CAR_Public/100514.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 14, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 94

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Denies Certification in GCOP Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for July 5
ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Consolidated EEOC/Romero Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in New Mexico

ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defending "Worker Classification" Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Bill Review Process
ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Automated Database
ANADIGICS INC: Motion to Dismiss New Jersey Suit Still Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Court Dismisses Direct Purchaser's Antitrust Suit

BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Remains a Defendant in Four Suits over AWPs
BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Approval Hearing in Settlement Set for July
COCA-COLA: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Complaint in Delaware
COCA-COLA: Faces Suits in Ga. over Planned Buy of CCE Assets

GOTTLIEB MEMORIAL: Unfair and Deceptive Billing Practices Alleged
JPMORGAN CHASE: Illegal Customer Account Setoffs Alleged in Suit
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Accused in Del. of Misleading Shareholders
ONEOK INC: Court Denies Plaintiff's Appeal on Decertification
PACIFIC LIFE: Accused in Florida of Violating IRS Code

RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Personal Injury-Related Suits
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.C.
TRAFIGURA: Leigh Day Bills GBP105 Mil. on Toxic Waste Class Suit

WADDELL & REED: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in California

                          Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Accrues $35.62MM April 2 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25,306 Claims Pending Against Colfax at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $442.8Mil Reserves at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.096B Net Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA, Insurers Still Awaiting A.P. Green Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $15Mil Net Costs at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,999 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 168 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 74,839 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Cites $14M March 31 Defense Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $84Mil Receivable at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Still Pursues N.Y. Insurance Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending Against Anadarko
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 450 Exposure Actions Ongoing v. McKesson Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. FirstEnergy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare's Cleanup Liability at $5.5M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Fulton Boiler Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA, MDEQ Sign Records for Libby Asbestos Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bartlett Taking Charge of Contamination Dispute

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.2Mil Penalty Imposed Against Erie Vera, LLC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Contractors Arrested for Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Softail to Plead Not Guilty on Asbestos Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Lawsuits Filed During April 19-23 in Madison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Latorre Action v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowder to Take Over Madison Docket on July 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual A&E Losses at $3Mil in March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rep. Smith Seeking GAO Probe on Asbestos Trusts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chorley Local Awarded GBP169T in Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22,500 Claims Pending v. Fairmont in 7 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Pending Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Involved in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Cases Still Ongoing Against Magnetek
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX, 6 Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Subject to Injury Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. District Court Dismisses Banks' Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Records $14.5MM Expenses at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Current Liability at $11.41M at April 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Receives 1,180 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 125.4T Claims in U.S. Ongoing v. Foster Wheeler

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler AG Records $3.7M Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 366 Claims Remain v. Foster Wheeler U.K. Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Inc. Facing 87 Injury Cases at April 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 33,691 Actions at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing Against Bucyrus Int'l.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 89T Open Claims Ongoing v. Ashland at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20T Open Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 74 Pending Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Ariz. Operators Fined $27T for Safety Breach

                            *********

ALLSTATE CORP: Court Denies Certification in GCOP Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
issued a ruling denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the second
subclass in a putative class action against The Allstate Corp.,
according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The company has been sued in a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

The plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to, but did not
receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit or
that the GCOP they received was not adequate to compensate them
for the entire costs of a general contractor.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Allstate incorrectly calculated
depreciation on property losses.

The Court granted partial summary judgment, and dismissed the
claim challenging the method of calculating depreciation.

In October 2008, the Court heard plaintiffs' motion to certify
three subclasses:

     -- the first class would impose a "three trade rule",
        meaning any time three or more trades are reflected on
        the estimate, GCOP must be paid;

     -- the second class encompassed the alleged miscalculation
        of GCOP when both general and specialty contractors are
        involved; and

     -- the third class sought to impose on the company
        statutory penalties for its alleged breach of contract
        with regard to the first two subclasses.

The Court denied plaintiffs' motion on the certification of the
two subclasses regarding the "three trade rule" and statutory
penalties.

The plaintiffs' motion for certification of the third subclass
alleging that GCOP is not properly calculated when both general
and specialty contractors are involved is pending.

The Court took under advisement the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the second subclass.

On April 6, 2010, the Court issued its ruling denying plaintiffs'
motion to certify the second subclass.

Plaintiffs had until April 20, 2010 to file a petition for
interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification and did
not file by the end of that day.

The case should now proceed at the trial court on the named
plaintiffs' individual claims only.  Once the trial court enters
a final judgment on plaintiffs' individual claims (either as a
result of a dispositive motion or a trial on the merits),
plaintiffs will have the right to appeal the trial court's
rulings, including the denial of class certification.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal Set for July 5
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has tentatively
scheduled oral argument for The Allstate Corp.'s appeal in a
class action lawsuit during the week of July 5, 2010, according
to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

The Louisiana Attorney General filed a class action lawsuit in
state court against Allstate and other insurers on behalf of Road
Home fund recipients alleging that the insurers have failed to
pay all damages owed under their policies.

The insurers removed the matter to federal court.

The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter
to state court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed that ruling.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the claims involving a Road Home subrogation
agreement.

In March 2009, the district court denied the State's request that
its claims be remanded to state court.

As for the defendant insurers' motion, the judge granted it in
part and denied it in part.

Dismissal of all of the extra-contractual claims, including the
bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims, was granted.  
Dismissal also was granted of all claims based on the Valued
Policy Law and all flood loss claims based on the levee breaches
finding that the insurers flood exclusions precluded coverage.

The remaining claims are for breach of contract and for
declaratory relief on the alleged underpayment of claims by the
insurers.  The judge did not dismiss the class action
allegations.

The defendants also had moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds
that the State had no standing to bring the lawsuit as an
assignee of insureds because of anti-assignment language in the
insurers' policies.

The judge denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration on
the assignment issue but found the matter was ripe for
consideration by the federal appellate court.

The defendants have filed a petition for permission to appeal to
the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth Circuit has accepted review.  

After the Fifth Circuit accepted review, plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the case to state court, asserting that the
class claims on which federal jurisdiction was premised have now
effectively been dismissed as a result of a ruling in a related
case.

The Fifth Circuit has denied the motion for remand, without
prejudice to plaintiffs' right to refile the motion for remand
after the Fifth Circuit disposes of the pending appeal.

The Fifth Circuit has tentatively scheduled oral argument during
the week of July 5, 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defends Consolidated EEOC/Romero Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit after
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the
decision which granted the company's summary judgment motions,
according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should
not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the
matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Third
Circuit along with the merits of the appeal.  In July 2009, the
Third Circuit vacated the decision which granted the company's
summary judgment motions, remanded the cases to the trial court
for additional discovery, and directed that the cases be
reassigned to another trial court judge.

In January 2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for
further proceedings in the trial court.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a putative nationwide
class action filed by former employee agents alleging various
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
including a worker classification issue, according to the
company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In January 2010, the case was assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a certified class action
in New Mexico challenging the method by which the company
discloses installment fees, according to the company's April 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The class members are limited to New Mexico policyholders based
on the trial court's acceptance of plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The plaintiffs contend that installment fees must be disclosed on
the insurance policy itself, which would include the declarations
page, because the fees allegedly meet the legal definition of
"premium".

Plaintiffs seek repayment of installment fees since October 1996.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Still Defending "Worker Classification" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a lawsuit involving worker
classification issues, according to the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

This lawsuit is a certified class action challenging a state wage
and hour law.

In December 2009, the liability phase of the case was tried and a
decision is pending.

In this case, plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as penalties
and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such as
injunctive relief.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Bill Review Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend various suits challenging
the legal propriety of Allstate's medical bill review processes.

There is a number of state and nationwide class action lawsuits
pending in various state courts challenging the legal propriety
of Allstate's medical bill review processes on a number of
grounds, including the manner in which Allstate determines
reasonableness and necessity.

These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror similar lawsuits
filed against other carriers in the industry, allege these
processes are used by Allstate systematically to undervalue
claims.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the form of contractual and
extra-contractual damages.

The company denies these allegations.

No further information was disclosed in the company's April 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Continues to Defend Suit Over Automated Database
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to defend a nationwide putative
class action that challenges its use of a vendor's automated
database in valuing total loss automobiles, according to the
company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

To a large degree, this lawsuit mirrors similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.

Plaintiffs allege that Allstate systematically underpays first
party total loss vehicle claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking
actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuit is in the discovery stage.

The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the  
holding company for Allstate Insurance Company.  The company's
business is conducted principally through Allstate Insurance
Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company and their affiliates.  
Allstate is primarily engaged in the personal property and
casualty insurance business and the life insurance, retirement
and investment products business.  It conducts its business
primarily in the United States.


ANADIGICS INC: Motion to Dismiss New Jersey Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANADIGICS, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class
action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, according to the company's April 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

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

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

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

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

As of March 30, 2010, that motion had been fully briefed by the
parties.

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Court Dismisses Direct Purchaser's Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re:
Plavix Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and
purported class actions have been filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy
chains (individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of
certain wholesalers), various health and welfare benefit
plans/funds and individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex Corp. of the patent infringement
litigation violated the Sherman Act and related laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  An amended complaint was filed
on Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2007.

In March 2010, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss with respect to all the direct purchaser claims.

In April 2010, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the District Court.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing
and delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail
over serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Motion to Dismiss Indirect Purchaser Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s motion to dismiss the matter In re:
Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, remains pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and
purported class actions have been filed against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, by various plaintiffs, including pharmacy
chains (individually and as assignees, in whole or in part, of
certain wholesalers), various health and welfare benefit
plans/funds and individual residents of various states.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the purported
settlement with Apotex Corp. of the patent infringement
litigation violated the Sherman Act and related laws.

Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive
relief barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Indirect
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.  An amended complaint was filed
on Oct. 19, 2007.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in December 2007 and that
motion remains pending.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing
and delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail
over serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Remains a Defendant in Four Suits over AWPs
----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. remains a defendant in four suit
relating to the average wholesale prices of their products.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.

The company remains a defendant in four state attorneys general
suits pending in state courts around the country.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's April
29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing
and delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail
over serious diseases.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Approval Hearing in Settlement Set for July
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement agreement
in a consolidated suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., is set
for July 2010, according to the company's April 29, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.

One set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL).

In August 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of a proposed settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims
against the company for $19 million, plus half the costs of class
notice up to a maximum payment of $1 million.

A final approval hearing is currently scheduled to occur in July
2010.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company committed to discovering, developing
and delivering innovative medicines that help patients prevail
over serious diseases.


COCA-COLA: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Complaint in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company faces a consolidated complaint filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware relating to its
planned acquisition of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.'s North
American operations, according to the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.

Shortly following the announcement of the proposed transaction
whereby the company will acquire CCE's North American operations,
purported shareowners of CCE filed five substantially identical
putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against CCE, the members of the Board of
Directors of CCE and the company.

These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one action
styled In Re CCE Shareholders Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No.
5291-VCN).

On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

On April 15, 2010, the company filed its answer to the
consolidated complaint.  On April 19, 2010, defendants CCE and
John Brock filed their answer to the consolidated complaint.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that CCE, CCE's directors and the company have violated
and are continuing to violate Delaware law by not submitting the
sale of CCE's North American operations to a separate vote of
CCE's shareowners; that CCE's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to CCE and its shareowners by approving the proposed
transaction for grossly inadequate consideration, and that the
company aided and abetted such breach.

The plaintiffs further allege that by virtue of its stock
ownership in CCE, representation on the Board of Directors of CCE
and various agreements and business relationships with CCE, the
Company dominates and controls CCE and therefore has a fiduciary
duty to CCE's public shareowners which the Company breached
because, among other things, the proposed transaction is not
entirely fair.

The plaintiffs seek a judgment enjoining the closing of the
proposed transaction, declaring the proposed transaction unlawful
and unenforceable and ordering rescission if the proposed
transaction is consummated, directing defendants to account for
all damages, profits, special benefits and unjust enrichment,
awarding the costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs
and expenses, and granting such other relief as the court deems
just and proper.

The Coca-Cola Company -- http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/--  
is the world's largest beverage company, refreshing consumers
with more than 500 sparkling and still brands.  Together with
Coca-Cola, recognized as the world's most valuable brand, the
company's portfolio includes 14 billion dollar brands, including
Diet Coke, Fanta, Sprite, Coca-Cola Zero, vitaminwater, Powerade,
Minute Maid, Simply and Georgia Coffee.  Globally, the company is
the No. 1 provider of sparkling beverages, juices and juice
drinks and ready-to-drink teas and coffees.  Through the world's
largest beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200
countries enjoy the company's beverages at a rate of 1.6 billion
servings a day.  With an enduring commitment to building
sustainable communities, the company is focused on initiatives
that protect the environment, conserve resources and enhance the
economic development of the communities where it operates.


COCA-COLA: Faces Suits in Ga. over Planned Buy of CCE Assets
------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company faces a consolidated suit filed in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia in connection with its
proposed acquisition of Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.'s North
American operations, according to the company's April 29, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 2, 2010.

Shortly following the announcement of the proposed transaction
whereby the company will acquire CCE's North American operations,
purported shareowners of CCE filed three putative class action
lawsuits in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia against
the company, CCE and the members of the Board of Directors of
CCE.

These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one action
styled In Re The Coca-Cola Company Shareholder Litigation (Civil
Action No. 2010cv182035).  The plaintiffs have yet to file a
consolidated complaint.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that by virtue of its stock ownership in and business dealings
with CCE, the company controls and dominates CCE and therefore
owes to CCE a duty of entire fairness and a duty not to misuse
its control of CCE for its own ends which the company breached
because, among other things, the proposed transaction is not
entirely fair.  In one of the lawsuits, the plaintiff also
alleges that the company, CCE and CCE's directors have violated
and are continuing to violate Delaware law by not submitting the
proposed transaction to a separate vote of CCE's shareowners.

The plaintiffs seek a judgment enjoining the closing of the
proposed transaction, declaring the proposed transaction void and
ordering rescission if the proposed transaction is consummated,
requiring disgorgement of profits, awarding damages, awarding
reasonable fees and expenses of counsel, and granting such other
relief as the court deems just and proper.

The Coca-Cola Company -- http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/--  
is the world's largest beverage company, refreshing consumers
with more than 500 sparkling and still brands.  Together with
Coca-Cola, recognized as the world's most valuable brand, the
company's portfolio includes 14 billion dollar brands, including
Diet Coke, Fanta, Sprite, Coca-Cola Zero, vitaminwater, Powerade,
Minute Maid, Simply and Georgia Coffee.  Globally, the company is
the No. 1 provider of sparkling beverages, juices and juice
drinks and ready-to-drink teas and coffees.  Through the world's
largest beverage distribution system, consumers in more than 200
countries enjoy the company's beverages at a rate of 1.6 billion
servings a day.  With an enduring commitment to building
sustainable communities, the company is focused on initiatives
that protect the environment, conserve resources and enhance the
economic development of the communities where it operates.


GOTTLIEB MEMORIAL: Unfair and Deceptive Billing Practices Alleged
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yashne Naidoo, individually and on behalf of others similarly   
situated v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, Case No. 2010-CH-19888   
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. May 7, 2010), asserts unfair and   
deceptive billing and collection practices, in breach of its   
contract with her benefits plan provider Blue Cross/Blue Shield,
and in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.  Ms. Naidoo says that
on April 30, 2009, she was treated at the hospital as a result of
an injury by a third party.  Ms. Naidoo says that under the Blue
Cross/Blue Shield-Gottlieb Memorial Hospital agreement, the
hospital is obligated to accept whatever compensation it   
contracted for from Blue Cross/Blue Shield plus any deductible or
co-payment as full and complete payment for its services and that
once this is paid, only her benefits plan is entitled to any
proceeds of her tort claim.  Yet, Ms. Naidoo says the hospital
has demanded from her payment of undiscounted amounts, and has
placed a lien on her tort claim to extract sums she does not owe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          120 S. LaSalle St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


JPMORGAN CHASE: Illegal Customer Account Setoffs Alleged in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Maltzahn, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
Case No. 10-CV-01977 (N.D. Calif. May 10, 2010), asserts the bank
violated California law when it made illegal deductions from her   
accounts with the bank to pay for a debt she allegedly owed.  Ms.
Maltzahn explains that under Sec. 864 of the California Financial
Code, a bank is required to follow certain procedures before it
can exercise any right of setoff for a debt which would result in
an aggregate balance in a customer's accounts falling below
$1,000.  Ms. Maltzahn says that her account was debited without
notice and that her account was left with a balance of $812.83
after the transaction.  Ms. Maltzahn says the bank's actions also
violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act Sec. 1750, the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Sec. 17200 of the Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Sturdevant, Esq.
          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          Whitney Huston, Esq.
          THE STURDEVANT LAW FIRM
          A Professional Corporation
          354 Pine St., Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 477-2410
          E-mail: jsturdevant@sturdevantlaw.com
                  molivier@sturdevantlaw.com
                  whuston@sturdevantlaw.com
          
               - and -

          Robert G. Eisele, Esq.
          EISELE LAW OFFICE
          354 Pine St., Fourth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 489-2001
          E-mail: eisele@icehouse.net


OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Accused in Del. of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Occidental Petroleum issued
false or misleading proxy statements for its May 7 stockholders'
meeting, regarding compensation for the company's top executives,
and tax deductions on these long-term incentive plans, according
to a class action in Delaware Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Resnik v. Abraham, et al., Case No.
99-mc-09999 (D. Del.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/11/Occidental.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Robert D. Goldberg, Esq.
          BIGGS and BATTAGLIA
          921 North Orange St.
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: 302-655-9677
          E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com

               - and -

          Alexander Arnold Gershon, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          1350 Broadway, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: 212-688-0782

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market St., Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-963-0600


ONEOK INC: Court Denies Plaintiff's Appeal on Decertification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens County,
Kansas, Civil Department, has denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration in the denial of class certification in a suit
where ONEOK, Inc., is a named defendant, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, FOrm 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 3,
2010.

                         Boles I

The company, its division Oklahoma Natural Gas, and four
subsidiaries, ONEOK Partners, Mid-Continent Market Center,
L.L.C., ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex
Transmission, L.L.C. and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch
Hydrocarbon, LP, successor to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), as well
as approximately 225 other defendants, are defendants in a
lawsuit claiming underpayment of gas purchase proceeds.

The suit is Thomas F. Boles, et al. v. El Paso Corporation, et
al. (f/k/a Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.,  f/k/a
Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.), Case
No. 99C30, filed in the 26th Judicial District, District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department- As previously reported,

The plaintiffs initially asserted that the defendants understated
both the volume and the heating content of the purchased gas, and
sought class certification for gas producers and royalty owners
throughout the United States.

