---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 114

                            Headlines

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Complaint in Arkansas
AMERICA SERVICE: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact
BANK OF AMERICA: Asks W.D. Wash. to Dismiss Homeowners' Suit
BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
CAREGROUP INC: Inks $8.5 Million Employee Compensation Settlement

CEPHALON INC: Defends Provigil Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania
CEPHALON INC: Defends Suits in Pennsylvania over ACTIQ Drug
CEPHALON INC: Defends Complaint over GABITRIL and PROVIGIL Drugs
CIT GROUP: Gets Dismissed From Securities Class Action
CKX INC: Being Sold to Investors for Too Little, Suit Claims

CONMED CORP: Continues to Defend Suit by Former Sales Reps
CONSECO INC: Consolidated Securities Fraud Action Still Pending
CONSECO INC: Awaits Final Outcome on Local Union Class Action
CONSECO INC: Reaches Settlement in "Fletcher" Lawsuit
CONSECO INC: Class Certification in Annuity Lawsuit Pending

CONSECO INC: Trial on Valulife Lawsuit Scheduled for July 6
CONSECO INC: Trial on Washington National Suit Commences
CONSECO INC: Class Certification in Consolidated Suit Pending
CONSECO INC: Class Certification in Rowe Lawsuit Pending
DETROIT MEDICAL: Accused in Mich. Suit of Not Paying CRNAs

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Payment Protection Program Suit Filed in N.J.
GENERAL MOTORS: Fire Hazard Prompts 1.5 Million Vehicle Recall
HOOVERS INC: Appeal Pending in IPO Litigation Settlement
INFOGROUP INC: Faces Three Suits in Nebraska over CCMP Merger
INFOGROUP INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Planned CCMP Merger

LAND O'LAKES: Settles Egg Price-Fixing Litigation for $25 Million
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settlement Talks in "Ramirez" Suit Ongoing
M & F WORLDWIDE: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in "Kitson"
MAINE & MARITIME: Planned BHE Acquisition Cues State Class Suit
MAINE & MARITIME: Planned BHE Purchase Cues Federal Class Suit

MEDCATH CORP: Still No Class Certified in Bakersfield Heart Suit
MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Has Substantial Defenses to Knight Suit
OTTAWA: Class-Actions Seek Damages For Abuse In N.L. Schools
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Barkwell Counterclaim Still Pending
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Freeman Counterclaim Still Pending

STEWART INFO: Dismissal of Suit in New York and Texas Affirmed
TAYLOR BEAN: Employee's WARN Act Claims Must Be Filed by June 15
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs' Plea for Attorney's Fees Denied
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Suit in Canada on Labels in Lawnmowers
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Court Okays Settlement in U.S. HP Label Suit

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Defends Antitrust Suits in U.S. and Canada
TEHAMA COUNTY: California Pot Growers File Class Action Lawsuit
WILLIS GROUP: Outcome on Employee Benefits Lawsuits Pending
WILLIS GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Texas
WILLIS GROUP: Gender Discrimination Case Still Ongoing in N.Y.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Cornwall Firm Fined GBP4.5T for Disposal Breach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Party to AO Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Records $24MM ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Five Hilco Exposure Claims Stay After March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Facing One Exposure Claim at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Corp. Still Subject to Injury Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx's Current Reserve at $7.5Mil at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 239 Actions Still Pending v. Entrx at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Records $50M Future Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metalclad Still Party to ACE's Action in Calif.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Named in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Has $24.2MM Adjustment at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $106.7Mil March 31 Current Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Company Subject to Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 99 Actions Pending v. Met-Pro Corp. at April 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United America Unit Dismissed From Suit in 2009
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock, Anchor Still Involved in Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 92,900 Cases Pending v. EnPro Ind. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Garlock Sealing Trial Commenced During 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Garlock Sealing Appeals Pending at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Cites $22.9MM Settlement Payments in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $219.4Mil Coverage at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Unit Has 350 Unresolved Claims in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Accrues $600,000 for Outstanding Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie's Net Liability at $51.83Mil at April 4

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie, Continental Inks Deal During April 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $2.1M Remaining Indemnity at April 4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Suits Still Ongoing Against Spence, Hoke
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro's Unit Files for Reorganization on June 5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Still Pending v. Joy Global

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEP Issues $4.5T Fine to Grants Pass Contractor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Headley's Lawsuit Filed in Tex. Court on May 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mancuso Men Sentenced for Environmental Crimes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Corp.'s Reorganization Plan Confirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Rules on Van Brunt Case on June 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sholing Dockworker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parkinson Awarded AUD500,000 in Asbestos Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Council, Firm Fined for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Globe, Ariz. to Receive $7.5T Brownfields Grant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Government to Establish Asbestos Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't. to Pay For Lennox Head Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phase III of Abatement Commences at BoRit Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar International Subject to Injury Claims

                            *********

ADVOCAT INC: Continues to Defend Complaint in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
Advocat Inc. continues to defend a purported class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County,
Arkansas.

The suit was filed in January 2009 against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center (Facility).

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
statutory and contractual obligations to the residents of the
Facility over the past five years.  The lawsuit remains in its
early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a
class action.

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.

Advocat Inc. -- http://www.irinfo.com/avc-- provides long term  
care services to patients in 46 skilled nursing centers
containing 5,364 licensed nursing beds, primarily in the
Southeast and Southwest United States.


AMERICA SERVICE: Court Gives Preliminary Nod to Settlement Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee gave
its preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated action against America Service Group Inc., for $10.5
million, 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 April 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed the first of four similar
securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the
company's Chief Executive Officer, at that time, and Chief
Financial Officer.

Plaintiffs' allegations in these class action lawsuits are
substantially identical and generally allege on behalf of a
putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common
stock between Sept. 24, 2003 and March 16, 2006 that, prior to
the company's announcement of the Audit Committee investigation,
the company and/or the company's Chief Executive Officer, at that
time, and Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 by making false and misleading statements, or concealing
information about the company's business, forecasts and financial
performance.

The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.

By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court consolidated the
lawsuits into one consolidated action and on Oct. 31, 2006,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Secure Pharmacy Plus,
LLC, Enoch E. Hartman III and Grant J. Bryson as defendants.

Enoch E. Hartman III is a former employee of the company and SPP
and Grant J. Bryson is a former employee of SPP.

The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the company's business
which caused the company's securities to trade at inflated prices
during the class period.

Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form of:

     (i) restitution;
    (ii) compensatory damages, including interest; and
   (iii) reasonable costs and expenses.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Jan. 19,
2007, and the parties completed the briefs on the motion in May
2007.

On March 31, 2009, the Court ruled on the defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.

While the Court's ruling dismissed significant portions of
plaintiffs' amended complaint and, as a result, narrowed the
scope of plaintiffs' claims, none of the defendants were
dismissed from the case and several of plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 remain.

