CAR_Public/100604.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 4, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 109

                            Headlines

ATLAS AIR: Pre-Trial Discovery in Suit Against Polar Ongoing
ATLAS AIR: Remains a Defendant in Canadian Lawsuits
BANK OF AMERICA: S.D.N.Y. Says Moody's & S&P Aren't Underwriters
BRP US: Recalls 37 BRP Ski-Doo(R) Snowmobiles
BWAY HOLDING: Agrees to Make Additional Merger-Related Disclosure

CCA INDUSTRIES: Inks $2.5 Mil. Settlement in Mega-T Labeling Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Decertification Appeal Denied
CROWN MEDIA: Trial in Recapitalization Suit Set for September 21
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Final Approval in Settlement Pact Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Two Subclasses in "Searcy/Gladys" Decertified
GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends "O'Flynn" Suit in California
LEGALZOOM: Accused of Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
LOS ANGELES: Appeals Court Certifies Class in Negligence Suit
MURPHY OIL: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Greenhouse Gas Lawsuit

NEWS CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment of Suit Pending in Calif.
NORTHERN LEASING: POS Lease Class Certification Survives Appeal
POCONO MOUNTAIN: Families Sue School District for Discrimination
REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
REGIONS FIN'L: Defends Suit Over Trust III's Securities Offering

SONY CORP: Use of Discredited Witnesses' Allegations Questioned
TIER ONE: Accused in Neb. Suit of Breaching Fiduciary Duty
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Dentists' Suit
UNITED STATES: Lawyers Offer to Reduce Fees in 9/11 Health Case
WELLS FARGO: Accused of Breaching Mortgage Loan Contract's Terms

WM. WRIGLEY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $6 Mil.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Dewald" Suit Still Pending
ZIPCAR INC: Company's Motion to Dismiss Sub Judice
ZIPREALTY INC: Agrees to Settle "Williams" Suit in California

* Elaine Kusel Joins Kurtzman Carson's Class Action Services Team

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has $50M March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prime Group Records $9.9Mil Abatement Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Ongoing v. Hexion Specialty
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing Against Scotts Miracle-Gro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Facing Lawsuits in 4 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Has 290 Open Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Continues to be Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 51,000 Claims Ongoing v. Crown Cork at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legislation Enacted in Nebr., S.D. During 2010

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Party to Pending Suits in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Party to Actions in Pa. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $142.74Mil Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,330 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Party to Howden's Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Still Party to Pending Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits, Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS Int'l., Ex-Units Subject to Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Operating Costs Decrease to $292T in 1Q
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northampton Local Fined $6T for Cleanup Breach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Able Restoration Fined $17T for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: York's Action v. 46 Firms Filed May 20 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bromyard Pensioner's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grosmont Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Govt.'s Appeal on JPY435M Verdict Filed June 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark's Family Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Prall Affirms Bid to Conduct Joint Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermont District Settles Case w/ Morrison-Clark
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Charges NHS Wiltshire for Survey Oversight
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Flintkote Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $11Mil March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Target Still Subject to FOV on NESHAP Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Corporation Pays Relief to 191 Parties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Involved in Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Still Has $2.8Mil Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Has $113.3M Gross A&E Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Ins. Cites $11.3Mil for A&E Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Still Party to 122 Actions at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Division Has 1,425 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Unit Still Facing Two Injury Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Facing 185 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Facing 6,000 Exposure Actions at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two RPM Units Move to Resolve Bondex Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beningbrough Local's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chellaston Builder's Death Related to Exposure

                            *********

ATLAS AIR: Pre-Trial Discovery in Suit Against Polar Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery in a consolidated complaint where Polar LLC
is defendant has begun, according to Atlas Air Worldwide
Holdings, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Polar is a subsidiary of Atlas Air.

On Feb. 14, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice initiated a criminal investigation into the pricing
practices of a number of cargo carriers, including, Polar LLC.  
The Antitrust Division is investigating whether during any part
of January 2000 to February 2006 cargo carriers manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold in the U.S. and abroad,
through the use of fuel surcharges or other pricing practices, in
violation of the U.S. federal antitrust laws.  Polar LLC's
counsel has been periodically meeting with the Antitrust Division
staff and has been fully cooperating with the staff in its
investigation.

On April 28, 2009, Polar received a letter from the Antitrust
Division staff informing it that it is a target of a grand jury
investigation in the Northern District of Georgia in connection
with the above referenced matters.  Accordingly, the Antitrust
Division may ask the grand jury to indict Polar at some future
time.  While the letter was addressed to Polar, the company
believes it properly should have been sent to Polar LLC, as Polar
was not an operating company during any of the periods subject to
the investigation.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the company and Polar LLC
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in a number of class actions in the United States
arising from allegations about the pricing practices of a number
of air cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants, including the company and Polar LLC, manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of surcharges, in violation of United States,
state, and European Union antitrust laws.  The suit seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and
on Sept. 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who heard the motion to
dismiss issued a decision recommending that the Federal District
Court Judge grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiffs' claims based on the
United States antitrust laws be dismissed without prejudice so
that plaintiffs have an opportunity to cure the defects in their
complaint by pleading more specific facts, if they have any,
relevant to their federal claims.  The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the plaintiffs' claims based on state and
European Union laws be dismissed with prejudice.  Both plaintiffs
and defendants objected to portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the Federal District Court Judge issued an
opinion and order, accepting the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, except for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.  The Federal
District Court Judge determined instead that the consolidated
complaint was sufficiently detailed to withstand a motion to
dismiss.

Polar LLC and the other defendants moved for reconsideration of
that portion of the Federal District Court Judge's decision which
motion was denied on March 22, 2010.  Pre-trial discovery has now
begun.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.atlasair.com/--  
is the parent company of Atlas Air, Inc. and Titan Aviation
Leasing, and is the majority shareholder of Polar Air Cargo
Worldwide, Inc.  Through Atlas and Polar, AAWW operates the
world's largest fleet of Boeing 747 freighter aircraft.  Atlas,
Titan and Polar offer a range of air cargo and aircraft operating
solutions that include ACMI aircraft leasing - in which customers
receive a dedicated aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance on
a long-term lease basis; CMI service, for customers that provide
their own aircraft; express network and scheduled air cargo
service; military charters; commercial cargo charters; and dry
leasing of aircraft and engines.


ATLAS AIR: Remains a Defendant in Canadian Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., Polar LLC and a number of
other cargo carriers remain as defendants in civil class action
suits in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada.

The suits in Canada are substantially similar to the class action
suits in the United States.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.atlasair.com/--  
is the parent company of Atlas Air, Inc. and Titan Aviation
Leasing, and is the majority shareholder of Polar Air Cargo
Worldwide, Inc.  Through Atlas and Polar, AAWW operates the
world's largest fleet of Boeing 747 freighter aircraft.  Atlas,
Titan and Polar offer a range of air cargo and aircraft operating
solutions that include ACMI aircraft leasing - in which customers
receive a dedicated aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance on
a long-term lease basis; CMI service, for customers that provide
their own aircraft; express network and scheduled air cargo
service; military charters; commercial cargo charters; and dry
leasing of aircraft and engines.


BANK OF AMERICA: S.D.N.Y. Says Moody's & S&P Aren't Underwriters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a Manhattan federal
judge said on Tuesday that it was unfair to hold Moody's
Investors Service and Standard & Poor's liable as "underwriters"
on securities offerings needing their ratings, as he rejected
fraud claims by investors on the safety of $63.4 billion of
mortgage debt.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff issued an opinion in Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, et al. v. Merrill
Lynch & Co., et al, Case No. 08-10841 (S.D.N.Y.), detailing
reasons behind his March 31 dismissal of class-action claims
against the credit rating agencies, and some claims against Bank
of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the ABN Amro unit of
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc.

He also dismissed the case against Credit-Based Asset Servicing &
Securitization LLC, or C-Bass, which packaged debt underwritten
by the banks.

Plaintiffs led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi had accused rating agencies and banks of misleading
them about the safety of 84 mostly investment-grade offerings of
residential mortgage-backed securities.

Rakoff rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the agencies
should be treated effectively as underwriters because their
ratings were "necessary" to distribute the securities.

"There is nothing in the complaint to suggest that the ratings
agencies participated in the relevant 'undertaking' -- that of
purchasing the securities . . . from the issuer with a view to
their resale," he wrote.

Moody's is a unit of Moody's Corp, and S&P is a unit of
McGraw-Hill Cos.

Rakoff issued his ruling a day before six current and former
Moody's officials, including Chief Executive Officer Raymond
McDaniel, testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission,
which is examining causes of the 2008 crisis.


BRP US: Recalls 37 BRP Ski-Doo(R) Snowmobiles
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRP US Inc., of Sturtevant, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary
recall of about 37 BRP Ski-Doo(R) Snowmobiles.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Friction between the fuel hose and the electronic control unit
can cause the fuel hose to wear and leak fuel, posing a fire
hazard.

BRP has received six reports of fuel leaks, three of which
resulted in vehicle fires.  One of the incidents involved a rider
suffering superficial burns.

This recall involves the Ski-Doo snowmobiles model year 2010
Expedition TUV 1200 and model year 2010 Expedition TUV SE 1200.
The model year and name are displayed on each side of the
snowmobile and on a decal on the right side of the snowmobile.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10740.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Finland and sold
through Ski-Doo dealerships nationwide from March 2009 through
April 2010 for between $8,000 and $9,000.

Consumers should stop using these snowmobiles immediately and
contact their local Ski-Doo snowmobile dealer to schedule a free
repair.  Registered owners have been directly notified about this
recall by mail.  For additional information, call BRP at (800)
366-6992 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.brp.com/


BWAY HOLDING: Agrees to Make Additional Merger-Related Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BWAY Holding Company (NYSE: BWY), a leading North American
supplier of general line rigid containers, today announced that
it has entered into a memorandum of understanding, dated June 1,
2010, regarding the settlement of the putative stockholder class
action, styled Clark v. BWAY Holding Company, et al., Case No.
2010CV183869 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), against the Company,
the members of its board of directors, one of the Company's other
officers, Madison Dearborn Partners, LLC, Picasso Parent Company,
Inc., and Picasso Merger Sub, Inc., in connection with the
proposed merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company.  

Although the Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws, the Company has agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
to avoid the risk of the putative stockholder class action
delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the
expense of defending such action.  

The supplementary disclosures are set forth in definitive
additional materials on Schedule 14A and a Form 8-K filed by the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  


CCA INDUSTRIES: Inks $2.5 Mil. Settlement in Mega-T Labeling Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Lawrence at The Record reports that East Rutherford, N.J.-
based beauty-aids maker CCA Industries Inc. said it agreed to pay
$2.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles and a potential New Jersey suit
regarding CCA's Mega-T products.

Wally v. CCA Industries, Inc., Case No. BC422833 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), alleged that labels and advertising for
CCA's line of Mega-T products, which include dietary supplements,
were false and misleading.  

Under the accord, CCA will pay $2.5 million into a court-held
fund to reimburse purchasers with receipts dating back to Sept.
29, 2005. The company also agreed to not make certain statements
in Mega-T products' labeling, advertising or marketing without
scientific proof and to change packaging to that determined by
the proposed settlement. The settlement is subject to final court
approval, said CCA.

CCA will be able to sell the inventory of Mega-T products that it
has up to the final court decision date with the current
packaging through Oct. 31, according to the agreement.

"The company denies all of the allegations of any wrongdoing and
liability in regard to its advertising," said President Dunnan
Edell in a press release statement. "However, the board of
directors believed that in the light of the costs, risks and the
substantial disruption of its business by the litigation, that it
was in the best interests of the company to settle the case. The
settlement will have no effect on the operations of the company."

Edell said the $2.5 million payment will be taken as a charge
against the second quarter of 2010. In the filing to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, CCA reported that paying the
settlement will decrease fully diluted earnings per share by 35
cents, excluding legal fees and related expenses.

CCA did not return calls for comments in time for publication.

The lawsuit and draft complaint relates to five products
manufactured by CCA, including Mega-T Ultra, Mega-T Plus, Mega-T
Effervescent, Mega-T Green Tea Dietary Supplement and/or Mega-T
Dietary Supplement.