The Court refused to certify the class and the plaintiffs amended
their petition to limit the purported class to gas producers and
royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming, and limited the
claim to undermeasurement of volume.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification, which, in effect, limited the named
plaintiffs to pursuing individual claims against only those
defendants who purchased or measured their gas.

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

On March 31, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration.

                       Boles II

Twenty-one groups of defendants, including the company, its
division Oklahoma Natural Gas, four subsidiaries of ONEOK
Partners, Mid-Continent Market Center, L.L.C., ONEOK Field
Services Company, L.L.C., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.L.C. and
ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P. (formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP, successor
to Koch Hydrocarbon Company), are defendants in a lawsuit
claiming underpayment of gas producers and royalty owners by
allegedly understating the heating content of purchased gas in
Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  

The suit is Thomas F. Boles, et al. v. El Paso Corporation, et
al. (f/k/a Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines, et al.), Case No. 03C232, filed in the 26th Judicial
District, District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil
Department.

This action was filed by the plaintiffs after the Court denied
the initial motion for class status in Boles I, and Boles II was
consolidated with Boles I to determine whether either or both
cases may properly be certified.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for
class certification, which, in effect, limited the named
plaintiffs to pursuing individual claims against only those
defendants who purchased or measured their gas.

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

On March 31, 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration.

ONEOK, Inc. -- http://www.oneok.com/-- is a diversified energy  
company.  The company is the general partner and own 42.8% of
ONEOK Partners, L.P., one of the largest publicly traded master
limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering,
processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S.
and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL)
systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky
Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is among the
largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving
more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.  The
company's energy services operation focuses primarily on
marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.


PACIFIC LIFE: Accused in Florida of Violating IRS Code
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pacific Life Insurance
"grossly inflated the commissions and other compensation" paid to
it and its agents for Flex XII life policies, a class action
claims in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Zarrella, et al. v. Pacific Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 10-cv-60754 (S.D. Fla.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/11/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          
          Ronald P. Weil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD WEIL, P.A.
          200 South Biscayne Blvd.
          Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-372-5352
          E-mail: rpw@weillaw.net


RED HAT: Court Approval of Settlement Agreement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit
against Red Hat, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, FOrm 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb.
28, 2010.

In the summer of 2004, 14 class action lawsuits were filed
against the company and several of its former officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the company's securities during
various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.

All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.

In each of the actions, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of
purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of
the period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.  All of the
claims arose in connection with the company announcement on July
13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial
statements.

One or more of the plaintiffs asserted that certain former
officers (Individual Defendants) and the company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.

One or more of the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the Individual Defendants from
trading in the Company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer of certain compensation and profits from
trading in the company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and other relief.

As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as Civil Action No.
5:04-CV-473BR and titled In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint.

On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Also
on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant,
filed a separate motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2006, the Court issued an order granting the motion to
dismiss the Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
Individual Defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.  The
Court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their
entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss.

On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs
withdrew as potential class representatives, and the company
opposed the certification of the remaining proposed class
representatives.

On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class
certification and denying all other pending motions as moot.  
Thereafter, on July 13, 2007 Charles Gilbert filed a renewed
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead counsel.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an Order allowing Gilbert's
motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him as a party
plaintiff and appointing lead counsel.  On Jan. 14, 2008,
Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action as a class
action.

On Aug. 28, 2009, the Court entered an Order certifying the
action as a class action, appointing Gilbert as the class
representative, and defining the class as "all purchasers of the
common stock of Red Hat, Inc. between Dec. 17, 2002, and July 12,
2004, inclusive and who were damaged thereby," excluding company
insiders.

On Dec. 15, 2009, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject, among
other matters, to completion of a final written settlement
agreement and court approval.

Red Hat, Inc. -- http://www.redhat.com/-- is the world's leading  
open source solutions provider and a component of the S&P 500, is
headquartered in Raleigh, NC with over 65 offices spanning the
globe.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company remains a defendant in various suits
relating to the manufacture and sale of lead pigments and lead-
based paints.

The company, along with other companies, is and has been a
defendant in a number of legal proceedings, including individual
personal injury actions, purported class actions, and actions
brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other
government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and
sale of lead pigments and lead-based paints.

The plaintiffs' claims have been based upon various legal
theories, including negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions, concert of action, civil
conspiracy, violations of unfair trade practice and consumer
protection laws, enterprise liability, market share liability,
public nuisance, unjust enrichment and other theories.  The
plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated
with a public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and
others.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's April
28, 2010, FOrm 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Sherwin-Williams Company -- http://www.sherwin.com/--  
manufactures, develops, distributes, and sells coatings and
related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and
retail customers. The company manufactures products under well-
known brands such as Sherwin-Williams(R), Dutch Boy(R),
Krylon(R), Minwax(R), Thompson's(R) Water Seal(R), and many more.  
With global headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, Sherwin-Williams(R)
branded products are sold exclusively through a chain of more
than 3,500 company-operated stores and facilities, while the
company's other brands are sold through leading mass
merchandisers, home centers, independent paint dealers, hardware
stores, automotive retailers, and industrial distributors.  The
Sherwin-Williams Global Finishes Group distributes a wide range
of products in more than 70 countries around the world.


SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Defends Various Personal Injury-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Sherwin-Williams Company remains a defendant in various suits
seeking damages from alleged personal injury.

The company and other companies are defendants in a number of
legal proceedings seeking monetary damages and other relief from
alleged personal injuries.
These proceedings include claims by children allegedly injured
from ingestion of lead pigment or lead-containing paint, claims
for damages allegedly incurred by the children's parents or
guardians, and claims for damages allegedly incurred by
professional painting contractors.

These proceedings generally seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and seek other relief including medical monitoring
costs.

These proceedings include purported claims by individuals, groups
of individuals and class actions.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's April
28, 2010, FOrm 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Sherwin-Williams Company -- http://www.sherwin.com/--  
manufactures, develops, distributes, and sells coatings and
related products to professional, industrial, commercial, and
retail customers. The company manufactures products under well-
known brands such as Sherwin-Williams(R), Dutch Boy(R),
Krylon(R), Minwax(R), Thompson's(R) Water Seal(R), and many more.  
With global headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio, Sherwin-Williams(R)
branded products are sold exclusively through a chain of more
than 3,500 company-operated stores and facilities, while the
company's other brands are sold through leading mass
merchandisers, home centers, independent paint dealers, hardware
stores, automotive retailers, and industrial distributors.  The
Sherwin-Williams Global Finishes Group distributes a wide range
of products in more than 70 countries around the world.


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonoco Products Co. continues to face a securities fraud lawsuit
filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Sonoco Products Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02348.

The company was served with the complaint, filed by the City of
Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, on July 7, 2008.

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of those who
purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 7, 2007, and
Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and directors of the company.

The complaint, as amended, alleges that the company issued press
releases and made public statements during the class period that
were materially false and misleading.

The complaint also names certain company officers as defendants
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

No other details regarding the suit were reported in the
company's April 28, 2010, FOrm 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
28, 2010.

The suit is City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City
of v. Sonoco Products Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02348, (D.
S.C.) (Wooten, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          Hopkins and Campbell
          P.O. Box 11963
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Phone: 803-256-6152
          Fax: 803-256-6155
          Email: wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com

Representing the defendants is:

          William Clarence Boyd, Esq.
          Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd
          P.O. Box 11889
          Columbia, SC 29211-1889
          Phone: 803-779-3080
          Fax: 803-765-1243
          Email: bboyd@hsblawfirm.com


TRAFIGURA: Leigh Day Bills GBP105 Mil. on Toxic Waste Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Ruckin at LealWeek.com reports that specialist claimant
firm Leigh Day & Co has billed GBP105m in fees for its work on
the class action brought against oil company Trafigura, in one of
the highest-ever costs claims for a single litigation case.

The bill, which was served in December, was disclosed at the
Royal Courts of Justice on Monday (10 May) in front of senior
cost judge Chief Master Hurst and Mr. Justice MacDuff.

The long-running case was settled for GBP30m last September, with
each of the 30,000 claimants entitled to receive GBP950 after the
class action claimed that they were poisoned by 'slops' -- toxic
waste dumped by Trafigura near Abidjan, Ivory Coast in 2006.
Leigh Day's bill includes GBP45m in legal fees, both for the firm
and counsel including Joe Smouha QC of Essex Court Chambers and
Doughty Street Chambers' Richard Hermer QC, as well as a GBP45m
success fee after the case was conducted under a conditional fee
agreement.

Other costs include a GBP10m after-the-event insurance premium
and GBP5m for disbursements, travels costs and expert fees.
A hearing is expected in front of Chief Master Hurst in the
autumn, although a detailed assessment of the bill is unlikely to
take place until next year.

Leigh Day senior partner Martyn Day commented: "It is the biggest
personal injury case this country has ever seen. The case was
bought in a war-torn country in Africa and we were up against
very tough and strong opponents. The case only settled days
before the trial was due to begin."

He added: "In the very first letter that we wrote to the
defendant in 2006 we urged them to sit round a table with us and
settle this claim. The company turned over $80bn (GBP53bn) last
year so they are a massive company and they made their decision
as to how to run the litigation. Had they of settled in 2006 they
would have resolved this for a fraction of the price."

Trafigura was represented in the class action by Macfarlanes'
head of contentious construction and engineering Simon Nurney. It
is understood that the firm's legal fees were GBP14m.


WADDELL & REED: Faces FLSA-Violations Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., faces a suit asserting claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's April 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

The suit is Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young, individuals, on
behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Development, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors, a fictitious
business name; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 09-CV-
2909 DMS WVG.

