layer of insurance
coverage. Since June 2004, secondary layer insurers have paid
asbestos-related litigation defense and settlement expenses under
a funding arrangement.

To date, the Company has paid US$87 million in defense and
indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and has received
US$21.2 million in cash from insurers. The net outstanding
balance of US$65.8 million is expected to be fully recovered, of
which about US$27.6 million is expected to be recovered in 2010.
At Dec. 31, 2009, insurers owed US$58.6 million in association
with these claims.

On April 5, 2010 the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate
Division affirmed a lower court judgment in an asbestos-related
action against the Company and others. The Company filed its
Notice of Petition to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in late
April, seeking to appeal the decisions of the lower courts.

At March 31, 2010, the Company has estimated a liability of
US$53.4 million for claims asserted, but not yet resolved and
their related defense costs. The Company also has a related asset
of US$53.4 million to recognize the proceeds receivable from the
insurance carriers.

Insurance carrier reimbursement of 100 percent is expected based
on the Company's experience, its insurance contracts and
decisions received to date in a declaratory judgment action. At
Dec. 31, 2009, the comparable value of the insurance receivable
and accrued liability was US$49.9 million.

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


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

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

The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of insurance coverage
available to the Company including whether the available limits
exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an "aggregate" basis, and to
determine how the applicable coverage responsibilities should be
apportioned.

On Aug. 15, 2005, the Court issued an interim order regarding the
apportionment matter. The interim order has the effect of making
insurers responsible for all defense and settlement costs pro
rata to time-on-the-risk, with the pro-ration method to hold the
insured harmless for periods of bankrupt or unavailable coverage.

Appeals of the interim order were denied. However, the issue is
reserved for appellate review at the end of the action.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has 32,000 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 32,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at March 31, 2010 and 31,000 at
Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on April 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled and are
awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or without
payment.

The Company has accrued US$112 million for indemnity and defense
costs for settled, pending and future claims at March 31, 2010,
compared with US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had recorded US$58 million as an
asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the pending and
projected asbestos personal injury liability claims, unchanged
from the asset at Dec. 31, 2009.

During the first quarter of 2010, the Company recorded US$4 of
expense (after tax) to correct amounts primarily related to
asbestos receivables at Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies axle,
driveshaft, sealing and thermal management products for global
vehicle manufacturers. Its employees design and manufacture
products for every major vehicle producer in the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,794 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at March 31, 2010, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,794 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 397
claims from those previously reported.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by 17,191
plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 255 claims from those
previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010)

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

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 38,887 of those
claims were dismissed, 13 were tried to defense verdicts, five
were tried to plaintiff verdicts, one was resolved by agreement
for an immaterial amount and 563 were decided in favor of the
Company following summary judgment motions.

On March 23, 2010, a jury returned a verdict in one such case in
Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pa., in favor of the
plaintiff against multiple co-defendants, awarding an aggregate
of US$14.5 million in compensatory damages (of which about US$1.3
million is allocable to the Company). The Company plans to appeal
this verdict after the final judgment is entered.

On March 31, 2010, a jury returned a verdict in another similar
case in the same jurisdiction in favor of the Company.

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


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

Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on April 30, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Reverses Ruling in Avondale's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit reversed the
ruling of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of
Jefferson, La., which granted Avondale Industries, Inc.'s
Exception of Res Judicata in an asbestos case styled Robert
Andrew Bourgeois, Dominick Epifano Danna, Gerald Ray Kelley, Sr.,
and Phil Carl Robichaux, et al. v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc.,
et al.

Judges Marion F. Edwards, Edward A. Dufresne Jr., and Susan M.
Chehardy entered judgment in Case No. 09-CA-753 on March 23,
2010.

The present suit is a proposed class action by current and former
employees of Avondale (now operating as Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc.), who alleged they were exposed to asbestos while
employed at Avondale but who have not been diagnosed with an
asbestos-related disease.

Named plaintiffs/appellants are former Avondale employees, Robert
Andrew Bourgeois, Phil Carl Robicheaux, and Dominick Danna
(hereinafter collectively "employees").

The employees stated that, as a result of this alleged
significant exposure to asbestos, they now needed regular medical
examinations for the early detection and treatment of possible
latent asbestos-related diseases and sought the establishment of
a judicially administered fund for the costs of medical
monitoring.

In January 1996, when suit was originally filed, the petition
attempted to define the class as all employees employed "since
the early 1940s who had suffered probable exposure to the
asbestos products but not diagnosed with an asbestos related
disease, and were in need of medical monitoring."

In January 1999, the employees filed a motion for summary class
certification, which was ultimately denied by the trial court in
2004. The Appeal Court affirmed this judgment on appeal.

The trial judge found that Plaintiffs failed to meet the
requirements for class certification and determined that the
class action procedure was not superior to other adjudicatory
methods.

After that judgment became final, the employees filed a fourth
supplemental and amending petition, redefining the proposed class
as "[a]ll persons who were exposed to respirable asbestos fibers
while working at Avondale Shipyards Main Yard between and
including 1952 and 1976 such that periodic medical monitoring is
medically advisable."

Avondale filed an Exception of Res Judicata. After oral argument,
the trial court granted the exception. This appeal followed.