Consumers who bought the products between Sept. 29, 2005, and a
date to be determined can get reimbursed for $10 if they can show
receipts. Purchasers can also submit claims for up to six bottles
if they don't have receipts and agree to other conditions.

The company also reported in the filing that legal fees have
amounted to $204,362 and have been taken as charges against
earnings in fiscal 2009 and 2010. CCA said it has settled with
its insurance carrier and will be reimbursed for 50 percent of
all legal fees and costs up to $475,000.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
          Peter J. Farnese, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, California 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          E-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com
                  pfarnese@maklawyers.com

and CCA Industries is represented by:

          Daniel J. Herling, Esq.
          KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 450
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 948-2820
          E-mail: Herling@khlaw.com

AXIS, CCA's insurer, agreeing to pay 50% of all legal fees and
related costs associated with the Wally litigation, up to a
maximum of $475,000, is represented by:

          Nelson Hsieh, Esq.
          Robert Seeds, Esq.
          GREENAN PEFFER SALLANDER & LALLY LLP
          6111 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite 500
          P.O. Box 10
          San Ramon, CA 94583-0010
          Telephone: (925) 866-1000


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Decertification Appeal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' request for reconsideration on the denial of
class certification in a lawsuit where CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s
subsidiary, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., is a defendant,
has been denied by the court, according to the company's May 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

CERC Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
mismeasurement lawsuits brought against approximately 245
pipeline companies and their affiliates pending in state court in
Stevens County, Kansas.

In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four
times), the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty
owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.  The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in
July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying
certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class.

In the amendment, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
certain defendants (including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries),
limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to
represent and eliminated previously asserted claims based on
mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content of the
gas.  The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along
with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and
fees.

In September 2009, the district court in Stevens County, Kansas,
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification of their case
and, in March 2010, denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of that order.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- http://www.centerpointenergy.com/--  
is a public utility holding company.  The company's indirect
wholly owned subsidiaries include CenterPoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Houston), which engages in the
electric transmission and distribution business in a 5,000-square
mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast that includes Houston, and
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.), which owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states.  
Subsidiaries of CERC Corp. own interstate natural gas pipelines
and gas gathering systems, and provide various ancillary
services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of CERC Corp. offers
variable and fixed-price physical natural gas supplies primarily
to commercial and industrial customers and electric and gas
utilities.  The company's operating segments include Electric
Transmission & Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines,
Field Services and Other Operations.


CROWN MEDIA: Trial in Recapitalization Suit Set for September 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has set a Sept. 21, 2010, trial
date in a suit relating to Crown Media Holdings, Inc.'s
recapitalization, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In the second quarter of 2009, the company's Board of Directors
formed a Special Committee of three independent directors to
review and consider a May 28, 2009, proposal from H C Crown Corp.
regarding a recapitalization of the amounts owed by the company
to HC Crown and its affiliates.  HC Crown is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hallmark Cards.  

On July 13, 2009, a lawsuit was brought in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against each member of the Board of Directors of the
company, Hallmark Cards and its affiliates, as well as the
company as a nominal defendant, by a minority stockholder of the
company regarding the then proposed Recapitalization.  The
plaintiff is S. Muoio & Co. LLC which owns beneficially
approximately 5.8% of the company's Class A common stock,
according to the complaint and filings with the SEC.

The lawsuit claims to be a derivative action and a class action
on behalf of the plaintiff and other minority stockholders of the
company.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that, the defendants
have breached fiduciary duties owed to the company and minority
stockholders in connection with the Recapitalization
transactions.  The lawsuit includes allegations that if the
Recapitalization transactions are consummated, the minority
stockholders' equity and voting interests in the company would be
reduced, and that the minority stockholders could be eliminated
through a short-form merger.  The complaint requested the court
enjoin the defendants from consummating the Recapitalization
transactions and award plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in
bringing the lawsuit.

On July 22, 2009, a Stipulation Providing for Notice of
Transaction was filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Stipulation provided that the company cannot consummate the
transaction contemplated in the Recapitalization transactions
until not less than seven weeks after providing the plaintiff
with a notice of the terms of the proposed transaction, including
copies of the final transaction agreements.

If the plaintiff moved for preliminary injunctive relief with
respect to any such transaction, the parties would establish a
schedule with the Court of Chancery to resolve such motion during
the seven week period. In addition, following the decision of the
Court of Chancery, the company would not consummate any
transaction for a period of at least one week, during which time
any party may seek an expedited appeal.  The Stipulation further
provided that the plaintiff would withdraw its motion for
preliminary injunction filed on July 13, 2009, and that the
action would be stayed until the earlier of providing the notice
of a transaction or an announcement by the company that it is no
longer considering a transaction.

By a letter of Feb. 28, 2010, the plaintiff in this lawsuit
informed the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, which
considered and negotiated the Recapitalization, that the
plaintiff objected to the proposed recapitalization on the terms
set forth in the term sheet dated Feb. 9, 2010.

The plaintiff asserted, among other things, that the transactions
contemplated by the term sheet would unfairly dilute the economic
and voting interests of the company's minority stockholders, that
the transactions should be subject to a vote of the majority of
the minority stockholders and that the proposed transactions
remain inadequate.  The plaintiff indicated that if the company
executed definitive documents for the Recapitalization, the
plaintiff would pursue the litigation.

The Feb. 26, 2010, agreements executed by the company for the
Recapitalization materially followed the provisions in the
earlier term sheet.

Notice of the terms of the proposed Recapitalization, including
copies of the executed definitive documents for the
Recapitalization, was provided to the plaintiff on March 1, 2010.

On March 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
raising similar allegations of breach of fiduciary duty against
the Board of Directors of the company, Hallmark Cards and its
affiliates, as well as the company as a nominal defendant, and
seeking rescission of the Recapitalization rather than a
preliminary injunction enjoining the consummation of the
Recapitalization, or alternatively, an award of rescissory
damages.

The plaintiff also filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a
request that the Chancery Court set a trial date sometime in
September 2010.  Defendants have informed the Court that they do
not oppose a trial in August or September 2010 but reserve the
right to oppose rescission as an available or proper remedy.

On March 23, 2010, the Court notified the parties that the trial
was scheduled for Sept. 21, 2010.

Crown Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hallmarkchannel.com/--  
owns and operates cable television channels dedicated to high
quality, broad appeal, entertainment programming.  The company
currently operates and distributes Hallmark Channel in both high
definition (HD) and standard definition (SD) to 90 million
subscribers in the U.S.  Crown Media also operates a second 24-
hour linear channel, Hallmark Movie Channel, available in both HD
and SD.  Significant investors in Crown Media Holdings include:
Hallmark Entertainment Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Hallmark
Cards, Incorporated, Liberty Media Corp., and J.P. Morgan
Partners (BHCA), LP, each through their investments in Hallmark
Entertainment Investments Co.; VISN Management Corp., a for-
profit subsidiary of the National Interfaith Cable Coalition: and
The DIRECTV Group, Inc.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Final Approval in Settlement Pact Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., continues to await
final approval of a settlement resolving the litigation related
to its merger with Metavante Technologies, Inc., according to the
company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

During the second quarter of 2009, a putative class action
complaint was filed by a purported Metavante shareholder against
Metavante, its directors, certain officers, and the company.  The
complaint alleged that the Metavante directors and officers
breached fiduciary duties to the Metavante shareholders and that
Metavante and the company aided and abetted such breaches.

The complaint sought to enjoin the proposed merger transaction,
preliminarily and permanently, and also sought unspecified money
damages, attorneys' fees, and class certification.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed adding an additional plaintiff,
but it was otherwise the same as the original complaint.  The
case is Lisa Repinski, et al v. Michael Hayford, et al.,
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case No. 09CV5325.

A second putative class action containing similar allegations was
also filed in the second quarter of 2009 by another purported
Metavante shareholder against Metavante and its directors and
certain officers.  This complaint sought to enjoin the merger
transaction, preliminarily and permanently, and also sought
unspecified money damages, attorneys' fees, and class
certification.  The case is Samuel Beren v. Metavante
Technologies, Inc. et al., Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case
No. 09CV6315.

The two cases were consolidated into a single action in the
second quarter of 2009 as In re Metavante Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 09CV5325.

The parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding settling the
litigation during the third quarter of 2009 that was subject to
court approval.  The parties have stayed all litigation and the
court has executed a protective order to permit confirmatory
discovery to take place.  The court approved the terms of the
settlement in March 2010 and issued a decision approving a fee
award in April 2010.

Plaintiffs have been instructed to submit a final order to the
court approving the settlement and fee award, at which time the
case will be dismissed with prejudice.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. --
http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments  
technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and
businesses in over 100 countries worldwide.  FIS provides
financial institution core processing, and card issuer and
transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter Sharon Taylor, et al.
v. Biometric Access Company et al., on the dismissal of their
suit remains pending, according to Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit styled Richard Fresco, et al. v.
Automotive Directions, Inc. et al., was filed against eFunds and
seven other non-related parties in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida during the second quarter of
2003.

The complaint alleged that eFunds purchased motor vehicle records
that were used for marketing and other purposes that are not
permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  The
plaintiffs sought statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's fees
and injunctive relief. eFunds and five of the other seven
defendants settled the case with the plaintiffs.  That settlement
was approved by the court over the objection of a group of Texas
drivers and motor vehicle record holders.

The plaintiffs moved to amend the court's order approving the
settlement in order to seek a greater attorneys' fee award and to
recover supplemental costs.
In the meantime, the objectors filed two class action complaints
styled Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et al.
and Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas during the first quarter
of 2007 alleging similar violations of the DPPA.  The Acxiom
action was filed against the company's ChexSystems, Inc.
subsidiary, while the Biometric suit was filed against the
company's Certegy Check Services, Inc. subsidiary.  The judge
recused himself in the Biometric action against Certegy because
he was a potential member of the class.

The lawsuit was then assigned to a new judge and Certegy filed a
motion to dismiss.  The court granted Certegy's motion to dismiss
with prejudice in the third quarter of 2008.

The Biometric plaintiffs appealed and after several extensions,
arguments on appeal were heard on Nov. 4, 2009.

In the Acxiom case, ChexSystems filed a motion to dismiss or in
the alternative, stay its action based upon the earlier
settlement and the Court granted the motion to stay pending
resolution of the Florida case.  The court dismissed the
ChexSystems' lawsuit with prejudice against the remaining
defendants in the third quarter of 2008.  The Acxiom plaintiffs
moved the court to amend the dismissal to exclude defendants that
were parties to the Florida settlement, and that motion was
granted.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Court in the ChexSystems case
dismissed with prejudice all claims of the plaintiffs who were
not also plaintiffs in the Florida case, against ChexSystems and
the other defendants.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
order, but excluded ChexSystems and the other settling defendants
from the appeal.  The Florida case was dismissed without
prejudice during the fourth quarter of 2009.

After final resolution of the Florida case, the parties in the
Acxiom case stipulated to a dismissal of ChexSystems and the
other defendants from this action, and the Court issued its final
order of dismissal without prejudice.  The time for appeals has
now expired.

In the Biometric case, the parties are still waiting for the
appellate court's decision.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. --
http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments  
technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and
businesses in over 100 countries worldwide.  FIS provides
financial institution core processing, and card issuer and
transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Two Subclasses in "Searcy/Gladys" Decertified
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has
decertified two subclasses in the matter Searcy, Gladys v. eFunds
Corporation, according to Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc.'s May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is a nationwide putative class action that was
originally filed against eFunds Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company, and its affiliate Deposit Payment
Protection Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois during the first quarter of 2008.

The complaint seeks damages for an alleged willful violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with the operation of
the Shared Check Authorization Network.

Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not
receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the
FCRA because the disclosures did not include:

     (i) all information in the consumer's file at the time of
         the request;

    (ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file;
         and/or

   (iii) the names of any persons who requested information
         related to the consumer's check writing history during
         the prior year.