The parties were not in agreement as to the scope of the Court's
order and defendants filed a motion to confirm which claims the
Court dismissed in its March 31, 2009 ruling.  The Court granted
defendants' motion to confirm the scope of the dismissal order on
July 20, 2009, ruling that certain of Plaintiff's claims had been
in fact dismissed.

The Court also confirmed, however, that certain other claims
remained viable.

On July 22, 2009, the Court administratively closed the
shareholder litigation case, while the parties pursued mediation
of this matter.

On Feb. 19, 2010, the parties agreed to the terms of a mediator's
proposal to settle all of the claims in this lawsuit.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation as well
as approval by the Court, provides for payment by the company of
$10.5 million and issuance by the Company of 300,000 shares of
common stock and would lead to a dismissal with prejudice of all
claims against all defendants in the litigation.  The preliminary
total value of the settlement, based upon the Company's closing
share price for its common stock of $15.42 per share on Feb. 19,
2010, is approximately $15.1 million.
As such, the company has recorded a reserve of $15.1 million,
which has been included in accrued expenses in the company's
consolidated balance sheet as of Dec. 31, 2009.  The final value
of the settlement will be determined based upon the company's
closing share price at the time of final approval of the
settlement by the Court.

The settlement provides for price protection to the plaintiffs in
the event the closing share price is below $14.65 per share at
the time of final approval of the settlement by the Court.  In
such event, the company would pay in cash the difference between
the share value at the time of final approval and $14.65 per
share.

The parties have formalized the terms of the settlement through a
written agreement which received preliminary approval from the
court on May 3, 2010.  Upon final approval of the Court and
payment of the settlement amount, the company will consider this
matter closed.

America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- provides  
correctional healthcare services in the United States.  America
Service Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a wide
range of healthcare programs to government agencies for the
medical care of inmates.


BANK OF AMERICA: Asks W.D. Wash. to Dismiss Homeowners' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Pulkkinen at the Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that
responding to a lawsuit by two Seattle-area homeowners, attorneys
for Bank of America have asked a U.S. District Court judge to
throw out a potential class action suit claiming the bank has
failed to work with owners facing foreclosure.

Filed in late March, the lawsuit alleged Bank of America failed
to keep up its end of the deal cut with the federal government in
early 2009 when the bank took $25 billion and promised to work
with homeowners struggling to make their mortgage payments.

Answering the civil claim in preparation for a hearing later this
month, attorneys for Bank of America argued the case should be
dismissed on legal grounds and disputed claims by the two
plaintiffs named in the case that the bank had mistreated them.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Steve Berman, previously argued the
bank agreed to assist loan recipients to reduce payments to
levels they could afford by participating in the Troubled Asset
Relief Program -- TARP -- but instead the bank's foot-dragging
has failed his clients, Kamie and Daniel Kahlo, and hundreds of
other Washingtonians.

"We intend to show that Bank of America is acting contrary to the
intent and spirit of the TARP program, and is doing so out of
financial self interest," said Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, according to a statement.

Writing the court, Bank of America attorney John S. Devlin argued
that Kahlos have no legal ground on which to request relief.
Moreover, he claimed Bank of America already agreed to modify the
Kahlos loan.

"There are no allegations that the loan terms were unfair, or
that the Kahlos did not understand the terms of the loan, or that
there was anything wrong with the loan itself," wrote Devlin, an
attorney with Lane Powell.

"Although under no legal obligation to do so, (Bank of America)
has cut plaintiffs' monthly loan payments nearly in half," the
attorney continued. "And, thanks to (the bank's) assistance,
plaintiffs are still living in their home, have not been
foreclosed upon, and have no reason to fear foreclosure."

The plaintiffs contend the federal regulations require that banks
must gather information from the homeowner, and offer a revised
three-month payment plan for the borrower. If the homeowner makes
all three payments under the trial plan and provides the
necessary documentation, the lender must offer a permanent
modification.

Attorneys for Bank of America dispute the claim offered by Berman
that Kahlos have been unfairly denied that final modification.
Without contending that such deal has been struck, the bank's
attorneys suggested in court documents that Bank of America has
already done what is legally required.

Berman argued that Bank of America's failure to act was a
violation of its obligations under the federal program, and an
intentional one.

"We contend that Bank of America has made an affirmative decision
to slow the loan modification process for reasons that are solely
in the bank's financial interests," Berman said in a statement.

"Bank of America came up with every excuse to defer the Kahlo
family from a home loan modification, from stating they 'lost'
their paperwork to saying they never approved the new terms of
the mortgage agreement," he continued. "And we know from our
investigation this isn't an isolated incident."

According to the attorney's statement, Bank of America services
more than 1 million mortgages that qualify for financial relief,
but has granted only 12,761 of them permanent modification.

Reached for comment in March, a Bank of America spokesperson
noted that more than 760,000 Bank of America customers have gone
through some form of loan modification.

The plaintiffs' attorneys noted they intend to pursue the suit as
a class action, which would allow other homeowners in situations
similar to that faced by the Kahlos to join the suit. A judge
will have to decide whether such a move is warranted.

A hearing is scheduled for June 25 before U.S. District Court
Judge James L. Robart in Seattle.


BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bayside Furnishings (a division of Whalen), of San Diego, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 2000 "Pirates of the
Caribbean" Twin Trundle Beds.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The headboard has a storage bin that poses an entrapment hazard
to young children.

CPSC received one report of a 4 year-old boy whose head became
entrapped in the opening of the storage bin.  He sustained
bruises on the back of his left and right ears.

This recall involves the Bayside youth bed: the Pirates of the
Caribbean Twin Trundle Bed.  The preassembled headboard has a
brown wood base with decorative carvings, three open storage
compartments, a storage bin and a mast.  The storage bin located
in the headboard, measures approximately 39 inches long, 6 1/2
inches wide and 24 inches deep.  The "Pirates of the Caribbean"
trademark is embossed on a metal plate inside the headboard.  The
name and address of the manufacturer, model number, manufacture
date and "Made in China" is printed on a label affixed to the
inside of the mattress frame side rails.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10258.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Costco stores nationwide from January 2006 through
January 2010 for between $700 and $1,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the headboard storage bin
and contact the firm to receive a free repair kit that will
permanently close the headboard storage bin.  The repair kits
will be mailed to consumers in approximately 4 to 6 weeks.  For
additional information, call Bayside toll-free at (877) 494-2536
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time, or visit the
firm's website at http://www.baysidefurnishings.com/


CAREGROUP INC: Inks $8.5 Million Employee Compensation Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Globe reports that Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center and other CareGroup Inc. affiliates have agreed to settle
a class-action lawsuit against the hospital chain alleging that
workers were not paid for working through lunch breaks or beyond
their scheduled shifts. The $8.5 million settlement, if given
court approval, will cover as many as 9,000 current and former
CareGroup employees.