In an action filed Dec. 28, 2009, the company, along with various
of its affiliates, were sued in an individual action, class
action and Fair Labor Standards Act nationwide collective action
by two former advisors asserting misclassification of financial
advisers as independent contractors.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages and
overtime wages, and under California Labor Code Statutes for
timely pay wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal
periods, reimbursement of losses and business expenses and
itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair Business
Practices under Section 17200 of the California Business &
Professions Code.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages.  The Company intends to vigorously contest plaintiffs'
claims.

Waddell & Reed, Inc. -- http://www.waddell.com/-- founded in  
1937, is one of the oldest mutual fund complexes in the United
States, having introduced the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of
Mutual Funds in 1940.  Today, the company distributes its
investment products through the Waddell & Reed Advisors channel
(our network of financial advisors), its Wholesale channel
(encompassing broker/dealer, retirement, registered investment
advisors as well as the activities of our Legend subsidiary), and
its Institutional channel (including defined benefit plans,
pension plans and endowments and its subadvisory partnership with
Mackenzie in Canada).  Through its subsidiaries, Waddell & Reed
Financial, Inc. provides investment management and financial
planning services to clients throughout the United States.  
Waddell & Reed Investment Management Company serves as investment
advisor to the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group of Mutual Funds, Ivy
Funds Variable Insurance Portfolios, Inc. and Waddell & Reed
InvestEd Portfolios, Inc., while Ivy Investment Management
Company serves as investment advisor to Ivy Funds, Inc. and the
Ivy Funds portfolios.  Waddell & Reed, Inc. serves as principal
underwriter and distributor to the Waddell & Reed Advisors Group
of Mutual Funds, Ivy Funds Variable Insurance Portfolio, Inc. and
Waddell & Reed InvestEd Portfolios, Inc., while Ivy Funds
Distributor, Inc. serves as principal underwriter and distributor
to Ivy Funds, Inc. and the Ivy Funds portfolios.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Accrues $35.62MM April 2 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos liability was US$35,618,000
as of April 2, 2010, compared with US$34,866,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on April
30, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$407,211,000 as
of April 2, 2010, compared with US$408,903,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009.

Current asbestos insurance asset was US$32,207,000 as of April 2,
2010, compared with US$31,502,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009. The long-
term asbestos insurance asset was US$346,208,000 as of April 2,
2010, compared with US$357,947,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$24,208,000 as of April 2, 2010, compared with US$28,991,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2009. The long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$16,610,000 as of April 2, 2010, compared with US$16,876,000 as
of Dec. 31, 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: 25,306 Claims Pending Against Colfax at April 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 25,306 unresolved asbestos claims during
the three months ended April 2, 2010, compared with 34,421
unresolved claims during the three months ended April 3, 2009.

During the three months ended April 2, 2010, the Company recorded
1,330 claims filed and 1,319 claims resolved. During the three
months ended April 3, 2009, the Company recorded 953 claims filed
and 1,889 claims resolved.

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

Of the 25,306 pending claims, about 4,100 of such claims have
been brought in various federal and state courts in Mississippi;
about 3,100 of such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court
of New York County, N.Y.; about 200 of such claims have been
brought in the Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and about
1,300 claims have been filed in state courts in Michigan and the
U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan.

The remaining pending claims have been filed in state and federal
courts in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Washington.

For one of the subsidiaries, on Oct. 14, 2009, the Delaware Court
of Chancery ruled that asbestos-related costs should be allocated
among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation (which
allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection with a
claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the
policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to
excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the
business.

In 2003, the other subsidiary brought legal action against a
large number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a
variety of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related
bodily injury claims asserted against it. Although none of these
insurance companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing,
reasonableness and allocation of payments.

For this subsidiary, it was determined by court ruling in the
fourth quarter of 2007, that the allocation methodology mandated
by the New Jersey courts will apply. Further court rulings in
December 2009, clarified the allocation calculation related to
amounts currently due from insurers as well as amounts the
Company expects to be reimbursed for asbestos-related costs
incurred in future periods.

The subsidiary expects to responsible for about 14 percent of all
future asbestos-related costs.

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: Colfax Corp. Has $442.8Mil Reserves at April 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established reserves of US$442.8 million
as of April 2, 2010 and US$443.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 for
the probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability
cost it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15
years.

The Company has also established recoverables of US$388.4 million
as of April 2, 2010 and US$389.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 for
the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same
time period.

Net of these recoverables, the expected cash outlay on a non-
discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over
the next 15 years was US$54.4 million as of April 2, 2010 and
US$54.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. In addition, the Company has
recorded a receivable for liability and defense costs previously
paid in the amount of US$40.8 million as of April 2, 2010 and
US$45.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, for which insurance recovery
is deemed probable.

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: CNA Fin'l. Has $1.096B Net Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation's net asbestos reserves amounted to
US$1.096 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with US$1.151 billion during the three months ended
March 31, 2009.

The Company's net asbestos-related reserves amounted to US$1.137
billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$1.202 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2010)

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation primarily provides
commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers'
compensation, auto, general and professional liability, and other
products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells
specialty insurance including professional liability for doctors,
lawyers, and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA, Insurers Still Awaiting A.P. Green Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation and other insurers are still awaiting
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on the confirmation of
A.P. Green's Plan of Reorganization.

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

Under the agreement, the Company is required to pay US$70
million, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a 10-year period
commencing after the final approval of a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization. The settlement received initial bankruptcy court
approval in August 2003.

The debtor's plan of reorganization includes an injunction to
protect the Company from any future claims. The bankruptcy court
issued an opinion in September 2007 recommending confirmation of
that plan. In July 2008, the District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court's ruling.

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

Based in Chicago, CNA Financial Corporation primarily provides
commercial coverage, with standard offerings as workers'
compensation, auto, general and professional liability, and other
products for businesses and institutions. The Company also sells
specialty insurance including professional liability for doctors,
lawyers, and architects, and vehicle warranty service contracts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Records $15Mil Net Costs at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation recorded net asbestos-related costs of US$15
million during the three months ended March 31, 2010, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 3, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$860 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$867 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$584 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$604 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation has three primary
segments: defense electronics & services, fluid technology, and
fluid & motion control. The Company gets about two-thirds of its
sales in the U.S.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 104,999 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation faced 104,999 open asbestos-related claims as of
March 31, 2010, compared with 105,785 open claims as of Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 3,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company reported 1,286 claims filed,
247 settlements, and 719 dismissals. As of Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company reported 1,154 new claims, 461 settlements, 1,122
dismissals, and 3,208 adjustments.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has
been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.

These claims allege that certain of the Company's products sold
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party,
e.g., a gasket, which contained asbestos.

Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any Company or
Goulds product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, in
a large majority of the 104,999 pending claims against the
Company, the plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury.
Many of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets
(including 44,302 claims in Mississippi).

The Company's experience to date is that a substantial portion of
resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the
Company. As a result, management believes that about 90 percent
of the 104,999 open claims have little or no value.

The average payment per resolved claim was US$22,100 for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010 and US$14,900 for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Based in White Plains, N.Y., ITT Corporation has three primary
segments: defense electronics & services, fluid technology, and
fluid & motion control. The Company gets about two-thirds of its
sales in the U.S.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 168 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 168 pending claims against Rogers Corporation as
of March 31, 2010, compared with about 167 pending claims at Dec.
31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
May 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A significant number of asbestos-related product liability claims
have been brought against numerous United States industrial
companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Company has
been named, along with hundreds of other companies, as a
defendant in some of these claims.

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

Of the 168 claims pending as of March 31, 2010, about 54 claims
do not specify the amount of damages sought, about 110 claims
cite jurisdictional amounts, and four claims (or about 2.4
percent of the pending claims) specify the amount of damages
sought not based on jurisdictional requirements.

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

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants. The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims. For the quarter ended March 31, 2010, the Company was
able to have 14 claims dismissed and settled six claims.

For the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, about 96 claims were
dismissed and 22 were settled.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.

Those settlements totaled about US$1.1 million during the quarter
ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$1.7 million during the
first quarter of 2009 and about US$7.6 million for the full year
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: Union Carbide Facing 74,839 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 74,839 unresolved asbestos claims
at March 31, 2010, compared with 74,802 claims at March 31, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 4, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 75,030 unresolved asbestos claims at Dec. 31,
2009, compared with 75,706 unresolved claims at Dec. 31, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2010)

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

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

At March 31, 2010, the Company recorded 2,029 claims filed; 2,220
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 23,877 claimants
with claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 50,962
individual claimants.

At March 31, 2009, the Company recorded 2,295 claims filed; 3,199
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved; 24,126 claimants
with claims against both the Company and Amchem; and 50,676
individual claimants.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Cites $14M March 31 Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded US$14 million defense costs
for asbestos claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with US$11 million during the three months ended March
31, 2009.

The Company recorded US$12 million resolution costs for asbestos
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared
with US$24 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company's asbestos-related liability for
pending and future claims was US$839 million. At Dec. 31, 2009,
about 23 percent of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and about 77 percent related to future claims.

Based on the Company's review of 2010 activity, it was determined
that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March 31, 2010.
The Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was US$827 million at March 31, 2010.

About 24 percent of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and about 76 percent related to future claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $84Mil Receivable at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$84 million at March 31,
2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

At March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the 1985 Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
the asbestos-related liability, the Company had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

The Company's total receivables for asbestos-related costs were
US$475 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$532 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

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


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

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds (Insurance
Litigation).