The company answered the complaint and is vigorously defending
the matter.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification which was
granted with respect to two subclasses during the first quarter
of 2010.  The motion was denied with respect to all other
subclasses.  The company filed a motion for reconsideration.  The
motion was granted and the two subclasses were decertified.  The
plaintiff also filed a motion to amend her complaint to add an
additional plaintiff to the lawsuit.  The court granted the
motion.  Discovery regarding the new plaintiff is ongoing.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. --
http://www.fisglobal.com/-- delivers banking and payments  
technologies to more than 14,000 financial institutions and
businesses in over 100 countries worldwide.  FIS provides
financial institution core processing, and card issuer and
transaction processing services, including the NYCE(R) Network.


GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends "O'Flynn" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a
putative class action lawsuit pending in the California Superior
Court in Orange County.

On Oct. 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company asserting denial of meal and rest breaks,
failure to timely pay final wages or commissions and failure to
provide itemized employee wage statements in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The relief sought includes an award of monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 3, 2010.

Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.golfsmith.com/ -- is a 40-year-old specialty retailer  
of golf and tennis equipment, apparel and accessories. The
company operates as an integrated multi-channel retailer,
offering its guests the convenience of shopping in more than 70
stores across the United States, through its Internet site and
from its assortment of catalogs.  Golfsmith offers an extensive
product selection that features premier branded merchandise, as
well as its proprietary products, clubmaking components and pre-
owned clubs.


LEGALZOOM: Accused of Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
accuses LegalZoom, an online legal document preparation service,
of unfair and deceptive business practices.  One of the business'
founders, Robert Shapiro, was O.J. Simpson's criminal defense
attorney, according to the complaint in Los Angeles Superior
Court.  Among other complaints, the lead plaintiff says that
LegalZoom claims to "customize" its documents, but the
customization is limited to customers' names and identifying
personal information.

Katherine Webster sued as executor of the estate of Anthony
Ferrantino and trustee of the Anthony J. Ferrantino Living Trust.

Ms. Webster claims that LegalZoom's website and advertising are
premised on the misleading claim that "virtually anyone" can
create a valid legal document through the site, and that the
"customized" documents made by nonlawyers would be reviewed for
"accuracy and reliability," imbuing customers with a false sense
of security.

"Nowhere in the manual do defendants explain that using LegalZoom
is not the same as using an attorney and that its documents are
only 'customized' to the extent that the LegalZoom computer
program inputs your name and identifying information, but not
tailored to your specific circumstances," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs say they bought a living trust through LegalZoom,
which was to include a revocable living trust, a will and a
durable power of attorney.  But Ms. Webster says the documents
were flawed as a result of LegalZoom's failures, and Mr.
Ferrantino's estate had to hire an attorney to correct the
problems.

Ms. Webster claims Mr. Shapiro and co-founders/co-defendants
Brian Lee and Charles Rampenthal made misrepresentations to
advance their business, buried disclaimers in LegalZoom's
website, and omitted relevant facts.

She claims the business capitalizes on Mr. Shapiro's fame by
using him in its TV commercials, in which Shapiro says, "I'm
Robert Shapiro and I created LegalZoom."

Webster claims LegalZoom misleads customers about the
availability and helpfulness of its customer service personnel,
the extent of its 100 percent satisfaction guarantee, the degree
to which documents are customized, and the quality of LegalZoom's
documents compared to those prepared by an attorney.

Ms. Webster said almost all of LegalZoom's other claims are
contradicted by disclaimers that are accessible only by following
links to secondary pages of the website, and in much smaller type
than that displayed on the website's main pages.

For instance, Ms. Webster said that while the company claims that
"virtually anyone" can use its product, the disclaimer states
that "the law is a personal matter and no general information or
legal tool like the kind LegalZoom provides can fit every
circumstance."

Ms. Webster also faults Mr. Shapiro and the other defendants for
failing to explain what types of problems might be "too complex
to be addressed by LegalZoom."

Ms. Webster claims that LegalZoom advertises by claiming:
"'Remember: Your order comes with unlimited customer support.'"
But in reality, "There is absolutely zero attorney support," the
class claims, adding that "the customer service representatives
are not lawyers and cannot by law provide legal advice."

Ms. Webster claims the defendants failed to comply with laws and
regulations governing practice of law in California, led
customers to practice law without a license, assisted in
unauthorized practice of law, and used fraudulent business
practices.  She seeks disgorgement and punitive damages for
negligence, elder financial abuse, consumer law violations and
illegal and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Kathryn Stebner, Esq.
           STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES OF SAN FRANCISCO
           870 Market St., Suite 1212
           San Francisco, CA 94102-2907
           Telephone: 415-362-9800


LOS ANGELES: Appeals Court Certifies Class in Negligence Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a California
appeals court ruled that syphilis patients could proceed with a
class action accusing the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center of
distributing the wrong kind of penicillin.

George Bomersheim and three other patients filed the negligence
class action against the medical center.

Dr. Robert Bolan, the center's medical director, admitted in a
deposition that the center gave Bicillin C-R (short- and long-
acting penicillin), rather than the correct Bicillin L-A (long-
acting penicillin) to more than 600 patients.

The center contacted more than 400 of those patients and
retreated them with the correct medicine.

The trial court refused to certify the class action, ruling that
the cases must be tried individually because "some persons may
suffer little to no discomfort, while other may be more severely
affected" during treatment.

On appeal, the Los Angeles-based 2nd District Court of Appeal
overturned the decision and ruled that the plaintiffs' class
should be certified.

"Issues subject to common proof include those of duty, breach,
and causation.  Though damages are not subject to common proof,
they are susceptible to streamlined determination," Justice
Victoria Chaney wrote.  "We therefore conclude class treatment
would be a superior method of resolving the claims."

A copy of the decision in Bomersheim, et al. v. Los Angeles Gay &
Lesbian Center, No. B208730 (Calif. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B208730.PDF

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Nicholas A. Boylan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS A. BOYLAN
          1010 2nd Ave.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-696-6344

               - and -

          David L. Speckman, Esq.
          SPECKMAN & ASSOCIATES
          5196 110 W C
          San Diego, CA 92101  
          Telephone: 619-696-5151

Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center is represented by:

          David P. Pruett, Esq.
          CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN & MCKENNA
          111 West Ocean Blvd., 14th Floor
          P.O. Box 22636
          Long Beach, CA 90801
          Telephone: 562-432-5855


MURPHY OIL: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Greenhouse Gas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court in
Mississippi has dismissed an appeal of lawsuit that alleged that
greenhouse gas emissions from energy and chemical companies
contributed to global warming, caused sea levels to rise and
added to the intensity of Hurricane Katrina.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in Comer,
et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, et al., No. 07-60756, that it didn't
have a quorum -- or majority -- of judges available to hear the
appeal after many of them recused themselves.  A copy of the
Fifth Circuit's Order is available at:

     http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-60756-CV2.wpd.pdf

The underlying lawsuit was filed by the landowners in U.S.
District Court in Gulfport in September 2005, about a month after
Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.  U.S. District Judge Louis
Guirola Jr. dismissed the lawsuit in 2007.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reinstated the lawsuit
in October 2009.  The full Fifth Circuit had agreed in February
to hear the companies' appeal from the panel decision.

In its order, the court said the landowners and the companies
could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

The three-panel had said the landowners had shown they had
suffered an injury that could be traced back to the energy and
chemical companies.  The landowners had sought compensatory and
punitive damages against 32 companies and the Tennessee Valley
Authority.

The companies have argued that global warming was not
attributable only to them but resulted from the emissions of
greenhouse gases from millions of sources dating back to the
Industrial Revolution.


NEWS CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment of Suit Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
News Corp.'s motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude
plaintiff's damages expert in a consolidated class action
lawsuit, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On June 14, 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Jim
Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed against certain
former Intermix directors and officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  The plaintiff asserted
claims for alleged violations of Section 14a of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as control person liability under
Section 20a of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants disseminated false
and misleading definitive proxy statements on two occasions: one
on December 30, 2003 in connection with the shareholder vote on
Jan. 29, 2004, on the election of directors and ratification of
financing transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint; and
another on Aug. 25, 2005, in connection with the shareholder vote
on the FIM Transaction.

The complaint named as defendants certain VantagePoint related
entities, the former general counsel and the members of the
Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of the respective
proxy statements.  Intermix was not named as a defendant, but has
certain indemnity obligations to the former officer and director
defendants in connection with these claims and allegations.

On Aug. 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his complaint to add certain
investment banks as defendants.  Intermix has certain indemnity
obligations to the Investment Banks as well.

Plaintiff amended his complaint again on Sept. 27, 2006, which
defendants moved to dismiss.

On Feb. 9, 2007, the case was transferred to Judge George H.
King, the judge assigned to the LeBoyer action, on the grounds
that it raises substantially related questions of law and fact as
LeBoyer, and would entail substantial duplication of labor if
heard by different judges.  On June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered
the Brown case be consolidated with the LeBoyer action, ordered
plaintiffs' counsel to file a consolidated first amended
complaint, and further ordered the parties to file a joint brief
on defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
first amended complaint.

On July 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended
complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.

By order dated Jan. 17, 2008, Judge King granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the 2003 proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint
transactions) and the 2005 proxy claims (concerning the FIM
Transaction), as well as a claim against the VantagePoint
entities alleging unjust enrichment.  The court found it
unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the remaining claims, which
are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction, because the dismissal
disposed of those claims.

On Feb. 8, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 28, 2008.  
By order dated July 15, 2008, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.  The 2003 claims
and the claims against the Investment Banks were dismissed with
prejudice.  The Section 14a, Section 20a and the breach of
fiduciary duty claims related to the FIM Transaction remain
against the officer and director defendants and the VantagePoint
defendants.

On Oct. 6, 2008, defendants filed a partial motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the Section 14a, Section 20 and
state law disclosure claims.  On Nov. 10, 2008, Judge King denied
the motion without prejudice.

On Nov. 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed their opposition on Jan.
14, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification, certifying a class of all holders of
Intermix Media, Inc. common stock, from July 18, 2005 through
consummation of the FIM Transaction, who were allegedly harmed by
defendants' improper conduct as set forth in the complaint.

The parties have completed fact and expert discovery.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed on Oct. 19,
2009.  Defendants also filed a motion to exclude plaintiff's
damages expert on Nov. 30, 2009.  The court has taken both
motions under submission.

No trial date has been set yet.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

News Corp. -- http://www.newscorp.com/-- is a diversified  
entertainment company with operations in eight industry segments,
including Filmed Entertainment, Television, Cable Network
Programming, Direct Broadcast Satellite Television, Magazines and
Inserts, Newspapers and Information Services, Book Publishing and
Other.  The activities of News Corporation are conducted
principally in the United States, the United Kingdom, Continental
Europe, Australia, Asia and the Pacific Basin.  Through its
subsidiaries, it is engaged in the operation of broadcast
television stations, and the development, production and
distribution of network and television programming.  The company
engages in the direct broadcast satellite business through its
subsidiary, SKY Italia.  It also owns interests in BSkyB and
Premiere, which are engaged in the direct broadcast satellite
business.


NORTHERN LEASING: POS Lease Class Certification Survives Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In Pludeman, et al. v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., et al.,
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 04644, the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, First Department, reviewed certification of a
class of small business owners who leased credit card point of
sale (POS) equipment from Northern Leasing, which is in the
business of leasing such equipment.  The POS equipment was
purportedly leased pursuant to a four-page lease. Plaintiffs
contend that the first page of the lease represents the entire
agreement and that this page failed to disclose, inter alia, that
plaintiffs were subject to a loss damage waiver (LDW) fee.
Plaintiffs contend that Northern Leasing breached the equipment
lease by charging and collecting LDW payments that were not
disclosed on the first page of the lease.  Plaintiff's claims
sound in breach of contract and fraud.

The motion court granted plaintiffs' application for class
certification with respect to the breach of contract claim,
finding that plaintiffs had satisfied the requisites of CPLR 901
and 902.  The motion court also granted plaintiffs' application
seeking that Northern Leasing bear the cost associated with
providing court approved notices to all members of the class.

The Appellate Court rejected Northern Leasing's bid to decertify
the plaintiff class, and a copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innyco20100601249

The small business owners are represented by:

          Krishnan Chittur, Esq.
          CHITTUR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-370-0447    
          E-mail: kchittur@chittur.com

Northern Leasing is represented by:

          Abraham Y. Skoff, Esq.
          MOSES & SINGER LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174-1299
          Telephone: 212-554-7800
          E-mail: askoff@mosessinger.com


POCONO MOUNTAIN: Families Sue School District for Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Berrett at the Pocono Record reports that Pocono Mountain
Charter School and its families are filing a federal class action
lawsuit against the Pocono Mountain School District, alleging
that the district's bid to strip the school of its charter is
tantamount to racial and religious discrimination.