CareGroup, Inc. and its affiliates Beth Israel, Beth Israel
Deaconess-Needham, Mt. Auburn Hospital, and New England Baptist
Hospital will pay up to $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit. The
settlement will include payments to cover back wages for workers
who claimed they were not paid overtime for working beyond their
shift, or who worked through their lunch without pay. As part of
the settlement, CareGroup and its affiliates deny any wrongdoing
or violation of federal or state law.

The suit was brought by attorneys with the law firm of Thomas &
Solomon based in Rochester, N.Y., which specializes in class
action lawsuits for unpaid wages. The firm has filed comparable
batches of lawsuits against hospitals in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and
Syracuse, N.Y.

In a statement, CareGroup chief financial officer John Szum said,
"The settlement reflects our commitment to put this litigation
behind us as we focus on the delivery of quality healthcare for
our patients."


CEPHALON INC: Defends Provigil Antitrust Suits in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend antitrust cases pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
in connection with the settlement agreements entered into with
four generic manufacturers for its Provigil drug, 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.

Numerous private antitrust complaints have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, each
naming Cephalon, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Ranbaxy Laboratories
Limited, as co-defendants and claiming, among other things, that
the PROVIGIL settlements violate the antitrust laws of the United
States and, in some cases, certain state laws.

These actions have been consolidated into a complaint on behalf
of a class of direct purchasers of PROVIGIL and a separate
complaint on behalf of a class of consumers and other indirect
purchasers of PROVIGIL.

A separate complaint was filed by an indirect purchaser of
PROVIGIL in September 2007.

The plaintiffs in all of these actions are seeking monetary
damages and/or equitable relief.

In addition, in December 2009, the company entered a tolling
agreement with the Attorneys General of Arkansas, California,
Florida, New York and Pennsylvania to suspend the running of the
statute of limitations to any claims or causes of action relating
to the company's PROVIGIL settlements pending the resolution of
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission litigation.

Separately, in June 2006, Apotex, Inc., a subsequent abbreviated
new drug application filer seeking approval from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration of a generic form of modafinil, filed
suit against the company, also in the same Court, alleging
similar violations of antitrust laws and state law.  Apotex
asserts that the PROVIGIL settlement agreements improperly
prevent it from obtaining FDA approval of its ANDA, and seeks
monetary and equitable remedies.

In August 2009, the direct and indirect purchasers, Apotex and
the FTC filed amended complaints and, subsequently, the company
filed motions to dismiss each amended complaint.  The direct and
indirect purchasers, Apotex and the FTC have filed responses to
the company's motions to dismiss.

In March 2010, the Court denied the company's motions to dismiss
each amended complaint.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering, developing
and bringing to market medications to improve the quality of life
of individuals around the world.  Since its inception in 1987,
Cephalon has brought first-in-class and best-in-class medicines
to patients in several therapeutic areas.  Cephalon has the
distinction of being one of the world's fastest-growing
biopharmaceutical companies, now among the Fortune 1000 and a
member of the S&P 500 Index, employing approximately 4,000 people
worldwide.  The company sells numerous branded and generic
products around the world.  In total, Cephalon sells more than
150 products in nearly 100 countries.


CEPHALON INC: Defends Suits in Pennsylvania over ACTIQ Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend putative class action
complaints pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in connection with its ACTIQ drug.

In late 2007, the company was served with a series of putative
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of entities that claim
to have reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses outside of
the product's approved label in non-cancer patients.  The
complaints allege violations of various state consumer protection
laws, as well as the violation of the common law of unjust
enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in actual,
punitive and/or treble damages, with interest, and/or
disgorgement of profits.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also alleges violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO.  The RICO allegations were dismissed with prejudice
in May 2009.

No further updates was 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.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering, developing
and bringing to market medications to improve the quality of life
of individuals around the world.  Since its inception in 1987,
Cephalon has brought first-in-class and best-in-class medicines
to patients in several therapeutic areas.  Cephalon has the
distinction of being one of the world's fastest-growing
biopharmaceutical companies, now among the Fortune 1000 and a
member of the S&P 500 Index, employing approximately 4,000 people
worldwide.  The company sells numerous branded and generic
products around the world.  In total, Cephalon sells more than
150 products in nearly 100 countries.


CEPHALON INC: Defends Complaint over GABITRIL and PROVIGIL Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania relating to its GABITRIL and PROVIGIL
products.

In February 2009, the company was served with a additional
putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health and
welfare trust funds that claim to have reimbursed for
prescriptions of GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside the
products approved labels.

The complaint alleges violations of RICO and the common law of
unjust enrichment and seeks an unspecified amount of money in
actual, punitive and/or treble damages, with interest.

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.

Cephalon, Inc. -- http://www.cephalon.com/-- is a global  
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to discovering, developing
and bringing to market medications to improve the quality of life
of individuals around the world.  Since its inception in 1987,
Cephalon has brought first-in-class and best-in-class medicines
to patients in several therapeutic areas.  Cephalon has the
distinction of being one of the world's fastest-growing
biopharmaceutical companies, now among the Fortune 1000 and a
member of the S&P 500 Index, employing approximately 4,000 people
worldwide.  The company sells numerous branded and generic
products around the world.  In total, Cephalon sells more than
150 products in nearly 100 countries.


CIT GROUP: Gets Dismissed From Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT
Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from a consolidated
securities action, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

The action will continue as to the remaining defendants and CIT's
obligation to defend and indemnify those defendants continues.  
Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and
interest.  CIT believes the allegations in the complaints are
without merit.

In July and August 2008, putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of CIT Group Inc.'s pre-
reorganization stockholders against CIT, its former Chief
Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer.

In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units
against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and
members of its current and former Board of Directors.

In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder
actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca &
Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which
consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred
stock from December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly
were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock
pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred
stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933.  Specifically, it is alleged
that the company, its former CEO, CFO, former Controller, and a
former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by
allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding CIT's subprime home lending and student lending
businesses.  

The allegations relating to the company's student lending
businesses are based upon the assertion that the company failed
to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the
preferred stockholders, its registration statement and
prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot
training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be
repaid and should have been written off.

The allegations relating to the Company's home lending business
are based on the assertion that the company failed to fully
disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime
mortgage loans.

The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the company, its former CEO,
former CFO and former Controller and those current and former
Directors of the Company who signed the registration statement in
connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering
violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's student lending business.

CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding    
company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing
assets that provides financial products and advisory services to  
small and middle market businesses.