The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the 1985 Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place with the Company regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending Against Anadarko
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to be a defendant in
various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of
third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and
benzene.

These employees worked at refineries (previously owned by
predecessors of acquired companies) located in Texas, California
and Oklahoma, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on May 4, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 450 Exposure Actions Ongoing v. McKesson Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation, through its former McKesson Chemical
Company division, is named in about 450 cases involving the
alleged distribution of asbestos, according to the Company's
annual report filed on May 4, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

These cases typically involve either single or multiple
plaintiffs claiming personal injuries and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.

Under an indemnification agreement signed at the time of the 1987
sale of McKesson Chemical Company to what is now called Univar
USA Inc., the Company tendered each of these actions to Univar.
Univar subsequently raised questions concerning the extent of its
obligations under the indemnification agreement.

Univar continued to defend the Company in some of these cases,
but in February 2005, Univar began rejecting tenders and
accordingly, the Company incurred defense costs and de minimis
settlement costs in connection with the more recently served
actions.

The Company filed an arbitration demand against Univar under the
indemnification agreement seeking a determination that the
liability for these cases is Univar's responsibility.

On Feb. 9, 2010, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which provides that Univar will defend and indemnify the Company
for all pending and future matters.

Based in San Francisco, McKesson Corporation delivers medicines,
pharmaceutical supplies, information and care management products
and services designed to reduce costs and improve quality across
the healthcare industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. FirstEnergy
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. continues to face pending asbestos litigation
involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Involved in Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. continues to be party to various lawsuits in
several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by the
Company's former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or
mixed dust.

There are about 1,226 of these types of cases pending, involving
a total of about 2,670 plaintiffs, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 4, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In addition, the claims of about 7,500 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio and Indiana state courts. The Company does not expect these
claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts'
medical criteria for asbestos-related claims.

Based in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc. is primarily a holding
company. The Company operates in the component products industry
through its subsidiary, CompX International Inc. The Company
operates in the chemicals industry through its non-controlling
interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare's Cleanup Liability at $5.5M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement
liability amounted to US$5,558,000 as of March 31, 2010, compared
with US$5,486,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 4, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.
is a holding company that owns subsidiaries that operate skilled
nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, hospices, and a
rehabilitation therapy business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Fulton Boiler Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos filed by Fulton Boiler
Works, Inc. against various defendants.

District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered judgment in Case No.
5:06-CV-1117 (GTS/DEP) on March 25, 2010.

This insurance contract action was filed by Fulton Boiler Works,
Inc. against American Motorists Insurance Company, American
Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (collectively "Kemper"),
and OneBeacon Insurance Company, as successor to Commercial Union
Insurance Company.

Subsequently, Kemper filed a Third Party Complaint against
Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company, and The St. Paul Travelers, a company that
later identified The Travelers Companies, Inc., as a Corporate
Parent.

Currently before the Court were the following four motions: (1)
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; (2) Travelers
Casualty & Surety Company's Cross-Motion for Declaratory
Judgment; (3) Wausau and Defendant Nationwide's motion for
Declaratory Judgment; and (4) OneBeacon's cross-motion for
summary judgment

Plaintiff's motion was granted in part and denied in part, and
Defendants' cross-motions were denied.

On April 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Kemper and
OneBeacon. On Sept. 18, 2006, this action was removed to federal
court by OneBeacon. On Oct. 30, 2006, Kemper filed a cross-claim
against OneBeacon. On Nov. 9, 2006, Kemper filed a Third Party
Complaint against Wausau, Nationwide, and The St. Paul Travelers.

On May 24, 2007, The St. Paul Travelers identified The Travelers
Companies, Inc. as a Corporate Parent (collectively "Travelers").
On July 23, 2007, OneBeacon filed a Third Party Complaint against
Wausau, Nationwide, and The St. Paul Travelers. On Oct. 31, 2007,
Kemper filed an Amended Answer to the Complaint, a counterclaim
against Plaintiff, and a cross-claim against OneBeacon.

On Dec. 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against
OneBeacon, Wausau, Nationwide, The St. Paul Travelers, and Kemper
(collectively "Defendants"). On Jan. 9, 2009, OneBeacon filed a
cross-claim against Wausau, Nationwide, Kemper, The St. Paul
Travelers, and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company, and a
counterclaim against Plaintiff. On Feb. 3, 2009, Travelers
Casualty & Surety Company filed a cross-claim against Kemper and
OneBeacon (as successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company),
and a counterclaim against Plaintiff.

Generally, in its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that,
"[b]eginning in or about the early 1990s, [Plaintiff] has been
named as a defendant in thousands of lawsuits in New York and
elsewhere, alleging bodily injury, wrongful death or other
damages related to or arising out of boilers that Plaintiff
manufactured (the "Asbestos Claims").

As a result, Plaintiff alleged that it had made insurance claims
regarding these Asbestos Claims to OneBeacon and Kemper, and that
these insurance claims were initially accepted (whereupon
Defendants paid for Plaintiff's defense in the lawsuits, settling
many of them instead of going to trial).

However, Plaintiff alleged that, in 2005, Kemper and Defendant
OneBeacon demanded more money or they would revoke coverage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA, MDEQ Sign Records for Libby Asbestos Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Records of Decisions for Operable Units 1 & 2 (the former W. R.
Grace Export and Screening plants) at the Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site in Libby, Mont., were signed on May 10, 2010 by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality, according to an EPA press
release dated May 11, 2010.

These officials are Richard Opper, Director of the Mont. DEQ and
Carol Campbell, Assistant Regional Administrator for Ecosystems
Protection in EPA's Region 8. These Records of Decision (RODs)
determine the remedies for the cleanup of two prominent
properties within the Superfund site.

Public comments on the proposed remediation plan for the two
Operable Units (OUs) were taken over an extended comment period
of 120 days. EPA's proposed plans were significantly amended to
address the concerns of the citizens in Lincoln County.

In order to protect human health and the environment, a
combination of soil removal and containment (capping) will be
used to break the critical soil-to-air exposure pathway.

Ms. Campbell said, "EPA believes that public health and the
environment in Libby are best served by moving forward with these
remedies in order to effectively break soil exposure pathways and
prepare these important properties for reuse. EPA will work
closely with the City of Libby, the owner of OU 1, during the
design so the remedy will complement any planned future use of
the property."

In November 1999, EPA sent an Emergency Response Team to Libby as
the result of local concern and news articles about asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite that was mined near town by the W. R.
Grace Corporation. EPA's first priority was to assess the risk to
public health with respect to asbestos contamination and
eliminate the major sources of asbestos in the community. The
mine has been inactive since 1990 and access to the Grace
property has been restricted for several years.

In 2002, the Libby Asbestos Site was added to the National
Priorities List (Superfund) and more than 3,000 properties were
inspected and sampled. By October 2009, more than 1,100
properties had been cleaned up in the residential areas (OU 4)
and significant toxicity studies had been initiated to complete
the Baseline Risk Assessment.

Investigations are ongoing in the neighboring town of Troy (OU
7), at the mine site (OU 3), at various former vermiculite
processing areas (OUs 1, 2, and 5), OU 6 (the railroad rights of
way) and OU 8 (state highways).

In June 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced the
agency has determined that a public health emergency exists at
the Libby asbestos site in northwest Montana. This is the first
time EPA has made a determination under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
that conditions at a site constitute a public health emergency.

This determination recognizes the serious impact to the public
health from the contamination at Libby and underscores the need
for further action and health care for area residents who have
been or may be exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bartlett Taking Charge of Contamination Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Bartlett, the Premier of Tasmania, Australia, indicated he
is taking steps to resolve a dispute about asbestos contamination
at the old maternity hospital in Devonport, ABC News reports.

Loose asbestos was found on two levels of the building, prompting
public health warnings and concern from locals who have seen
children playing at the site.

A row has been brewing between the government and the Devonport
City Council about who is responsible for the clean up because
the owner is in receivership.

On May 10, 2010, Mr. Bartlett spoke to the Devonport Mayor Lynn
Laycock, who says the discussions were positive. Mayor Laycock
said, "Premier Bartlett wants to work closely with Devonport City
Council so we can resolve this."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.2Mil Penalty Imposed Against Erie Vera, LLC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore City Circuit Court imposed a civil penalty of
US$115,500 against 2315 St. Paul Street, LLC and the maximum
penalty of US$1,225,000 against Erie Vera, LLC, finding the
defendants' actions were willful and making this the largest
penalty ever imposed for an asbestos case in Maryland, according
to a Maryland Department of the Environment press release dated
May 7, 2010.

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said, "The defendant showed
no regard for the health of the workers and the surrounding
environment by not following the proper process when removing
asbestos. I am pleased that the State was able to secure the
largest asbestos penalty ever, sending a clear message that we
will continue to vigorously enforce Maryland's environmental
laws."

MDE Secretary Shari T. Wilson said, "Maryland will continue to
fully enforce the laws that safeguard public health. The
anonymous tip that led MDE to the discovery of these illegal and
unsafe actions is a reminder of the important role Marylanders
play in protecting our environment and public health."

On Sept. 4, 2007, MDE's asbestos program received an anonymous
complaint that asbestos was being disturbed during renovation.
MDE's inspector observed asbestos debris, as well as a large pile
of asbestos contaminated debris, on each floor of a large six-
story building.

The debris was being shoveled into a large garbage chute that
descended five stories into an open dumpster on the ground. There
were no signs of engineering controls, or wetting of the asbestos
containing materials, as is required by law.