The suit seeks an injunction to halt the district's revocation
proceedings, and compensatory and punitive damages, according to
the charter school.

Pocono Mountain Charter has more than 300 black and Hispanic
students who "stand to be displaced through oppressive and
harassing actions" by Pocono Mountain School District, the school
said in a statement.

The charter school alleged that "a predominately Caucasian school
district administration has pulled all stops in trying to put the
charter school out of business."

Pocono Mountain School District launched an effort to revoke the
school's charter more than two years ago, alleging that the
charter school improperly declassified special education
students, and that its leadership is too intertwined with Shawnee
Tabernacle Church, from which the charter school rents space. The
school's CEO is the church's associate pastor.

Hearings took place Tuesday and are set to resume Thursday.

Pocono Mountain School District called the suit "very offensive
and complete nonsense," in an e-mail by Wendy Frable, director of
public information.

"I can say with certainty that these claims are completely
unfounded and are designed to inflame the public," Frable added.
"They are not based on fact, but are another attempt to try and
pressure the district into stopping the revocation hearing
process."

Pocono Mountain Charter pointed to what it characterized as a
history of disparate treatment by Pocono Mountain School
District, comparing its experiences to those of Evergreen
Community Charter School in Cresco, which also received a charter
from the district.

"The revocation process raises important questions about the
district's motives, particularly in light of its favorable
treatment toward a Caucasian-populated charter school that is
also under the district's oversight," said the attorney for
Pocono Mountain Charter School:

          Daniel M. Fennick, Esq.
          ANDERSON, CONVERSE & FENNICK, PC
          1423 East Market Street
          York, PA 17403
          Telephone: 717-846-7100

Pocono Mountain Charter's student body is 88 percent black and
Hispanic, according to recent Pennsylvania Department of
Education data. Evergreen's student population is 80 percent
white; the remainder are Hispanic.

Pocono Mountain Charter School questioned why its charter
includes more than 60 conditions, while Evergreen's has more than
30.

Pocono Mountain Charter also alleged that the district had a more
amicable relationship with Evergreen, pointing out that the
school district helped Evergreen comply with public bidding
processes and fill out its renewal application, but did not do
the same for Pocono Mountain Charter.

It also complained that Pocono Mountain Charter was subjected to
"oppressive financial controls," and that its students were
forced by the district to ride the bus to school for two hours
with no chance to use a restroom.

Pocono Mountain Charter also said the school district attempted
to dictate the composition of the board and which church its
members can attend; the school district has sought to separate
the leadership of the church from that of the school.

The statement also continued Pocono Mountain Charter School's
long-standing argument that it outperforms Pocono Mountain School
District on standardized tests.

While Pocono Mountain Charter has made adequate yearly progress
five out of six years, which the school district has not, its
students actually score at grade level less often than those of
Pocono Mountain School District.

Less than half of Pocono Mountain Charter's students scored at or
above grade level on state tests last year.

Pocono Mountain School District's students did so at a higher
rate - ranging from a low of 54 percent of 11th graders in math
to 81 percent of elementary schoolers doing so.

The federal suit is the latest in a series of legal salvos in the
ongoing revocation proceedings.

Pocono Mountain Charter School has also sought to free itself of
the 60 conditions, arguing that recent case law supports its
claim that school districts cannot impose conditions when they
grant charters.


REGIONS FIN'L: Suits by Funds Investors & Shareholders Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class-actions lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on
behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions
Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions Financial
Corp. remain pending.

The company and certain of its affiliates were named in class-
action lawsuits filed in late 2007 and during 2008.

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts relating to the activities of the Funds.  

No class has been certified.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a  
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


REGIONS FIN'L: Defends Suit Over Trust III's Securities Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corp., continues to defend a purported class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of the purchasers of trust
preferred securities offered by Regions Financing Trust III.

In April 2009, Regions, Trust III and certain of Regions' current
and former directors, were named in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of the purchasers of trust
preferred securities offered by the Trust III.

The complaint alleges that defendants made statements in Regions'
registration statement, prospectus and year-end filings which
were materially false and misleading.

No class has been certified, and at this stage of the lawsuit
Regions cannot determine the probability of a material adverse
result or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures, if
any.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Regions Financial Corp. -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a  
financial holding company that operates throughout the South,
Midwest and Texas. The company provides traditional commercial,
retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial
services in the fields of investment banking, asset management,
trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other
specialty financing.


SONY CORP: Use of Discredited Witnesses' Allegations Questioned
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond at the New York Law Journal reports that Milberg and
its co-counsel sought to reassure a federal judge last week that
it did not violate court rules by including statements by two
confidential witnesses in complaints against Sony Corp. that did
not hold up in subsequent depositions.

In a response to Southern District of New York Judge Robert
Patterson Jr.'s demand for an explanation, Milberg and two other
firms said that while their lawyers were equally "surprised by
the testimony" of its witnesses, the firm believed their
allegations were accurate when it included them in the
complaints.

"Counsel acted in good faith at all times, and there is no reason
to believe otherwise," Milberg said in a court filing.

Milberg in a statement said it believed it had "acted properly at
all times."  

The lead lawyer representing the Plaintiffs is:

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: 212-594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com

Sony is represented by:

          Richard I. Werder Jr., Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: 212-849-7000
          E-mail: rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com

The controversy stems from litigation commenced against Sony over
defective parts in its television projectors. The suit, filed in
October 2008, was being handled by Milberg and co-counsel at Lax
LLP in Manhattan and Lange & Koncius in El Segundo, Calif.

A second amended complaint filed in the Sony case in July 2009
contained statements by two "confidential sources" that the
electronics manufacturer knew every television that left the
plant was bad, and that rather than re-engineer a defective
component, it sold consumers refurbished televisions for $700 to
replace the ones that failed.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the confidential witnesses were
former Sony employees from a plant in Mount Pleasant, Pa., where
the televisions were assembled. The plaintiffs lawyers, in their
response Friday, said the statements by the witnesses stemmed
from "an in-depth and lengthy investigation conducted by an
experienced investigator in the employ of Milberg."

A later consolidated amended complaint filed in October contained
the same statements. And at a hearing in September, Robert I. Lax
of Lax LLP, Milberg's co-counsel, said the sources' allegations
"prove that Sony knew that these televisions were all defective
before they offered a single one for sale."

But after Judge Patterson authorized depositions of the witnesses
in January, they did not substantiate their allegations. In
April, Milberg and its co-counsel struck a deal with Sony's
counsel at Quinn Emanuel to strike those statements from the
complaints. Patterson on May 21 then ordered Milberg, Lax LLP and
Lange & Koncius to explain why they were not in violation of Rule
11 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In its response Friday, Milberg and the two other firms argued
that the statements from the two witnesses included in the
pleadings were consistent with what they told the investigator.
But the firm conceded their deposition testimony was "somewhat
inconsistent."

Lawyers at Milberg determined that while the investigation
supported "the substance" of the assertions made by the
confidential sources in the complaints, "the witnesses'
subsequent deposition testimony made it clear that the witnesses
no longer supported those assertions in their entirety."

The plaintiffs lawyers said they continued to believe they had a
good-faith basis to make the allegations based on its
investigator's work.

Milberg offered on May 25 to allow Patterson to review its
investigator's memoranda, though only privately because they were
attorney work product. Patterson denied the request, saying such
a private review would permit Milberg to use the memos as both a
"shield and a sword."

Milberg on Friday renewed its offer to allow the judge to review
the memos, but again only if it did not have to waive its
privilege.

The plaintiffs lawyers also said they had complied with the "safe
harbor" provision of Rule 11, which allows counsel to withdraw or
correct pleadings within 21 days after they are challenged.
Sony's lawyers served a motion for sanctions on Feb. 12, but
never filed the motion. Milberg and its co-counsel voluntarily
withdrew the confidential source allegations on April 21.

"Counsel acted in good faith in withdrawing the allegations
instead of insisting on their accuracy in the face of
inconsistent deposition testimony, despite the fact that the
allegations generally had support" in the investigator's
memoranda, the plaintiffs lawyers said in their response.

The case is In Re: Sony Corp. SXRD Rear Projection Television
Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 09-md-02102 (S.D.N.Y.).


TIER ONE: Accused in Neb. Suit of Breaching Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Tier One Corp.
dumped their own shares at prices the inflated by concealing
information about the company, shareholders claim in Lincoln,
Neb., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Acton v. Laphen, et al., Case No.
10-cv-03104 (D. Neb.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/01/SCATier1.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: 405-235-1560

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-660-8000

               - and -

          Herbert J. Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES
          3800 Normal Blvd., Suite 200
          P.O. Box 82009
          Lincoln, NE 68501
          Telephone: 402-476-1093


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Remains a Defendant in Dentists' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation and two of its subsidiaries
remain as defendants in a complaint filed by the Puerto Rico
Dentists Association, according to the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association (Colegio
de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint in the
Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating in
Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.  The Corporation
and two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc., were
included as defendants.  The litigation purports to be a class
action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly
situated; however, the complaint does not include a single
dentist as a class representative nor a definition of the
intended class.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a
timely and complete manner for the covered medically necessary
services they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other
things, violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust
laws, the Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business
practices, breach of contract with providers, and damages in the
amount of $150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that
the Puerto Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an
alleged conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud
dentists.

There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.

Two codefendant plans removed the case to federal court, which
the plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the
Corporation, opposed.  The federal District Court decided that it
lacked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and
remanded the case to state court.  The removing defendants
petitioned to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  
Having accepted the appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an order in late October 2009 which found the lower
court's decision premature.  The Court of Appeals remanded the
case to the federal District Court and allowed limited discovery
to determine whether the case should be heard in federal court
pursuant to CAFA.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/-- is an independent licensee  
of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  It is the largest
managed care company in Puerto Rico, serving approximately 1.3
million members.  Triple-S Management also has the exclusive
right to use the Blue Cross Blue Shield name and mark throughout
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  With more than 50 years
of experience in the industry, Triple-S Management offers a broad
portfolio of managed care and related products in the Commercial,
Medicare, and Reform markets under the Blue Cross Blue Shield
brand.  In addition to its managed care business, Triple-S
Management provides non-Blue Cross Blue Shield branded life and
property and casualty insurance in Puerto Rico.  The company is
the largest provider of life, accident, and health insurance and
the fourth largest provider of property and casualty insurance in
its market.


UNITED STATES: Lawyers Offer to Reduce Fees in 9/11 Health Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press, citing the New York Daily News as its
source, reports that lawyers for thousands of Ground Zero workers
suing over their exposure to dust from the destroyed World Trade
Center have offered to lower their legal fees in an attempt to
salvage a major settlement in In re World Trade Center Disaster
Site Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 100 (S.D.N.Y.).

The law firm Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern was initially
poised to take home a third or more of a $657 million settlement
negotiated on behalf of the workers this spring, but the future
of that payout was put in doubt when U.S. District Judge Alvin
Hellerstein rejected the deal in March.

Hellerstein said the settlement contained too much money for the
legal team and too little for people who are legitimately ill.

Now, the lawyers have told the judge in a letter that they are
willing to cap their fees at 20 percent, or about $115 million if
the dollar amounts from the original settlement remain unchanged.

The rest of the money would be divided among up to 10,000
workers, including some who aren't sick, but fear they might fall
ill some day, and others who have asthma, cancer or other
problems they fear might have been caused by toxic trade center
ash.

It is unclear whether the offer will help revive the settlement,
which is now being renegotiated.

Hellerstein had made several withering criticisms of the deal.

The judge said the complicated structure of the deal made it too
difficult for workers to figure out how much they would be paid.
He asked that the court be given greater control over who would
qualify for awards, and who wouldn't.

Hellerstein also said more money should be made available to
workers with cancer, despite little scientific evidence linking
trade center ash to the illness.

Overall, the judge also said the total amount in the settlement
was inadequate. It called for the special insurance entity
created to defend the city of New York from lawsuits to pay out
between $575 million and $657 million.

