CAR_Public/100521.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 21, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 99

                            Headlines

ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued in Va. Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics
BP EXPLORATION: Wants Oil Spill Litigation Heard in Houston
BP PLC: La. & Fla. Restaurateurs Sue for Oil Spill Damages
CALIFORNIA: State Bar Exam Rules Discriminatory, Suit Claims
CALIFORNIA: Suit Challenges Rules About Published Court Opinions

COVIDIEN PLC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Dismissing All Claims
COVIDIEN PLC: Settlement in "Natchitoches" Suit Gets Final Nod
COVIDIEN PLC: Final Approval in "Stumpf" Settlement Pending
EMULEX CORP: Trial Date in Amended Complaint Set for December
EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Chan" Lawsuit in Delaware

FIRST CLOVERLEAF: Sued in Ill. Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics
FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Dismisses Disabled Voters' Suit
GADDEL ENTERPRISES: Sued in Philadelphia Over Alleged Ponzi Scam
GUNNS LTD: Shareholders Prepare to Sue Tasmanian Timber Company
HIRIZON LINES: Wins Dismissal, with Prejudice, of Securities Suit

MASCO CORP: Georgia Lawsuit Administratively Stayed by Court
MASSEY ENERGY: No Decision Yet on Class Certification Issues
MASSEY ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities-Violations Suit
MIDDLETOWN MANAGEMENT: Hotel Guest Can Sue to Recoup Bogus Taxes
MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending

MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
NORTH AMERICAN: Faces Two Suits in Delaware Over Sale to AZZ
NORTH AMERICAN: Faces Two Suits in Oklahoma Over AZZ Merger
NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Face Amended ERISA Violations Suit

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Gender Bias Jury Awards $253 Million
NUTRACEA: Shareholder Suit Settled for $1.5 Million
OFFICE DEPOT: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
RASHTI & RASHTI: Recalls 44,000 Giraffe Security Blankets
SECURITAS SECURITY: Forfeiture of Vacation Pay Alleged

SYBASE INC: Accused of Selling Itself Below Fair Value
SWITCH & DATA: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
UNITED STATES: Dept. of the Interior Sued Over Gulf Oil Spill

                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gladden Case v. 30 Firms Filed on May 3 in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leyton Man Seeks Asbestos Link to Wife's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metzger Claims Filed in Madison, St. Clair Cos.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. District Court Affirms Ruling in Pace Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Affirmed in Hughes

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Respirator Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. 3M Company
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Records $33Mil Aearo Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Records $133M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Case v. 3M Co. Still in Early Stage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Still Subject to Sealed Air Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $170.2M Reserve for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Has 62,340 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M & F Incurs No Amounts for Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Sunoco, Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $18Mil Gross Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasty Baking Co. Records $7.6MM ARO at March 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 26,055 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett's Bid to Dismiss Carder Lawsuit Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Dismiss Slaughter Action Filed Jan. 8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Action Still Pending in Kanawha County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,525 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Standard at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Records $61M Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Facing 26,000 Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Involved in Rockwell Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Records $1.3Mil ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odyssey Records $368.4M Losses, LAE at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grants Pass Man Fined $9.6T for Cleanup Breach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $750 Fine Issued to USDA for Cleanup Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas House Committee to Hear Asbestos Matters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitts Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 16 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis' Lawsuit Filed on May 3 in Kanawha County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Gov't. Vows AUD250T Loan for Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation at Summerlin Road Commenced May 18
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Admits Asbestos & Mesothelioma Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup in 38 Wales Fire Stations Costs GBP1Mil
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Resident's Death Hazard to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brooks Alleges Exposure in Claim v. Ex-Employer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Lobbied for Legislation During 1st-Q.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Urged to Support U.K. Gov't. Payout Plans
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H & M Owner Sentenced May 14 on CAA Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Strike Dismissed in Osowiecki Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Court Issues Split Ruling in A.P.I. Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Japanese Gov't. to Pay for Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Enforces New Rules on Hazard Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Still Party to Suits in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Facing 1,054 Suits at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Still Has Cases in Miss. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 7,464 Open Claims at April 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Facing 7,907 Claims at April 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Party to Mt. Vernon Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Cases Still Pending v. Katy Ind. in Alabama

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Subject to 2,750 Sterling Fluid Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Facing 80 Active Actions at April 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Records $800T for Abatement at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: All Amounts in Stehman Action Paid on Feb. 2010

                            *********

ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued in Va. Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that Two Asset
Acceptance companies buy up bad debts and trick people into
restarting the statutes of limitation by offering bogus credit
cards and debt compromise, consumers say in a federal class
action.

Asset Acceptance Capital and Asset Acceptance hired debt
collector Genesis Financial Solutions and use bait-and-switch
tactics to restart expired debts, according to the complaint.

The scam is simple, the class says: Asset Acceptance buys bad
debts "for pennies on the dollar," then sends out a bogus credit
card offer promising not to file suit against any amount of the
debt placed on the card.

Consumers say they are led to believe that no legal action can be
brought against them for their old debt -- but the agreement
actually restarts the old debt, allowing the company to collect.

"Enlisting a credit card issuer, WebBank, the defendants have
sent misleading and deceptive collection communications to
consumers that are a classic bait-and-switch," the complaint
states. "Essentially, they pitch a credit card offer, a debt
compromise, and a vague and misleading representation of no
future legal action.  But in reality they [are] restarting
statutes of limitation on old debts, creating new debt
obligations, and inducing the consumer into new, binding
contracts that do authorize future legal action and never include
the inducements as terms, or clarify their real meaning."

The Asset companies call their credit card scam "The Possible
Dream."  The card itself is enticingly labeled the "Pearl Card
gold MasterCard."

The class seeks an injunction and damages, alleging violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the Company in Quesenberry v. Genesis Financial
Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00204 (W.D. Va.) (Conrad,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/Genesis.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Fishwick, Jr., Esq.
          Devon J. Munro, Esq.
          Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN, FISHWICK & JOHNSON, PLC
          101 South Jefferson St., Suite 400
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: 540-345-5890

               - and -

          W. Joel Charboneau, Esq.
          MAGEE GOLDSTEIN LASKY & SAYERS, P.C.
          Post Office Box 404
          Roanoke, VA 24003
          Telephone: 540-343-9800
          E-mail: jcharboneau@mglspc.com


BP EXPLORATION: Wants Oil Spill Litigation Heard in Houston
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that with
more oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico every week than spilled
from the ExxonValdez, according to new estimates, lawyers across
the Gulf Coast are gearing up for what may be the biggest
environmental and maritime litigation the nation has ever seen.  
BP wants all the cases consolidated and heard in Houston -- a
suggestion that local attorneys call unconscionable.

And news came Monday that the oil may already be in the Loop
Current, which would take it around Florida into the Atlantic
Ocean, and, possibly, up the Eastern Seaboard.  

The fight over venue begins four weeks after the April 20
explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig killed 11 workers and
injured 17.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is the worst oil spill in U.S.
history.

At the rate the oil is flowing -- and with the possibility that
it could continue for years, until the well bleeds dry -- the
effects will likely resemble the environmental impacts of the
world's worst spill, a technologist told National Geographic.

Miles Hayes, co-founder of the science and technology consulting
firm Research Planning, told the magazine that the worst oil
spill in history came in Saudi Arabia in 1991, during the Gulf
War, when the Iraqi military intentionally spilled some 336
million gallons of oil (about 1.3 billion liters) into the
Persian Gulf.

In the first few hours of the Deepwater Horizon fire, attorneys
formed a litigation group and rushed by chartered airplanes to
photograph the sinking ship.  Since then, they've called for oil
and water sampling and have gathered plaintiffs for class
actions.

Defense firms have brushed up on oil and gas contacts and made
themselves available as local counsel for the many corporations
involved in the sinking of the oil rig.

The Times-Picayune reported that the Deepwater Horizon fiasco has
the potential of being a more complex legal situation than either
the 2005 Hurricane Katrina litigation or the Exxon Valdez oil
spill of 1989.

Several corporations have legal exposure, thousands of potential
plaintiffs face varying levels of harm, and the incident occurred
in an area far more populated and economically active than
Alaska.

Although multidistrict litigation has not been established for BP
in Houston, BP has sought the transfer of 70 cases to a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in Texas.

Once a multidistrict litigation has been established, federal
courts will routinely transfer new cases to it.

BP said Houston is a good choice for the litigation since Houston
is a global headquarters of the oil industry and the courts have
experience handling consolidated cases such as Enron.

Local attorneys say that though it would be an inconvenience for
the defendants to move their files and themselves to New Orleans
for the litigation, their inconvenience cannot compare with the
inconvenience and expense of going to Houston for thousands of
New Orleans plaintiffs, most of whom are commercial fishermen and
are unemployed because of the oil spill.

"I think it would be a travesty of justice to transfer the cases
into their back yard since that particular area has been
unaffected," Stuart Smith, a New Orleans attorney who filed suit
on behalf of the United Fisherman's Association, told the Times-
Picayune.

Federal judges in New Orleans have plenty of experience with
massive consolidated litigation.  In recent years the Vioxx
pharmaceutical case, the Katrina levee breach, Murphy Oil spill
cases, and most recently the Chinese drywall product liability
cases were all consolidated litigation.

But U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon, who helped arrange a
settlement of the Vioxx liability cases, is tied up with Chinese
drywall claims, and several other New Orleans judges have already
recused themselves from the oil spill lawsuits, citing conflicts
of interest.

According to the Times-Picayune, a decision on whether to
consolidate the cases, and if so whether to consolidate them in
New Orleans or in Houston, probably won't be made until after
July 29, when a panel of federal judges meets in Boise, Idaho.

Meanwhile, the massive oil slick showed signs Monday of brushing
against the Loop Current, a swift oceanic tide that could take it
to the Southeast Florida Coast, and from there possibly all the
way up the Eastern Seaboard.

The Coast Guard and scientists who saw the slick firsthand gave
conflicting reports, but all agreed the spill and powerful
current have drawn closer together.

"We feel like it has entered the Loop Current," said William
Hogarth, Dean of University of South Florida's College of Marine
Science, according to Florida's Sun Sentinel.

The Coast Guard disagreed.

"We know the oil has not entered the Loop Current," Coast Guard
Rear Adm. Mary Landry said at a press conference Monday in
Robert, La.  "A leading edge sheen is getting close to it, but it
has not entered the Loop Current.  The larger volume of oil is
several miles from the Loop Current."

Speaking on WWL radio this morning (Tuesday), Dr. Ralph Portier,
professor of environmental sciences at the School of the Coast &
Environment at Louisiana State University, hesitated to say much
about the impact the oil might have if it were to enter the Loop
Current.

"Now, some people probably will argue -- and I don't really know
how they could argue this but they will -- it's a very Soviet
idea," Mr. Portier said.  "When Chernobyl blew its top, the
Soviet idea was: let's spread this out, let's let everyone eat a
little of the contaminated food."  In other words, everyone
shared in the contamination the burden would somehow be
ameliorated.  But Mr. Portier said he disagrees with the idea of
sharing this burden.

Mr. Portier said the Gulf is a relatively small part of the ocean
and it would be best to stop the leaking well immediately and
keep all the oil spilled in one general area for cleanup.

But how many millions of gallons of oil are spilling and when it
will stop is anyone's guess.  It's hard enough to keep up with
the shape and direction of the spill from one day to the next

"We have this sad thing of the science not being able to keep up
with the reality," Mr. Portier said.  "And again, oil is adding
to it -- every minute of every hour."

A copy of BP Exploration & Production Inc.'s Motion to Transfer
for Coordinated or Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings Under 28
U.S. Sec. 1407 in In Re: Deepwater Horizon Incident Litigation,
Case No. 10-cv-00174 (JPML), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/BPMotion.pdf

BP Exploration & Production Inc. is represented by:

          Richard C. Godfrey, Esq.
          J. Andrew Langan, Esq.
          Matthew T. Regan, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-862-2000
          E-mail: richard.godfrey@kirkland.com
                  andrew.langan@kirkland.com
                  matthew.regan@kirkland.com


BP PLC: La. & Fla. Restaurateurs Sue for Oil Spill Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
WGNO ABC26 News reports that several restaurants from Louisiana
and Florida have decided to take a proactive step towards
recovery by filing a class action suit against BP, plc, BP
Products North America, Inc., and BP America, Inc., whom the U.S.
Coast Guard has identified as the "responsible party," according
to the Oil Pollution Act.

The class action, dated May 18, was filed on behalf of several
plaintiffs who are restaurant owners and others in the seafood
service industry who have or will suffer lost profits as a result
of the subsequent oil spill following the sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig.

The named plaintiffs include restaurants and seafood wholesalers
in Louisiana and Florida, including Louisiana's Franky and
Johnny's; Tello's Bistro; Zeke's Restaurant; Crazy Lobster
restaurant; Poppy's Seafood Factory restaurant; New Orleans Fish
House, LLC; Eleven 79 Restaurant; Poppy's Time Out Sports Bar &
Grill; wholesale distributor P.A. Menard, Inc.; and Florida's
Poppy's Crazy Lobster of Destin and Poppy's Dancin' Iguana.

The claim has been filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs as
well as all individuals or businesses that own and/or operate
restaurants and/or wholesale seafood distributors located in
those states that touch and/or border on the Gulf of Mexico. At
the time of the filing, the exact amount of these entities was
unknown, but estimated at more than 1,000.

The action states that, due to the dangerous environmental
contamination as a result of the oil leak, "fishing, shrimping,
oystering and other commercial activities have been suspended,
and will likely continue to be legally and/or effectively
reduced," therefore causing a loss of revenue and earning
capacity for these restaurants.