In addition, none of 15-20 workers on site were using the
required physical protection, such as respirators or protective
clothing.

MDE's inspector ordered the owner to stop all work, immediately
evacuate the workers, and hire a licensed asbestos contractor to
decontaminate the building. About 7,500 bags of asbestos waste,
including 1,500 linear feet of friable pipe insulation, were
generated during the decontamination

Secretary Wilson and Attorney General Gansler would like to thank
MDE Inspector Tim O'Hare and Assistant Attorney General Chris
Corzine for their work on this case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Buffalo Contractors Arrested for Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, on May 5, 2010,
announced the arrests of the owner of Peerless Environmental
Control, Inc., a local asbestos abatement contractor, and a
demolition contractor, for illegally dumping more than five tons
of asbestos-contaminated debris inside an abandoned warehouse in
Buffalo, N.Y., according to a New York AG press release dated May
5, 2010.

The 45-year-old Robert L. Bishop, of Tonawanda Creek Road, East
Amherst, owner of Peerless Environmental Control, Inc, and the
47-year-old Salvatore P. Capizzi, of Whitehaven Road, Grand
Island, a self-employed demolition contractor, are charged with
Endangering Public Health, Safety or the Environment in the Third
Degree (a class E felony) and Criminal Mischief in the Second
Degree (a class D felony).

They each face a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

Attorney General Cuomo said, "People who try to cut corners by
illegally dumping harmful materials like asbestos endanger the
public and hurt the environment. My office has no tolerance for
polluters who fail to comply with the state's stringent hazardous
waste disposal laws."

According to court papers, Mr. Bishop, while operating as an
asbestos abatement contractor for various area construction
projects, collected thousands of pounds of asbestos-contaminated
waste and stored it in containers at a warehouse on West Avenue
in Buffalo.

When Mr. Bishop was notified that the New York State Department
of Labor's Asbestos regulators wanted to inspect his facility, he
paid some of his workers to haul the waste to a different
building on Leslie Street in Buffalo purportedly owned by Mr.
Capizzi. However, Mr. Capizzi never owned the property, which had
been abandoned for many years.

The asbestos waste remained hidden for more than a year at the
Leslie Street site until it was discovered by the State
Department of Labor's asbestos regulators. The site has since
been cleaned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which
removed more than five tons of asbestos-contaminated material at
a cost of about US$137,400.

An ensuing investigation by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's (DEC) Bureau of Environmental Crimes
Investigation and the Attorney General's office resulted in the
charges filed against Mr. Bishop and Mr. Capizzi.

State Environmental Conservation Commissioner Pete Grannis said,
"In this case, the alleged reckless and dangerous acts of two
individuals put public health and the environment at risk. DEC's
investigators diligently pursued this case and we thank Attorney
General Andrew Cuomo for working to ensure that environmental
crimes are prosecuted vigorously. Our joint effort sends a clear
message that those who violate state environmental will be held
accountable for their actions."

The Attorney General thanked the Department of Environmental
Conservation for their cooperation in this investigation. The
charges against the defendants are merely accusations, and the
defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General Paul
McCarthy under the supervision of Criminal Prosecutions Bureau
Deputy Chief Richard Ernst.

The investigation was conducted by DEC Lt. Jeffrey Jondel,
Investigator Robert E. O'Connor of the DEC's Bureau of
Environmental Crimes Investigation, EPA Special Agent Darin J.
Mugleston, and Senior Investigator Paul R. Scherf of the Attorney
General's Investigations Bureau, under the supervision of Deputy
Chief Investigator James L. Domres.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Softail to Plead Not Guilty on Asbestos Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Softail Proprietary Limited, a demolition company accused of
dumping rubble containing asbestos near Geraldton Grammar School,
indicated it will plead not guilty to the charges brought against
it, ABC News reports.

On April 201, the City of Geraldton-Greenough, Western Australia,
launched a prosecution against Softail, which trades under the
name of Geraldton Earthmoving Contractors.

In the local magistrates court on May 6, 2010, lawyers for the
Company told the court a not guilty plea was likely to be entered
but that could change after the evidence had been further
assessed.

The matter was adjourned until June 17, 2010 to allow the
prosecution to provide full disclosure of all the evidence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Lawsuits Filed During April 19-23 in Madison
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of April 19, 2010 through April 23, 2010, a total
of 14 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-455) Leona Burton of Illinois, an
   administrative assistant/clerical and accountant, claims
   mesothelioma. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mrs. Burton.

-- (Case No. 10-L-452) Mary Cawvey of Florida claims her
   deceased husband, Charles Cawvey, developed lung cancer after
   his work as a boiler technician, powerhouse chief and
   maintenance supervisor. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mrs. Cawvey.

-- (Case No. 10-L-442) Louis and Patricia Ezell claim Mr. Ezell
   developed mesothelioma after his work as a member of the U.S.
   Navy, as a farmer and as a worker at Olin. Richard L. Saville
   Jr., Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will
   represent the Ezells.

-- (Case No. 10-L-435) Louis J. Gualandi of Illinois, a laborer
   at Joliet Arsenal, a farmer and laborer at Gualandi Farms, a
   self-employed commercial and residential construction worker
   and a construction worker, claims mesothelioma. Randy L.
   Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mr. Gualandi.

-- (Case No. 10-L-453) Charles Harvey of Iowa, a laborer,
   painter and contractor, claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Harvey.

-- (Case No. 10-L-439) R. Peter Iaukea of Florida, a laborer,
   drywaller, counselor, salesman, insurance agent and
   carpenter, alleges mesothelioma. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq.,
   of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Iaukea.

-- (Case No. 10-L-437) Thomas Kaisersatt of California, a
   laborer, pipefitter's helper, lab worker and
   software/computer programmer, claims mesothelioma. Timothy F.
   Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Kaisersatt.

-- (Case No. 10-L-443) Rudolph and Kathie M. Knowles of Florida
   claim Mr. Knowles developed lung cancer after his work as a
   welder and boiler tube worker for Buckeye Cellulose Plant, as
   a laborer for Occidental Mine and as a construction worker.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Knowles couple.

-- (Case No. 10-L-447) Howard L. Opperman of Missouri, a
   laborer, mechanic, welder, pipefitter, painter and minister,
   claims an asbestos-related disease. W. Brent Copple, Esq.,
   and Myles L. Epperson, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Opperman.

-- (Case No. 10-L-441) Antonios and Maria Pattas of Iowa claim
   Mr. Pattas developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   laborer, kiln burner, lancer, boiler tender and kiln
   operator. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent the Pattas couple.

-- (Case No. 10-L-450) Laddie and Sandra Peterka of Arkansas
   allege Mr. Peterka developed mesothelioma after his work as
   an engineer, laborer and machinist. Shane F. Hampton, Esq.,
   and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent the
   Peterkas.

-- (Case No. 10-L-446) Dorothy Spencer of Texas claims her
   deceased husband, Tracy Clifford Spencer, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a laborer and cementer. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mrs. Spencer.

-- (Case No. 10-L-436) Michael Theriault of New Hampshire claims
   his deceased father, Robert Theriault, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a maintenance worker, laborer and
   millwright. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Theriault.

-- (Case No. 10-L-454) Terry Ward claims his deceased wife,
   Laura A. Ward, developed mesothelioma after she was
   secondarily exposed to asbestos fibers through her father,
   who worked as an electrician and lineman. Andrew O'Brien,
   Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq.,
   Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald,
   Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St. Louis, will represent Mr.
   Ward.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Latorre Action v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Judith Ann Latorre, executrix of the
Estate of Glen E. Kitchen Jr. v. 3M Company, A.K. Steel
Corporation, A.W. Chesterton Company et al. was filed on April
27, 2010 in Kanawha County Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record
reports.

Ms. Latorre claims the 65 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Kitchen's mesothelioma and death. He was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Feb. 22, 2010 and died on March 5, 2010.

Ms. Latorre seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in
the asbestos-related case.

Thomas P. Maroney, Esq., and Victoria Antion, Esq., represent Ms.
Latorre.

Case No. 10-C-776 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crowder to Take Over Madison Docket on July 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Crowder, Madison County Circuit judge, will
officially take over Madison County, Ill.'s asbestos docket on
July 30, 2010, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, who has handled
asbestos since 2004, announced his retirement in 2009. He is set
to retire later in 2010.

Judge Crowder was selected by Madison County Chief Judge Ann
Callis to take over the docket in February 2010. She tried her
first asbestos case in March 2010.

Judge Stack took over the docket from then-Madison County Circuit
Judge Nicholas Byron.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual A&E Losses at $3Mil in March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc.'s subsidiary, Liberty Mutual
Group, recorded US$3 million during the three months ended March
31, 2010 as asbestos- and environmental-related net incurred
losses attributable to prior years, according to a Company press
release dated May 11, 2010.

The Company recorded US$1 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2009 as A&E-related net incurred losses attributable to
prior years.

Based in Boston, Liberty Mutual Holding Company Inc., the parent
corporation of the Liberty Mutual Group of entities, is a
diversified global insurer and fifth largest property and
casualty insurer in the U.S. based on 2009 direct written
premium.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rep. Smith Seeking GAO Probe on Asbestos Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2010, Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican on the House
Judiciary Committee, requested Acting U.S. Comptroller General
Gene Dodaro, the director of the Government Accountability
Office, to check the secrecy behind trusts created to pay
asbestos-related claims against bankrupt companies, The
Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In his letter to Mr. Dodaro, Mr. Smith was concerned that the
trusts operate in secrecy, which leads to fraudulent injury
claims including double-dipping. He noted that the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code has a presumption in favor of public access to
information filed in bankruptcy cases.