The Appeal Court reversed the judgment of the trial court
granting the exception of res judicata and remanded for further
proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Affirms Ruling in NVF Inc.'s Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, affirmed the
Jan. 6, 2009 ruling of the Industrial Accident Board, which
granted Randy Thompson's petition to determine compensation due
against his employer NVF, Inc.

The case is styled NVF Corporation, Employer-Appellant v. Randy
Thompson, Employee-Appellee.

Judge Jerome O. Herlihy entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09A-
01-013-JOH on March 25, 2010.

The Board found Mr. Thompson's terminal adenocarcinoma of the
esophagus (ACE) arose out of, or was in the course of, his
employment with NVF.

Specially, the Board found that Mr. Thompson's ACE was
attributable to asbestos exposure in the NVF plant. The Board
awarded workers' compensation and attorney's fees.

NVF appealed the Board's decision.

Linda Wilson, Esq., of Marshall Dennehy Warner Coleman & Goggin
in Wilmington, Del., represented NVF.

Timothy E. Lengkeek, Esq., of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor,
LLP, represented Mr. Thompson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Mass. Residents Plead Guilty to Violating CAA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of Northeast Demolition and Removal, and a site foreman
who worked for the same company, have pleaded guilty in New
Bedford Superior Court to charges they violated the Massachusetts
Clean Air Act by failing to improperly remove asbestos from
properties in Attleboro and North Attleborough, according to a
Massachusetts Attorney General press release dated April 30,
2010.

The 50-year-old Arthur Amaral, of Middleboro, the owner of
Northeast Demolition and Removal, and the 38-year-old Shawn
Amaral, of Norton, pleaded guilty on April 29, 2010 to charges of
failing to comply with asbestos disposal regulations (two counts)
and were sentenced to serve two years of probation and to pay
fines.

Arthur Amaral was ordered to pay a US$1,000 fine and Shawn Amaral
was ordered to pay a US$500 fine. The sentence also requires both
defendants to report to their probation officer if they are going
to conduct asbestos removal during the terms of their probation.

The charges stem from an investigation by the Massachusetts
Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), an interagency unit
that includes prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office,
Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's
Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP.

Authorities allege the defendants directed workers to demolish
parts of buildings at 21 East St. in North Attleborough and 888-
896 North Main St., in Attleboro (Cameron Woods) despite the fact
that asbestos had not been removed.

A consultant had conducted a full asbestos survey of the building
prior to beginning work, as required, but the Company did not
properly remove asbestos from the site before it began demolition
or renovation work.

Inspectors from MassDEP inspected the properties in North
Attleborough and Attleboro in September of 2007 and discovered
evidence that floor tiles, piping, and other debris from the
demolition was covered in asbestos. In the course of the
investigation, MassDEP inspectors inspected a storage facility in
Middleboro and discovered 76 cardboard drums containing tiles and
pipe insulation that tested positive for asbestos.

Authorities also found that each of the Amarals violated the
Massachusetts Clean Air Act by failing to follow mandated
asbestos removal procedures during the demolition and renovation,
and improperly disposing of asbestos waste.

This case was investigated by the Massachusetts Environmental
Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), which is overseen by Attorney General
Martha Coakley, MassDEP Commissioner Laurie Burt and Energy and
Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian A. Bowles.

A Bristol County Grand Jury returned the indictments against the
defendants on June 17, 2009. The defendants were arraigned on
April 30, 2010 in Bristol Superior Court.

Assistant Attorney General David Lieberman of Attorney General
Coakley's Environmental Crimes Strike Force is prosecuting the
case.

Environmental Analysts Joseph Leary and Andrew Cooney, and
Attorney Daniel d'Hedouville, from MassDEP's Southeast Regional
Office, investigated the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. AG Inks Deal w/ 3 Firms on Air Law Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three companies responsible for illegally removing, transporting
and disposing of asbestos-containing industrial ovens in
violation of the Commonwealth's clean air and solid waste
disposal laws will collectively pay US$27,000 in civil penalties,
under the terms of a settlement reached with Attorney General
Martha Coakley's Office, according to a Mass. AG press release
dated April 29, 2010.

The lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in Suffolk Superior Court
on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection against GKN Sinter Metals, Inc., a Michigan company
that formerly operated a smelting business on Harding Street in
Worcester; Keeney Rigging and Trucking, Inc., a Connecticut
transporting company; and Joseph Freedman Co., Inc., a
Massachusetts company that operates a scrap yard in Springfield.

Attorney General Coakley said, "The improper handling of asbestos
can result in health problems for the individuals exposed to the
dangerous fibers. We are committed to enforcing environmental
laws to protect our air quality and will vigorously pursue those
who endanger workers and the public by failing to control the
release of dangerous asbestos fibers."

MassDEP Commissioner Laurie Burt said, "MassDEP's rules governing
the handling of asbestos are in place to protect workers and the
public from exposure to asbestos, a known carcinogen. Anyone in a
business dealing with materials likely to contain asbestos must
be sure to know the rules and follow them."

The complaint filed against GKN, Keeney, and Freedman alleged
that the companies failed to notify MassDEP as required by law
before beginning to remove three asbestos-containing heat
trapping ovens and improperly removed the ovens from GKN's
smelting facility in Worcester.