The two sides have been attempting to renegotiate the arrangement
in a way that might please the judge. Simultaneously, lawyers for
the city have appealed Hellerstein's rejection of the deal,
saying it was beyond his powers to interfere in a private
settlement between the parties.

Thousands of workers who participated in the massive cleanup
after the 9/11 attacks have accused the city of failing to
provide them with proper equipment to protect their lungs.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Breaching Mortgage Loan Contract's Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles P. Haggarty and Gina M. Haggarty, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
10-cv-02416 (N.D. Calif. June 1, 2010), asserts that that the
bank   breached its contractual obligations, including the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by: (i) failing
to disclose that its acquisition of Wachovia Mortgage was the
sole cause for the increase in 11th District Cost of Funds Index,
or COFI, which it had a duty to disclose; and (ii) failing to
discount the interest rate called for in the loan agreements by
the 85 basis points increase to the COFI.  Plaintiffs allege that
Wells Fargo's conduct also constitutes violations of the South
Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the California Business
and Professions Code.  

Plaintiffs are borrowers under two adjustable rate loans now held
by Wells Fargo Bank.  Plaintiffs' loans are indexed to the COFI,
which is administered by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San
Francisco.  The interest rate on the Plaintiffs' loans was raised
85 basis points beginning with the payment effective date of
February 1, 2010, reflecting the November 2009 increase in the
COFI from 1.259% in October 2009 to 2.094% in November 2009, an
increase of 66%.  

Plaintiffs relate that when Wachovia Mortgage was acquired by
Wells Fargo on Nov. 1, 2009, it became ineligible as a COFI
Reporting Member because Wells Fargo is neither a thrift nor a
member of the 11th District FHLB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq.
          Jerry E. Nastari, Esq.
          Amanda L. Riddle, Esq
          COREY, LUZAICH, PLISKA, DE GHETALDI & NASTARI LLP
          700 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 669
          Millbrae, CA 94030
          Telephone: (650) 875-5666
          E-mail: deg@coreylaw.com
                  jen@coreylaw.com
                  alr@coreylaw.com
                  
               - and -

          Colleen Duffy-Smith, Esq.
          MORGAN DUFFY-SMITH & TIDALGO, LLP
          1960 The Alameda, Suite 220
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 244-4570
          E-mail: cduffysmith@mdstlaw.com

               - and -

          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          1 California St., Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: nlavallee@bermanesq.com


WM. WRIGLEY: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $6 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cherney at Law360 reports that gum company Wm. Wrigley Jr.
Co. has agreed to pay $6 million to settle Smith v. Wm. Wrigley
Jr. Co., Case No. 09-60646 (S.D. Fla.), which alleged the firm
misled consumers by claiming its Eclipse brand gum and mints were
scientifically proven to kill germs that cause bad breath.

The settlement agreement was filed Friday in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Class members are eligible to receive up to $10 each, and Wrigley
agreed to pony up another $1 million should the claims exceed the
original $6 million.

Wrigley also agreed to remove labeling on the products that
indicates they kill germs. Wrigley had claimed that magnolia bark
extract, an ingredient in the gum and mints, contributed to the
germ-killing capabilities.

"We're proud of the settlement as a whole, but we applaud Wrigley
for ultimately agreeing to change the labeling and marketing of
their Wrigley Eclipse product," said:

          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: JStein@rgrdlaw.co

who is representing the plaintiffs.

"Today, a lot of consumers are looking for foods and products to
help improve their health, their aesthetics and help them live
longer, and we want to make sure that companies have
substantiation for the claims that they're making," Stein added.

The settlement still must be approved by a judge.

The lawsuit alleged Wrigley, which spent millions of dollars on
advertising its Eclipse brand with the allegedly false claim, was
able to charge a price premium for the product and eventually
elevated Eclipse gum into one of the top sellers in the product
category.

The lawsuit also alleged that Wrigley purposely designed flawed
studies to ensure favorable results. In one study, for example,
Wrigley did not gather subjects' saliva before they chewed
Eclipse gum to compare it to saliva after they chewed the gum,
according to the suit.

In April 2009, the national advertising division of the Council
of Better Business Bureaus also examined Wrigley's Eclipse gum
marketing claims and concluded the advertisements were deceptive,
according to the lawsuit.

The settlement agreement, in which Wrigley did not admit to any
wrongdoing, sets aside up to $2 million for attorneys' fees and
expenses within the $6 million settlement fund. The agreement
also allows for a $10,000 award to the lead plaintiff.

The agreement sets up a two-tiered compensation system for
potential class members. Class members can submit a simplified
claim form to receive $5, or they can submit a claim form that
requires them to affirm under penalty of perjury that they
purchased Eclipse gum and receive $10.

"We wanted to make sure there was enough for a number of
consumers to submit claims and get some reimbursement for their
purchases," Stein said.

Wrigley began marketing its Eclipse gum with the magnolia bark
extract in June 2008.

A representative for the company was not immediately available to
comment Tuesday.

Wrigley was represented by Williams & Connolly LLP.

The plaintiffs were represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP and Balkan & Patterson LLP.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for leave to amended the
consolidated complaint in the matter Plumbers and Pipefitters
Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.,
remains pending, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Aug. 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana naming the company and two
of its executive officers as defendants.  The complaint related
to a putative class action on behalf of persons who purchased the
company's common stock between Jan. 29, 2008, and July 22, 2008.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose developments
relating to its orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing
operations in Dover, Ohio and the Durom Cup.  The plaintiff
sought unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs
and other relief.

On Dec. 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same
time period.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on Feb. 23, 2009.  On Dec. 1, 2009, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated complaint.  That motion is pending.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products.  The
company's products include joint and dental reconstructive
orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and
related orthopaedic surgical products.  Its related orthopaedic
surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments
designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-
operation rehabilitation.  Orthopaedic surgeons and
neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of
degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma.  Trauma products
are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and
tissue to support the body's natural healing process.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Dewald" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the matter Dewald v.
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., is pending.

On Nov. 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana naming the company and
certain of its current and former directors and employees as
defendants.  The complaint relates to a putative class action on
behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the company's U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment
Programs between Oct. 5, 2007, and the date of filing and whose
accounts included investments in the company's common stock.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing
to offer Zimmer stock as an investment option in the plans when
the stock purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that
defendants failed to provide plan participants with complete and
accurate information sufficient to advise them of the risks of
investing their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.  The
plaintiff seeks an unspecified monetary payment to the plans,
injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other
relief.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
Oct. 5, 2007, through Sept. 2, 2008.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 23, 2009.  The motion to dismiss is pending with the court.

On June 12, 2009, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring the Dewald case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the matter
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 5, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic
implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma
products and related orthopaedic surgical products.  The
company's products include joint and dental reconstructive
orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and
related orthopaedic surgical products.  Its related orthopaedic
surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments
designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post-
operation rehabilitation.  Orthopaedic surgeons and
neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of
degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma.  Trauma products
are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and
tissue to support the body's natural healing process.


ZIPCAR INC: Company's Motion to Dismiss Sub Judice
--------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 13, 2010, a
former member, Ryan Blay, filed a putative class action complaint
against Zipcar, Inc., in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things,
certification of a class of plaintiffs; a judgment that certain
fees charged to our members are void, unenforceable or
unconscionable; an injunctive order against the alleged
infringing activities; and an award for damages.

Zipcar disclosed in its $75 million initial public offering
documents delivered to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission this week that it has challenged Mr. Blay's
allegations and, on Dec. 8, 2009, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  The plaintiff opposed Zipcar's motion
to dismiss on Dec. 22, 2009, and Zipcar sought leave, and filed a
reply to the plaintiff's opposition on Jan. 15, 2010.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 19, 2010,
after which the Court took Zipcar's request under advisement.  In
the event the Court declines Zipcar's invitation to dismiss the
lawsuit, Judge Gorton has set a June 4, 2012, tentative jury
trial date.

Zipcar says it believes is has substantial and meritorious
arguments for the dismissal of Mr. Blay's complaint and intend to
vigorously defend its position, but neither the outcome of this
litigation nor the amount and range of potential damages or
exposure associated with the litigation can be assessed with
certainty.

In Blay v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-11683 (D. Mass.) (Gorton,
J.), the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene R. Richard, Esq.
          WAYNE, RICHARD & HURWITZ LLP
          One Boston Place, Suite 3620
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 720-7870
          E-mail: generichard@wrhmlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5501
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  rich@bockhatchllc.com
                  james@bockhatchllc.com

               - and -

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          222 W. Ontario Street, Suite 310
          Chicago, IL 60610
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717
          E-mail: ilan@progressivelaw.com

and Zipcar, Inc., is represented by:

          Harry T. Daniels, Esq.
          Adam S. Gershenson, Esq.
          James W. Prendergast, Esq.
          Karen D. Stringer, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6196
          E-mail: Harry.Daniels@wilmerhale.com
                  adam.gershenson@wilmerhale.com
                  james.prendergast@wilmerhale.com
                  karen.stringer@wilmerhale.com

Zipcar's securities lawyers are:

          John H. Chory, Esq.
          Susan L. Mazur, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
          1100 Winter Street, Suite 4650
          Waltham, MA 02451
          Telephone: (781) 966-2000

               - and -  

          Keith F. Higgins, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000


ZIPREALTY INC: Agrees to Settle "Williams" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZipRealty, Inc., has entered into a settlement resolving the
matter Elizabeth Williams v. ZipRealty, Inc., et al., according
to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

On Jan. 22, 2010, the company was named in a class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, by
a former employee agent of the company.

The complaint sought monetary relief and alleged, among other
things, that the company's practice of classifying agents as
exempt employees pursuant to the "outside salesperson" exemption
under California law, and compensating agents accordingly,
violates applicable law regarding the payment of minimum wages
and overtime.  The company filed a counter claim against
Plaintiff Elizabeth Williams alleging, among other things, that
Ms. Williams engaged in conduct violating her employment
agreement with the company.

On March 16, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement of these
claims whereby each party agreed to dismiss its claim against the
other.  The parties have each filed dismissals of their claims.

ZipRealty, Inc. -- http://www.ziprealty.com/-- is a leading  
full-service residential real estate brokerage that uses an
innovative combination of a comprehensive online presence, robust
proprietary technology and knowledgeable local agents in the
field to offer its clients fast, responsive and transparent
service.  The company's award-winning, user-friendly website
gives its users access to comprehensive local Multiple Listing
Services home listings data, as well as other relevant market and
neighborhood information and tools.  The company's proprietary
technology, including its agent platform and customer
relationship tools, helps it to increase agent efficiency and
reduce costs, allowing the company to pass on significant savings
to consumers as permitted by law.  Founded in 1999, the company
operates in 35 major markets in 22 states and the District of
Columbia.


* Elaine Kusel Joins Kurtzman Carson's Class Action Services Team
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurtzman Carson Consultants (KCC), a Computershare company and a
class action settlement administrator, today announced that
Elaine S. Kusel has joined the company as Director, Class Action
Services in its New York office. Kusel brings more than 16-years
experience as a litigator and former equity partner of Milberg,
Weiss Bershad & Schulman. In her new role, Kusel will support the
company's growth initiatives as a securities industry expert and
member of the business development team, as well as contribute
her professional experience to key class action client
engagements.

"The addition of Elaine Kusel exemplifies our commitment to offer
professional-level, value-added class action administration
services," said Michael Frishberg, KCC's Vice President, Business
Development. "Her experience in litigating class action matters
strengthens KCC's ability to formulate solutions that alleviate
the increasing administrative burdens that legal professionals
face today."

While at Milberg, Kusel represented clients in various litigation
matters including federal securities and consumer fraud actions.
As co-lead counsel, she played a prominent role in the Lucent
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation. Prior to joining
Milberg Weiss, Elaine spent eight years working in the U.S. House
of Representatives serving as Legislative Director and Counsel to
a Member of Congress who served on the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. Kusel received Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston
University, a Juris Doctorate from George Washington University
Law School and is admitted to practice in New York State, the
Southern District of New York and before the Second Circuit.