A copy of the Complaint in A Bar & Grill with a Bite, Inc.,
et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01499 (E.D. La.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/19/Bar&Grill.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          James C. Klick, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          Russ M. Herman, Esq.
          Maury A. Herman, Esq.
          Brian D. Katz, Esq.
          Joseph E. Cain, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN KATZ & COTLAR LLP
          820 O'Keefe Ave.
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: 504-581-4892
          E-mail: sherman@hhkc.com

Mr. Herman's firm explained their belief that restaurants and
others in the food service industry who suffer economic losses
due to the oil spill are covered by the Oil Pollution Act, and
are seeking a formal judgment from the Court to clear the way for
appropriate claims.


CALIFORNIA: State Bar Exam Rules Discriminatory, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action against California courts and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's judicial council,
out-of-state attorneys call the requirement that attorneys
practicing in California pass the state Bar exam "discriminatory"
and "outdated."  The class compares the rules to the situation
when "in the 1890s, Homer Plessy, who was 1/8th black, was barred
from riding in a 'Whites only' train car by Louisiana State law."

The American Bar Association has said the rules are "anti-
competitive, inefficient, drive up the costs of litigation, and
interfere with the right to counsel of choice," according to the
complaint.  It claims that the ABA has recommended that such
rules be eliminated.

The class claims that the state Bar exam is not a reliable device
for measuring an attorney's level of expertise: "There is no
cause-and-effect nexus whatsoever between practice in the U.S.
District Courts and this punitive licensing test," the class
claims.

The attorneys say the 9th Circuit has acknowledged that
technology has transformed the practice of law and greatly
increased the scope of legal practices.  What has been left
behind is lawyer regulation, the complaint states.

The class claims this case presents "21st century issues,"

"According to the National Conference of Bar Examiners, over
31,000 licensed attorneys have been integrated into the bar of
another state from 2002 to 2006 on motion without taking a Bar
exam," but none were eligible for admission to the U.S. District
Courts in California, the complaint states.

The attorneys allege violations of civil rights to equal
protection and due process.  They want the 9th Circuit's local
general admission rules tossed, and they want admission to the
Bar of the California District Courts.

A copy of the Complaint in Blye, et al. v. Kozinksi, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02014 (N.D. Calif.) (Ryu, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/Lawyers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Robert Giannini, Esq.
          925 S. Westgate Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: 310-442-9386
          E-mail: j.giannini@verizon.net


CALIFORNIA: Suit Challenges Rules About Published Court Opinions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric L. Lifschitz, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Ronald M. George, Case No. 10-cv-02107 (N.D. Calif.
May 17, 2010), accuses the Chair of the Judicial Council of
California of promulgating and enforcing California Rules of
Court that amount to "prior restraint of free speech in violation
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution".  
Mr. Lifschitz explains that the Rules prohibit attorneys from
citing opinions of California state courts that have not been
designated as "certified for publication" or ordered officially
published.  While the Rules provide procedures whereby requests
may be made to the court (that rendered the opinion) to order the
publication of the unpublished opinion, this prior approval, Mr.
Lifschitz cites, has the effect of a prior restraint, which
violates the right of the people to redress grievances guaranteed
under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. Lifschitz is an attorney who is licensed to practice law in
California and is subject to the California Rules of Court.  The
Judicial Council of California is the governing body of
California courts.  Mr. George is being sued in his official
administrative capacity as Chair of the Judicial Council of
California, as he is responsible for the Judicial Council of
California's continued promulgation of California Rules of Court
pertaining to the citation of decisions of the state courts of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
          THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 350-4342
          E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron H. Darsky, Esq.
          AARON DARSKY, P.C.
          1829 Market St., Suite A
          Telephone: (415) 515-4220
          E-mail: aaron@darskylaw.com


COVIDIEN PLC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Order Dismissing All Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the
order granting summary judgment dismissing all claims in a
consolidated suit against the Covidien plc, according to the
company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
26, 2010.

Beginning on Aug. 29, 2005, with Allied Orthopedic Appliances,
Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, L.P., and Mallinckrodt Inc., 12
consumer class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

In all of the complaints, the putative class representatives, on
behalf of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they
allege they paid for pulse oximetry products as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the company in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.  The 12 complaints were subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding styled In re: Pulse
Oximetry Antitrust litigation.

By stipulation among the parties, six putative class
representatives dismissed their claims against the company,
leaving six remaining putative class representatives as
plaintiffs in the consolidated proceeding.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  On March 14, 2008, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
request for leave to appeal the district court's denial of their
motion for class certification.

On July 9, 2008, the district court granted the company's motion
for summary judgment which resulted in the dismissal of all
claims.  The plaintiffs appealed both rulings to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On Jan. 6, 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's order granting summary judgment dismissing all claims
against the Company.

Covidien plc -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is a leading global  
healthcare products company that creates innovative medical
solutions for better patient outcomes and delivers value through
clinical leadership and excellence.  Covidien manufactures,
distributes and services a diverse range of industry-leading
product lines in three segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals
and Medical Supplies.  With 2009 revenue of $10.7 billion,
Covidien has 42,000 employees worldwide in more than 60
countries, and its products are sold in over 140 countries.


COVIDIEN PLC: Settlement in "Natchitoches" Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts gave
its final approval to the settlement agreement in the matter
Natchitoches Parish Hospital Service District, et al. v. Tyco
International, Ltd., et al., according to the company's April 30,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2010.

The suit is a class action lawsuit filed against the company on
Sept. 15, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In the complaint, the putative class representatives, on behalf
of themselves and others, seek to recover overcharges they allege
that they and others paid for sharps containers as a result of
anticompetitive conduct by the company in violation of federal
antitrust laws.

On Aug. 29, 2008, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On Dec. 5, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
denied the company's request for leave to appeal the district
court's granting of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Trial in this case began on Dec. 7, 2009.

On Jan. 8, 2010, the parties reached a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the company will pay the certified class $32.5
million to resolve all claims in this case.

Accordingly, the company recorded a $32.5 million charge in
selling, general and administrative expenses during the first
quarter of fiscal 2010.

On March 15, 2010, the district court issued an order providing
final approval of the settlement, which was paid during the
second quarter of fiscal 2010.

Covidien plc -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is a leading global  
healthcare products company that creates innovative medical
solutions for better patient outcomes and delivers value through
clinical leadership and excellence.  Covidien manufactures,
distributes and services a diverse range of industry-leading
product lines in three segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals
and Medical Supplies.  With 2009 revenue of $10.7 billion,
Covidien has 42,000 employees worldwide in more than 60
countries, and its products are sold in over 140 countries.


COVIDIEN PLC: Final Approval in "Stumpf" Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to
set a hearing date to consider final approval of the settlement
agreement resolving the matter Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd.,
according to Covidien plc's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 26, 2010.

In connection with the company's separation from Tyco
International, the company assumed a portion of potential
liabilities relating to various outstanding Tyco International
litigation matters.

One of these outstanding legacy matters is Stumpf v. Tyco
International Ltd., a class action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs alleged that Tyco International, among others things,
violated the disclosure provisions of the federal securities
laws.

The matter arises from Tyco International's July 2000 initial
public offering of common stock of TyCom Ltd., and alleges that
the TyCom registration statement and prospectus relating to the
sale of common stock were inaccurate, misleading and failed to
disclose facts necessary to make the registration statement and
prospectus not misleading.  The complaint further alleged the
defendants violated securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among other
things, executive compensation, TyCom's business prospects and
Tyco International's and TyCom's finances.

On May 6, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey was scheduled to hear arguments on a motion requesting
preliminary approval of settlement of the Stumpf matter.  The
court has not yet set a date for the final approval hearing.  
Upon final court approval, the settlement amount will be subject
to the liability sharing provisions of the Separation and
Distribution Agreement.  The proposed preliminary settlement is
within the range of loss previously provided.

Covidien plc -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is a leading global  
healthcare products company that creates innovative medical
solutions for better patient outcomes and delivers value through
clinical leadership and excellence.  Covidien manufactures,
distributes and services a diverse range of industry-leading
product lines in three segments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals
and Medical Supplies.  With 2009 revenue of $10.7 billion,
Covidien has 42,000 employees worldwide in more than 60
countries, and its products are sold in over 140 countries.


EMULEX CORP: Trial Date in Amended Complaint Set for December
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has set a
Dec. 6-10, 2010, trial date in an amended class action against
Emulex Corp., according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 28, 2010.

                         Middleton Suit

On April 27, 2009, Reid Middleton filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company and
derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The original complaint
named the members of the Board as defendants and the company as a
nominal defendant.

The complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of shares of the company's
common stock and a derivative claim for devaluation of the
company stemming from the company's January 2009 amendments to
its Bylaws, adoption of a new stockholder rights plan to replace
its expiring rights plan, and amendments to its Key Employee
Retention Agreements, and actions in response to Broadcom's
announcement of its unsolicited April 21, 2009 takeover proposal
to acquire the company.  The original complaint sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest
and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

On May 11, 2009, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
granted plaintiff Reid Middleton's motion to expedite proceedings
and set a trial date in the three foregoing Delaware lawsuits
beginning on July 8, 2009.  On July 6, 2009, the Court of
Chancery continued the July 8, 2009 trial date indefinitely.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the plaintiff's attorneys filed an application
for an award of attorney's fees and expenses.  The Court rejected
the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees on Dec. 18, 2009.

                     Pipefitters Suit

On May 11, 2009, Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan
filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders
of the company and derivatively on behalf of the Company.  The
original complaint named the members of the company's Board as
defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a
new shareholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan,
amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and actions
in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to acquire
the company.  The original complaint also asserted a derivative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the same actions.   
The original complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief,
including mandatory injunctive relief, and costs, including
attorneys' and expert fees.

                        Norfolk Suit

On May 12, 2009, Norfolk County Retirement System filed a lawsuit
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
company.  The original complaint named the members of the
company's Board and the Company as defendants.

The original complaint asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty on behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating
to the company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption
of a new shareholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights
plan, and amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements,
and actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of its
proposal to acquire the company.  The original complaint sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, interest
and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

                    Amended Class Action

On Sept. 17, 2009, Reid Middleton, Pipefitters Local No. 636
Defined Benefit Plan and Norfolk County Retirement System filed a
Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The amended complaint is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company and,
alternatively, derivatively on behalf of the company.  The
complaint names the members of the Board as defendants and the
company as a nominal defendant.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares and,
alternatively, a derivative claim for devaluation of the company
stemming from the company's January 2009 amendments to its
Bylaws, adoption of a new stockholder rights plan to replace its
expiring rights plan, and amendments to its Key Employee
Retention Agreements, and actions in response to Broadcom's
announcement of its proposal to acquire the company.

The complaint seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages,
interest and costs, including attorneys' and expert fees.

On Oct. 13, 2009, the defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint.

On Dec. 3, 2009, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed an application
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

The Court rejected the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees as
premature on Dec. 18, 2009.

On Feb. 4, 2010, the Court of Chancery granted a Scheduling Order
setting a trial date for December 6-10, 2010.

Emulex Corp. -- http://www.emulex.com/-- is a provider of a  
range of storage networking infrastructure solutions that connect
servers, storage and networks within the data center.  The
company's product portfolio includes host bus adapters (HBAs),
converged network adapters (CNAs), mezzanine cards for blade
servers, and embedded storage bridges, routers, switches and
input/output controllers (IOCs).  The company's host server
products (HSP) include both fiber channel-based connectivity
products and enhanced Ethernet-based products that support
Internet protocol (IP) and storage networking, including
transmission control protocol (TCP)/IP, Internet small computer
system interface (iSCSI), network attached storage (NAS), IOC
solutions, and fibre channel over Ethernet (FCoE).  The company's
fibre channel-based products include LightPulse, HBAs, custom
form factor solutions for original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
blade servers and application specific integrated circuits
(ASIC).


EMULEX CORP: Continues to Defend "Chan" Lawsuit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corp. continues to defend a suit filed by a stockholder in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On May 7, 2009, Kamwai Fred Chan filed a lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the
company.  The complaint names the members of the Board and the
company as defendants.

The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on
behalf of a putative class of holders of Shares relating to the
company's January 2009 amendments to its Bylaws, adoption of a
new stockholder rights plan to replace its expiring rights plan,
and amendments to its Key Employee Retention Agreements, and
actions in response to Broadcom's announcement of its proposal to
acquire the company.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including attorneys'
and expert fees.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 28, 2010.

Emulex Corp. -- http://www.emulex.com/-- is a provider of a  
range of storage networking infrastructure solutions that connect
servers, storage and networks within the data center.  The
company's product portfolio includes host bus adapters (HBAs),
converged network adapters (CNAs), mezzanine cards for blade
servers, and embedded storage bridges, routers, switches and
input/output controllers (IOCs).  The company's host server
products (HSP) include both fiber channel-based connectivity
products and enhanced Ethernet-based products that support
Internet protocol (IP) and storage networking, including
transmission control protocol (TCP)/IP, Internet small computer
system interface (iSCSI), network attached storage (NAS), IOC
solutions, and fibre channel over Ethernet (FCoE).  The company's
fibre channel-based products include LightPulse, HBAs, custom
form factor solutions for original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
blade servers and application specific integrated circuits
(ASIC).


FIRST CLOVERLEAF: Sued in Ill. Over Bait-and-Switch Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that First
Cloverleaf Bank uses bait and switch tactics for commercial loan
interest rates, a class action claims in St. Clair County Court.

Named plaintiff Prime Development says First Cloverleaf uses
confusing language in loan documents to keep the higher interest
rate from being revealed.

Prime Development claims First Cloverleaf charges 1.4 percent
more in interest than it agrees to (and 1.7 percent more in a
leap year).