The defendants then improperly disposed of the ovens in 2008 in
Freedman's scrap yard, according to the complaint filed in
Suffolk Superior Court.

The defendants also failed to use required containment methods to
ensure that asbestos would not be released to the air, and
illegally disposed of asbestos waste.

Following an inspection by MassDEP, Freedman was notified of the
alleged violations and immediately hired a licensed asbestos
contractor to perform the required clean up and decontamination
of the scrap yard. As a result of MassDEP's response, it is
believed that the asbestos was properly contained and disposed of
soon after it arrived at the scrap yard.

The settlement, filed on April 28, 2010 in Suffolk Superior
Court, also requires the trucking company and the scrap yard
operators to undergo training in the identification of asbestos-
containing material, and to adopt written policies for notifying
MassDEP and hiring licensed asbestos contractors if such material
is found to be present.

The defendants will also be subject to contempt proceedings if
they perform additional illegal asbestos removal work in
Massachusetts.                           

This matter was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Andrew
Rainer, of AG Coakley's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, and
Andrew Goldberg, of the Environmental Protection Division.   

Mary Jude Pigsley from MassDEP's Office of General Counsel, Greg
Levins and Donald Heeley from MassDEP's Central Regional Office,
and Robert Shultz from MassDEP's Western Regional Office, handled
the case for the environmental agency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CertainTeed, LADWP Liable in Evans Injury Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Central District Los Angeles County Superior Court jury awarded
more than US$8.8 million in asbestos-related damages and US$200
million in punitive damages to Rhoda and Bobby Evans, according
to a Levin Simes Kaiser & Gornick LLP press release dated April
29, 2010.

In the case styled Evans v. CertainTeed Corporation and Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power (Case No. BC418867), the
jury found that Mrs. Evans' mesothelioma was caused by washing
Mr. Evans' work clothes, which were contaminated by asbestos dust
from CertainTeed asbestos cement water pipe.

While employed at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power,
it was a regular part of Mr. Evans' job to cut CertainTeed pipe
with an abrasive power saw.  

Mr. Evans was employed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power from 1974 to 1998. As part of his job, he was routinely
exposed to asbestos while working with pipes manufactured by
CertainTeed.

The jury found that CertainTeed had knowledge that asbestos
caused cancer in the early 1960s. However, the Company continued
to manufacture the asbestos pipes and did not place a cancer
warning on them until 1985.

CertainTeed was found liable for punitive damages, for pain and
suffering, and for loss of future earnings and medical expenses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardick Widow Awarded $6Mil in Asbestos Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Hardick, the widow of former U.S. Navy officer Robert
Hardick, was awarded nearly US$6 million in asbestos-related
compensation, Asbestos.com reports.

Mrs. Hardick filed the wrongful death lawsuit against John Crane
Inc. and Garlock Sealing Technologies.

According to the suit, Mr. Hardick contracted mesothelioma after
inhaling asbestos fibers while serving on the U.S.S. Newport
News, a Des Moines-Class heavy cruiser. It is believed that he
also experienced asbestos exposure while serving on other ships
from the 1950s through the 1970s.

The lawsuit claimed asbestos-containing materials manufactured by
John Crane and Garlock Sealing Technologies were provided to the
Newport News Naval Shipyard. The compensation from Mr. Hardick's
death was divided between the two companies.

John Crane's responsibility represented about half of a US$5.98
million verdict. The remaining monetary awards were apportioned
to Garlock Sealing Technologies, who settled out of court for an
undisclosed amount.

The Virginian jury awarded US$2 million for Mr. Hardick's pain
and suffering, US$1.15 million for the loss suffered by Mrs.
Hardick, US$2.5 million for the loss of future income, and
US$327,000 for medical and funeral expenses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lofton Awarded $15Mil in Case V. ConocoPhillips
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 2010, a jury at the Jones County Circuit Court in
Mississippi awarded more than US$15 million to the 71-year-old
Troy Lofton, a former oil worker worked for a division of the
ConocoPhillips Company, according to a Cooney & Conway press
release dated April 30, 2010.

The division was found to be responsible for Mr. Lofton's
asbestos, which was diagnosed in 2004. A long-time employee of
the oil and well-drilling industry, Mr. Lofton remains on oxygen
24 hours a day.

The US$15.2 million verdict came after an eight-day trial. During
the litigation, Mr. Lofton's lawyers with Sullivan & Sullivan
succeeded in showing that the ConocoPhillips division in this
case, CP Chem, had for 20 years knowingly shipped a product that
contained asbestos.

That product, called Flosal, was poured from 50-pound sacks into
a hopper, where it was mixed. The process enveloped Mr. Lofton
and other workers with asbestos dust.

"There's no way the body expels those asbestos fibers, because
they are so tiny," said J. Robert Sullivan, one of Mr. Lofton's
attorneys, who also successfully proved that ConocoPhillips and
CP Chem had information that Flosal was harmful, yet continued to
ship and sell it to oil well sites into the mid-1980s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spokane Airport Penalized for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Spokane Regional Clear Air Agency received an anonymous tip,
leading it to penalize the Spokane International Airport in
Spokane, Wash., for exposing its employees to asbestos for at
least 10 days during renovation works, KXLY.com reports.