CKX INC: Being Sold to Investors for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say CKX is
selling itself too cheaply -- for $600 million or $6.45 a share -
- to a group of investors led by Simon Fuller.  CKX owns rights
to the name and image of Elvis Presley, Muhammad Ali and the
"American Idols" TV brand, according to the class action in
Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Nierenberg v. CKx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. _____ (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/08/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Arthur N. Abbey, Esq.
          Jill S. Abrams, Esq.
          Richard B. Margolies, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER RODD & ABRAMS, LLP
          212 East 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-889-3700


CONMED CORP: Continues to Defend Suit by Former Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------
CONMED Corporation continues to defend a complaint filed on
behalf of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.

On April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint filed in
the U.S. District for the Northern District of New York on behalf
of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.  The complaint alleges that the former sales
representatives were entitled to, but did not receive, severance
in 2003 when CONMED Linvatec restructured its distribution
channels.

The range of loss associated with this complaint ranges from $0
to $3.0 million, not including any interest, fees or costs that
might be awarded if the five named plaintiffs were to prevail on
their own behalf as well as on behalf of the approximately 70 (or
90 as alleged by the plaintiffs) other members of the purported
class.  CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance during
the 2003 restructuring because the former sales representatives
were offered sales positions with CONMED Linvatec's new
manufacturer's representatives.  Other than three of the five
named plaintiffs in the class action, nearly all of CONMED
Linvatec's former sales representatives accepted such positions.

The company's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which
were heard at a hearing held on Jan. 5, 2007, were denied by a
Memorandum Decision and Order dated May 22, 2007.  The District
Court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
former CONMED Linvatec sales representatives whose employment
with CONMED Linvatec was involuntarily terminated in 2003 and who
did not receive severance benefits.

With discovery essentially completed, on July 21, 2008, the
company filed motions seeking summary judgment and to decertify
the class.  In addition, on July 21, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking summary judgment.

These motions were submitted for decision on Aug. 26, 2008.  
There is no fixed time frame within which the Court is required
to rule on the motions.

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.

CONMED Corporation -- http://www.conmed.com/-- is a medical  
technology company with an emphasis on surgical devices and
equipment for minimally invasive procedures and patient
monitoring.  The Company's products serve the clinical areas of
arthroscopy, powered surgical instruments, electrosurgery,
cardiac monitoring disposables, endosurgery and endoscopic
technologies.  They are used by surgeons and physicians in a
variety of specialties including orthopedics, general surgery,
gynecology, neurosurgery and gastroenterology.  Headquartered in
Utica, New York, the company's 3,400 employees distribute its
products worldwide from several manufacturing locations.


CONSECO INC: Consolidated Securities Fraud Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc., remains a defendant in a consolidated securities
class-action in Indiana, according to the company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

After the company's predecessor announced its intention to
restructure on August 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The complaints named
Conseco as a defendant, along with certain of its former
officers.  These lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased the company's predecessor's common stock
on various dates between October 24, 2001 and August 9, 2002.  

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege
material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading
statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of the
company's predecessor and alleged problems in Conseco Finance
Corp.'s manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the
artificial inflation of the company's predecessor's stock price.  

These cases were consolidated into one case in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned
Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William
Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332
DFH-TAB.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  
The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint with respect to the individual defendants on December
8, 2003.  

The company's liability with respect to this lawsuit was
discharged in the company's predecessor's plan of reorganization
and the company's obligation to indemnify individual defendants
who were not serving as an officer or director on the effective
date of the Plan is limited to $3 million in the aggregate under
such plan.  

Conseco's current estimate of the maximum loss that it could
reasonably incur on this case is approximately $2 million.  

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea, Wendt
and Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was dismissed.  
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 24, 2005.  
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 2,
2008, and on March 20, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On
April 24, 2009, certain defendants initiated a request to appeal
the class certification ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals which was adopted by the 7th Circuit.  Oral argument on
the appeal was held on September 22, 2009, and the matter was
taken under advisement.  

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.



CONSECO INC: Awaits Final Outcome on Local Union Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed
by a local union in New York is still pending, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On August 6, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, by Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension
Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
against Conseco, Inc., et al., on behalf of purchasers of Conseco
Inc. common stock during the period from August 4, 2005 to March
17, 2008.  

The complaint charges Conseco and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued numerous statements regarding the company's
financial performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because the
defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose these adverse
facts, among others:

   (i) that the company was reporting materially inaccurate
       revenue figures;

  (ii) that the company's reported financial results were
       materially misstated and did not present the true
       operating performance of the company;

(iii) that the company's shareholders' equity was materially
       overstated during the Class Period, including the
       overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million at
       December 31, 2006; and

  (iv) as a result, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
       their positive statements about the company, its
       corporate governance practices, its prospects and
       earnings growth.

On January 12, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
Conseco filed its motion to dismiss thereafter.  Plaintiffs have
announced their intent to file a second amended complaint.  

Conseco believes the action is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously, according to the company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.



CONSECO INC: Reaches Settlement in "Fletcher" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc., reached a settlement with an individual plaintiff
without certification of class in a purported class action filed
in California, according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010,

On January 16, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, Robin Fletcher individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. RG08366328.  

In her original complaint, plaintiff alleged nonpayment by
Bankers Life of overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, failure to reimburse expenses, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements to its sales representatives in the
State of California for the time period January 16, 2004, to
present.  Additionally, the complaint alleges failure to pay
wages on termination and unfair business practices.  

A settlement was reached with the individual plaintiff without
certification of a class.  The settlement will not have a
significant impact on the company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.



CONSECO INC: Class Certification in Annuity Lawsuit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has yet to make a determination at a hearing
scheduled for September 10, 2010, whether a consolidated putative
class action alleging RICO violations against Conseco Insurance
Company should be certified, according to Conseco, Inc.'s May 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

On November 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert H.
Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation
f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726.  
Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and
unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading
advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of
breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition of
constructive trust.  

On January 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same
court entitled Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an
Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause
No. C06-00537.   Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.  

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and
that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable
for seniors age 65 and older.  

On March 3, 2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment
and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  

In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two
cases under the original Hansen cause number and retitled the
consolidated action: In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity
Marketing & Sales Practices Litig.  

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and
denied in part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 27, 2007, which has added as defendants
Conseco Services, LLC and Conseco Marketing, LLC.  

The court has not yet made a determination whether the case
should go forward as a class action, and Conseco intends to
oppose any form of class action treatment of these claims.  The
hearing on the motion for class certification is set to occur on
September 10, 2010.  Conseco believes the action is without
merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.  

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.



CONSECO INC: Trial on Valulife Lawsuit Scheduled for July 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal court will commence trial on a purported class action
against Conseco Life Insurance Company on July 6, 2010, according
to Conseco, Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.  

On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Celedonia
X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance
Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life
Insurance Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.  Plaintiff in this
putative class action owns a Valulife universal life policy
insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff
is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national
class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
declaratory relief.  