                             About KCC

Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC (KCC) -- http://www.kccllc.com/
-- a Computershare company, provides administrative-support
services that help legal professionals realize time and cost
efficiencies. With an integrated suite of corporate
restructuring, class action and legal document management
solutions, KCC alleviates the administrative challenges of
today's legal processes and procedures. KCC has gained client and
industry recognition for its industry expertise, professional-
level client service and proprietary technologies.

                      About Computershare Limited

Computershare (ASX:CPU) -- http://www.computershare.com/-- is a  
global market leader in transfer agency and share registration,
employee equity plans, proxy solicitation and stakeholder
communications. We also specialize in corporate trust services,
tax voucher solutions, bankruptcy administration and a range of
other diversified financial and governance services.

Founded in 1978, Computershare is renowned for its expertise in
data management, high volume transaction processing, payments and
stakeholder engagement. Many of the world's leading organizations
use these core competencies to help maximize the value of
relationships with their investors, employees, creditors, members
and customers.

Computershare is represented in all major financial markets and
has over 10,000 employees worldwide.


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has $50M March 31 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation, LLC had recorded a US$50 million liability at
March 31, 2010 for previous, pending and future asbestos claims,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 7, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There were about 217 cases for which the Company was potentially
liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at March 31,
2010.

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20,
2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50
percent of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003
and related expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed
to a sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated
with future asbestos-related claims as specified in the
agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company
apportion responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based
upon the number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison
locations or Company locations.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms
(subject to the right of either party to terminate); under the
automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until February
2011.

Based in Bolingbrook, Ill., Midwest Generation, LLC sells
wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest. The power
producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,470 MW from its
six coal-fired power plants in Illinois. It also oversees the
operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants
which have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prime Group Records $9.9Mil Abatement Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Group Realty Trust, as of March 31, 2010, recorded an asset
of US$10.2 million and a liability of US$9.9 million related to
asbestos abatement, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on May 13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's 330 N. Wabash Avenue office property currently
contains asbestos in the form of spray-on insulation located on
the decking and beams of the building.

The Company has been informed by its environmental consultants
that the asbestos in 330 N. Wabash Avenue is being properly
maintained and no remediation of the asbestos is necessary.

Based in Chicago, Prime Group Realty Trust is a self-administered
and self-managed real estate investment trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Ongoing v. Hexion Specialty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is still involved in various
product liability, personal injury, and other legal proceedings,
including actions that allege harm caused by products the Company
has allegedly made or used, containing asbestos.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.
produces thermosetting resins, or thermosets, and produces
adhesive and structural resins and coatings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Ongoing Against Scotts Miracle-Gro
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a defendant in cases alleging
injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to
asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the Company's
historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 13, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none
of the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its
subsidiaries manufacture, market, and sell lawn and garden care
products. The Company's customers include home centers, mass
merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains,
independent hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and
drug stores, commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty
crop growers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Facing Lawsuits in 4 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of asbestos lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, New Jersey, and South Dakota.

The suits allege that certain wire and cable, which may have
contained asbestos, caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual
personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money
damages as the sole remedy.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered
by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these
claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated
with these claims that the Company said it believes it could
enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

Based in Houston, Houston Wire & Cable Company distributes
specialty wire and cable and related services to the U.S.
electrical distribution market. During 2009, the Company served
about 3,000 customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company.

The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for minimal amounts
below the expected defense costs.

Based in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corporation designs and
manufactures custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum systems,
condensers, liquid ring pump packages and heat exchangers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Has 290 Open Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at March 31, 2010, was a co-defendant
in about 290 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,200
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a co-defendant in about 290
cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,200 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
(Class Action Reporter, April 9, 2010)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a
minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court
in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally
range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the
monetary damages sought.

There are five asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs that plead
specified damages. In each of the five cases, the plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of US$3
million for four separate causes of action and US$1 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
US$10 million.

In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount
of US$10 million for seven separate causes of action. In the
fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and
US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company
or its subsidiaries.

Based in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through the
subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio
Industries, Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and
diversified manufacturing business operating in three segments:
Supply Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Continues to be Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. continues to be subject to asbestos-related claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these
claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event any
asbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

Based in Rolling Meadows, Ill., MYR Group Inc. performs
construction services in two business segments: Transmission and
Distribution and Commercial and Industrial. T&D customers include
electric utilities, cooperatives and municipalities nationwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 51,000 Claims Ongoing v. Crown Cork at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Crown Holdings, Inc., Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., during the three months ended March 31, 2010, faced about
51,000 outstanding asbestos claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Crown Cork faced 50,000 asbestos claims outstanding at the end of
2009. (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963. About 90
days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has
no remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, Crown Cork received
about 600 new claims, settled or dismissed about 200 claims for a
total of US$2 million.

The outstanding claims at March 31, 2010 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The outstanding
claims at March 31, 2010 also exclude about 19,000 inactive
claims.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was US$226
million, including US$170 million for unasserted claims and US$1
million for committed settlements that will be paid over time.

Historically (1977-2009), Crown Cork estimates that about one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to date
and the increased difficulty of establishing identification of
the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury by
persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual any amounts for
settlements by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after
1964.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. Crown Holdings, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer
goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum
cans for food, beverage, household, and other consumer products
and metal vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Legislation Enacted in Nebr., S.D. During 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. says that, during 2010, the states of
Nebraska and South Dakota enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. that allegedly incurred these
liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to
companies that had been involved with asbestos.  

Similar legislation was enacted in Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and
Wisconsin in recent years.

The legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception
of Georgia, South Carolina and South Dakota, pending claims, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. Crown Holdings, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer
goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum
cans for food, beverage, household, and other consumer products
and metal vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Party to Pending Suits in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Texas courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies
such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies that
had been involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending
claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross
value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation. Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets.

In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a grant
of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state
constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork
& Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by
the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court.

A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case
pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis
County, Tex., (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of
the Estate of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal
Company, Inc., No. 03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third
District, at Austin) has been reversed on appeal on state
constitutional grounds due to retroactive application of the
statute.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. Crown Holdings, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer
goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum
cans for food, beverage, household, and other consumer products
and metal vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Still Party to Actions in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., continues to be involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's
asset value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related
claims than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In
November 2004, the legislation was amended to address a
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S
Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002), which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, due
to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork raising
federal and state constitutional challenges to the amended
statute (Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA
2006).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of this
decision.

Based in Philadelphia, Crown Holdings, Inc. Crown Holdings, Inc.
designs, manufactures and sells packaging products for consumer
goods. The Company's primary products include steel and aluminum
cans for food, beverage, household, and other consumer products
and metal vacuum closures and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $142.74Mil Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$142,741,105 as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$147,093,191
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on May 10, 2010, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$30 million as of
both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$92,322,697 as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$95,430,060
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$20
million as of both March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pa. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in
two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists
of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and
The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid
Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and
Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 8,330 Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was party to 8,330 open asbestos
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 8,168 open asbestos-related claims for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, compared with 9,354 open claims for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2010)

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and
of an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former
division of the Company.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 173 asbestos claims settled or dismissed. Gross
settlement and defense costs amounted to US$3,595,000 during the
period.

In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability
against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury.
The trial resulted in a defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed that
verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the
jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement with insurers responsible for historical primary and
some umbrella insurance coverage for Asbestos Liability. Under
the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial
responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies and based
on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity allocation
formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending claims for
Asbestos Liability.

The claims against the inactive subsidiary in dissolution of the
Company, about 324 as of March 31, 2010, are not included within
the Coverage Arrangement. The one claim filed against the former
division also is not included within the Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pa., Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates
in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment
consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric
Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and
Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling
and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Still Party to Howden's Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howden Buffalo, Inc.'s asbestos-related insurance lawsuit against
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and various insurance companies is
still ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed the lawsuit against the Company,
two insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden
that are not relevant to the Company, and two other insurance
companies that issued excess insurance policies covering certain
subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that are not
yet part of the Coverage Arrangement.

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the
court as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the
Company and the insurance carriers under the Excess Policies. One
of the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-claims
against each other seeking declarations regarding their
respective rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by
that carrier.

The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for the carrier's
failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pa., Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates
in two business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment
consists of Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric
Steel) and The Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and
Liquid Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling
and Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Precision Still Party to Pending Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Precision Castparts Corp. is still a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and
substances in the workplace, including asbestos, according to the
Company's annual report filed on May 27, 2010 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others.

As of March 28, 2010, there were 87 lawsuits pending against the
Company alleging personal injury as the result of exposure to
particulates, including asbestos, integrated into its premises or
processes or into certain historical products.

In 2010, the Company recorded 27 new claims filed and 20 claims
disposed of. Settlement amount was US$300,000. In 2009, the
Company recorded 34 new claims filed and 32 claims disposed of.
Settlement amount was US$1.3 million.

The Company considers that all such claims are tort claims while
noting that some claims, such as those filed in West Virginia,
were historically common law "employer liability" cases and are
now based on a statutory definition of requisite intent.

Based in Portland, Ore., Precision Castparts Corp. manufactures
complex metal components and products, provides high-quality
investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for
critical aerospace and industrial gas turbine (IGT) applications.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits, Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is, and is likely to continue to be involved
in a number of legal proceedings, government investigations, and
claims that are asbestos-related.

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

Based in Mentor, Ohio, STERIS Corporation provides infection
prevention and surgical products and services, focused primarily
on the critical markets of healthcare, pharmaceutical and
research.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS Int'l., Ex-Units Subject to Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. and its former subsidiaries have been and
may in the future be subject to asbestos-related personal injury
claims, according to a Company report, on Form S-1, filed on May
13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on.

The Company's former landfill and waste management business,
together with two non-operating subsidiaries of IU International
Corporation, were spun off to the stockholders of the Company's
Predecessor Company in October 2002. The two former subsidiaries
of IU were subject to asbestos-related personal injury claims.

In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in certain
asbestos-related claims relating to lines of businesses that were
discontinued over 20 years ago.

Based in Glassport, Pa., TMS International Corp. provides
outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North America
and has a substantial and growing international presence. The
Company operates at 74 customer sites in nine countries and its
global raw materials procurement network spans five continents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Operating Costs Decrease to $292T in 1Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Ventures LLC's operating costs decreased to US$292,000 for
the first quarter of 2010 from US$388,000 for the same period in
2009, in which the decrease relates to the completion of the
amortization of the previously recorded costs of mitigating
asbestos-containing products in certain of the viable structures
at Eagle Mountain.

Based in Ontario, Calif., Kaiser Ventures LLC oversees recycling
and solid waste investments. The Company's holdings include an
83.1 percent stake in Mine Reclamation Corporation (MRC) and a 50
percent stake in West Valley Materials Recovery Facility and
Transfer Station, which separates waste materials for recycling
or storage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northampton Local Fined $6T for Cleanup Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) has levied a US$6,000 fine against Paul L. Holt for
violating state asbestos regulations, according to a MassDEP
press release dated May 26, 2010.

The violations were discovered during a MassDEP investigation
into alleged illegal asbestos siding removal activities at a two-
family rental building located in Northampton, Mass.

In July 2007, MassDEP conducted a site investigation and
determined that Mr. Holt had been removing asbestos transite-
shingle siding and placing intact and broken shingles into trash
bags. He transported the bagged shingles to another property
where the bags were placed into a dumpster. During these
activities, he did not employ the proper asbestos-handling and
disposal procedures.

Under the terms of a consent order issued by the MassDEP, Mr.
Holt is required to comply with asbestos regulations in the
future and has agreed to pay a penalty of US$6,000.

Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, Mass., said, "Improper removal and handling of
asbestos-containing materials places tenants as well as the
general public at risk. When properly followed, the asbestos
regulations provide for the protection of the public health."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Able Restoration Fined $17T for Disposal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) has penalized Rockland, Mass.-based Able Restoration
US$17,050 for asbestos violations discovered during an inspection
of a residence at 38 Cross Street in Lawrence, according to a
MassDEP press release dated May 27, 2010.

During an August 2009 inspection, MassDEP found asbestos-
containing exterior siding had been improperly removed and
scattered on the soil outside the building. The asbestos was also
found in containers that were not properly sealed. Additionally,
asbestos-containing piping insulation was found inside the
building on the basement floor.