"This deceptive and unfair conduct constitutes a breach of the
loan agreements of Plaintiff," the complaint states.  It claims
the bank "used a year of less that [sic] twelve (12) calendar
months to compute interest".

The class consists of all people who have taken out a commercial
loan with First Cloverleaf since May 6, 2000 who were charged a
higher interest rate than the per annum rate listed in the loan
documents.  The class seeks damages and wants First Cloverleaf
ordered to recalculate the interest on current commercial loans.

A copy of the Complaint in Prime Development, Inc. v. First
Clover Leaf Bank, Case No. 10-L-231 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair
Cty.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/CloverBank.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard Ysursa, Esq.
          COOK, SHEVLIN, YSURSA, BRAUER & BARTHOLOMEW, LTD.
          12 West Lincoln St.
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: 618-235-3500

               - and -

          Pat Ducey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAT DUCEY
          41 Oakbrooke
          Troy, IL 62294
          Telephone: 618-514-6998

               - and -

          Thomas R. Ysursa, Esq.
          BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER, & THOMPSON, P.C.,
          5111 West Main St.
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: 618-235-0020
          E-mail: try@bphlaw.com


FLORIDA: 11th Circuit Dismisses Disabled Voters' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Ashe at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed
decade-long litigation accusing Florida elections officials of
violating the law by not providing equal access and privacy to
disabled voters.

Shortly after the 2000 general election, the American Association
of People with Disabilities filed a class action against state
officials, claiming disabled voters could not enjoy the same
direct and secret voting experience of regular voters, a
violation of their fundamental right to vote.

A year after the lawsuit was filed in 2001, President George W.
Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act of 2002, requiring
voting equipment used in federal elections to provide equal
access to all voters.  Also in 2002, the Florida Legislature set
new accessibility standards for voting equipment, including the
requirement that voting systems include a tactile or audio input
device or both.

Despite the changes, a federal judge ruled in 2004 that Duval
County elections supervisor John Stafford violated regulations by
buying only three accessible touch-screen machines with audio
components for the entire county.

Mr. Stafford was ordered to provide at least one handicapped-
accessible voting machine at 20 percent of the county's polling
places by April 12, 2004, and to install touch-screen voting
machines with audio capacity by May 14.

While Mr. Stafford's appeal was pending, the city acquired 326
new, handicapped-accessible voting machines for the county.

In September 2007, the district court issued a final judgment
against Mr. Stafford, which the 11th Circuit in Atlanta vacated.

The lower court had found Stafford in violation of regulations
implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, but not the ADA
itself.  "The regulations . . . interpret and define the scope of
the ADA," Judge Gerald Tjoflat explained.  "They do not,
themselves, create a private right of action and remedy."

The three-judge panel instructed the district court to dismiss
the case with prejudice, barring the plaintiffs from recovering
attorney's fees and costs.

A copy of the decision in American Association of People with
Disabilities, et al. v. Harris, et al., No. 07-15004 (11th Cir.),
is available at:

     http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200715004.pdf





GADDEL ENTERPRISES: Sued in Philadelphia Over Alleged Ponzi Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Lizette Morice and her company, Gaddel Enterprises, bilked
thousands of people in a $7.3 million Ponzi scam, to which she
pleaded guilty, and offered to pay restitution of $25 per
quarter, which would allow her to pay it off in 72,000 years.  
The class sued 106 "winner defendants" who allegedly "reaped
enormous profits" from the scheme, in Philadelphia Federal Court.

The class's lead attorney is Charles Kocher with Saltz,
Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky.

A copy of the Complaint in Carroll, et al. v. Stettler, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-02262 (E.D. Pa.) (McLaughlin, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/18/PonziClass.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-575-3985
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyfaucher.com

               - and -

          Patrick Crafferty, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          101 N. Main St., Suite 450
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: 734-769-2144
          E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyfaucher.com


GUNNS LTD: Shareholders Prepare to Sue Tasmanian Timber Company
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a publicly listed professional litigation
company has told the Australian Stock Exchange it is preparing a
class action on behalf of disgruntled shareholders of the
Tasmanian timber company Gunns.

IMF says the claim relates to allegations Gunns breached its
market disclosure obligations for about six months from the end
of last August.

The firm is looking for shareholders who bought securities during
the period and may be eligible to join the action.

IMF's Simon Dluzniak says it is based on Gunns' surprise 98 per
cent drop in half yearly profits.

"Essentially the allegation is that Gunns failed to inform the
market that its first half of the 2010 financial year results
would be materially different or adverse to the previous
corresponding period which was the first half of the 2009
financial year," he said

Gunns has declined to comment.


HIRIZON LINES: Wins Dismissal, with Prejudice, of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Lines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class-action
lawsuit accusing the company and certain current and former
senior officers of misleading investors has been granted by a
federal judge for a second and final time.

The company's motion to dismiss the suit was granted with
prejudice on May 18, 2010, by Federal District Court Judge Harvey
Bartle III, who ruled that the complaint did not meet the
pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.  The ruling was made in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware.  Judge Bartle found the complaint
failed to plead facts showing that the officers responsible for
making public statements about the company's performance were
aware of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the Puerto Rico
tradelane, in which three lower-ranking Horizon Lines managers
were subsequently implicated and pled guilty. The plaintiffs have
the right to file an appeal within 30 days of the May 18th
ruling.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on December 31, 2008, by the
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, naming the
company and current and former employees, including the company's
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Chuck Raymond,
as defendants.  Horizon Lines filed a motion to dismiss, which
was granted by the Court on November 13, 2009.  However, the
plaintiffs were granted time to file an amended complaint, which
they did on December 23, 2009.  On February 12, 2010, Horizon
Lines filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The amended complaint, which purported to be on behalf of
purchasers of Horizon Lines common stock, alleged that, among
other things, the company made material misstatements and
omissions in connection with the alleged price-fixing conspiracy
in its shipping business in Puerto Rico in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  

Horizon Lines intends to continue to cooperate fully with the
Department of Justice in its ongoing antitrust investigation.  
The investigation was publicly announced in April 2008, and in
October of that year, three former Horizon Lines managers agreed
to plead guilty to Sherman Act antitrust violations.  

                        About Horizon Lines

Horizon Lines, Inc., is the nation's leading domestic ocean
shipping and integrated logistics company. The company owns or
leases a fleet of 20 U.S.-flag containerships and operates five
port terminals linking the continental United States with Alaska,
Hawaii, Guam, Micronesia and Puerto Rico. The company also
manages a domestic and overseas service partner network and
provides integrated, reliable and cost competitive logistics
solutions. Horizon Lines, Inc., is based in Charlotte, NC, and
trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
HRZ.


MASCO CORP: Georgia Lawsuit Administratively Stayed by Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Masco Corporation seeking class action status
has been administratively stayed by the federal court in Atlanta,
Georgia, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies in the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of federal and state antitrust laws.  The
plaintiff publicized the lawsuit with a press release and stated
in that release that the U.S. Department of Justice was
investigating the business practices of the company's insulation
installation companies.

Although the company was unaware of any investigation at that
time, the company was later advised that an investigation had
been commenced but was subsequently closed without any
enforcement action recommended.  Two additional lawsuits were
subsequently brought in Virginia making similar claims under the
antitrust laws.  Both of these lawsuits have since been dismissed
without any payment or requirement for any change in business
practices.

During the second half of 2004, the same counsel who commenced
the initial action in Atlanta filed six additional lawsuits on
behalf of several of Masco's competitors in the insulation
installation business.

The plaintiffs then dismissed all of these lawsuits and,
represented by the same counsel, filed another action in the same
federal court as a putative class action against the company, a
number of its insulation installation companies and certain of
their suppliers.

All of the Company's suppliers, who were co-defendants in this
lawsuit, have settled this case.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the federal court in Atlanta issued an Opinion
in which the Court certified a class of 377 insulation
contractors.  In its Opinion, the Court also ruled on various
other motions.

Two additional lawsuits, seeking class action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct, were filed against the company and a
number of its insulation suppliers.

One of these lawsuits was filed in a Florida state court and has
been dismissed by the court with prejudice.

The other lawsuit was filed in federal court in northern
California and was subsequently transferred to federal court in
Atlanta, Georgia.  The Court has recently administratively stayed
the case.

Masco Corporation -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures,  
distributes and installs home improvement and building products.  
The company operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related
Products, which includes assembled and ready-to-assemble
cabinetry for kitchen, bath, home office and home office
applications; Plumbing Products, which includes faucets and
showering devices that are manufactured by the company;
Installation and Other Services, which includes selling of
installed building products and distribution of building
products; Decorative Architectural Products, which includes
paints, primers, specialty paint products, stains, varnishes and
waterproofing products, and Other Specialty Products, which
includes manufacturing and selling of vinyl, fiberglass and
aluminum windows and patio doors.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009, approximately 79% of the company's sales were
generated by its North American operations.


MASSEY ENERGY: No Decision Yet on Class Certification Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
The West Virginia Supreme Court has yet to issue a decision on
the class certification issues in a suit against Massey Energy
Company's subsidiaries, according to the company's April 30,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Since January 2003, an advocacy group and residents in Boone,
Kanawha, Mingo and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia, filed 17
suits in the Circuit Courts of Kanawha and Mingo Counties, West
Virginia, against twelve of the company's subsidiaries.  
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants illegally transported coal in
overloaded trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby
interfering with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties and their right to use the public roads.  Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages.

The West Virginia Supreme Court referred the consolidated
lawsuits, and similar lawsuits against other coal and
transportation companies not involving the company's
subsidiaries, to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West
Virginia, to be handled by a mass litigation panel judge.

Plaintiffs filed motions requesting class certification.

On June 7, 2007, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their public
nuisance claims seeking monetary damages for road and bridge
repairs.  Plaintiffs also agreed to an order limiting any damages
for nuisance to two years prior to the filing of any suit.

A motion to dismiss any remaining public nuisance claims was
restricted by plaintiffs and argued at hearings on Dec. 14, 2007
and June 25, 2008.  No rulings on these matters have been made.

Defendants filed a motion requesting that the mass litigation
panel judge recommend to the West Virginia Supreme Court that the
cases be sent back to the circuit courts of origin for
resolution.  That motion was verbally denied as to those cases in
which the company's subsidiaries are defendants, and a class
certification hearing was held on Oct. 21, 2009.

To date, no decision has been rendered by the West Virginia
Supreme Court on the class certification issues.  No date has
been set for trial.

Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a  
coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and
Virginia.


MASSEY ENERGY: Continues to Defend Securities-Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Company defends a putative class action filed on
behalf of certain of the company's stockholders alleging
disclosure violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's April
30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Massey Energy Company -- http://www.masseyenergyco.com/-- is a  
coal producer with operations in West Virginia, Kentucky and
Virginia.


MIDDLETOWN MANAGEMENT: Hotel Guest Can Sue to Recoup Bogus Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Pitman and Lauren Pack at the Middletown Journal
report that an Ohio Supreme Count ruling has paved the way for a
class action lawsuit against a Fairfied hotel accused of adding
fictitious taxes to room bills for years.

The High Court's 6-0 ruling on Tuesday, May 18, upheld the right
of Julie Volbers-Klarich to sue for recovery of nonexistent taxes
charged to her bill in August 2002 at Hampton Inn on Kolb Drive
in Fairfield. Her lawsuit also claimed additional money damages
for fraud, breach of contract and violation of Ohio consumer
protection laws and sought certification of a class action on
behalf of other guests.

"I think Ohio Supreme Court clearly made the right decision,"
said Dayton attorney Ken Ignozzi, who represented Volbers-
Klarich. "If somebody basically defrauds you of money, then you
have the right to sue them."

Volbers-Klarich, of the Indianapolis area, and members of her
family stayed at the hotel owned and operated by Middletown
Management Inc. and Middletown Innkeepers Inc. When she paid for
the room, Volbers-Klarich alleges that in addition to state sales
tax, her bill included a 6.5 percent charge for Butler County and
city of Fairfield excise taxes. She later learned the county did
not begin charging its current 3 percent excise tax on hotel
rooms until Oct. 1, 2003. Fairfield imposed a lodging tax in mid-
2007.

The lower courts ruled that Volbers-Klarich would have to apply
to a government taxing authority for a refund .

In its decision, Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton pointed out
prior cases cited by the appeals court involved wrongful
collection of an existing tax.

Statton wrote, "When a vendor charges its customer a nonexistent
tax . . . the customer need not seek a refund from the government
entity that purportedly imposed the tax, but may file suit
directly against the vendor to recover those funds."

James C. Frooman, attorney for Middletown Management Inc. and
Middletown Innkeepers Inc., could not be reached.

Ignozzi estimates thousands of people could be part of the class
action suit. The case now goes back to Butler County Common Pleas
Judge Patricia Oney.


MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s appeal of the judgment in the lorazepam price
increase case, which was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements, remains pending,
according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against the company,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation
and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which
has been accrued for by the company.

The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully
violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust
laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into
between the company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker
(Gyma) for two drugs, lorazepam and clorazepate, in 1997, and
subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998.

The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of
earlier class action settlements agreed to by the company in 2001
and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to
Mylan's 1998 price increases for lorazepam and clorazepate.

Following the verdict, the company filed a motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss
two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the company's motion for judgment as a matter
of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining
motions were denied on Jan. 24, 2008.

In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict
be trebled and that request was granted on Jan. 24, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-
defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million,
which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling
of the compensatory damages in the original verdict
(approximately $11 million in total) and, in the case of the
fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the compensatory
damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling this
compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed against
each of the defendants (approximately $58 million in total), some
or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by
the company.

Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest
of approximately $8.0 million.

The company and its co-defendants have appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and intend to challenge the
verdict as legally erroneous on multiple grounds.

The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion
for prejudgment interest, which has been granted.

The company intends to contest this ruling along with the
liability finding and other damages awards as part of its pending
appeal, which will now proceed in the Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit.

In connection with the company's appeal of the lorazepam
judgment, the company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a
third-party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million.

This surety bond is secured by a pledge of a $40.0 million cash
deposit (which is included as restricted cash on the company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of SMarch 31, 2010) and an
irrevocable letter of credit for $34.5 million issued under the
Senior Credit Agreement.

Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries  
comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand and branded
generic pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical
ingredients (API).  Mylan has three segments: the Generics
Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment.  Mylan
markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than 140
countries.  Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic
categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery
systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles,
injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and
high-potency products.


MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s specialty pharmaceutical business subsidiary, Dey
L.P., is currently a defendant in various pricing related
lawsuits, including several class-action cases brought by
consumers and third-party payors.

Dey is named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the state
Attorney General's of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolina (on behalf
of the state and the state health plan), Utah and Wisconsin and
the city of New York and approximately 40 New York counties.

Dey is a defendant currently in lawsuits brought by the state
Attorney General's of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as
the city of New York and approximately 40 New York counties.

Dey is also named as a defendant in several class actions brought
by consumers and third-party payors.

Dey has reached a settlement of these class actions, which has
been preliminarily approved by the court.

Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on
behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August
1997.

In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-
intervention  and the case was unsealed in September 2006.

Dey's motion for partial summary judgment in that case is
pending, as is the Government's cross-motion.

The Government has asserted that Dey is jointly liable with a
codefendant and seeks recovery of alleged overpayments, together
with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief.  These
cases all generally allege that Dey falsely reported certain
price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Dey, that
Dey caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare,
and that Dey caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on
those claims.

Certain of these cases may go to trial in 2010.  Dey intends to
defend each of these actions vigorously.

The company has approximately $97.8 million recorded in other
liabilities related to the price-related litigation involving
Dey.  In conjunction with the acquisition of the former Merck
Generics business, Mylan is entitled to indemnification from
Merck KGaA under the Share Purchase Agreement.

As a result, the company has recorded approximately $97.8 million
in other assets, according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries  
comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand and branded
generic pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical
ingredients (API).  Mylan has three segments: the Generics
Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment.  Mylan
markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than 140
countries.  Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic
categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery
systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles,
injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and
high-potency products.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. continues to defend the consolidated
amended complaints filed in several putative class-action suits
against them that were consolidated in the District of Columbia.  
In general, the lawsuits allege that the individual railroads
conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class-action complaints have
been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1
railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel
on Multi-district Litigation.  Consolidated amended class-action
complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and three
other railroads on April 15, 2008.

The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge programs.

Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the
railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending
resolution of these motions.

A lawsuit containing similar allegations against NS and four
other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered
into in August 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a  
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods primarily
in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via interchange with rail
carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.


NORTH AMERICAN: Faces Two Suits in Delaware Over Sale to AZZ
------------------------------------------------------------
North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., faces two putative
class action complaints filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
in connection with its planned sale to AZZ incorporated,
according to the company's April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On April 13, 2010, Morris Akerman, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of the company, captioned Akerman v. North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5407-CC.

On April 16, 2010, Gerald Beddow, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of the company, captioned Beddow v. North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5420-VCL.

The stockholder complaints purport to assert claims against the
company, the board of directors of the company, AZZ and Purchaser
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer to
Purchase.

Among other things, the complaints allege that the company is
being sold at an unfair price.  Among other relief, plaintiffs in
each of these actions seek an order enjoining defendants from
proceeding with the Merger Agreement, as well as rescissionary
damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees.  Discovery has not
commenced, and no trial has been set in any of these actions.

The lawsuits are in the preliminary stages.

North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. --
http://www.nagalv.com/-- is a leading provider of corrosion  
protection for iron and steel components fabricated by its
customers.  NGA has a large number of hot dip galvanizing
facilities in the United States.  NGA's galvanizing plants offer
a broad line of services including centrifuge galvanizing for
small threaded products, sandblasting, chromate quenching,
polymeric coatings, and proprietary INFRASHIELD(TM) Coating
Application Systems for polyurethane protective linings and
coatings over galvanized surfaces.  NGA's mechanical and chemical
engineers provide customized assistance with initial fabrication
design, project estimates and steel chemistry selection.  NGA's
galvanizing and coating operations are composed of eleven
facilities located in Colorado, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.  The West Virginia
facility began operating in the second quarter of 2009.  These
facilities operate galvanizing kettles ranging in length from 16
feet to 62 feet and have lifting capacities ranging from 12,000
pounds to 40,000 pounds.


NORTH AMERICAN: Faces Two Suits in Oklahoma Over AZZ Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., faces two putative
class action complaints in Oklahoma in connection with its
planned sale to AZZ incorporated, according to the company's
April 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On April 13, 2010, Morris Akerman, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of the company, captioned Akerman v. North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5407-CC.

On April 16, 2010, Gerald Beddow, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of the company, captioned Beddow v. North
American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5420-VCL.

On April 16, 2010, Barbara Gibbs, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in the County
Court for Rogers County, Oklahoma on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the company, captioned
Gibbs v. North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CJ-2010-308.

On April 20, 2010, Richard Devivo, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a putative class action complaint in the District
Court for Tulsa County, Oklahoma on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of the Company, captioned
Devivo v. Morrow, et al., Case No. 2010-02551.

The stockholder complaints purport to assert claims against the
company, the board of directors of the company, AZZ and Purchaser
alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Offer to
Purchase.

Among other things, the complaints allege that the company is
being sold at an unfair price.  Among other relief, plaintiffs in
each of these actions seek an order enjoining defendants from
proceeding with the Merger Agreement, as well as rescissionary
damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees.  Discovery has not
commenced, and no trial has been set in any of these actions.

The lawsuits are in the preliminary stages.

North American Galvanizing & Coatings, Inc. --
http://www.nagalv.com/-- is a leading provider of corrosion  
protection for iron and steel components fabricated by its
customers.  NGA has a large number of hot dip galvanizing
facilities in the United States.  NGA's galvanizing plants offer
a broad line of services including centrifuge galvanizing for
small threaded products, sandblasting, chromate quenching,
polymeric coatings, and proprietary INFRASHIELD(TM) Coating
Application Systems for polyurethane protective linings and
coatings over galvanized surfaces.  NGA's mechanical and chemical
engineers provide customized assistance with initial fabrication
design, project estimates and steel chemistry selection.  NGA's
galvanizing and coating operations are composed of eleven
facilities located in Colorado, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.  The West Virginia
facility began operating in the second quarter of 2009.  These
facilities operate galvanizing kettles ranging in length from 16
feet to 62 feet and have lifting capacities ranging from 12,000
pounds to 40,000 pounds.


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Face Amended ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. continues to face an amended complaint in
the purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 15, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Corporation, the Northern Trust Employee Benefit
Administrative Committee, the Compensation and Benefits Committee
of the Board of Directors and certain officers and directors,
purportedly on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of The
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
Oct. 19, 2007 to the present.

On Jan. 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the putative
class action lawsuit.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, the Bank, the Northern Trust
Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its members, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee and its
members, and certain other officers, including the present Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation and the former Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, purportedly on behalf of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
Oct. 19, 2007 to Jan. 14, 2009.

The complaint purports to allege breaches of fiduciary duty in
violation of ERISA related to the Corporation's stock being
offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan
and seeks monetary damages.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is Patten v. Northern Trust Corp. et al., Case No.
08-cv-05912 (N.D. Ill.) (Lefkow, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

          James Vincent Hart, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-0600


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Gender Bias Jury Awards $253 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that a lawyer
for victorious plaintiffs in the Novartis Pharmaceuticals gender
bias class action on Tuesday asked a federal jury to levy
punitive damages of between $190 million and $285 million against
the company. David Sanford of Sanford, Wittels & Heisler said the
only way to force Novartis to listen "is to hit them where it
hurts" with a punitive award that also makes other corporations
"sit up and take notice" on how they treat women in their
workforce.

Defense lawyer Richard Schnadig of Vedder Price told the panel of
five women and four men that, while he disagreed with their
verdict Monday finding discrimination in pay, promotion and the
treatment of pregnant sales representatives, the company had
gotten the "message." He said the award of $3.3 million in
compensatory damages the jury made to 12 name plaintiffs was
sufficient.

On Wednesday, the jury awarded an additional $250 million in
punitive damages.  

"Today's punitive damage award is meant to punish the company for
its past actions and to deter it and others from continuing to
discriminate against female employees in the future," said
Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP.  

The twelve former Novartis sales representatives were awarded
$3.36 million in compensatory damages on Tuesday.

There are 5,600 eligible members of the class in the case brought
against the North American subsidiary of the Switzerland-based
company. In addition to the jury's decision on punitive damages,
Southern District of New York Judge Colleen McMahon must still
decide some issues, including back pay for some members of the
class.  


NUTRACEA: Shareholder Suit Settled for $1.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------
NutraCea (Pink Sheets: NTRZ) has reached a complete settlement of  
the securities class action lawsuit initially filed on February
29, 2009. The settlement of the consolidated class action suit is
subject to preliminary and final approval of the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement NutraCea's insurance
company will create a settlement fund in the amount of $1,500,000
to pay claims submitted by class members.  The settlement fund
will also contain 50% of any funds remaining in the insurance
policy after payment of all valid claims (including legal fees),
as long as there is $150,000 or more of funds remaining in the
policy. The plaintiffs were seeking damages against NutraCea and
certain former officers and directors for alleged federal and
Arizona state securities law violations. The settlement provides
full and complete settlement for all claims against NutraCea and
the other defendants under the class action suit.

W. John Short, Chairman and CEO, commented, "We are pleased to
have reached this agreement, which we believe to be in the best
interest of our shareholders.  The resolution of the suit will
allow management to focus more completely on successfully exiting
chapter 11, growing our company and restoring value for our
shareholders."

Anyone who purchased NutraCea shares between April 2, 2007 and
February 23, 2009 may be entitled to a share of the settlement.  

NutraCea -- http://www.NutraCea.com/-- is a world leader in  
production and utilization of stabilized rice bran. NutraCea
holds many patents for stabilized rice bran (SRB) production
technology and proprietary products derived from SRB. NutraCea's
proprietary technology enables the creation of food and nutrition
products to be unlocked from rice bran, normally a waste by-
product of standard rice processing.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter, Phoenix, Ariz.-
based Nutracea filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
November 10, 2009 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No. 09-28817), and is
represented by:

          S. Cary Forrester, Esq.
          FORRESTER & WORTH, PLLC
          3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 271-4250
          E-mail: scf@fwlawaz.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
David Soldan, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 2010-00372060 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty. May 13, 2010), accuses the office
supplies store of failing to pay overtime wages, failing to
provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay all wages due upon
termination of employment or voluntary resignation, failing to
furnish itemized wage statements, and unlawful business acts and
practices in violation of Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger R. Carter, Esq.
          THE CARTER LAW FIRM
          2030 Main St., Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4737
          
               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2030 Main St., Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 724-9200

               - and -

          Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
          THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 492-4370


RASHTI & RASHTI: Recalls 44,000 Giraffe Security Blankets
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rashti & Rashti, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 44,000 Giraffe Security Blankets.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The balls on top of the giraffe's horns can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves the pink "I Love You" security blanket with a
giraffe plush head.  The blanket measures about 14 inches wide by
14 inches in length.  "I Love You" is embroidered on the blanket.
Style number Y22230H and "Just One Year a division of Carter's"
are sewn into a label on the blanket.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10235.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
target stores from January 2009 through August 2009 for about $9.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled blankets away from
children and contact Rashti & Rashti for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Rashti & Rashti toll-free at
(888) 594-3730 between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.rashtiandrashti.com/


SECURITAS SECURITY: Forfeiture of Vacation Pay Alleged
------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Gaddis and Ivan Nikolov, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Securitas Security Services USA,
Inc., Case No. 2010-00372059 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.
May 13, 2010), accuses the security company of forfeiture of
vacation pay, unlawful deductions, and unfair business practices
in violation of Sections 17200 through 17208 of the Bus. & Prof.
Code.  Messrs. Gaddis and Nikolov are former employees of
Securitas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001


SYBASE INC: Accused of Selling Itself Below Fair Value
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Alberti, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sybase, Inc. et al., Case No. 10-cv-02109 (N.D.
Calif. May 17, 2010), accuses the software solutions provider and
certain of its officers and directors of selling the Company too
cheaply to SAP AG and SAP America, Inc.   Mr. Alberti explains
that on
May 12, 2010, the Company announced that SAP will acquire
Sybase's outstanding common shares at $65 cash per share in a
transaction valued at roughly $5.8 billion, in breach of the
individual defendants fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders.  Mr. Alberti asks the Court to prevent the
consummation of the merger or, in the event the merger has
already been consummated, to award damages to the Company's
shareholders.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 461-1426
          E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          David Leventhal, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

               - and -

          Mark Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377


SWITCH & DATA: Seeks Court Approval of Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., continues to pursue court
approval of an agreement settling three lawsuits in connection
with its planned merger with Equinix, Inc.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Equinix and Sundance Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Equinix (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement and subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of the conditions therein, Merger Sub will merge with and
into the companys, with the company surviving as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Equinix.