Congress intended the asbestos trust system be there to ensure
that all present and future claimants have equal access to
payments for asbestos-related injuries, Mr. Smith said. He added
that media accounts and legal scholarship indicate that a lack of
transparency may be undermining the trust system.

A 2008 article in the Norton Journal of Bankruptcy, Mr. Smith
said, shows that the connection between trusts and tort
litigation results in overpayments. The trusts have more than
US$30 billion in assets, experts say.

Mr. Smith said some of the trusts appear structured and operated
to block attempts to get information about trust claimants who
seek money from multi-524(g) trusts or who are suing other
solvent defendants.

Mr. Smith pointed to an oft-cited 2007 instance in Ohio, where in
Cuyahoga County the California law firm of Brayton Purcell
claimed the late Harry Kanania died in 2000 of mesothelioma from
smoking cigarettes made by Lorillard Tobacco, while
simultaneously seeking compensation from multiple asbestos
trusts, claiming their products led to Mr. Kanania's fatal lung
condition.

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Harry Hanna
ultimately revoked the Brayton Purcell firm's admission to the
court, citing the firm's legal and ethical lapses in the Kanania
case.

"Similar efforts have been discovered in other cases," Mr. Smith
noted in his letter to the GAO director, adding that the
discoveries indicate that "greater transparency likely is needed
throughout the entire asbestos trust system."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chorley Local Awarded GBP169T in Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Lakin, a 70-year-old mesothelioma sufferer from Chorley,
Lancashire, England, was awarded GBP169,000 in asbestos
compensation in an out-of-court-settlement, the Lancashire
Telegraph reports.

Mr. Lakin was diagnosed with mesothelioma in July 2009. He nursed
his first wife, Thelma, through the disease until she died in
2006. She was exposed to asbestos working in an office block in
Birmingham.

Mr. Lakin worked for Darlington Insulation Limited on the
construction of power stations in Drakelow and Radcliffe between
1964 and 1974 where he came into contact with asbestos. Following
Thelma's death, Mr. Lakin remarried and settled in Chorley with
his wife Margaret.

Mr. Lakin contacted his trade union, Unite, which instructed
specialist asbestos lawyers Thompsons Solicitors to investigate a
claim for compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22,500 Claims Pending v. Fairmont in 7 States
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company, which distributes industrial supplies, currently is
named as a defendant in about 22,500 asbestos claims in state
courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Jersey and Illinois.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products
supplied by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some
of the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have
sought protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases
have not been material.

Based in Canonsburg, Pa., CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining
company that has about 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves,
mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin.
The Company produces about 65 million tons of coal annually.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Pending Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries continue
to be subject to asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain
components sold by the Company's subsidiaries. Management
believes that most of the claimants were assembly workers at the
major U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Most of these claims name, as defendants, numerous manufacturers
and suppliers of a wide variety of products allegedly containing
asbestos. Many of these cases have been dismissed without any
payment whatsoever.

Based in Livonia, Mich., TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies
automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Involved in Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is involved in various unresolved
legal actions that relate to product liability (including
asbestos-related liability), patent and trademark matters, and
disputes with customers, suppliers, distributors and dealers,
competitors and employees.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Wauwatosa, Wis., Briggs & Stratton Corporation produces
air cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment. The
Company designs, manufactures, markets and services these
products for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Cases Still Ongoing Against Magnetek
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. is still a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits
associated with business operations previously acquired by the
Company, but which are no longer owned, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced
or sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these
claims, the Company said it believes that is has no such
liability.

For those claims, the Company is uninsured, contractually
indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to
defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek
business operations.

Based in Menomonee Falls, Wis., Magnetek, Inc. provides digital
power control systems that are used to control motion and power
primarily in material handling, elevator and energy delivery
applications.


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

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

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts. One case has been tried, resulting in a
verdict for the Company's business unit.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Subject to Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in pending lawsuits (which
include, in many cases, multiple claimants) that seek to recover
damages for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos-containing products manufactured and/or distributed by
the Company's heritage companies in the past.

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

The Company said it believes that a high percentage of the claims
are covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colo. District Court Dismisses Banks' Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, dismissed a
lawsuit involving asbestos styled George Banks, Plaintiff v.
Captain Hodak, Warden Rene Garcia, Doctor Asst. Ippolito, Dr.
Sandifer, Optometrist, F.C.I. Englewood Staff, and The Attorney
General of the State of Colorado, Defendants.

District Judge Christine M. Arguello entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 10-cv-00024-BNB on March 31, 2010.

George Banks is a prisoner in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of
Prisons at the Federal Correctional Institution at Englewood,
Colo. He initiated this action by filing pro se a Prisoner
Complaint, alleging that his rights under the U.S. Constitution
had been violated.

On March 3, 2010, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Mr.
Banks to file an amended complaint that clarified who he is suing
and that provided specific factual allegations to demonstrate how
each named Defendant violated his rights.

On March 22, 2010, Mr. Banks filed an amended Prisoner Complaint.

Mr. Banks primarily claimed in this action that he had been
denied adequate medical treatment in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. He asserted in his first claim that he had been
denied proper medical care for eye and vision problems and that
the denial of proper medical care is in retaliation for a prior
complaint Mr. Banks filed against Defendant Captain Hodak.

Mr. Banks alleged in his second claim that he had been denied
adequate medical care for a spinal injury. Mr. Banks' third claim
alleged inadequate medical care for asthma, C.O.P.D., bronchitis,
and chronic obstructive lung disease.

Finally, Mr. Banks alleged in his fourth claim that he had been
exposed to asbestos.

George Banks of Littleton, Colo., represented himself.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Records $14.5MM Expenses at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. recorded asbestos-relatd expenses of
US$14.5 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, compared
with US$13.6 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,
according to a Company press release dated May 6, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$396.2 million
as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$406.9 million as of Dec.
31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$81.6 million as
of March 31, 2010, compared with US$85.4 million as of Dec. 31,
2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$148.1 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$171.4
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$71.3
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$67.2 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Charlotte, N.C., EnPro Industries, Inc. manufactures
sealing products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings,
components and service for reciprocating compressors, diesel and
dual-fuel engines and other engineered products for use in
critical applications by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Current Liability at $11.41M at April 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s current asbestos liability was
US$11,410,000 as of April 4, 2010, compared with US$12,476,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated May
11, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$48,421,000 as
of April 4, 2010, compared with US$47,785,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009.

Asbestos charges were US$648,000 during the three months ended
April 4, 2010. Asbestos recoveries were US$8,263,000 during the
three months ended March 29, 2009.

Company subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc. faced 1,150 open
asbestos cases during the 2010-1st quarter, compared with 1,103
open cases during the 2009-1st quarter.

During the 2010-1st quarter, Leslie recorded 150 cases filed, 104
cases resolved and dismissed, and 623 open mesothelioma cases.
During the 2009-1st quarter, Leslie recorded 222 cases filed, 87
cases resolved and dismissed, and 578 open mesothelioma cases.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
valves and other highly-engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets. The Company is based in
Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Receives 1,180 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(MLIC), received 1,180 new asbestos-related claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with 981 claims
during the three months ended March 31, 2009.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through
the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized
or failed to disclose those health risks.

MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its
asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending
litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups
of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence,
intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks
associated with asbestos.

As reported in the 2009 Annual Report, MLIC received about 3,910
asbestos-related claims in 2009.

Based in New York, MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, employee
benefits and financial services with operations throughout the
United States and the Latin America, Asia Pacific and Europe,
Middle East and India regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 125.4T Claims in U.S. Ongoing v. Foster Wheeler
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United States faced
125,430 open asbestos-related claims during the fiscal three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with 131,010 open claims
during the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2009.

The Company's subsidiaries in the United States faced 125,100
open asbestos claims during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with 130,760 open claims during the fiscal years ended
Dec. 26, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2010)

During the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 1,210 new claims filed and 880 claims resolved. During
the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2009, the Company
recorded 1,200 new claims filed and 1,050 claims resolved.

Total asbestos-related assets were US269.1 million as of March
31, 2010, compared with US$274 million as of Dec. 31, 2009. Total
asbestos-related liabilities were US$364.5 million as of March
31, 2010, compared with US$376.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

As of March 31, 2010, total asbestos-related liabilities were
comprised of an estimated liability of US$136.5 million relating
to open (outstanding) claims being valued and an estimated
liability of US$228 million relating to future unasserted claims
through the fiscal first quarter of 2025.

The overall historic average combined indemnity and defense cost
per resolved claim through March 31, 2010 has been about
US$2,900.

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: Foster Wheeler AG Records $3.7M Insurance Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG estimated the value of its unsettled asbestos
insurance asset related to ongoing litigation in New York state
court with its subsidiaries' insurers at US$3.7 million as of
March 31, 2010.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company estimated the value of its
unsettled asbestos insurance asset related to ongoing litigation
in New York state court with its subsidiaries' insurers at
US$43.5 million. (Class Action Reporter, March 12, 2010)

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

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

In the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company's
subsidiaries reached an agreement to settle their disputed
asbestos-related insurance coverage with an additional insurer.
As a result of this settlement, the Company increased its
asbestos-related insurance asset and recorded a gain of US$4
million in the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2010.

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

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

During the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recognized a net gain of US$700,000 on the revaluation of its
asbestos liability and related asset resulting from the gain of
US$4 million on the settlement of coverage litigation with an
asbestos insurance carrier, partially offset by an increase in
the Company's provision related to the revaluation of its
asbestos liability and related asset resulting from its rolling
15-year asbestos liability estimate.