MassDEP required Able Restoration to cease further activity and
retain the services of a licensed asbestos-removal contractor to
prepare and submit a plan for the proper removal and packaging of
the remaining asbestos-containing material.

Richard Chalpin, director of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office
in Wilmington, Mass., said, "Before demolition activities like
this, or as they are sometimes called renovations, those who are
doing the work need to properly assess whether there is any
asbestos-containing material involved, and that applies for
residential, commercial or industrial properties.

"Filing of a demolition permit notification is the first step,
and that permit is available on line or at any MassDEP office."

Able Restoration subsequently retained the services of a licensed
asbestos contractor to properly complete the removal and disposal
of the remaining asbestos-containing material.

In addition, Able Restoration has agreed to pay US$12,700 of the
penalty while MassDEP has agreed to suspend the remaining
US$4,350 pending continued compliance for a period of one year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: York's Action v. 46 Firms Filed May 20 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug and Brenda York, of Orange County, Tex., on May 20, 2010,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 46 defendant corporations in
Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record
reports.

According to the suit, Mr. York was diagnosed with lung cancer in
December 2009. The Yorks say Mr. York worked from 1972 until 1985
as a pipefitter for various companies, including Mobil
Corporation, Olin Corporation, Texaco Inc., Fina, Jefferson
Chemical, Houston Chemical, Union 76 and Gulf Oil Corp.

Defendants include AMF Inc., Arch Chemicals Inc., Atlantic
Richfield Co., B&B Engineering and Supply Co., BP America Inc.,
BP America Production, BP Corporation North America, BP Products
North America, CBS Corp., Certainteed Corp., Chevron Phillips
Chemical Co., Chevron Phillips Chemical Holdings, Chevron U.S.A.,
Conoco Phillips Co., Crest, Crown, Cork and Seal Co., Deltak LLC,
Dravo Constructors, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Entergy
Texas, and Exxon Mobil Corp.

Other defendants include Exxonmobil Oil Corp., Firestone
Polymers, Fluor Constructors International, Foster Wheeler Energy
Corp., Foster Wheeler North America Corp., Foster USA Corp.,
Garlock Sealing Technologies Inc., Guardline, Gulf Oil Corp.,
Gulf States Utilities, Henry Vogt Machine Co., Huntsman
Petrochemical, Mid Valley, Oxbow Calcinning, P.D. Glycol, Riley
Power Inc., Temple Inland, Texaco Inc., Total Petrochemicals,
Union Oil Company of California, Unocal Corp., Velsicol Chemical
Corp., Weil-McClain Boiler Co. and 4520 Corp.

The Yorks claim that Mr. York's disease was caused after he was
exposed to asbestos fibers. Mr. York did not know of the hazards
of asbestos exposure, according to the complaint.

In the lawsuit, the Yorks seek general, special, punitive and
exemplary damages, plus costs, interest and other relief to which
they may be entitled.

Tina H. Bradley, Esq., of Hobson and Bradley in Beaumont, Tex.,
will represent the Yorks.

Case No. E186-911 has been assigned to Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd
District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bromyard Pensioner's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Hereford, England, on May 21, 2010, heard that the
death of Elsie Duffy, a pensioner from Bromyard, England, was
linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Ledbury Reporter
reports.

Mrs. Duffy died on Dec. 22, 2009 from a form of mesothelioma.

However, a coroner could not record death by industrial disease
as neither Mrs. Duffy nor her family ever worked with the
material. Dr. Philip Owen, pathologist, said there was no
evidence of background asbestos in the 73-year-old Mrs. Duffy's
system.

Dr. Owen confirmed mesothelioma as the cause of death, but said
the condition was rare among women, even with exposure.

The inquest heard that Mrs. Duffy, of New Road, never worked with
asbestos or lived in houses containing the substance. However,
she was partially exposed in 1966 when she moved onto a half-
completed estate in Tamworth.

Mrs. Duffy told a solicitor she would often bury asbestos boards
to keep them away from children and wiped the dust on her
clothes. Children used the boards for hopscotch, while asbestos
dust often blew over from the adjacent building site.

Roland Wooderson, deputy coroner for Herefordshire, could not
confirm a link as no traces were found in Mrs. Duffy's blood. A
verdict of death by natural causes was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grosmont Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Scarborough Rugby Club heard that the death of
John Clifford Bell, of Grosmont, North Yorkshire, England, was
related to exposure to asbestos, the Scarborough Evening News
reports.

Mr. Bell died on Jan. 2, 2010. He died at the age of 78 and
leaves a wife Penelope May Bell, a retired dispenser.

At the inquest, Coroner Michael Oakley heard how Mr. Bell had
been exposed to asbestos dust and fibers with no protective
clothing or equipment during his working life as a foreman in a
plant where pipes were lagged with asbestos.

Further tests were required to ascertain if Mr. Bell's death was
related to occupational exposure to asbestos the results of which
were given by witness Dr. Musa, consultant pathologist from
Scarborough Hospital.

In a statement read out by the coroner from Mr. Bell's wife, she
said that her husband had told her he had no memory of any
asbestos dust ever being swept up.

The coroner said, "On the balance of probabilities given Mr.
Bell's long exposure to asbestos on an unprotected basis, my
conclusion is he died as a result of an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Govt.'s Appeal on JPY435M Verdict Filed June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2010, the Japanese Government appealed to the Osaka
High Court regarding a lower court ruling ordering the Government
to pay around JPY435 million in damages to 23 people for its
failure to take safety measures against asbestos exposure in
southern Osaka Prefecture, The Mainichi Daily News reports.

On May 19, 2010, the Osaka District Court ruled that the
Government was responsible for failing to take safety measures
against asbestos exposure in Osaka Prefecture's Sennan area,
where spinning mills were concentrated.

The District Court ordered the Government to pay the damages to
23 former workers, who developed asbestos-related diseases, and
their relatives. However, the District Court rejected damages
claims from three other plaintiffs who resided near the spinning
mills.

On May 31, 2010, State Minister for National Policy Yoshito
Sengoku said the Government would take the case to a higher
court, noting that the District Court ruling contains many points
of contention and that the workers have already received
compensation under the labor accident compensation insurance
scheme.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark's Family Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Eric Stanley Clark, a pensioner from Ashby,
England, who died of cancer of the liver and lungs, seeks
information on Mr. Clark's former employer, the Woodville-based
demolition firm FW Jones (Woodville) Ltd, the Burton Mail
reports.

Mr. Clark died in February 2008 at the age of 82. An inquest
found had his illness had been caused by contact with asbestos
during his working life.

During his time with the Company, Mr. was regularly exposed to
asbestos dust while carrying out demolition work at sites
including those owned by Burton brewer Marston's and tire giant
Pirelli.

Now, the Clark family is appealing for information from former
colleagues or anyone who used to work for the now-defunct
Company, to support a compensation claim which they intend to
pursue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Prall Affirms Bid to Conduct Joint Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
McLean County Circuit Judge Michael Prall granted an oral motion
to hold a joint asbestos trial for a former teacher from
Bloomington, Ill., and a former firefighter from Springfield,
Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

The motion was granted 11 days before trial.

Honeywell International Inc., Pneumo Abex Corp. and Owens-
Illinois, Inc. opposed consolidation at a May 27, 2010 hearing.
Their written motions and oral argument did not change Judge
Prall's plan.

Judge Prall said that 80 cases were pending. Defendants moved to
continue both cases and Judge Prall denied the motion.

Judge Prall and Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski preside over one of
the busier asbestos dockets in the nation. While judges with
bigger asbestos caseloads often leave lawyers to settle behind
the scenes, Judge Prall and Judge Drazewski push their cases to
trial.

Bloomington's top asbestos lawyer James Wylder, Esq., deals more
on claims of conspiracy to conceal the dangers of asbestos than
on claims of direct exposure. At Judge Prall's hearing, Mr.
Wylder said plaintiffs Norman Shoopman and Larry Dunham both
suffer from mesothelioma.

Mr. Wylder said both alleged conspiracy and exposure. He said Mr.
Dunham was a firefighter in Springfield and Mr. Shoopman was a
teacher in Bloomington.

Pneumo Abex lawyer Raymond Modessit, Esq., said consolidation
would confuse a jury. He said his client is a product liability
defendant in one suit but not the other. For Owens-Illinois, Matt
Fischer objected to not having a written motion.

During argument on continuing the trial, Mr. Wylder said he
amended the complaint to allege exposure through 1979. Mr.
Modessit said he limited to 1979, but evidence would show that
exposure continued through 1994. He said the reason to cut it
back to 1979 was because Medicare could not place a lien on the
proceeds.

Mr. Modessit said Medicare has hired lawyers to go after
plaintiff lawyers who did not protect the United States. For
Honeywell, Luke Mangan said plaintiffs could have been exposed in
1985.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vermont District Settles Case w/ Morrison-Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Montpelier School District in Montpelier, Vt., settled a
lawsuit with South Barre, Vt.-based flooring company Morrison-
Clark, Inc., which was accused of improperly handling asbestos
during a project at the Main Street Middle School in 2008, the
Times Argus reports.

Morrison-Clark admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to settle the
case, and its insurance company has paid US$65,000 to the school
district.

The district spent US$88,379 to have specialized companies run
tests and clean up any asbestos at the school after a Vermont
Department of Health inspector went to the worksite in July 2008
and determined workers under the supervision of Morrison-Clark
were not properly dealing with asbestos floor tiles they were
tearing up.

The settlement was signed on March 25, 2010. Earlier in May 2010,
Superior Court Judge Geoffrey Crawford formally dismissed the
case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HSE Charges NHS Wiltshire for Survey Oversight
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive gave NHS Wiltshire an improvement
notice for failing to engage in a mandatory asbestos survey, the
Wiltshire Times reports.

The violation happened before renovation work started at Eldene
Health Centre in Swindon, England.

NHS Wiltshire was managing the work on behalf of NHS Swindon. An
asbestos survey was carried out in November 2009. However, at the
end of January 2010, new guidance was published by the HSE
setting out that such work required a more detailed inspection.

A few days later, renovation work began on the building followed
by a visit of a HSE inspector who said the more detailed asbestos
survey should have been carried out. The following day the survey
was undertaken but no asbestos was present.

NHS Swindon was also served with an improvement notice by HSE.

A statement from NHS Wiltshire said, "Action has already been
undertaken to comply with the new rules and we see no problems in
delivering the report to the HSE. No patients or public were put
at risk and no asbestos was found in the building."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Flintkote Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled The Flintkote
Company, Plaintiff v. General Accident Assurance Company of
Canada, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel entered judgment in Case No. C
04-1827 MHP on March 5, 2010.

Parent company of insureds sued general liability insurer based
on failure to defend and indemnify it in underlying asbestos
litigation. Insurer removed action. The District Court declared
that parent company was a named insured under policy.

Insurer moved for reconsideration of such finding and objected to
certain findings of a special master appointed to assist in the
resolution of certain discovery disputes.

Parent company complained that insurer had not complied with the
court's earlier orders pertaining to the discovery of reserves
information, and sought to exclude testimony of insurer's damages
experts.

Defendant's motion for reconsideration of a January 2006 order
regarding "Affiliated corporations" was denied. Plaintiff's
request for further depositions pertaining to reserves
information was granted.

Defendant's objection to a January 2010 Report of Special Master
Cahill was overruled and the Report was hereby adopted by the
court.

Plaintiff's motion to exclude regarding the proposed testimony of
defendant's expert Mullin was granted in part and denied in part.
Furthermore, defendant shall make a proffer of Mr. Mullin's
testimony before the start of trial.

Christopher Jon Fromherz, Esq., Marc S. Maister, Esq., Michael
Richard Fehner, Esq., of Irell & Manella LLP in Newport Beach,
Calif., represented Plaintiff.

Bonnie Margaret Ross, Esq., Jesse Frank Ruiz, Esq., Archie
Stirling Robinson, Esq., of Robinson & Wood, Inc. in San Jose,
Calif., represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $11Mil March 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's asbestos-related aggregate
liability was US$11 million as of March 31, 2010, according to
the Company's annual report filed on May 28, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability through March 31, 2028 and
March 31, 2040 to range between US$7.4 million and US$17.8
million using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 18 to 30 years.