The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and
Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by either
Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were later
acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that
members of the class will be damaged by increases in the cost of
insurance that are set to take place in the twenty first policy
year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.  No such increases have
yet been applied to the subject policies, and none is scheduled
to take effect until 2011 when the oldest of these policies
reaches its twenty-first anniversary.  

Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of the class and on
December 7, 2009, the court granted that motion.  

The case is set for trial commencing July 6, 2010.  Conseco
believes the action is without merit, and intends to defend it
vigorously.  

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.



CONSECO INC: Trial on Washington National Suit Commences
--------------------------------------------------------
A federal court commenced trial on a purported class action
against Washington National Insurance Company on June 7, 2010,
according to Conseco, Inc.'s May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

Washington National is a subsidiary of CDOC, Inc., which in turn
is a subsidiary of Conseco, Inc.

On December 8, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Sydelle
Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case No. 08-
23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.  In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that
the inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National breached the contract by
stopping her benefits when they reached the lifetime maximum.  
The company takes the position that the inflation escalator only
affects the per day maximum benefit.  

The court has scheduled a jury trial on January 25, 2010.  
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the
motion has been fully briefed by both sides.  On January 5, 2010,
the court granted the motion to intervene and granted the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  

The case is set for trial commencing on June 7, 2010.  Conseco
believes the action is without merit, and intends to defend it
vigorously.  

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.



CONSECO INC: Class Certification in Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
heard a motion for class certification on a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed against Conseco, Inc., and Conseco Life
Insurance Company on June 4, 2010, according to the company's May
10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc., and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.  In their complaint, plaintiffs
allege that Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc., committed breach of
contract and insurance bad faith and violated various consumer
protection statutes in the administration of various interest
sensitive whole life products sold primarily under the name
"Lifetrend" by requiring the payment of additional cash amounts
to maintain the policies in force.  On April 23, 2009, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the additional
counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.  On
May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc., and Conseco Life filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 29, 2009, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The
court dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life violated
various consumer protection statutes, the breach of fiduciary
duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  

On July 2, 2009, another purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  In his
complaint, plaintiff alleges that Conseco Life committed breach
of contract and has been unjustly enriched in the administration
of various interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily
under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorney fees.  Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification
on October 6, 2009.  

On October 15, 2009, Conseco Life filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking the
establishment of an MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case
with the McFarland case into a single action in the Northern
District of California Federal Court.  On February 3, 2010, the
Judicial Panel on MDL ordered the cases to be consolidated for
pretrial proceedings.  

The hearing on the motion for class certification is set to occur
on June 4, 2010.  The Company believes the action is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome
of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.

Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.


CONSECO INC: Class Certification in Rowe Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to file an opening brief on class certification
pertaining to a lawsuit involving an indirect subsidiary of
Conseco, Inc., expired May 31, 2010.

On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers
Life & Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of
Illinois, Case No. 09CV491.  Bankers Life is an indirect
subsidiary of Conseco.

The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., breach
of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and violation
of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on
behalf of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy.  

Plaintiffs have amended their complaint attempting to convert
this from a California only class action to a national class
action.  In addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act;
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust
enrichment.  They dropped their claim that Bankers made negligent
misrepresentations.  

On November 20, 2009, Bankers Life filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's RICO claims.  

The plaintiffs' opening brief on class certification was due
May 31, 2010.  Conseco believes the action is without merit, and
intends to defend it vigorously, according to the company's
May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  
  
Headquartered in Carmel, Indiana, Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) --
http://www.conseco.com/-- is the holding company for a group of
insurance companies operating throughout the United States that
develop, market and administer supplemental health insurance,
annuity, individual life insurance and other insurance products.
The Company became the successor to Conseco Inc. (Old Conseco),
in connection with the Company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on September 20, 2003.  CNO focuses on serving
the senior and middle-income markets.  The Company sells
its products through three distribution channels: career agents,
professional independent producers and direct marketing.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had $30.785 billion in assets,
$27.065 billion in liabilities, and $3.720 billion in
shareholders' equity.


DETROIT MEDICAL: Accused in Mich. Suit of Not Paying CRNAs
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Detroit Medical Center
"systematically" did not pay Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetists for all the time they worked, a former CRNA claims
in a class action in Detroit Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Deppen v. The Detroit Medical Center,
Case No. 10-cv-12229 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/08/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul P. Asker, Esq.
          Jessica Dopierala Hite, Esq.
          ASKER PERLMUTER, PLC
          32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 275
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: 248-419-5400


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Payment Protection Program Suit Filed in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Saranow Schultz at The New York Times reports that a
class action lawsuit recently filed in New Jersey accuses
Discover of engaging in deceptive business practices to enroll
cardholders into its payment protection program without their
knowledge or permission.

The lawsuit specifically relates to Discover's Payment Protection
program. Participants in the protection program pay a certain
percent of their balance every month to enroll. Then, if they
experience a "covered hardship" like a disability or
hospitalization, they can put their payments on hold and not pay
periodic finance charges and late fees for up to two years.

In addition, the protection also offers participants the option
to put payments on hold for a month if they are experiencing "one
of life's happy events," like moving into a new home. In addition
to the debt suspension options, the plan also offers certain debt
cancellation benefits.

The lawsuit accuses Discover and its agents of using confusing
and misleading sales tactics to get cardholders to sign up for
the supposedly optional plan.

The lead lawyer for the class action:

          David S. Paris, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-228-6667
          E-mail: David@paslawfirm.com

said that in most cases, cardholders were unwittingly enrolled in
the program when signing up for the card or when discussing
another matter with a Discover agent.

In other cases, he said, card members were enrolled without any
discussion or knowledge of the enrollment.

"Even if you tell them you are not interested, they turn around
and say 'Let me send you more information' and then basically
disregard your rejection and enroll you unilaterally," Mr. Paris
said.

According to Mr. Paris, since cardholders are paying a percentage
of their balance to participate in the program, those affected
can incur fees in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

The lawsuit, which also accuses Discover of requiring customers
to take "onerous" steps to cancel the plan, is seeking monetary
damages for anyone who has been enrolled in the program without
their authority or consent as well as an injunction to stop
Discover from further engaging in this type of conduct.

"It seems to be a widespread issue," said Mr. Paris, whose firm
has created a Web site at http://www.discoverpppclassaction.com/
for consumers interested in learning more about the lawsuit. In
fact, a quick search online for "Discover Payment Protection"
brings up a number of complaints from those who say they were
"tricked" into enrolling in the program.

A Consumerist post at http://is.gd/cIAI8from last summer, for  
instance, described one consumer who claimed he was tricked into
signing up when he said a sales agent could send him an
information packet.

At the Ripoff Report site -- see http://is.gd/cIAJZ-- meanwhile,  
other consumers complain about similar experiences.  You can even
find consumers warning others about the protection program at
sites like GardenWeb.com.

In addition to the claim of deceptive business practices, the
lawsuit alleges that Discover did not properly disclose fees
related to the payment protection program.