These workers were exposed to asbestos when airport officials
decided to remove a small portion of carpet in the parking
garage's administration building in the Spring of 2009. When
employees pulled up the carpet, asbestos laden tiles and glue
came with it.

Lisa Woodard with the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency said,
"Prior to any renovation activity for both residential and
commercial an asbestos survey needs to be conducted to determine
if asbestos is present."

Air quality officials say when the airport skipped the permitting
and survey process, Spokane International Airport breached about
a half dozen health and safety rules. About 120 square feet of
asbestos material that should have gone to a special landfill was
treated as regular garbage instead and workers exposed to a known
carcinogen.

Airport officials knew about the asbestos exposure for at least
10 days before one of their employees picked up the phone and
called the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency.

That whistle blower tip led to a notice of violation that could
now cost the airport a substantial fine.

The airport has received a notice of violation as a result of
this incident and will be assessed up to several thousand dollars
in fines in May 2010 for the code violations related to the
asbestos removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Port Clinton Building Costs $42,800
---------------------------------------------------------------
The abatement of lead and asbestos in the old Water Works
building in Port Clinton, Ohio, costs US$42,800, the Port Clinton
News Herald reports.

Chemtron Corp. did the work in December 2009.

However, certain City Council members were not happy about
passing an ordinance to pay the US$42,800 bill during an April
27, 2010 meeting.

Mayor Debbie Hymore-Tester said she had followed the
recommendation of former Safety-Service Director Robert Berner.
When the work was authorized before he left his position in
November, it was divided into two purchase orders. Since both
were less than US$25,000, the measure did not need council
approval.

After the meeting, Law Director George Wilber said Auditor Larry
Hartlaub questioned the two purchase orders and recommended they
be combined into one, which would need to be approved by council.

Also after the meeting, Mayor Hymore-Tester said the decision had
been made because the asbestos was dangerous.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Court Junks Appeal Over Northshore Mining
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's of a lower-court ruling regarding Northshore
Mining's air monitoring for asbestos-like fibers, the Duluth News
Tribune reports.

The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal because the PCA sent its
notice of appeal to the wrong address and Northshore did not
receive it.

Northshore Mining, a Cliffs Natural Resources subsidiary, has
been fighting the PCA over the air testing that compares North
Shore air with air in St. Paul by measuring the number of
asbestos-like fibers.

State District Judge Kenneth Sandvik ruled in January 2010 that
the state should not require Northshore Mining to conduct a full
environmental impact statement before applying for a change in
the permit to drop the air testing standard.

On April 27, 2010, PCA officials said they have not decided yet
how to proceed on the Company's request, but they said the
process will be open and will include a public comment period.
They also said they are not obliged to abide by the Company's
request.

If the Company disagrees with the PCA's eventual decision, it can
appeal back to the courts. Meanwhile, the requirement to test for
airborne asbestos-like fibers remains in effect.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kautz Case v. 40 Firms Filed April 16 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Pamela S. Massie and William
D. Kautz, co-executors of the Estate of Dale M. Kautz vs. A.O.
Smith Corporation, A.W. Chesterton Company, Baldor Electric
Company, et al. was filed on April 16, 2010 in Kanawha County
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Records reports.

The plaintiffs claim the 40 defendants are responsible for Dale
M. Kautz's mesothelioma and death. He was diagnosed May 1, 2008,
and died June 24, 2008, according to the suit.

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

Victoria Antion, Esq., and Christopher Tenoglia, Esq., will
represent the Kautz estate.

Case No. 10-C-716 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dowdy Case v. 65 Firms Filed April 16 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled James W. Dowdy and Nancy L.
Dowdy vs. 3M Company, A.W. Chesterton Company, Ajax Magnethermic
Corporation, et al. was filed on April 16, 2010 in Kanawha County
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Dowdys claim the 65 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Dowdy's lung cancer. They claim Mr. Dowdy stopped smoking in 1968
and was diagnosed with lung cancer on Nov. 1, 2009.

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

Victoria Antion, Esq., will represent the Dowdys.

Case No. 10-C-717 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitts Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 16 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Dick T. Kitts vs. 3M Company,
A.W. Chesterton Company, Aurora Pump Company, et al. was filed on
April 16, 2010 in Kanawha County Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

Mr. Kitts was diagnosed with lung cancer on March 18, 2009. He
claims the 41 defendants were responsible for his cancer. He
seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues regarding his asbestos-
related case.

Victoria Antion, Esq., will represent Mr. Kitts.

Case No. 10-C-718 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26 New Actions Filed During April 5 - 9 in Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of April 5, 2010 through April 9, 2010, a total
of 26 new asbestos-related lawsuits in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-389) Leonard Adams of Wisconsin, a janitor,
   mechanic and foreman, claims mesothelioma. Myles L. Epperson,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Adams.

-- (Case No. 10-L-391) Joel Anderson of North Dakota, a laborer
   and painter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Anderson.

-- (Case No. 10-L-399) Richard Bangs of Illinois, a
   laborer/assembler and an assistant engineer, claims lung
   cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Bangs.

-- (Case No. 10-L-377) Clarence Barron Sr. of South Carolina, a
   laborer, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry
   J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Barron.

-- (Case No. 10-L-398) Irvin Blackwell of Missouri, a laborer
   and maintenance worker, claims colon cancer. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Blackwell.