During the fiscal first three months of 2010, the Company had net
cash outflows of about US$6.4 million resulting from asbestos
liability indemnity and defense costs payments in excess of
insurance settlement proceeds.

The Company expects to have net cash inflows of US$5.6 million as
a result of insurance settlement proceeds in excess of the
asbestos liability indemnity and defense costs for the full
fiscal year 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: 366 Claims Remain v. Foster Wheeler U.K. Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom faced 366
open asbestos-related claims as of March 31, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on May 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.K. have received
claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to
asbestos. To date, 942 claims have been brought against the U.K.
subsidiaries.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.K. faced 373 open
asbestos-related claims as of Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, March 12, 2010)

As of March 31, 2010, the Company recorded total liabilities of
US$35.6 million comprised of an estimated liability relating to
open (outstanding) claims of US$8.5 million and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims through the fiscal
first quarter of 2025 of US$27.1 million.

Of the total, US$3.2 million was recorded in accrued expenses and
US$32.4 million was recorded in asbestos-related liability on the
consolidated balance sheet. An asset in an equal amount was
recorded for the expected U.K. asbestos-related insurance
recoveries, of which US$3.2 million was recorded in accounts and
notes receivable-other and US$32.4 million was recorded as
asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable on the
consolidated balance sheet.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a
compensable injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its
liability assessment. If this ruling is reversed by legislation,
the total asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the
U.K. would be about US$53.1 million.

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: Belden Inc. Facing 87 Injury Cases at April 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc., as of April 26, 2010, faced 87 asbestos-related
personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 12, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Feb. 4, 2010, the Company faced 91 asbestos-related injury
cases. (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2010)

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages. Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of those products
more than 20 years ago.

Through April 26, 2010, the Company has been dismissed, or
reached agreement to be dismissed, in more than 350 similar cases
without any going to trial, and with a small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

Based in St. Louis, Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and
markets cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets
including industrial automation, enterprise, transportation,
infrastructure, and consumer electronics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Facing 33,691 Actions at April 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of April 2, 2010, was a defendant
in about 33,691 asbestos-related cases, of which 1,091 were non-
maritime cases and 32,600 were maritime cases.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in 34,451
asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, March 26,
2010)

These cases were brought in various jurisdictions throughout the
United States. Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by the Company.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.9 million
as of April 2, 2010 (US$5.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009) and had
recovered about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these
lawsuits.

Based in Highland Heights, Ky., General Cable Corporation
develops, designs, manufactures, installs, markets and
distributes copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable
products. The Company's operations are divided into three
reportable segments: North America, Europe and North Africa and
Rest of World.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. continues to be involved in numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company
is one of numerous defendants, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Manitowoc, Wis., The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is a multi-
industry, capital goods manufacturer operating in two principal
markets: Cranes and Related Products and Foodservice Equipment.


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

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy
year in question.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 89T Open Claims Ongoing v. Ashland at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 89,000 open asbestos-related claims during the
six months ended March 31, 2010, compared with 106,000 claims
during the six months ended March 31, 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The claims alleging personal injury, caused by exposure to
asbestos asserted against the Company, result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary.

During the six months ended March 31, 2010, the Company recorded
1,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 11,000 claims
dismissed. During the six months ended March 31, 2010, the
Company recorded 1,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled;
and 9,000 claims dismissed.

The Company's asbestos reserved totaled US$525 million during the
six months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$552 million
during the six months ended March 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20T Open Claims Ongoing v. Hercules at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, faced 20,000 open asbestos-
related claims during the six months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with 27,000 open claims during the six months ended
March 31, 2009.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

During the six months ended March 31, 2010, Hercules recorded
1,000 claims dismissed. During the six months ended March 31,
2009, Hercules recorded 1,000 new claims filed and 1,000 claims
dismissed.

Hercules' asbestos reserved totaled US$445 million during the six
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$332 million during
the six months ended March 31, 2009.

In November 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of
Hercules. At that time, Hercules' recorded reserve for asbestos
claims was US$233 million for indemnity costs.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 74 Pending Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 74 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of March 31, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company and its subsidiaries faced 75 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, March 26,
2010)

The Company and its subsidiaries: Union Electric Company (UE),
Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy
Generating Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company
(CILCO) and Illinois Power Company (IP) have been named in a
number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees
of injury from asbestos exposure. Most have been filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Ill.

As of March 31, 2010, these cases were specifically filed as
follows: the Company (one case), UE (27 cases), CIPS (32 cases),
Genco (nine cases), CILCO (16 cases), IP (41 cases), for a total
of 74 cases.

The total number of defendants named in each case is significant;
as many as 192 parties are named in some pending cases and as few
as six in others. However, in the cases that were pending as of
March 31, 2010, the average number of parties were 71.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric generating
plants.

At March 31, 2009, the Company (US$14 million), UE (US$4
million), CIPS (US$3 million), Genco, CILCO (US$2 million) and IP
($5 million) had liabilities recorded to represent their best
estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims.

IP has a tariff rider to recover the costs of asbestos-related
litigation claims, subject to the following terms: 90 percent of
cash expenditures in excess of the amount included in base
electric rates are recovered by IP from a trust fund established
by IP.

At March 31, 2010, the trust fund balance was about US$23
million, including accumulated interest.

Based in St. Louis, Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to
2.4 million customers and natural gas to almost one million
customers in Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries
AmerenUE, AmerenCIPS, AmerenCILCO, and AmerenIP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sensus USA Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sensus USA Inc., as well as many other third parties, has been
named as a defendant in several lawsuits filed related to
illnesses from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages. The complaints filed in
connection with these proceedings do not specify which plaintiffs
allegedly were involved with the Company's products, and it is
uncertain whether any plaintiffs have asbestos-related illnesses
or dealt with the Company's products, much less whether any
plaintiffs were exposed to an asbestos-containing component part
of the Company's product or whether such part could have been a
substantial contributing factor to the alleged illness.

Although the Company is entitled to indemnification for legal and
indemnity costs for asbestos claims related to these products
from certain subsidiaries of Invensys, under the stock purchase
agreement pursuant to which the Company acquired Invensys
Metering Systems, such indemnities, when aggregated with all
other indemnity claims, are limited to the purchase price paid by
the Company in connection with the acquisition of Invensys
Metering Systems.

Based in Raleigh, N.C., Sensus USA Inc. provides advanced utility
infrastructure systems, metering technologies and related
communication systems to the worldwide utility industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Ariz. Operators Fined $27T for Safety Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fined three Arizona
charter school operators a combined total of US$27,480 for
alleged Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
violations, according to an EPA press release dated May 12, 2010.

In 2008, EPA inspectors discovered that three Arizona school
operators all failed to conduct inspections to determine the
presence and condition of asbestos-containing materials in the
school buildings of seven schools. The operators also failed to
develop asbestos management plans for six schools.

Accredited inspectors have since inspected all seven schools and
determined that five schools have no asbestos-containing
materials. All of the school operators have since taken necessary
actions to comply with the law.

Kathy Taylor, Associate Director for the Communities and
Ecosystems Division in EPA's Pacific Southwest region, said,
"Asbestos in schools has the potential for endangering the health
of students, teachers, maintenance workers, and others. EPA takes
these violations seriously; these schools have now been inspected
and have up-to-date asbestos management plans in place."

The three school operators fined were:

-- Vail Unified School District was fined US$5,200 for failure to
conduct AHERA inspections and failure to develop asbestos
management plans for the following schools: Vail High School and
Civano Charter School located in Tucson, Ariz. No asbestos-
containing building materials were identified in Vail High School
or Civano Charter School, and AHERA asbestos management plans are
now in place at these two schools.

-- Precision Academy System, Inc. was fined US$9,700 for failure
to conduct an AHERA inspection and failure to develop an asbestos
management plan for Precision Academy System Charter School
located in Phoenix, Ariz. An AHERA asbestos management plan is
now in place for Precision Academy System Charter School.

-- Career Success Schools was fined US$12,580 for failure to
conduct inspections at four schools and failure to develop an
asbestos management plan at three schools. EPA found no
inspection or management plans at three Career Success schools -
Main Campus, SAGE, and Copper Square schools, all located in
Phoenix, Ariz. When these schools were later inspected, no
asbestos-containing building materials were identified. AHERA
asbestos management plans are now in place at these three
schools.

Career Success Schools was also fined for failure to conduct a
re-inspection at its Cave Creek high school located in Cave
Creek, Ariz. Career Success Cave Creek high school has 12,580
square feet of asbestos-containing building materials, and re-
inspections by an accredited inspector are required at least once
every three years. A re-inspection has now been conducted at the
Career Success School Cave Creek campus and the AHERA asbestos
management plan has been updated.

The law requires that penalties assessed under AHERA be spent on
management of asbestos-containing building materials in schools.
The school operator must pay into the Asbestos Trust Fund any
portion of the penalty remaining unspent after complying with
AHERA. Because its penalty was greater than its cost of
compliance, Career Success Schools is required to pay US$2,499
into the Asbestos Trust Fund.

Precision Academy System, Inc. and Vail Unified School District
are not required to pay into the Asbestos Trust Fund since their
costs to comply with the regulation exceeded the fine.

A local education agency must keep an updated copy of each school
management plan at the school and at its administrative office.
The plan must be made available for inspection during normal
business hours by parents, teachers, and the general public.

                            *********

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  * * *