A spokesman for Discover wrote in an e-mail message that the
company generally did not comment on pending litigation. In
addition, when asked to comment on the online consumer complaints
about the protection program, he said "they're considered to be
related to the lawsuit" because of their subject matter.


GENERAL MOTORS: Fire Hazard Prompts 1.5 Million Vehicle Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Hirsch at the Los Angeles Times reports that General Motors
Co. will pay out as much as $150 million to owners of vehicles
that are being recalled because it can't fix a flaw in the system
that squirts heated cleaning fluid on the windshield.

In one of the largest recalls this year, GM said Tuesday that it
was recalling about 1.5 million vehicles, including certain
Cadillac and Buick sedans as well as several sport utility
vehicles, because the problem could cause the vehicles to catch
on fire. The recall of many 2006 to 2009 model-year vehicles will
involve disabling the heating mechanism and paying $100 to the
owner.

Analysts said the move by GM represented both the speed and
willingness of large automakers to make amends with customers
after the recent public relations debacle experienced by Toyota
Motor Corp. over a series of large recalls and quality issues.

"This should be more common," said Clarence Ditlow, executive
director of the Center for Auto Safety.

There have been previous instances in which manufacturers paid
customers because something on a vehicle did not work, but Ditlow
said he could not remember another case that was part of a safety
recall.

"Manufacturers are saying, 'There but the for the grace of the
God go I, so let's do this correctly and maybe we will avoid the
image problems of Toyota,'" Ditlow said.

In addition to facing more than 200 federal lawsuits over alleged
sudden-acceleration problems, Toyota has also seen its market
share slide in the U.S. In May, a month when most automakers
posted double-digit sales gains, Toyota's sales rose only 6.7%.
Through the first five months of this year the Japanese
automaker's U.S. market share has dropped to 15.2%, compared with
16.2% during the same period a year earlier.

GM was being smart by offering customers the money, Ditlow said.
It was likely that a class-action attorney would step in and file
a lawsuit against GM on behalf of owners whose vehicles have the
defective system and the automaker would have been forced to pay
some form of compensation, he said.

The final tab for GM may not reach $150 million.

"It is unlikely that all customers will come in to have the
system deactivated," said Alan Adler, a GM spokesman. "Typical
safety recall completion after 18 months is around 80%."

The malfunction has not caused any known injuries or crashes but
does present a fire hazard, according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.

"While our analysis shows the number of incidents is very small
compared with the number of vehicles on the road, we want our
customers to have complete peace of mind," said Jeff Boyer, GM's
safety chief.

Dealership mechanics will remove the device that heats the washer
fluid and reroute the hose. GM said customers would begin
receiving recall letters this month, but they could contact their
dealers now and make an appointment to have the heated washer
system removed.

"This was a unique technology available from only one supplier,
and that supplier has stopped manufacturing, which left no
opportunity to collaborate on an improved design," Boyer said.

Michelle Krebs, an analyst with auto information company
Edmunds.com, said GM found itself in a "very unusual situation"
compounded by what she called the "Toyota syndrome" atmosphere.

"They put a new technology on a vehicle. The company went
bankrupt and they have no way to repair it. That's a risk of
being the first adapter of a new technology," Krebs said.

The models included in the recall are the 2006-09 model-year
Buick Lucerne; Cadillac DTS; Hummer H2; 2008-09 model-year Buick
Enclave; Cadillac CTS; 2007-09 model-year Cadillac Escalade,
Escalade ESV, Escalade EXT; Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado,
Suburban, Tahoe; GMC Acadia, Sierra, Yukon, Yukon XL; Saturn
Outlook; and 2009 model-year Chevrolet Traverse.

GM said almost 1.4 million of the vehicles are in the United
States, with nearly all of the rest in Canada and Mexico.

The same system was recalled two years ago because a short
circuit on the printed circuit board could overheat the control-
circuit ground wire. Dealers at the time installed an in-line
fuse in the heated washer module wiring. But GM said there were
still reports of overheating incidents, including five fires.


HOOVERS INC: Appeal Pending in IPO Litigation Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
A court-approved settlement of a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit involving The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and
more than 300 other companies is facing several appeals,
according to Dun & Bradstreet's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On November 15, 2001, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against Hoover's, Inc., certain of its then current and
former officers and directors, and one of the underwriters of
Hoover's July 1999 initial public offering.  The lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Hoover's stock between July 20,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  

The operative complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Hoover's
and the Individual Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter allocated stock in Hoover's IPO to certain investors
in exchange for commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at prices
above the IPO price.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for
Hoover's IPO was false and misleading because it did not disclose
these arrangements.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than 300
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  
The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
Dun & Bradstreet's, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including Hoover's.  
On October 5, 2009, the District Court granted final approval of
the settlement.  Judgment was entered on December 9, 2009.  

A group of three objectors has filed a petition to the Second
Circuit on November 2, 2009 seeking permission to appeal the
District Court's final approval order on the basis that the
settlement class is broader than the class previously rejected by
the Second Circuit in its December 5, 2006 order vacating the
District Court's order certifying classes in the focus cases.
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the petition.  

In addition, six notices of appeal to the Second Circuit have
been filed by different groups of objectors.

Dun & Bradstreet (NYSE: DNB) -- http://www.dnb.com/-- is the
source of commercial information and insight on businesses.  
D&B's global commercial database contains more than 130 million
business records.  D&B provides solution sets that meet a diverse
set of customer needs globally.  Customers use D&B Risk
Management Solutions(TM) to mitigate credit and supplier risk,
increase cash flow and drive increased profitability; D&B Sales &
Marketing Solutions(TM) to increase revenue from new and existing
customers; and D&B Internet Solutions to convert prospects into
clients faster by enabling business professionals to research
companies, executives and industries.


INFOGROUP INC: Faces Three Suits in Nebraska over CCMP Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Infogroup, Inc., faces three putative class action lawsuits in
connection with its planned merger with CCMP Capital Advisors,
LLC, 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 March 8, 2010, the company announced that it entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Omaha Holdco Inc., and Omaha
Acquisition Inc., providing for the merger of Omaha Acquisition
with and into the company, with the company surviving the Merger
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Omaha Holdco.  Omaha Holdco and
Omaha Acquisition are affiliates of CCMP Capital.

Beginning on or around March 9, 2010, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Douglas County,
State of Nebraska.  The three suits are:

     (1) The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. InfoGROUP Inc.,
         et al., Doc. 1104 No. 822 (filed on or around March 9,
         2010);

     (2) Gary Sappenfield v. Infogroup Inc., et al., Doc. 1105
         No. 146 (filed on or around March 16, 2010);

     (3) Ronald E. Kistner v. Infogroup Inc. et al., Doc. 1105
         No. 189 (filed on or around March 17, 2010).