-- (Case No. 10-L-386) Measkyla J. Carter of Kentucky, a
   carpenter's apprentice through the carpenter's union, claims
   mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Ms. Carter.

-- (Case No. 10-L-392) Julius Helmle of Wisconsin alleges his
   deceased wife, Helen A. Helmle, developed mesothelioma after
   her work painting and decorating and painting at various job
   sites. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
   Edwardsville, Ill., and W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N.
   Haines, Esq., Angela B. Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard,
   Esq., Bridget B. Truxillo, Esq., Lauren H. Ware, Esq., and
   Taylor R. Nuttall, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in Houston,
   will represent Mr. Helmle.

-- (Case No. 10-L-388) Naomi Cook of California, a nurse, claims
   mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and John P. Wagner,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Cook.

-- (Case No. 10-L-401) Glenda Hickox of Florida claims her
   deceased stepfather, William Bernard, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a boiler man, as a laborer and as a
   warehouse worker. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Hickox.

-- (Case No. 10-L-387) Mary Ann Meyer of Arkansas claims her
   deceased husband, Robert Norman Meyer, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a boiler tender in the U.S. Navy; as a
   laborer at Chicago Rootprint Co.; as a laborer for Avis; as a
   laborer for Union Carbide Corporation; as a laborer for
   Cosupak; as a laborer for Leffingwell Steel; as a laborer for
   National Material Corporation; as a laborer for Korhumel
   Steel Corporation; as a laborer at Sonray Precision Steel
   Products; as a laborer at A M Precision Metal Processing
   Corp.; and as a laborer at Interstate Steel Co. 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-396) Patricia Moore of Missouri claims her
   deceased husband, Manley Moore, developed asbestosis after
   his work as a wheeler, skidder and laborer. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Moore.

-- (Case No. 10-L-404) Gary Nielson of California claims his
   deceased father, John C. Nielson, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a member of the Glaziers Local 718.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mr. Nielson.

-- (Case No. 10-L-403) Leonard and Dorothy Oliver of Arkansas
   allege Mr. Oliver developed pleural disease after his work as
   a member of the U.S. Army; as an insulator, as a worker for
   R.T. Dinwittie Company, as a laborer for John Mansville, as a
   worker for Paul J. Crese, as a worker for Phillips and as a
   worker out of Insulator's Local No. 5. Elizabeth V. Heller,
   Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent
   the Olivers.

-- (Case No. 10-L-379) James Owers of Louisiana, a laborer and
   water proofer, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Owers.

-- (Case No. 10-L-409) Bobby Lee Robbins of Ohio claims he
   developed lung cancer after his work as a laborer and welder
   and as a head maintenance man. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Robbins.

-- (Case No. 10-L-397) Frank Rogers of Louisiana, a laborer and
   a fireman, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Rogers.

-- (Case No. 10-L-410) Joanne Rose of Massachusetts alleges her
   deceased husband, David Rose, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a gas station attendant and store manager.
   Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent
   Mrs. Rose.

-- (Case No. 10-L-408) Larry Ross of Michigan, a nurse's aid,
   claims mesothelioma. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Ross.

-- (Case No. 10-L-380) Christine Stalinski of Missouri claims
   her deceased father, Terry C. Whitten, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a pipefitter and construction inspector.
   Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J.
   Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J.
   FitzGerald, Esq., of St. Louis, will represent Mrs.
   Stalinski.

-- (Case No. 10-L-382) Robert Steib of Illinois, a clerk,
   department manager, personnel manager, assistant store
   manager and store manager, claims mesothelioma. Christopher
   R. Guinn, Esq., and Christopher J. Levy, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Steib.

-- (Case No. 10-L-394) Marvin C. and Kristy Jo Thomas of Kansas
   claim Mr. Thomas developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   general contractor, laborer and drywaller; as a construction
   worker at Larry Falley's Construction; as a maintenance man
   at the City of Topeka Water Department; as a laborer at
   Goodyear Tire and Rubber; as a cabinet-maker at Mid-West
   Millworks; as a patrol officer at the Topeka Department of
   Police; as a salesman at Venture Department Stores; as a
   salesman at Shrimer Store West Feed Store; as a shop
   attendant at the State Highway Department; and as a shadetree
   mechanic. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates
   and W. Mark Lanier, Esq., Patrick N. Haines, Esq., Angela B.
   Greenburg, Esq., Sam T. Richard, Es., Bridget B. Truxillo,
   Esq., and Lauren H. Ware, Esq., of The Lanier Law Firm in
   Houston will represent the Thomases.

-- (Case No. 10-L-378) John P. Webb of Texas, a welder, claims
   lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Webb.

-- (Case No. 10-L-383) Rocky and Debbie Hoffman-Weider of
   California allege Mr. Weider developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a construction worker for various contractors, as a
   laborer at Kaiser Steel and as a shadetree mechanic worker.

-- (Case No. 10-L-381) Minnie Williams of Oklahoma claims her
   deceased husband, Robert Williams Jr., developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a kiln operator. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Williams.

-- (Case No. 10-L-400) Dewey E. Zahn of Illinois, a
   lithographer's mate, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips,
   Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Zahn.