On Oct. 27, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Switch and Data,
members of Switch and Data's board of directors, Sundance
Acquisition Corporation and Equinix. The lawsuit, Gibbs v. Switch
& Data Facilities Company, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5027-VCS),
alleged that the members of the company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection
with the Merger by, among other things, entering into the Merger
Agreement without first taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and
maximum consideration for the company's stockholders, by
structuring the transaction to benefit themselves and by
including provisions intended to dissuade other potential suitors
from making competing offers.  The complaint also alleged that
Switch and Data and Equinix aided and abetted those supposed
breaches of duty.  The complaint sought various forms of relief,
including but not limited to an injunction prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Jiannaras v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 09-CA-027950), was filed against the same
defendants in a Hillsborough County, Florida state court.  The
complaint alleged that the members of the company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to our stockholders by,
among other things, failing to take steps to maximize our value
to our stockholders, failing to value properly Switch and Data,
failing to protect against the directors' conflicts of interest,
and failing to disclose all material information to allow a fully
informed vote by the stockholders.  Specifically, plaintiffs
contended that the defendants timed the merger to take advantage
of the recent downturn in our share price to sell us at an
illusory premium that did not reflect our financial performance,
thereby depriving our stockholders of the true value of their
shares and allowing defendants to reap disproportionate benefits
to themselves instead of maximizing stockholder value.  
Plaintiffs further asserted that Switch and Data and Equinix
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty by our directors.  
The complaint sought various relief, including but not limited to
an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a third purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Broadbased Equities v. Keith Olsen, et al. (Case No.
8:09-CV-02473), was filed against the same defendants (other than
Sundance Acquisition Corporation, which was not named) in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have provided materially
incomplete information to our stockholders in the Proxy
Statement, that the company's Chief Executive Officer and
President sought to advance his own interests at the expense of
company stockholders in connection with the Merger, and that the
company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger, including by agreeing to provisions in the
Merger Agreement intended to dissuade other potential suitors
from making competing offers.  The complaint also alleged that
Equinix aided and abetted those supposed breaches of duty.  The
complaint sought various forms of relief, including but not
limited to an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
Merger.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all lawsuits.  In connection
with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all claims asserted
therein would be dismissed with prejudice, including the claims
brought against us and our directors.

The parties have sought approval of the settlement in the Florida
state court.  The parties have stayed the actions pending in the
Delaware Chancery Court and the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the Merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Florida state court.  The proposed settlement
contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an
aggregate amount of $900,000, and that the defendants will not
oppose or undermine this application.  These attorneys' fees and
costs will not be deducted from the Merger consideration.

Both Switch and Data and Equinix will share in the payment of
such settlement.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company has accrued
$600,000, the company's portion of the settlement, and recorded
an insurance receivable of $400,000.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 30, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Switch and Data -- http://www.switchanddata.com/-- is a premier  
provider of network-neutral data centers that house, power and
interconnect the Internet.  Leading content companies,
enterprises and communications service providers rely on Switch
and Data to connect to customers and exchange Internet traffic.  
Switch and Data has built a reputation for world-class service,
delivered across the broadest collocation footprint and richest
network of interconnections in North America. Switch and Data
operates 34 sites in the U.S. and Canada, provides one of the
highest customer satisfaction scores for technical and
engineering support in the industry, and is home to PAIX(R) --
the world's first commercial Internet exchange.


UNITED STATES: Dept. of the Interior Sued Over Gulf Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle at The National Law Journal reports that as lawsuits
over the BP oil spill mount, a group of conservationists and
fishermen have a new target: the U.S. Department of Interior's
Minerals Management Service.

Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, and New Orleans' Waltzer
& Wiygul filed suit in federal court on Tuesday against the
federal agency.  The suit charges that the agency violated
federal law by exempting oil companies that drill in the Gulf of
Mexico from disclosing blowout and worst-case spill scenarios as
well as plans for dealing with them before approving the
companies' offshore drilling plans.

For the BP Deepwater Horizon exploration plan, the Minerals
Management Service, according to the suit, had issued notices to
the oil companies that they did not have to comply with the
blowout and worst-case oil spill rules. The agency also failed to
analyze the potential environmental impact of a blowout and spill
as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

"This case is about lax regulation by the Minerals Management
Service," said Earthjustice attorney David Guest in a statement.
"It is actually easier to get a permit for an offshore oil well
than for a hot dog stand."

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of Louisiana, seeks to invalidate the agency's practice
of sending notices to oil companies informing them they don't
have to comply with the rules and to order review of existing
offshore drilling plans that do not comply with existing rules.

"The basic problem here is that the Minerals Management Service
tried to change the law without telling anybody," said Robert
Wiygul. "That's bad policy, and the BP mess proves it's a
disaster for the environment."

The federal agency, at press time, had no comment on the lawsuit.

A copy of the Complaint in Gulf Restoration Network and Sierra
Club v. Salazar, Case No. 10-cv-_____ (E.D. La.), is available
at:

     http://www.earthjustice.org/library/legal_docs/grn-sierra-apa-complaint.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel Waltzer, Esq.
          3715 Westbank Expressway, Suite 13
          Harvey, LA 70058
          Telephone: 504-340-6300
          E-mail: joel@waltzerlaw.com

               - and -  

          Robert Wiygul, Esq.
          1011 Iberville Drive
          Ocean Springs, MS 39564
          Telephone: 228-872-*1125
          E-mail: rovert@waltzerlaw.com

               - and -  

          David G. Guest, Esq.
          Monica K. Reimer, Esq.
          Earthjustice
          P.O. Box 1329
          Tallahassee, FL 32302
          Telephone: 850-681-0031
          E-mail: dguest@earthjustice.org


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gladden Case v. 30 Firms Filed on May 3 in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Port Arthur, Tex., Floyd D. Gladden Jr. and Rebecca
E. Gladden, on May 3, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 30 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Manufacturing and equipment defendants named in the suit include
Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Crane Co., Enpro Industries Inc., Foster
Wheeler Energy Corp., Foster Wheeler AG, Garlock, Garlock Sealing
Technologies, Guard-line Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Co., Riley Power
formerly known as Riley Stoker Corp. and Yarway Corp.

Premises defendants include Atlantic Richfield Co., Goodrich
Corp. (d/b/a BF Goodrich), BP Products North America Inc.,
Bridgestone Americas Inc., Chevron Corporation, E.I. Dupont De
Numours and Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., The Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company, Koppers Holdings Inc., Meadwestvaco Corp., Olin
Corporation, Sinclair Oil Corp., Sunoco Inc., Temple-Inland Inc.,
Texaco Inc., Total Petrochemicals and Wyeth Holdings Corp.

Employer defendants include Sembcorp-Sabine Industries while
supplier defendants include Union Carbide Corp.

In their complaint, the Gladdens seek punitive, exemplary and
general damages, plus costs, interest and other relief to which
they may be entitled.

Paul D. Henderson, Esq., of Orange and Carrie Waters, Esq., Kyla
Cole, Esq., and Peter A. Kraus, Esq., of Waters and Kraus in
Dallas will be representing the Gladdens.

Case No. E186-773 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leyton Man Seeks Asbestos Link to Wife's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Goodwin, a 65-year-old man from Leyton, London, seeks
answers on how his 60-year-old wife, Iris Goodwin, was exposed to
asbestos, which eventually caused her death, the Guardian
reports.

Mrs. Goodwin was a stay at home mom for most of her life, working
as a baker's assistant for 18 months, and had no known exposure
to industrial material that may have asbestos in it.

At Walthamstow Coroner's Court on May 12, 2010, Dr. Elizabeth
Stearns said it was unlikely that asbestos around the water tank
in the family's loft was the cause of Mrs. Goodwin's mesothelioma
because the couple had lived there for 30 years, and the disease
usually takes longer to affect someone, she said.

Mr. Goodwin, a retired heavy goods driver, said he and his
daughter have been advised by doctors to get yearly checks for
asbestos-related diseases, in case the family was also exposed to
it.

The family intends to investigate Mrs. Goodwin's life further to
find out if they can trace where she may have been exposed to
asbestos.

At the inquest, the court heard that Mrs. Goodwin was a heavy
smoker who had shortness or breath and persistent coughs caused
by damage to her lungs, which later led to hospital treatment
emphysema.

However, no shadows were picked up on x-rays until shortly before
Mrs. Goodwin's death at St. Margaret's Hospice in Whipps Cross
Hospital on Dec. 1, 2009, so Dr. Stearns and pathologist, Dr. Ian
Calder, agreed that it was likely to have been a recently
developed and rapidly growing tumor.

Dr. Calder said the post mortem confirmed the malignant tumor on
the lungs and other microscopic evidence of asbestos.

Dr. Stearns gave the cause of death as malignant mesothelioma
caused by asbestos exposure, contributed to by secondly, chronic
bronchitis and emphysema.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metzger Claims Filed in Madison, St. Clair Cos.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A couple from Othello, Wash., Glenn and Joyce Metzger, filed
separate asbestos related cases against 59 defendant
corporations: one on April 27, 2010 in St. Clair County Circuit
Court, Ill., and the other on May 3, 2010 in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In both complaints, the Metzgers allege the defendant companies
caused Mr. Metzger to develop mesothelioma after his exposure to
asbestos-containing products throughout his career as an
insulator at various sites from 1953 until 1989.

In their six-count suit, the Metzgers seek a judgment of more
than US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than
US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,
punitive damages in an amount to sufficiently punish the
defendants for their behavior and other relief the court deems
just.

David I. Cates, Esq., and Judy L. Cates, Esq., of the Cates Law
Firm in Swansea will be representing the Metzgers in their St.
Clair County lawsuit.

Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville will be
representing the Metzgers in their Madison County lawsuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. District Court Affirms Ruling in Pace Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, affirmed the ruling of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which
enjoined John Henry Pace's asbestos-related state law action
against American International Group, Inc. (AIG).

The case is styled John Henry Pace and Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Appellants v. American International Group, Inc., Appellee.

District Judge David H. Coar entered judgment in Case No. 08 C
945 on March 30, 2010.

Before this Court was the appeal of Mr. Pace and Baron & Budd,
P.C. from the Final Injunction and Order issued by the Bankruptcy
Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of AIG, denied
summary judgment for Mr. Pace, and enjoined Mr. Pace's related
suit against AIG in state court.

Mr. Pace initiated a lawsuit against AIG in Texas state court,
alleging that AIG failed to pay Mr. Pace under the terms of a
settlement agreement between the parties. The Texas trial court
awarded summary judgment to Mr. Pace on Oct. 26, 2006 and AIG
timely appealed.

Before the Texas court resolved this appeal, AIG filed an
Original Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief in this
Court, alleging that Mr. Pace's state court suit was barred by a
channeling injunction issued during bankruptcy proceedings for
ARTRA Group, Inc. The matter was referred to the Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, which had presided over
the ARTRA bankruptcy and issued the channeling injunction in
question.

On Nov. 27, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered a "Final Judgment
of Injunction," granting summary judgment in favor of AIG,
denying summary judgment for Mr. Pace, and enjoining the
continuation of the Texas proceeding.

On April 27, 2006, Mr. Pace, through his attorneys Baron & Budd,
P.C., sued AIG in Texas state court. In that action, Mr. Pace
alleged the following he suffers from asbestosis and filed suit
for his injuries in Texas state court in 1999.

After the trial that ensued, a jury awarded a verdict in Mr.
Pace's favor, and, on March 22, 2002, the court entered a final
judgment against the Synkoloid Company in the amount of
US$2,025,000.

On May 9, 2002, Mr. Pace entered into a written agreement
resolving the final judgment for a total of US$725,000 (the "Pace
Settlement Agreement").

While Mr. Pace and Kemper performed all of their obligations
under the Pace Settlement Agreement, both ARTRA and AIG failed to
make their required payments.

On April 6, 2007, AIG filed the instant action in the District
Court, seeking to enforce the channeling injunction and to enjoin
Mr. Pace permanently from pursuing the Texas Action. On June 14,
2007, this Court referred the matter to the Bankruptcy
Court, where both parties moved for summary judgment.

On Nov. 27, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment
in favor of AIG, denied summary judgment for Pace, and issued a
Final Judgment of Injunction enforcing the channeling injunction
associated with the ARTRA Bankruptcy Confirmation Order.

The court held specifically that AIG was a "Released Party"
within the meaning of the Injunction, and Mr. Pace's claim
against AIG was "based upon," "related to" and "connected with" a
"Released Claim" which is defined by the Injunction to include
his Asbestos Personal Injury Claim against ARTRA and Synkoloid.

Accordingly, the channeling injunction prevented Mr. Pace from
continuing to pursue his claim against AIG in the Texas Action.
Mr. Pace timely appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision to this
Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Affirmed in Hughes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving
asbestos filed by Gary Hughes.

The case is styled Gary Hughes, Plaintiff v. Commissioner Jeffrey
A. Beard, Superintendent Raymond M. Lawler, Maintenance
Supervisor Robert Bilgar, and Foreman Jim Heinstein, individually
and in their official capacities, Defendants.

District Judge James M. Munley entered judgment in Case No.
3:09cv581 on March 29, 2010.

Gary Hughes is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at
Huntingdon on an eight- to 40-year sentence. At the times
relevant to the complaint, he worked for the Prison Power House,
which controlled functions for the prison like water, heating and
coal. He asserted that the prison has exposed him to asbestos
containing material.

While a company was removing insulation from the prison, Mr.
Hughes asserted that he was exposed to the insulation, which was
seven percent asbestos according to lab tested samples. The
prison determined that its inmates did not need medical
assessments based on the exposure to the ACM.

In response to Mr. Hughes' complaint, the defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.

The defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for
summary judgment was granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to
close this case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Respirator Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. 3M Company
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of March 31, 2010, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits (including asbestos-
related) in various courts that purport to represent 2,370
individual claimants, down from the 2,510 individual claimants
with actions pending at Dec. 31, 2009.

Most of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending
against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and
respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other
defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures
to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts
found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally
in the workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well
as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at
Company premises.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in the following businesses:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office;
Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics;
and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company
employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Records $33Mil Aearo Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, as of
March 31, 2010, has recorded US$33 million as an estimate of the
probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims.

Through Aearo, as of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company had recorded
US$34 million as an estimate of the probable liabilities for
product liabilities and defense costs related to current and
future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related claims. (Class
Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2010)

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies.  Aearo
manufactures and sells various products, including personal
protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and
certain respiratory protection products.

As of March 31, 2010, Aearo and/or other companies that
previously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business
(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and
Cabot Corporation) are named defendants, with multiple co-
defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in
various courts.

In these suits, the plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator
products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for
alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos,
silica-related, or other occupational dusts found in products
manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and
judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among
Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of
Warner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group). Liability is
allocated among the parties based on the number of years each
company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety" brand
and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical
Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual
plaintiff.

Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further limited by
an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11,
1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to
Cabot an annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against,
asbestos and silica-related product liability claims for
respirators manufactured prior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearo
and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the
alleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.

With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other
occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee. Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this
arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its
obligations in these matters.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in the following businesses:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office;
Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics;
and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company
employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Records $133M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's liabilities for asbestos or respirator mask claims
were US$133 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$138
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's insurance receivables for asbestos or respirator
mask claims were US$118 million as of March 31, 2010, compared
with US$143 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in the following businesses:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office;
Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics;
and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company
employed 74,835 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Continental Case v. 3M Co. Still in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos insurance lawsuit filed by Continental Casualty and
Continental Insurance Co. (both part of the Continental Casualty
Group) against 3M Company remains in its early stages.

Trial is scheduled to begin in June 2012.

On Jan. 5, 2007 the Company was served with a declaratory
judgment action filed on behalf of two of its insurers
(Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co. - both part
of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of a US$118 million
insurance recovery receivable as of March 31, 2010. The action,
pending in the District Court in Ramsey County, Minn., seeks
declaratory judgment regarding the allocation of covered costs
among the policies issued by the various insurers.

The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers. This action is similar in nature to an action
filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which
ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of
2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that
names some additional insurers and deletes others. Several of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the
Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in the following businesses:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Consumer and Office;
Safety, Security and Protection Services; Display and Graphics;
and Electro and Communications. At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company
employed 74,835 people.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Has $170.2M Reserve for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's gross asbestosis and
environmental claims and loss adjustment expense reserves were
US$170.2 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$172.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's net asbestosis and environmental claims and LAE
reserves were US$135.6 million as of March 31, 2010, compared
with US$136.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Chicago, Old Republic International Corporation is
engaged in the single business of insurance underwriting. It
conducts its operations through a number of regulated insurance
company subsidiaries organized into three major segments, namely,
its General (property and liability insurance), Mortgage
Guaranty, and Title Insurance Groups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Has 62,340 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had about 62,340 pending asbestos claims as of
March 31, 2010, as compared with about 62,360 pending claims as
of Dec. 31, 2009 and 67,540 as of March 31, 2009.

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

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

During the first quarter of 2010, the Company received about
1,020 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about
1,040 claims.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M & F Incurs No Amounts for Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp., as of March 31, 2010, has not incurred and
does not expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-
related claims not subject to certain arrangements (Remaining
Claims).

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC (together with its predecessors in
interest, "Pneumo Abex"). Substantially all of these contingent
claims are the financial responsibility of third parties and
include various environmental and asbestos-related claims. As a
result, the Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect
to pay on its own behalf material amounts related to these
matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various operating businesses, all
of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996. Prior to the 1988 sale,
those businesses had manufactured certain asbestos-containing
friction products. Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along
with 10 to as many as 100 or more other companies, as a defendant
in various personal injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to
exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of
its Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. (now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor") assumed all liability for substantially all
asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after August
1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement
(Transfer Agreement). Under the Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex
transferred to MCGI substantially all of its assets and
liabilities other than the assets and liabilities relating to its
former Abex NWL Aerospace Division (Aerospace) and certain
contingent liabilities and the related assets, including its
historical insurance and indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which
it manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary and its successors have pursued litigation against the
insurers providing this coverage in order to confirm its
availability and obtain its benefits.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement, all
of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims
other than as described below are managed and paid by others.

Based in New York, M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company
that conducts its operations through its indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide. The
Company's businesses are organized along four business segments:
Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and
Licorice Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos.

Some facilities owned by the Company contain or have contained
asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.

Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the
Company, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by the Company's subsidiaries. The Company anticipates that
additional claims like those received may be asserted in the
future.

In 2004, the Company sold its generating business, to which most
of these claims relate, to Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as
NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas
LP, ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from
claims relating to the generating business has been assumed by
NRG Texas LP, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend
those claims to the extent they are covered by insurance
maintained by the Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs
of such defense from NRG Texas LP.

Based in Houston, CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s regulated utilities
distribute natural gas to 3.2 million customers in six U.S.
states and electricity to two million customers on the Texas Gulf
Coast.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell, Automation, Inc. and its subsidiaries still face
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos that was used in certain components of the Company's
products many years ago.

In some cases, the claims involve products from divested
businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of the costs.
However, it has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims
associated with products manufactured or sold by its former Dodge
mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services
businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company, which
occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC) divested measurement
and flow control business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary. Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company and Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that
provided liability insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the
Company entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with
both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper
buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay
the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds
are depleted.

The Company said it believes that these arrangements will
continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims
throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability.

Based in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial
automation company. Its Control Products & Solutions unit makes
industrial automation products like motor starters and
contactors, relays, timers, signaling devices, and variable-speed
drives.



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

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 6, 2010 with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $18Mil Gross Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC
(AIHL)'s reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
include US$18 million of gross reserves and US$17.9 million net
reserves at March 31, 2010.

AIHL's reserves for unpaid losses and LAE include US$18.9 million
of gross reserves and US$18.8 million of net reserves at Dec. 31,
2009.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of Capitol Transamerica
Corporation and Platte River Insurance Company (collectively
"CATA") between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited such business in 1976.

Based in New York, Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the
property and casualty and surety insurance business through its
wholly owned subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC (AIHL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasty Baking Co. Records $7.6MM ARO at March 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tasty Baking Company recorded an asset retirement obligation of
US$7.6 million as of March 27, 2010, compared with US$7.5 million
as of Dec. 26, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on May 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has a conditional asset retirement obligation related
to asbestos in its Hunting Park, Philadelphia manufacturing
facility. As a result of its decision to relocate its
Philadelphia operations, the Company was able to estimate a
settlement date for the asset retirement obligation and
recognized a liability for this obligation.

During the 13 weeks ended March 27, 2010 and March 28, 2009, the
Company recorded US$100,000 in interest associated with the asset
retirement obligation.

Based in Philadelphia, Tasty Baking Company produces sweet baked
goods. It has three manufacturing facilities, two in
Philadelphia, and a third facility in Oxford, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 26,055 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are 26,055 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against Harsco Corporation as of March 31, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 6, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

There were 26,084 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against the Company as of Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 26, 2010)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury
from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.
In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York. Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million
or US$25 million against about 90 defendants.

Of the 26,055 cases, 25,543 were pending in the New York Supreme
Court for New York County in New York State. The other claims,
totaling 512, are filed in various counties in a number of state
courts, and in certain Federal District Courts (including New
York), and those complaints generally assert lesser amounts of
damages than the New York State court cases or do not state any
amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 18,511 cases.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company has been listed as a defendant
in 573 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.  
The Court's Order has been challenged by plaintiffs.

Based in Camp Hill, Pa., Harsco Corporation's metals segment
offers metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and
other services for steel and nonferrous metals producers. This
segment's units act as an on-site service partner at about 170
locations in 35 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett's Bid to Dismiss Carder Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. says that subsidiary Liggett Group LLC's motion
to dismiss an asbestos suit styled Carder, et al. v. John Crane-
Houdaille, Inc., et al., is pending.

Filed on Sept. 4, 2009, Case No. 24-X-09-000139 is pending in
Baltimore Circuit Court, Md.

Plaintiff is suing individually and as personal representative of
the estate of a deceased smoker. Plaintiff seeks damages
allegedly caused to decedent by exposure to asbestos and
cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos manufacturer
defendants and certain tobacco company defendants, including
Liggett.

Liggett filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 28, 2009.

Based in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes discount
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix,
Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes for
other companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Dismiss Slaughter Action Filed Jan. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, on Jan. 8,
2010 filed motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit styled
Slaughter, et al., v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., et al.

Filed on Feb. 10, 2009, Case No. 24-X-06-000394 is pending in
Baltimore City Circuit Court, Md. Plaintiff is suing individually
and as personal representative of the estate of a deceased
smoker.

Plaintiff seeks damages allegedly caused to decedent by exposure
to asbestos and cigarettes, with claims against certain asbestos
manufacturer defendants and certain tobacco company defendants,
including Liggett. A decision is pending.

Based in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes discount
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix,
Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes for
other companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Action Still Pending in Kanawha County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. is involved in an asbestos-related class action
styled Parsons, et al. v. A C & S Inc., et al., Case No. 98-C-
388.

Filed on April 9, 1999, the case is pending Kanawh County Circuit
Court, W.Va., This personal injury class action is brought on
behalf of plaintiff's decedent and all West Virginia residents
who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their
exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.

The case is stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy
petitions filed by three defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.

Based in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group makes discount
cigarettes under brands including Liggett Select, Grand Prix,
Pyramid, and Eve, and several generic lines of cigarettes for
other companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,525 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Standard at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. says that, at March 31, 2010, about
1,525 asbestos-related cases were outstanding for which it was
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 6, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after Sept. 1, 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through March 31, 2010, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$9.4 million. In
September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company has submitted various asbestos-related claims for
coverage under this agreement, and received about US$2.3 million
in reimbursement for settlement claims and defense costs. The
Company has submitted additional asbestos-related claims to such
insurance carrier for coverage.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Records $61M Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$61 million as of both March 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 6, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were US$16
million as of both March 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009.

Long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$47 million as of
both March 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009. Current asbestos-related
recoveries were US$8 million as of both March 31, 2010 and Sept.
30, 2009.

Based in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The Company
serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and
coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle OEMs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maremont Corp. Facing 26,000 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, faced
26,000 pending asbestos-related claims at both March 31, 2010 and
Sept. 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on May 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.

Maremont and many other companies are defendants in suits brought
by individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure
to asbestos-containing products. Although Maremont has been named
in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been
alleged, very few claimants have established that a Maremont
product caused their injuries.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future
asbestos claims were US$61 million as of both March 31, 2010 and
Sept. 30, 2009. Maremont's asbestos-related recoveries were US$43
million as of both March 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009.

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution (CCR) and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims. The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos
claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was
reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements.

Since the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled
asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel and has
taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves
examining the merits of each asbestos-related claim.

Based in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The Company
serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and
coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle OEMs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Still Involved in Rockwell Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc., along with many other companies, has also
been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of
Rockwell Automation, Inc. products many years ago.

Liability for these claims was transferred to the Company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to Meritor from
Rockwell in 1997. Currently there are thousands of claimants in
lawsuits that name the company, together with many other
companies, as defendants.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast
majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to
claimants.

The Company has recorded a US$16 million liability for defense
and indemnity costs associated with these claims at both March
31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009.

The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$12 million at
March 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2009.

Based in Troy, Mich., ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The Company
serves commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and
coach and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle OEMs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Records $1.3Mil ARO at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amount included in accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities on Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s condensed
consolidated balance sheets was about US$1.3 million as of March
31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The related asset is recorded at US$1.2 million, net of
accumulated depreciation, as of March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The amount of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to
estimated asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life
of properties that were built before 1984.

Based in San Francisco, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns,
acquires, develops, redevelops and manages technology-related
real estate. As of March 31, 2010, the Company's portfolio
consisted of 84 properties, excluding one property held as an
investment in an unconsolidated joint venture, of which 71 are
located throughout North America and 13 are located in Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Odyssey Records $368.4M Losses, LAE at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp.'s gross asbestos-related unpaid losses
and loss adjustment expenses were US$368,400,000 during the three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$349,151,000 during
the three months ended March 31, 2009.

The Company's gross asbestos-related unpaid losses and LAE
amounted to US$386,735,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009,
compared with US$360,733,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
(Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2010)

The Company's net asbestos-related unpaid losses and LAE were
US$224,897,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with US$224,897,000 during the three months ended March
31, 2009.

The Company's net asbestos-related losses and LAE amounted to
US$241,572,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with
US$230,486,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action
Reporter, March 5, 2010)

The Company's reserves for asbestos- and environmental-related
liabilities are from business written prior to 1986.

The Company's survival ratio for asbestos and environmental-
related liabilities as of March 31, 2010 is seven years. The
Company's underlying survival ratio for asbestos-related
liabilities is seven years and for environmental-related
liabilities is three years.

The asbestos and environmental-related liability survival ratio
represents the asbestos and environmental reserves, net of
reinsurance, as of March 31, 2010, divided by the average paid
asbestos and environmental claims for the last three years of
US$39 million, which is net of reinsurance.

Based in Stamford, Conn., Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. is an
underwriter of reinsurance, providing property and casualty
products on a worldwide basis, and an underwriter of specialty
insurance, primarily in the United States and through the Lloyd's
of London marketplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Ongoing v. Curtiss-Wright
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries have been named in
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
May 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.