In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiff alleges that it is a
shareholder of the company and purports to bring the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of itself and all other shareholders of
the company.

Each lawsuit names as defendants the company, Vinod Gupta, Bill
L. Fairfield, Roger S. Siboni, George H. Krauss, Gary E. Morin,
Bernard W. Reznicek, Lee D. Roberts, John N. Staples III, Thomas
L. Thomas, Clifton T. Weatherford, and CCMP Capital Advisors,
LLC.  The complaint in each of the lawsuits alleges, among other
things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by attempting to complete the sale of the company to CCMP
Capital Advisors, LLC through an unfair process and at an unfair
price, and that the company and CCMP Capital Advisors, LLC aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Among other relief, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the proposed
sale, and seek recovery of the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Infogroup Inc. -- http://www.infogroup.com/-- is the leading  
provider of data and interactive resources that enables targeted
sales, effective marketing and insightful research solutions.  
The company's information powers innovative tools and insight for
businesses to efficiently reach current and future customers
through multiple channels, including the world's most dominant
and powerful Internet search engines and GPS navigation systems.  
Infogroup's headquarters are located at 5711 South 86th Circle,
Omaha, NE 68127.


INFOGROUP INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Planned CCMP Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Infogroup, Inc., faces a lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in connection with its planned merger
with CCMP Capital Advisors, LLC, 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 March 8, 2010, the company announced that it entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Omaha Holdco Inc., and Omaha
Acquisition Inc., providing for the merger of Omaha Acquisition
with and into the company, with the company surviving the Merger
as a wholly owned subsidiary of Omaha Holdco.  Omaha Holdco and
Omaha Acquisition are affiliates of CCMP Capital.

On or around March 11, 2010, a lawsuit titled New Jersey
Carpenters Pension Fund v. InfoGROUP, Inc., et al., Case No.
5334, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, naming as defendants the company, Vinod Gupta, Bill L.
Fairfield, Roger S. Siboni, George H. Krauss, Gary E. Morin,
Bernard W. Reznicek, Lee D. Roberts, John N. Staples III, Thomas
L. Thomas, Clifton T. Weatherford, CCMP Capital Advisors, LLC,
Omaha Holdco Inc. and Omaha Acquisition Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that it is a shareholder of the company and
purports to bring this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
itself and all other shareholders of the company.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by attempting to complete the
sale of the company to CCMP Capital Advisors, LLC through an
unfair process and at an unfair price, and that CCMP Capital
Advisors, LLC, Omaha Holdco Inc. and Omaha Acquisition Inc. aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Among other relief, the lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed
sale, and seeks compensatory damages of an undetermined amount
and recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Infogroup Inc. -- http://www.infogroup.com/-- is the leading  
provider of data and interactive resources that enables targeted
sales, effective marketing and insightful research solutions.  
The company's information powers innovative tools and insight for
businesses to efficiently reach current and future customers
through multiple channels, including the world's most dominant
and powerful Internet search engines and GPS navigation systems.  
Infogroup's headquarters are located at 5711 South 86th Circle,
Omaha, NE 68127.


LAND O'LAKES: Settles Egg Price-Fixing Litigation for $25 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Levine at The National Law Journal reports that Land
O'Lakes Inc. and two subsidiaries have agreed to a $25 million
settlement in a class action alleging that they participated in
an industry-wide price-fixing conspiracy among egg farmers.

The case, In re Processed Eggs Antitrust Litigation, accuses egg
producers of conspiring to restrict the egg supply through cage
space requirements, among other things, and exporting eggs at a
loss to put pressure on domestic egg prices. James Pizzirusso, a
partner at Washington's Hausfeld LLP, one of four firms serving
as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the class consists of
thousands of direct purchasers of shell eggs and egg products,
including restaurants, food distributors and food service
companies.

The other three firms serving as co-lead counsel are New York's
Bernstein Liebhard, Houston's Susman Godfrey, and Philadelphia's
Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher. The litigation, pending in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was filed in 2008.

Pizzirusso said the plaintiffs had earlier agreed to a
nonmonetary settlement with another defendant, Sparboe Farms.
Sparboe Farms provided "detailed documents and testimony ... a
lot of details about dates, times and places of when meetings
occurred, what was said in those meetings," he said. Pizzirusso
said plaintiffs used those details to file an amended complaint
in March.  As part of the settlement, the defendants -- Land
O'Lakes; Moark LLC, a subsidiary of Land O'Lakes; and Norco Ranch
Inc., a subsidiary of Moark -- agreed to provide further
information.

Land O'Lakes spokeswoman Jeanne Forbis said, "Settling the case
avoids the expense and distraction of protracted litigation,
enabling Moark and its Norco Ranch subsidiary to focus their time
and resources on providing economical and high-quality eggs to
customers and consumers."  Land O'Lakes is represented by
Chicago's Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg.

The settlement still must be approved by the court.

Remaining defendants in the class action include Cal-Maine Foods
Inc., Michael Foods Inc. and Rose Acre Farms, as well as trade
groups United Egg Producers and United States Egg Marketers,
which are represented by Philadelphia's Pepper Hamilton.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Settlement Talks in "Ramirez" Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussion in the class action entitled Ramirez et al.
v. STi Prepaid, LLC et al., Civ. No. 08-1089 (SDW) (MCA)
(D.N.J.), are ongoing, according to Leucadia National
Corporation's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

The company believes that the material allegations in this
action, which arise out of conduct similar to conduct underlying
the matter IDT Telecom and Union Telecard Alliance, LLC v. CVT
Prepaid Solutions, Inc., et al., (No. 07-1076, D.N.J.), are
without merit and is defending this action vigorously.

The parties have been discussing a settlement of this action and
on Jan. 8, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the
purported settlement and for preliminary approval of the
settlement.  

The plaintiffs later withdrew the motion to enforce a purported
settlement and for preliminary approval of that settlement has
been withdrawn and settlement discussions between the parties
continue.  If the action does not settle, the company believes
that it is reasonably possible that a loss that could be material
could be incurred; however, any potential loss can not be
reasonably estimated.

Leucadia National Corporation -- http://www.leucadia.com/-- is a  
holding company engaged in a range of businesses, including
manufacturing, telecommunications, land based contract oil and
gas drilling, property management and services, gaming
entertainment, real estate activities, medical product
development and winery operations.  The company also owns equity
interests in operating businesses and investment partnerships,
which are accounted for under the equity method of accounting,
including a broker-dealer engaged in making markets and trading
of and situation securities and an operating copper mine in
Spain.  The company's operating segments include: Manufacturing,
Telecommunications, Property Management and Services, Gaming
Entertainment, Domestic Real Estate, Winery and Medical Product
Development.  The company's telecommunications operations are
conducted through its 75% owned subsidiary, STi Prepaid, LLC.