-- (Case No. 10-L-405) Ruth M. Zeit of Pennsylvania, a teacher,
   professor and homemaker, claims mesothelioma. W. Brent
   Copple, Esq., and Myles L. Epperson, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Ms. Zeit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. Church Fined $12,158 For Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
US$12,158 penalty to Our Lady of La Vang Catholic Church, at 5404
NE Alameda Drive, Portland, Ore., for allowing unlicensed workers
to remove asbestos-containing insulation at the church in January
2010, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated May 4, 2010.

The church allowed workers to repair a boiler and associated
piping at the church building, including the removal of about 320
square feet of asbestos-containing thermal system insulation,
even though a full asbestos survey identifying the asbestos-
containing material had been conducted at the church several
years ago.

During the removal process, workers tore and broke the material,
rendering it friable and therefore capable of releasing asbestos
fibers into the air.

To protect the public from asbestos exposure, Oregon law requires
that only workers who are specially trained and licensed may
conduct friable asbestos abatement projects.

In addition to the US$12,158 penalty, DEQ cited the church for
openly accumulating asbestos-containing waste material at the
church site. The unlicensed workers failed to place the friable
asbestos-containing material into properly labeled and packaged,
leak-tight containers.

DEQ did not issue a penalty for this violation of state asbestos
law.

Our Lady of La Vang Catholic Church has until May 19, 2010 to
appeal this penalty. If it does not request an appeal by that
time, the full penalty amount will be due to the state of Oregon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thompson Case v. CSX Filed on April 9 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary F. Thompson, on behalf of her husband William D. Thompson,
filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against CSX Transportation Inc.
in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on April 9, 2010, The West
Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Thompson worked at CSX from 1971 to 1988, according to the
complaint. Mrs. Thompson claims during Mr. Thompson's employment,
he was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos, chemicals
and diesel exhaust, which in whole or in part, caused him to
develop lung cancer.

Mr. Thompson was diagnosed with lung cancer July 10, 2008,
according to the suit.

Mrs. Thompson seeks damages for Mr. Thompson's personal injury
and wrongful death. James A. McKowen, Esq., and John E. Guerry
III, Esq., represent Mrs. Thompson.

Case No. 10-C-674 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kunkel Case v. 89 Firms Filed April 8 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl R. Kunkel and his wife, Dianne C. Burkhart, a couple from
Pittsburgh, on April 8, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 89 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Kunkel was exposed to asbestos products of the defendants
when he was exposed to his father's asbestos-laden clothes from
1965 until 1994.

Mr. Kunkel claims his father was employed as a truck driver from
1961 until 1994 and drove to numerous industrial and commercial
facilities.

On Jan. 22, 2010, the 44-year-old Mr. Kunkel was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

Mr. Kunkel and Ms. Burkhart seek compensatory and punitive
damages. Brian A. Prim, Esq., represents them.

Case No. 10-C-672 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moseley Archaeologist's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Dr. Lawrence Barfield, an
archeologist from Moseley, Birmingham, England, was linked to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Birmingham Mail reports.

Dr. Barfield, who died at the age of 74, worked at the University
of Birmingham, where he was allegedly exposed to asbestos.

However, the inquest did not find any clear evidence Dr. Barfield
was exposed to the asbestos during his 27-year tenure at the
University between 1966 and 2000.

Cambridge educated Dr. Barfield, who worked in the Institute of
Archaeology and Antiquity, died at a hospice in Birmingham in
July 2009. During his career, he was involved in excavations
around the world including Malta, Egypt, Chile and across Europe.

In a statement read at the inquest, Dr. Barfield said he had an
office in the arts block and that there had been work carried out
there over the course of several years.

Professor Sherwood Burge, an expert in occupational lung disease,
said it was clear there was asbestos in the building and it was
more likely to have been there than anywhere else that Dr.
Barfield could have been exposed, although it remained an open
question.

Birmingham coroner Aidan Cotter said, "Dr Barfield spent his
career as a university lecturer at Birmingham University and also
took part in excavations around the world."

Dr. Cotter said it was possible Dr. Barfield could have been
exposed to asbestos during excavations or at the university and
that most mesotheliomas were caused by breathing in asbestos.

However, in recording a narrative verdict, Dr. Cotter said there
was no convincing supporting evidence the mesothelioma was the
result of exposure during Dr. Barfield's employment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kugler Claim v. Chevron Filed April 22 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Kugler's children, Casey Kugler and Kristen Kugler, on
April 22, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against Chevron
Corporation in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

The plaintiffs claim that while Cyrus Kugler worked as a helper,
electrician and operator for Chevron, he was exposed to asbestos.

According to the suit, because of his exposure to the substance,
Cyrus Kugler developed lung cancer from which he died on July 15,
2008.

The Kuglers seek exemplary and punitive damages, plus interest,
costs and other relief to which they may be entitled.

Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in Beaumont, Tex., will be
representing the Kuglers.

Case No. B186-660 has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Records $20.58MM Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$20,587,000 as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, according
to a Company press release dated May 3, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$6,944,000 as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$20,466,000 as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. The
Company's current asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$6,944,000 as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation develops and
manufactures high performance, specialty-material-based products
for applications in markets including: portable communications,
communications infrastructure, computer and office equipment,
consumer products, ground transportation, aerospace and defense.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $3.8M April 2 Litigation Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation recorded asbestos coverage litigation expenses
of US$3,881,000 during the three months ended April 2, 2010,
compared with US$2,966,000 during the three months April 3, 2009,
according to a Company press release dated April 30, 2010.