Based n Amherst, N.Y., Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global
designer, manufacturer and marketer of hoists, cranes, actuators,
chain, forged attachments, lift and other material handling
products serving commercial and industrial end-user markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Target Still Subject to FOV on NESHAP Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation continues to be the subject of an ongoing U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency investigation for alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 28, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In March 2009, the EPA issued a Finding of Violation (FOV)
related to alleged violations of the CAA, specifically the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
promulgated by the EPA for asbestos.

The FOV pertains to the remodeling of 36 Target stores that
occurred between Jan. 1, 2003 and Oct. 28, 2007. The EPA FOV
process is ongoing and no specific relief has been sought to date
by the EPA.

The Company anticipates that any resolution of this matter will
be in the form of monetary penalties that are likely to exceed
US$100,000.

Based in Minneapolis, Target Corporation is a discount chain that
operates about 1,745 Target and SuperTarget stores in 49 states,
as well as an online business called Target.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Corporation Pays Relief to 191 Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation has established "Relief Payment System for the
Asbestos-Related Patients and the Family Members of the Deceased
near the Former Kanzaki Plant" on April 17, 2006 and paid the
relief payments to 191 parties up to March 31, 2010.

The Company has paid contributions to Hyogo College of Medicine
and Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases
for the purpose of medical treatment and research of asbestos-
related diseases, which was allocated for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010.

Based in Osaka, Japan, Kubota Corporation makes tractors and farm
equipment, from rice transplanters to combine harvesters. The
Company also produces iron ductile pipe used in water-supply
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Involved in Liability Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc. continues to be a defendant in cases as a
result of its distribution of laboratory supplies, including
litigation resulting from the alleged prior distribution of
products containing asbestos by certain of its predecessors or
acquired companies.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in West Chester, Pa., VWR Funding, Inc. offers products and
services through its wholly owned subsidiary, VWR International,
LLC, and VWR's subsidiaries. The Company distributes laboratory
supplies, including chemicals, glassware, equipment, instruments,
protective clothing, production supplies and other assorted
laboratory products, primarily in North America and Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Still Has $2.8Mil Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of March 31, 2010, has
recorded a liability of US$2.8 million related to potential
future asbestos abatement activities at its Properties, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based in Chattanooga, Tenn., CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is
a self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate
investment trust that is engaged in the ownership, development,
acquisition, leasing, management and operation of regional
shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and office
properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Has $113.3M Gross A&E Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross asbestos- and
environmental-related reserves amounted to US$113.3 million as of
March 31, 2010, compared with US$162.6 million as of March 31,
2009.

The Company's gross loss reserves for A&E claims amounted to
US$122.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$143.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 26,
2010)

The Company's net A&E-related reserves amounted to US$83.9
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$122.3 million as
of March 31, 2009.

The Company's net loss reserves for A&E claims amounted to US$93
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, compared with US$125.4 million as of
Dec. 31, 2008. (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2010)

Based in Pembroke, Bermuda, Argo Group International Holdings,
Ltd. is an international underwriter of specialty insurance and
reinsurance products in the property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Ins. Cites $11.3Mil for A&E Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss
adjustment expense (LAE) reserves for asbestos and environmental
damage liabilities were US$11.3 million at March 31, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on May 7, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Net of reinsurance, that amount was US$19.9 million at March 31,
2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of US$38 million at March 31, 2010
and US$45.6 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has
terminated its participation; however, it continues to be subject
to claims related to years in which the Company was a
participant.

The US$7.6 million decrease in these reserves during the current
quarter was primarily due to a large claim settlement within
these pools. A significant part of the Company's pool reserves
relates to its participation in the Excess and Casualty
Reinsurance Association (ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982.
In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business
has been in runoff.

The Company's percentage of the total pool liabilities varied
from one percent to six percent during these years. Its
participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of
about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years.

Based in Worcester, Mass., The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
underwrites personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Still Party to 122 Actions at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to be a defendant along with a
number of other parties in 122 suits as of March 31, 2010, (122
suits as of Dec. 31, 2009) alleging that plaintiffs have or may
have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure
to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one
or more named defendants.

Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period Aug. 1, 1970 to Aug. 1, 1973,
have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide
a defense under those policies. The Company has requested that
the carriers substantiate this situation.

Based in Arden Hills, Minn., IntriCon Corporation is an
international firm engaged in designing, developing, engineering
and manufacturing body-worn devices.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Division Has 1,425 Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. says that multiple lawsuits (with 1,425
claimants) are pending in state or federal court over alleged
personal injuries due to the presence of asbestos in certain
brakes and clutches previously made by the Company's Stearns
division and/or its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits, according to the Company's annual report filed on May
25, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of
Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries manufacture power transmission
and conveying equipment like drives, gears, bearings, chains, and
couplings for the aerospace, construction, chemicals, energy,
mining, material handling, marine, and petrochemical industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Unit Still Facing Two Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two
pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.

Additionally, there are about 3,700 individuals who have filed
asbestos related claims against Prager. However, these claims are
currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.

To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters, according to
the Company's annual report filed on May 25, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Based in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of
Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries manufacture power transmission
and conveying equipment like drives, gears, bearings, chains, and
couplings for the aerospace, construction, chemicals, energy,
mining, material handling, marine, and petrochemical industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Facing 185 Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s subsidiary, Falk (through its successor
entity) is a defendant in about 185 lawsuits pending in state or
federal court relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives previously
manufactured by Falk.

There are about 700 claimants in these suits, according to the
Company's annual report filed on May 25, 2010 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits
under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the
costs to date.

Based in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of
Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries manufacture power transmission
and conveying equipment like drives, gears, bearings, chains, and
couplings for the aerospace, construction, chemicals, energy,
mining, material handling, marine, and petrochemical industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Zurn Facing 6,000 Exposure Actions at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn division and an average of 80 unrelated
companies, as of March 31, 2010, were defendants in about 6,000
asbestos-related lawsuits representing about 28,000 claims,
according to the Company's annual report filed on May 25, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Zurn and an average of about 100 other unrelated companies, as of
Dec. 26, 2009, were defendants in about 6,100 asbestos related
lawsuits representing about 28,400 claims. (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 12, 2010)

Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn, which did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them
from suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as
well as the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to
be about US$86 million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$67
million in the next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of
the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$86 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$269 million of insurance
coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos
liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$269 million.

Based in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is the parent company of
Rexnord LLC, whose subsidiaries manufacture power transmission
and conveying equipment like drives, gears, bearings, chains, and
couplings for the aerospace, construction, chemicals, energy,
mining, material handling, marine, and petrochemical industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Two RPM Units Move to Resolve Bondex Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. announced on May 31, 2010 that action is
being taken to permanently resolve current and future asbestos
claims associated with Bondex International, Inc., according to a
Company press release dated May 31, 2010.

In order to initiate this process, two non-operating
subsidiaries, Bondex and Specialty Products Holding Corp. (SPHC),
have filed Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings in Delaware.

The Company and all of its operating subsidiaries are not part of
the Chapter 11 filing and will not be affected by it.

SPHC is the holding company for Bondex. It also serves as the
holding company for various operating companies that are not part
of the reorganization filing.

The SPHC operating companies include Chemical Specialties
Manufacturing Corp.; Day-Glo Color Corp.; Dryvit Systems, Inc.;
Guardian Protective Products, Inc.; Kop-Coat, Inc.; RPM Wood
Finishes Group, Inc.; and TCI, Inc. All of these SPHC non-filing
operating companies will continue to operate as usual and without
interruption.

With fiscal 2009 revenues of US$329 million and US$19 million of
pre-tax income, SPHC and its subsidiaries represented less than
10 percent of the Company's consolidated revenues and less than
11 percent of its consolidated pre-tax income for fiscal 2009.


The filings will stay all litigation related to the asbestos
personal injury lawsuits against Bondex and SPHC. As a result,
the Company anticipates that its annual consolidated cash flow
will improve by about US$50 million.

The Chapter 11 proceedings will enable SPHC and Bondex to
establish a section 524(g) trust accompanied by a court order
that will direct all future Bondex-related claims to the trust,
which will then compensate meritorious claims at appropriate
values.

SPHC has secured a commitment for US$40 million in new "debtor-
in-possession" financing from a lender group led by Wells Fargo
Capital Finance LLC. This financing will provide SPHC with the
financial resources to fund the costs of the Chapter 11
proceeding.

As a result of the filing, the financial results of SPHC and its
subsidiaries will not be consolidated with those of the Company
and its other subsidiaries.

During the period of reorganization, beginning on May 31, 2010,
SPHC and its subsidiaries will be presented in the Company's
financial statements as an investment using the cost method.
Since the asbestos liabilities reside with Bondex, its asbestos
liability reserves will no longer be reflected on the Company's
consolidated financial statements as of May 31, 2010.

Frank C. Sullivan, the Company's chairman and chief executive
officer, said, "This action has been taken to once and for all
resolve the asbestos-related Bondex legacy liability.

"These filings bring an immediate halt to all tort system costs
associated with the Bondex asbestos liabilities, and enable the
filing entities to utilize section 524(g) and other provisions of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to achieve a permanent and comprehensive
resolution of asbestos-related liability."

Mr. Sullivan added, "Initiation of this action will allow RPM to
grow from a June 1, 2010 pro forma revenue base of approximately
US$3.1 billion no longer impacted by Bondex asbestos liability
claims or related cash costs."

Based in Medina, Ohio, RPM International Inc., a holding company,
owns subsidiaries that produce specialty coatings, sealants,
building materials and related services serving both industrial
and consumer markets. Its industrial products include roofing
systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings
and specialty chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Beningbrough Local's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at York Coroner's Court heard that the death of Ann
Beaufoy, a former administrator at Beningbrough Hall, a National
Trust property near York, was related to exposure to asbestos,
The Press reports.

The inquest heard how Mrs. Beaufoy and her husband, Mike Beaufoy,
helped increase visitors to the stately home by opening up more
rooms in the 18th century property.

York Coroner Donald Coverdale read a statement, written by Mrs.
Beaufoy before her death, which stated she had swept and helped
paint a cellar area and the boiler room at the property in
December 1985.

The statement reported that there had been white lagging around
the pipes in the cellar and the ceiling of the boiler room, which
Mrs. Beaufoy believed to be asbestos.

In the statement, Mrs. Beaufoy claimed she had been given no
health and safety assessment or training from the National Trust
prior to dealing with the deadly fibers.

The inquest also heard that a doctor who performed the post-
mortem on Mrs. Beaufoy suggested that she may have been exposed
to asbestos through her husband's work clothes, as he had worked
for a building firm.

Mr. Beaufoy told the coroner he had been a project manager for a
building company but was rarely present on building sites, and
Mr. Coverdale agreed this suggestion "would not be taken on
board."

Mr. Coverdale recorded that Mrs. Beaufoy had died at the age of
67 of plural mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure, and said
there was no evidence that there had been any exposure to the
dust at any time other than at Beningbrough Hall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chellaston Builder's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Bernard Shaw, a retired
builder from Chellaston, Derby, England, was related to workplace
exposure to asbestos, this is Derbyshire reports.

Mr. Shaw died early in 2010 at the age of 74.

Mr. Shaw's partner, Elizabeth Grocott, told the inquest into his
death that medical staff had asked if he had ever worked with
asbestos. She said, "He would not say he had ever been directly
in touch with asbestos - he said he always tried to avoid it. But
they said they had found some tissue damage."

Mr. Shaw died in Royal Derby Hospital on March 19, 2010 and a
post-mortem examination found "tiny asbestos fibers" in his body,
the court heard. He suffered from pulmonary fibrosis and pleural
plaques, which can form as a result of asbestos exposure. In a
written report, pathologist Dr. Soumadri Sen gave the cause of
death as bronchial pneumonia as a result of asbestosis.

At Derby and Southern Derbyshire Coroner's Court, Mrs. Grocott
said Mr. Shaw had been a timber merchant in the 1960s. He later
became a plasterer's laborer in Derby then worked as a self-
employed builder for 10 years, before doing maintenance work for
Severn Trent Water.

Deputy coroner Louise Pinder recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.

                            *********

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  * * *