The Company said it believes that the minimal use of asbestos in
its past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in its products makes it unlikely that the
Company will face material liability in any asbestos litigation,
whether individually or in the aggregate.

The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and the Company said it believes adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Based in Parsippany, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation designs,
manufactures, and overhauls precision components and systems and
provides highly engineered products and services to the
aerospace, defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil,
petrochemical, agricultural equipment, railroad, power
generation, security, and metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grants Pass Man Fined $9.6T for Cleanup Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
US$9,600 penalty to Dale Curtis Hurst, of Grants Pass., Ore., for
violations related to a friable asbestos abatement project
performed at a commercial facility he owns, according to an
Oregon DEQ press release dated May 18, 2010.

This facility is located at 979 Rogue River Highway in Grants
Pass, Ore.

Mr. Hurst, who was not licensed for asbestos abatement, removed
about 2,500 square feet of asbestos-containing sheet vinyl
flooring and floor tile.

The removal project crushed and pulverized the flooring, did not
comply with applicable asbestos regulations and likely caused the
release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere.

Mr. Hurst appealed the penalty in April 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $750 Fine Issued to USDA for Cleanup Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
penalty totaling US$750 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
violations related to a friable asbestos abatement project that
federal employees performed at a building located at 75 SE Scott
St. in Bend, Ore., according to a Oregon DEQ press release dated
May 18, 2010.

When the Department of Agriculture's environmental staff learned
about the asbestos removal they contacted DEQ (self-disclosure)
immediately about the event. The federal agency was very
cooperative with DEQ in resolving this violation and the penalty
was subsequently reduced from US$1500 to US$750.

DEQ assessed the penalty because the employees were not licensed
by DEQ to perform asbestos abatement projects yet still removed
about 72 square feet of asbestos-containing floor tiles using a
power saw.

The cut tiles remained unpackaged and unlabeled on the ground
until a third-party, licensed asbestos abatement contractor
properly disposed of the tiles.

This penalty was served on April 14, 2010. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture did not appeal the penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas House Committee to Hear Asbestos Matters
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a hearing slated for May 26, 2010, the Texas House Judiciary
and Civil Jurisprudence Committee will hold a hearing on two
issues, barratry and evidence standards in mesothelioma lawsuits,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. in the Texas
Capitol Extension (E2.010). The hearing will stream live on the
Internet at http://www.house.state.tx.us/media/welcome.php

The Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee has jurisdiction
over legislation pertaining to civil law, probate and
guardianship matters. The committee has jurisdiction over all
appellate courts in the state including the Texas Supreme Court
and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

The burden of proof and damage calculations related to
mesothelioma lawsuits and false advertising claims are on the
agenda.

Rep. Todd Hunter, Esq., a Republican representing District 32
which includes Aransas, Calhoun, San Patricio and part of Nueces
County, is chair of the committee. He is currently the senior
partner of Hunter and Handel PC in Corpus Christi.

Personal injury trial lawyer William Edwards, Esq., of Corpus
Christi is one of the scheduled speakers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kitts Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 16 in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dick T. Kitts., of Ironton, Ohio, on April 16, 2010, filed an
asbestos-related lawsuit against 41 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Defendants include 3M Company; A. W. Chesterton Company; Aurora
Pump Company; Buffalo Pumps, Inc.; CertainTeed Corporation;
Cleaver-Brooks Company, Inc.; Crane Co.; Elliott Company;
Flowserve FSD Corporation; Flowserve US, Inc., and its Byron
Jackson Division; Flowserve US, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation; FMC Corporation; Gardner Denver, Inc.; Garlock,
Inc.; General Electric Company; General Refractories Company;
Goulds Pumps; Honeywell International, Inc.; Howden Buffalo,
Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company;
ITT Corporation; McJunkin Corporation; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; and Nagle Pumps, Inc.

Other defendants include Nitro Industrial Coverings, Inc.; Ohio
Valley Insulating Company, Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Premier
Refractories, Inc.; Rapid American Corporation; Riley Power,
Inc.; Roper Pump Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (US), LLC; Tasco
Insulations, Inc.; UB West Virginia, Inc.; Uniroyal, Inc.; United
States Rubber Company; Viacom, Inc.; Vimasco Corporation; and
Zurn Industries, Inc.

Mr. Kitts worked at Dayton Malleable in Ironton, Ohio, from 1957
until 1984 as a millwright and was diagnosed with lung cancer on
March 18, 2009, according to the lawsuit.

The 73-year-old Mr. Kitts claims he has smoked one pack of
cigarettes per day since 1955. The defendants are being sued for
negligence, contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied
warranty, strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy,
misrepresentations and post sale duty to warn, according to the
suit.

Mr. Kitts seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in
his asbestos-related suit. Victoria Antion, Esq., represents Mr.
Kitts.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis' Lawsuit Filed on May 3 in Kanawha County
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Keren Davis, executrix of the
Estate of James P. Davis vs. 3M Company, A.W. Chesterton Company,
Ashland Oil, et al. was filed on May 3, 2010 in Kanawha County
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mrs. Davis claims the 48 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Davis' lung cancer and death. Mr. Davis was diagnosed with lung
cancer on Oct. 11, 2006 and died on June 1, 2009, according to
the suit.

Mrs. Davis seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved in
her asbestos-related case.

John E. Sutter, Esq., represents Mrs. Davis. Case No. 10-C-812 is
assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Gov't. Vows AUD250T Loan for Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Government of Tasmania, Australia, offered to loan the
Devonport City Council the AUD250,000 needed to remove asbestos
from the abandoned maternity hospital, ABC News reports.

The Council remains concerned it will be left with the bill for
the cleanup of asbestos at the former hospital.

Premier David Bartlett says the Council will need to recover the
cost from the building's owner, which is in receivership.

Mayor Lyn Laycock says she would have preferred that the
government pay for the removal of asbestos and demolishing the
building. She said, "The concern is of course with the loan that
we do have to pay it back and that's ratepayers of Devonport's
money."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remediation at Summerlin Road Commenced May 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Workers with Posen Construction, on May 18, 2010, began cleaning
up asbestos-laden fill material from Summerlin Road in Lee
County, Fla., Mesothelioma.com reports.

The project has been delayed for months due to the presence of
asbestos, and now will likely not be finished until December
2010. Six months ago, workers first stumbled across the asbestos-
containing material at the work site, and to this day no one is
exactly sure how the material got there.

"The verdict is still out," said Commissioner Brian Bigelow. "We
don't know the source of it entirely."

The six-month delay at the Summerlin site has frustrated many
locals and county officials, but it took months to determine the
precise location and exact amounts of the asbestos-containing
materials at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DuPont Admits Asbestos & Mesothelioma Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent deposition, Judith Stadler admitted the dangers of
asbestos were known by the 1930s and asbestos' link to cancer and
mesothelioma was known by the 1950s, according to a Cohen,
Placitella & Roth, P.C. press release dated May 18, 2010.

Ms. Stadler, a DuPont Corporation representative who the Company
designated to testify for it during a court deposition, admitted
these facts on questioning under oath. DuPont, one of the largest
chemical companies in the world, used asbestos in its factories
and other facilities for many decades.

Thousands of people who were either DuPont employees or employees
of outside contractors working on projects or jobs at DuPont's
many facilities were potentially exposed to asbestos over the
years.

The deposition questioning of this corporate representative was
to investigate the existence and depth of DuPont's knowledge
concerning the dangers of asbestos as well as what it did or did
not do to protect workers.

According to attorney Chris Placitella, Esq., a shareholder of
Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C., who conducted the examination,
"Rather than characterize Ms. Stadler's testimony on behalf of
DuPont, we have made her entire deposition available online for
the reader to draw his or her own conclusions."

The deposition testimony of Ms. Stadler was taken on March 17,
2010 in a state court asbestos-related personal injury action
filed in New Jersey's asbestos suit program under the caption,
"Savarese v. Stadler," (Docket No. MID-L-4527-06AS, Middlesex
Cty. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division).

The deposition is available free of charge online at
http://www.mesotheliomalegalblog.com/

About Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. is a law firm concentrating
on representing injured parties in a wide array of complex
litigation matters like product liability, personal
injury/wrongful death, defective products, traumatic brain
injury, birth injury, environmental, subrogation, securities
fraud, unfair and deceptive business acts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup in 38 Wales Fire Stations Costs GBP1Mil
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos found in 38 fire stations around South Wales cost
taxpayers GBP1 million to remove, WalesOnline.co.uk reports.

Cardiff Central Fire Station opposite the city's prison was one
of the buildings identified as needing urgent attention, along
with fire stations in Barry, Cowbridge, Llantwit Major, Bridgend,
Merthyr Tydfil and Treorchy.

The cost of clearing up the asbestos was revealed following a
Freedom of Information request from South Wales Central Plaid
Cymru AM Chris Franks.

Five of the 43 stations around South Wales were given a clean
bill of health, including the stations in Roath and Ely.

The asbestos discovered was mainly of the less harmful white
variety although toxic brown asbestos has been found to be
present at a "significant minority of premises."

South Wales Fire and Rescue Service said it had spent GBP287,000
on the removal of asbestos, with the costs at each premises
ranging from GBP1,000 to GBP35,000 after a survey commissioned by
the service in 2009.

The service said GBP170,000 has also had to be spent on
reinstatement works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Resident's Death Hazard to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Southampton Coroner's Court heard that contact
with asbestos contributed, but did not cause the death of 87-
year-old Ronald Row, of Hampshire, Southampton, England, the
Southern Daily Echo reports.

Mr. Rowe died from lung disease but signs of asbestos were found
and were likely to have come from his time working as an
apprentice at Thornycroft, in Woolston decades ago.

Coroner Keith Wiseman said as the contact with asbestos was not
the ruling factor in Mr. Rowe's death, he had to record a verdict
of "death by natural causes contributed by asbestos exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brooks Alleges Exposure in Claim v. Ex-Employer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Brooks, a New Jersey general contractor, filed a lawsuit
involving asbestos against his former employer, non-profit group
The Bergen County Community Action Partnership, in New Jersey's
Superior Court in Hackensack, N.J., Mesothelioma.com reports.

Mr. Brooks alleges that he was exposed to asbestos, lead paint
and other hazardous materials while weatherizing homes for the
organization.

Mr. Brooks argued that he was not trained or properly attired to
handle these materials, and could now run the risk of developing
serious health problems later in life.

Mr. Brooks says that he was fired by the Bergen County Community
Action Partnership for repeatedly complaining about unsafe
working conditions, and says that his employment was wrongfully
terminated. He told reporters, "We were never properly trained to
work around asbestos. We never had ventilators - I never had one
ounce of training."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Lobbied for Legislation During 1st-Q.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., during the first quarter of 2010,
lobbied on issues including the National Insurance Consumer
Protection Act, coastal wind zone proposals, bankruptcy issues,
flood insurance, and asbestos-related legislation, The Associated
Press reports.

The Company spent US$890,000 in the first quarter to lobby the
federal government on global warming issues, workers
compensation, consumer protection rights and other issues,
according to a recent disclosure report.

That is up from the US$760,000 it spent in the year-ago period,
but significantly less than the US$1.66 million it spent in the
2009 fourth quarter.

The New York-based commercial and property insurer still seeks
customers at a time when employers have fewer workers and less
valuable property to insure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Urged to Support U.K. Gov't. Payout Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. urges the insurance industry
to support the United Kingdom Government's plans to help people
with asbestos illnesses get compensation, the North-West Evening
Mail reports.

The Company says thousands of people who worked in the industrial
sector, were exposed to asbestos in their workplaces due to a
lack of knowledge about the danger. It says that due to the time
taken for the symptoms of asbestos-related diseases like
asbestosis, mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer, to
appear a large number of victims and their families cannot claim
for compensation because the companies which employed them have
closed.

Co-operative Insurance said, "The Co-operative Insurance is
therefore calling on the industry to work together to ensure that
individuals and families affected by asbestos-related illness can
access compensation whether it is provided by an individual
insurer or the industry as a whole."

David Neave, head of general insurance, said, "Whilst a diagnosis
is hard enough, for the victim, to find that they cannot claim
for compensation as their past employer has now ceased trading
and, the insurance provider cannot be traced can make an already
difficult situation much worse."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H & M Owner Sentenced May 14 on CAA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Tucker, the owner of Holland, Mich.-based H & M Demolition
Company, on May 14, 2010, was sentenced to 13 months in prison
for breaches of the Clean Air Act, The Holland Sentinel reports.

The 43-year-old Mr. Tucker pleaded guilty to the illegal handling
of asbestos at demolition projects in Michigan and Ohio,
according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

In Michigan, Mr. Tucker was charged with violating the Clean Air
Act during a 2005 demolition in Wyoming. According to charges
filed, he knew the deadly material was present during the work
and did not comply with regulations.

During the sentencing, U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell
said Mr. Tucker had shown disrespect for the law and the
regulators. He was also fined US$1,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motion to Strike Dismissed in Osowiecki Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Connecticut denied J.M. Osowiecki's motion
to strike in a case involving asbestos filed against the Town of
Plymouth, Conn.

The case is styled J.M. Osowiecki LLC v. Town of Plymouth.

Judge Elizabeth A. Gallagher entered judgment in Case No.
CV095014112S on March 4, 2010.

This is an action against the Town of Plymouth. The plaintiff,
J.M. Osowiecki, L.L.C., alleged in its three-count complaint, the
following:

-- That it entered into a contract with the town to perform work
   in connection with demolition and dismantling of a condemned
   smoke stack in accordance with a written agreement;

-- That it had dismantled about two-thirds of the smoke stack
   when it discovered asbestos within the stack;

-- That when the asbestos was found, the town stopped the
   project indefinitely;

-- That the agreement stated that the contract price does not
   include the handling of any hazardous and regulated material;

-- That the plaintiff remains ready, willing and able to
   complete performance but has been prevented from doing so by
   the town;  

-- That notwithstanding demand for the balance due to the
   plaintiff, the town has refused to make payment.