The Company spent US$2,904,000 for asbestos coverage litigation
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$4,905,000 during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010)

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,435,000 during the
three months ended April 2, 2010, compared with US$1,645,000
during the three months ended April 3, 2009.

Based in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation, through its global
operating subsidiaries, manufactures positive displacement
industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation,
commercial marine, global defense and general industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $24.47Mil March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities of
US$24,472,000 as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$24,874,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
May 5, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Cites $338.2M March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$338,273,000 as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$352,537,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
May 5, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable was US$236,159,000 as of March 31, 2010, compared with
US$244,265,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Net asbestos-related gain was US$747,000 during the fiscal three
months ended March 31, 2010. Net asbestos-related provision was
US$1,750,000 during the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2009.

Net asbestos-related provision amounted to US$26,265,000 during
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$6,607,000
during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, March 12, 2010).

Based in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is an engineering
and construction contractor and power equipment supplier
delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment. The Company employs about 13,000 professionals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Records $179.3M March 31 Receivable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc's asbestos-related receivable for
recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to US$179.3 million as
of March 31, 2010, of which US$67 million relate to costs
previously paid or insurance settlements.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$680 million.

Insurance recoveries reflected as receivables in the balance
sheet include recoveries where insurance-in-place agreements,
settlements or policy recoveries are probable.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers may defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the
Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months.

About 90 percent of the US$179.3 million receivable from
insurance companies at March 31, 2010 is due from domestic
insurers whose AM Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Inc. Records $778.1MM March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, as of March 31, 2010, estimates that the
liability for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity and
defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$778.1 million.

The amount included for unpaid indemnity and defense costs is not
significant at March 31, 2010. The estimated liability is before
any tax benefit and is not discounted as the timing of the actual
payments is not reasonably predictable.

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Abex Claims Drop to 17,491 at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries, Ltd., at March 31, 2010, recorded 17,491
pending asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation
to Pneumo-Abex Corporation (Pneumo).

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 22,829 pending asbestos-
related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo-Abex.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010)

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

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

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007. As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization,
the Company and Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that
was subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving
Federal-Mogul's indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement. As part of its obligation to Pneumo
for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction
product line (Abex Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by
Pneumo, to significant insurance for those claims.

Based on information provided by representatives of Federal-Mogul
and recent claims experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through March
31, 2010, a total of 148,121 Abex Claims were filed, of which
130,630 claims have been resolved.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, 381 claims were
filed and 5,719 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,024
before insurance.

A total of US$172.1 million was spent on defense costs for the
period Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2010.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Facing 27 Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 27 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April
30, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 26 pending asbestos cases. (Class Action
Reporter, March 5, 2010)

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

To date, four asbestos cases have been dismissed. Two new
asbestos cases were filed, one in the first quarter of 2010 and
another one in April 2010.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 550 Actions Ongoing v. MeadWestvaco at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of March 31, 2010, faced about 550
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on May 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company faced about 560 asbestos-related
lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010)

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

At March 31, 2010, the Company had recorded litigation
liabilities of about US$21 million, a significant portion of
which relates to asbestos.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 989 Actions Pending v. TriMas Corp. at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2010, was a party to about
989 pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,044 claimants
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a party to about 955 pending
cases involving an aggregate of about 7,816 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials.
(Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)

The asbestos was formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the
Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical
refining and exploration industries.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 359 claims filed, 118 claims dismissed and 13 claims
settled. Average settlement amount per claim was US$5,673 and
total defense costs were US$684,000.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 586
claims filed, 254 claims dismissed and 40 claims settled. Average
settlement amount per claim was US$4,644 and total defense costs
were US$2,652,000.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition.

Of the 8,044 claims pending at March 31, 2010, about 82 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum). About 60 of the 82 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), about 18 sought
between US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages) and four sought over
US$10 million (which includes compensatory and punitive damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, about 62 of the 82
claims sought between US$250,000 and US$600,000, about 16 sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million and four sought over US$5
million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, about 60 of the 82
claims sought between US$1 million and US$2.5 million, about 17
sought between US$2.5 million and US$5 million and five sought
over US$5 million.

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the
discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
about US$5.5 million. To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation
have been covered by its primary insurance.

Effective Feb. 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-
place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted.

Based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., TriMas Corporation manufactures
and distributes products for commercial, industrial and consumer
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crum & Forster Records $260Mil Net Losses, ALAE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.'s net unpaid asbestos losses and
allocated loss adjustment expenses (ALAE) were US$260,686,000
during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with
US$294,247,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2009.

The Company's gross unpaid asbestos losses and ALAE were
US$323,941,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with US$372,456,000 during the three months ended March
31, 2009.