Based on these allegations, the plaintiff claimed breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of CUTPA. Before the
court was the town's motion to strike the third count on the
ground that CUTPA was inapplicable to municipalities.

The town had stated no statute or regulatory scheme under which
it engaged in contracting with the plaintiff. In accord with the
above-cited cases, the court found that the exception provided by
Connecticut General Statute s 42-110c did not apply.
Consequently, the court denied the motion to strike on the only
ground raised by the town.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minn. Court Issues Split Ruling in A.P.I. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled A.P.I., Inc.,
Asbestos Settlement Trust and A.P.I., Inc., Plaintiffs v. Home
Insurance Company; Zurich American Insurance Company; Zurich-
American Insurance Company of Illinois; Steadfast Insurance
Company; Zurich Insurance Company (Switzerland); American
Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company; American Zurich
Insurance Company; and Orange Stone Reinsurance (Ireland),
Defendants.

District Judge John R. Tunheim entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-975 (JRT/JJG) on March 31, 2010.

This case was before the Court on defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings. The Court granted in part and denied in part
that motion.

From the 1940s to the 1970s, A.P.I., Inc. sold, distributed, and
installed materials that contained asbestos. In 1982, workers and
other individuals who had suffered injuries from inhaling
asbestos dust began asserting claims for asbestos-related
injuries and claimants had continued to bring actions against API
since that time.

API obtained insurance coverage from several insurers, including
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and Home Insurance
Company to compensate individuals who brought asbestos-related
claims against API.

In June 2002, St. Paul brought an action in Minnesota state court
seeking a declaration that it had no continuing obligation to
provide coverage to API for asbestos-related claims. In response,
API filed counterclaims against St. Paul and brought claims
against other insurers, including Home, seeking a ruling that the
policies required the insurers to provide further coverage for
asbestos-related claims.

Home filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that it was insolvent
and in liquidation. The state court denied the motion to dismiss
but stayed the proceedings as to Home. API eventually settled
with the other insurers but API and Home did not resolve the
claims against Home.

As a result of the asbestos-related claims and "the failure of
its insurers to provide insurance coverage afforded by their
policies to cover" those claims, API filed for bankruptcy in
January 2005.

In March 2009, API and the Trust (collectively, "plaintiffs")
filed an amended complaint in Minnesota state court "to resolve
certain issues as to API's insurance coverage." Plaintiffs did
not pursue claims that were stayed as to Home. Instead,
plaintiffs pursued claims against Zurich American Insurance
Company, Zurich-American Insurance Company of Illinois, and
Steadfast Insurance companies (collectively, "Zurich") directly
and as successors-in-interest to Home. Plaintiffs allege that
Zurich was liable for Home's conduct and for Home's obligations
under the Home policies. Zurich timely removed the action to
federal court.

It was hereby ordered that defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was
granted as to Counts 6 (fraudulent transfer), 8 (tortuous
interference with contractual relations), and 10 (violations of
the Minnesota Consumer Protection Act). Accordingly, those claims
were dismissed. The motion was denied in all other respects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Japanese Gov't. to Pay for Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Osaka District Court, on May 19, 2010, ordered the Japanese
Government to pay a total of JPY435 million in asbestos-related
damages to 26 people against JPY946 million as demanded by
plaintiffs, Japan Today reports.

The Court held the government responsible for failing to take
measures against asbestos hazards in Osaka Prefecture.

Since major machinery maker Kubota Corp. revealed dozens of
deaths linked to asbestos hazards at one of its plants and
surrounding areas in 2005, making it a major social issue, court
rulings have ordered enterprises to pay damages to asbestos-
hazard victims.

About 29 plaintiffs filed the suit subject to the May 19, 2010
ruling. Many of them argued that they could not expect to receive
damages from small enterprises that were responsible for the
hazards.
   
The case covers 26 people who were diagnosed as asbestos-hazard
victims after inhaling asbestos while working at or living near
spinning mills in the southern part of Osaka Prefecture between
1939 and 2005. Eleven have since died and their family members
were among the plaintiffs.
   
The plaintiffs have claimed that the government was aware of the
danger involving asbestos before World War II and failed to take
measures to prevent people from inhaling asbestos even after the
initial labor standards law took effect in 1947, setting the
stage for the government to take preventive measures.
   
The government for its part has insisted that it became aware of
the dangers posed by asbestos in 1960 and took regulatory
measures in 1971 to require ventilators to be installed at
asbestos-related workplaces.
   

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Enforces New Rules on Hazard Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
WorkSafe in Western Australia says that, from June 2010, workers
who have completed an approved training course and hold an
asbestos license will be able to remove more than 10 square
metres of bonded asbestos, ABC News reports.

WorkSafe says the changes will improve compliance with the
national code of practice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be party to lawsuits initiated by
claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court
and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from the Company's product categories.

Most of these claims have been dismissed and the Company's
current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500
cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted by
railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in
railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the
Company's subsidiaries.

The balance of the claims is related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products.
Only a small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include
sufficient information to determine whether there is any basis
for a claim against the Company.

Based in Lake Forest, Ill., Tenneco Inc. produces automotive
emission control and ride control products and systems. The
Company serves both original equipment vehicle manufacturers
(OEMs) and the repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket,
worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Still Party to Suits in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries still face asbestos-
related lawsuits in the Circuit Courts of the State of
Mississippi.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit
Courts of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries
arising out of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in
drilling mud during these plaintiffs' employment in drilling
activities between 1965 and 1986.

A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial,
subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a
separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints
were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts. The amended complaints
resulted in one of the subsidiaries being named as a direct
defendant in seven cases. The Company has or may have an indirect
interest in an additional 17 cases.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with
drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence,
products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the
Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In each of these cases, the complaints have named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos. None of the cases in which one of the
Company's subsidiaries is a named defendant has been scheduled
for trial in 2010.

In 2009, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi-
plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated
defendant companies which allegedly manufactured drilling-related
products containing asbestos. The Company was not a defendant in
either of these cases. One of the cases resulted in a substantial
jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and this verdict was
subsequently vacated by the trial judge on the basis that the
plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof.

While the court's decision is consistent with the Company's
general evaluation of the strength of these cases, it has not
been reviewed on appeal. The second case resulted in a verdict
completely in favor of the defendants. There have been no other
trials involving any of the parties to the original 21
complaints.

Based in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company
also provides oil and gas drilling management services, drilling
engineering and drilling project management services, and the
Company participates in oil and gas exploration and production
activities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Facing 1,054 Suits at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Transocean Ltd. subsidiary, as of March 31, 2010, was a
defendant in about 1,054 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on May 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 1,041
asbestos-related lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2010)

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

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

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

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the
Company estimates that there are about 2,612 plaintiffs in these
lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been
provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to
determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims
against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the
nature of their alleged injuries.

The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed against this
subsidiary in 1990. Through March 31, 2010, the amounts expended
to resolve claims (including both attorneys' fees and expenses,
and settlement costs) have not been material, and all deductibles
with respect to the primary insurance have been satisfied.

The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in additional
lawsuits. The subsidiary has in excess of US$1 billion in
insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary.

Based in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides offshore
contract drilling services for oil and gas wells. The Company
also provides oil and gas drilling management services, drilling
engineering and drilling project management services, and the
Company participates in oil and gas exploration and production
activities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Still Has Cases in Miss. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company and certain of its subsidiaries are still
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits filed in the Circuit
Courts of the State of Mississippi.

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

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

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

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in
which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of
action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of
the Company.

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

The initial discovery of Group I resulted in certain dismissals
with prejudice, two dismissals without prejudice and two
withdraws from Group I, leaving 40 plaintiffs remaining in Group
I. Selection of Discovery Group II was completed on April 21,
2008.

Out of the 60 plaintiffs selected, the Company was named in one
suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
US$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a firm, which
the Company acquired in 1996.

Based in Houston, Parker Drilling Company provides contract
drilling and drilling-related services. At March 31, 2010, the
Company's marketable rig fleet consisted of 43 rigs, which
operated in the North and South America, Middle East, CIS and
Asia Pacific regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 7,464 Open Claims at April 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 7,464 claims as
of April 29, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

This compares with 7,809 such claims as of Feb. 16, 2010, about
8,945 claims as of Oct. 30, 2009, about 16,060 claims as of July
23, 2009, and 16,818 claims as of May 1, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have
suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-
containing products that the Company previously manufactured.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Those fabrics generally had
a useful life of three to 12 months.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products that the Company previously
manufactured.

Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work
histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill
exposure in about 10 percent of the total claims filed against
the Company to date, and a portion of those claimants have
alleged time spent in a paper mill to which the Company is
believed to have supplied asbestos-containing products.

The significant increase in the number of dismissed claims during
2009 and early 2010 is in large part the result of changes in the
administration of claims assigned to the multidistrict litigation
panel of the federal district courts (MDL).

As of April 29, 2010, 3,044 claims were pending against the
Company in the MDL. Of these MDL claims, 2,662 were originally
filed in state courts in Mississippi.

As of April 29, 2010, the remaining 4,420 claims pending against
the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than
the MDL.

Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work
histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill
exposure in about 25 percent of total claims reported, and a
portion of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper
mill to which the Company is believed to have supplied asbestos-
containing products.

As of April 29, 2010, the Company resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 33,178 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6.9 million. Of this amount, US$6.9
million, or 99 percent, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that the Company should be able to access.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production). The Company
produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its
paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for
the remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Facing 7,907 Claims at April 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. says that Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a Company, was
defending against 7,907 asbestos-related claims as of April 29,
2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May
10, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This compares with 7,905 such claims as of Feb. 16, 2010, about
7,907 claims as of Oct. 30, 2009, about 8,139 claims as of July
23, 2009, and about 8,604 claims as of May 1, 2009.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.
It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of April 29, 2010, Brandon has resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 9,677 claims for a total of US$200,000.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2 percent
of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings. The remaining 11.8 percent of the costs had been
borne directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100
percent of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse
Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by
Brandon related to these proceedings.

As of April 29, 2010, about 6,821 (or about 86 percent) of the
claims pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production). The Company
produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its
paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for
the remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Party to Mt. Vernon Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., in some asbestos cases, is named both
as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Based in Albany, N.Y., Albany International Corp. makes paper
machine clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that move
paper stock through each phase of production). The Company
produces about 45 percent of the monofilament yarn used in its
paper machine clothing and relies on independent suppliers for
the remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Cases Still Pending v. Katy Ind. in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in 11
asbestos-related lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a
total of about 325 individual plaintiffs, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 13, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case. In all 11
cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in
the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in
Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis,
lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos
in products which were manufactured by each defendant. In nine of
the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

Based in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. manufactures,
imports and distributes commercial cleaning and storage products.
Its commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary
and foodservice distributors that supply end users like
restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Subject to 2,750 Sterling Fluid Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered about 2,750 asbestos-related cases to the Company for
defense and indemnification.

These cases are pending in Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming, Louisiana, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California and Canada.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement. Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased
the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company.

Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in
connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries. The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.

The plaintiffs in the cases also allege that they were exposed to
asbestos and products containing asbestos in the course of their
employment. Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers
of products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs
came into contact with a variety of different products in the
course of their employment.

Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a former division of
an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or Sterling may have
manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the
one settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the
position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the
Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in
these matters.

Based in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. manufactures,
imports and distributes commercial cleaning and storage products.
Its commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary
and foodservice distributors that supply end users like
restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LaBour Pump Facing 80 Active Actions at April 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 80 active asbestos-related cases as of April 2, 2010 remain
active against LaBour Pump Company, a former division of an
inactive subsidiary of Katy Industries, Inc.

LaBour Pump has been named as a defendant in about 400 of the New
Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA). The
Company has elected to defend these cases, most of which have
been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

LaBour Pump faced about 90 active asbestos-related cases as of
Dec. 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 9, 2010)

Based in Bridgeton, Mo., Katy Industries, Inc. manufactures,
imports and distributes commercial cleaning and storage products.
Its commercial cleaning products are sold to janitorial/sanitary
and foodservice distributors that supply end users like
restaurants, hotels, healthcare facilities and schools.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Records $800T for Abatement at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of March 31, 2010, had accrued
about US$800,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal
or abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow
properties, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
May 13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has removed or abated asbestos-containing building
materials from certain tenant and common areas at these
properties. The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos
from various areas of the building structures.

Based in Los Angeles, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. owns,
manages, leases, acquires and develops real estate, consisting of
office properties and related parking garages, located in
Southern California; Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia; Northern
Virginia; Houston; and Austin, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: All Amounts in Stehman Action Paid on Feb. 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
All settlement amounts regarding an asbestos case filed by Larry
C. Stehman and Leila Stehman against Ballantyne Strong, Inc. were
paid in February 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on May 14, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

During December 2009, the Company settled the case entitled Larry
C. Stehman and Leila Stehman v. Asbestos Corporation, Limited and
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. individually and as successor in
interest to Strong International, Strong Electric Corporation and
Century Projector Corporation, et al, in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Francisco.

The settlement, including legal fees resulted in charges of
US$400,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

Based in Omaha, Nebr., Ballantyne Strong, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures, services and distributes theater and lighting
systems. Its products are distributed to movie exhibition
companies, sports arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and
special venues.

                            *********

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  * * *