The asbestos, environmental and other latent net loss reserves
include a provision for uncollectible reinsurance, in the
aggregate, of US$13,982,000 at March 31, 2010 and US$13,777,000
at Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Morristown, N.J., Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. writes
numerous lines of business including general liability, workers'
compensation, commercial automobile, property, commercial multi-
peril, accident and health, fidelity and surety, personal
automobile and homeowners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Faces 10,300 Cases (38,800 Claims)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated is currently involved in about 10,300 other
asbestos cases (about 38,800 claims) alleging injuries from
asbestos and amounts of monetary damages per case.

Those cases have been covered by insurance without material
impact to Corning to date.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50 percent of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a
period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants
have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about
11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCCs
asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million per claim.

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the
separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts
supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos
products.

Several of the Company's insurance carriers have filed a legal
proceeding concerning the extent of any insurance coverage for
these claims.

Based in New York, Corning Incorporated creates and makes
keystone components that enable high-technology systems for
consumer electronics, mobile emissions control,
telecommunications and life sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aaron Action Still Ongoing v. Hercules Offshore
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. is on of many defendants in asbestos-
related litigation styled Robert E. Aaron et al. vs. Phillips 66
Company et al. Circuit Court, Second Judicial District, Jones
County, Miss.

This is the case name used to refer to several cases that have
been filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi
involving 768 persons that allege personal injury or whose heirs
claim their deaths arose out of asbestos exposure in the course
of their employment by the defendants between 1965 and 2002.

The complaints name certain TODCOs subsidiaries and certain
subsidiaries of TODCO's former parent to whom TODCO may owe
indemnity. The complaints also name other unaffiliated defendant
companies, including companies that allegedly manufactured
drilling-related products containing asbestos that are the
subject of the complaints.

The number of unaffiliated defendant companies involved in each
complaint ranges from about 20 to 70. The complaints allege that
the defendant drilling contractors used asbestos-containing
products in offshore drilling operations, land based drilling
operations and in drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and
other equipment and assert claims based on negligence and strict
liability, and claims authorized under the Jones Act.

The plaintiffs seek awards of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. All of these cases were assigned to a special
master who has approved a form of questionnaire to be completed
by plaintiffs so that claims made would be properly served
against specific defendants. About 700 questionnaires were
returned and the remaining plaintiffs, who did not submit a
questionnaire reply, have had their suits dismissed without
prejudice.

Of the respondents, about 100 shared periods of employment by
TODCO and its former parent which could lead to claims against
either company, even though many of these plaintiffs did not
state in their questionnaire answers that the employment actually
involved exposure to asbestos.

After providing the questionnaire, each plaintiff was further
required to file a separate and individual amended complaint
naming only those defendants against whom they had a direct claim
as identified in the questionnaire answers. Defendants not
identified in the amended complaints were dismissed from the
plaintiffs' litigation. To date, three plaintiffs named TODCO as
a defendant in their amended complaints.

Based in Houston, Hercules Offshore, Inc. provides shallow-water
drilling and marine services to the oil and natural gas
exploration and production industry globally through its Domestic
Offshore, International Offshore, Inland, Domestic Liftboats,
International Liftboats and Delta Towing segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing Against Caterpillar Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. is party to unresolved legal actions including
performance liability (claimed asbestos and welding fumes
exposure).

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 3, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Choiniere's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, denied Bruno Choiniere's motion for summary judgment in
a case involving asbestos styled Bruno Choiniere, Plaintiff v. S.
Citchen, et al., Defendants.

U.S. Magistrates Judge R. Steven Whalen entered judgment in Case
No. 08-14853 on Feb. 2, 2010.

Mr. Choiniere, a pro se prison inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), filed an amended civil rights
complaint. He named six Defendants in his amended complaint, all
BOP employees or officials. These claims are:

-- Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by refusing Mr.
   Choiniere's request to have his work assignment changed from
   cleaning the showers to working in the kitchen, resulting in
   his exposure to chemicals that caused certain health
   problems;

-- Mr. Choiniere was denied access to certain legal materials,
   specifically Medicare regulations, resulting in "undue delay
   in seeking proper relief from illegal custody," and hence
   denying him his First Amendment right to access the courts,
   as well as his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
   and unusual punishment;

-- Mr. Choiniere was improperly put on the BOP's "Financial
   Responsibility Program Refuse Status," resulting in a
   diminution in pay and a less favorable housing assignment,
   all in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

-- Defendants failed to provide Mr. Choiniere with the BOP
   employee manual and other BOP material, infringing on his
   right to access the courts and his Eighth Amendment rights;

-- The denial of access to the BOP material caused him to be
   exposed to asbestos, resulting in health problems and a
   violation of the Eighth Amendment;

-- The denial of access to the BOP information caused Mr.
   Choiniere to be unwittingly exposed to water that was "unfit
   for human consumption" for over two years, resulting in an
   Eighth Amendment violation;

-- Widespread BOP policies, in the aggregate, resulted in
   Defendants "act[ing] in bad faith and dishonesty toward Mr.
   Choiniere," including ignoring his health concerns, and led
   to Eighth Amendment violations;

-- The Defendants worked in concert with one another, to keep
   Mr. Choiniere "in the dark" about his constitutional rights
   and BOP regulations, resulting in denial of his First
   Amendment right to access the courts and his Eight Amendment
   right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted and that Mr. Choiniere's amended
complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

The judge further recommended that Mr. Choiniere's Motions for
Summary Judgment be denied.

                            *********

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  * * *