M & F WORLDWIDE: Court Approves Settlement Agreement in "Kitson"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois has
approved the settlement agreement in a suit filed by Kenneth
Kitson, according to M & F Worldwide Corp.'s May 5, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In June 2008, Kenneth Kitson, purportedly on behalf of himself
and a class of other alleged similarly situated commercial
borrowers from the Bank of Edwardsville, an Illinois-based
community bank (BOE), filed in an Illinois state court an amended
complaint that re-asserted previously filed claims against BOE
and added claims against Harland Financial Solutions, Inc. (HFS).

The amended complaint alleged, among other things, that HFS's
LaserPro software permitted BOE to generate loan documents that
were deceptive and usurious in that they failed to disclose
properly the effect of the "365/360" method of calculating
interest.  Following the removal of the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the
District Court entered an order granting with prejudice HFS's
motion to dismiss Mr. Kitson's claims.

In August 2009, Mr. Kitson, individually and as class
representative, and BOE agreed to settle and dismiss with
prejudice all remaining claims.

Separately but concurrently, BOE's warranty claim against HFS was
settled, in exchange for, among other things, payment by HFS of
$200,000.

The class settlement agreement was approved by the District Court
in January 2010.

M & F Worldwide Corp. has four business segments, which are
operated by Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron
and Mafco Worldwide.  Harland Clarke is a provider of checks and
related products, direct marketing services and customized
business and home office products.  Harland Financial Solutions
provides technology products and related services to financial
institutions.  Scantron is a leading provider of data management
solutions and related services to educational, healthcare,
commercial and governmental entities.  Mafco Worldwide produces
licorice products for sale to the tobacco, food, pharmaceutical
and confectionery industries.


MAINE & MARITIME: Planned BHE Acquisition Cues State Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit related to
the proposed acquisition of Maine & Maritimes Corp., by BHE
Holdings Inc., captioned Duplisea v. Maine & Maritimes
Corporation, et al., was filed in the Maine Superior Court,
Aroostook County, against MAM and each of its directors
individually, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the acquisition.  

The State Action seeks to enjoin the proposed sale, but does not
seek financial penalties from the Company.  Plaintiffs in the
State Action filed an amended complaint on April 22, 2010, and
transferred the State Action to the Maine Business and Consumer
Court in Sagadahoc County, according to Maine & Maritime's
May 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The company continues to contest the State Action.

Maine & Maritimes Corporation --
http://www.maineandmaritimes.com/-- is the parent company of  
Maine Public Service Company, a regulated electric transmission
and distribution utility serving approximately 36,000 electricity
customer accounts in Northern Maine.  MAM is also the parent
company of MAM Utility Services Group, an unregulated corporation
that provides electrical services, including transmission line
and substation design and construction. Corporate headquarters
are located in Presque Isle, Maine.


MAINE & MARITIME: Planned BHE Purchase Cues Federal Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maine & Maritimes Corp. and each of its directors, BHE Holdings
Inc., and BHE Holdings Sub One Inc. are named defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit relating to the proposed
acquisition of Maine & Maritime Corp., by BHE Holdings Inc.  The
lawsuit is captioned Johnson-Gee v. Maine & Maritimes
Corporation, et al., and was filed on April 16, 2010, in U.S.
District Court in Maine.

The Federal Action asserts nearly identical claims and is based
on generally the same allegations as a state action captioned
Duplisea v. Maine & Maritimes Corporation, et al., which was
filed in the Maine Superior Court, Aroostook County, against MAM
and each of its directors individually, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the acquisition.  

The Federal Action also seeks to enjoin the Acquisition,
according to Maine & Maritime's May 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010..

Maine & Maritimes Corporation --
http://www.maineandmaritimes.com/-- is the parent company of  
Maine Public Service Company, a regulated electric transmission
and distribution utility serving approximately 36,000 electricity
customer accounts in Northern Maine.  MAM is also the parent
company of MAM Utility Services Group, an unregulated corporation
that provides electrical services, including transmission line
and substation design and construction. Corporate headquarters
are located in Presque Isle, Maine.


MEDCATH CORP: Still No Class Certified in Bakersfield Heart Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified in a purported class action
lawsuit filed by an individual against MedCath Corp.'s
Bakersfield Heart Hospital, according to the company's May 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that under California
law, specifically under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan
Act of 1975 and under the Health and Safety Code of California,
California prohibits the practice of "balance billing" for
patients who are provided emergency services.

A class has not been certified by the court in the class action
lawsuit.

MedCath Corp. -- http://www.medcath.com/-- is a healthcare   
provider focused primarily on the diagnosis and treatment of
cardiovascular disease.  The company owns and operates hospitals
in partnership with physicians. It has ownership interests in and
operates nine hospitals, including seven, in which it owns a
majority interest.  Each of its majority-owned hospitals is a
freestanding, licensed general acute care hospital that provides
a range of health services with a focus on cardiovascular care.  
Each of its hospitals has a 24-hour emergency room staffed by
emergency department physicians.  The hospitals, in which the
company has ownership interests have a total of 676 licensed beds
and are located in seven states: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Louisiana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Texas.


MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Has Substantial Defenses to Knight Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Communications Corp. believes it has substantial
defenses to the antitrust and unjust enrichment claims asserted
by Jim Knight, according to Mediacom Broadband LLC's and Mediacom
Broadband Corporation's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Qs filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

A purported class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom
Communications Corp., in which MCC is named as the defendant, was
filed on March 4, 2010.  The complaint asserts that the potential
class is comprised of all persons who purchased premium cable
services from MCC and rented a cable box distributed by MCC.  The
plaintiff alleges that MCC improperly "tied" the rental of cable
boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The plaintiff also
alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks injunctive relief
and unspecified damages.  

MCC was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010.  MCC
believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in
the complaint, and intends to defend the action vigorously.  If
MCC were not successful in this litigation, Mediacom Broadband
may have to distribute cash to MCC in order for MCC to pay any
damages in regard to this litigation.

Mediacom Communications Corp. -- hhtp://www.mediacomcc.com/ -- is
the nation's seventh largest cable television company and one of
the leading cable operators focused on serving the smaller cities
and towns in the United States.  Mediacom Communications offers a
wide array of broadband products and services, including
traditional and advanced video services such as digital
television, VOD, DVRs, HDTV, as well as high-speed Internet
access and phone service.


OTTAWA: Class-Actions Seek Damages For Abuse In N.L. Schools
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Thousands of former residential
school students in Newfoundland and Labrador have won the right
to sue the federal government after they were left out of a
historic multi-billion dollar compensation package.

Their class-action lawsuit was certified by Justice Robert Fowler
of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court on Monday and
their lawyer says if it's settled, it could top $500 million.
The case involves about 5,000 Labrador Metis, Innu and Inuit
students who attended five schools in the province and are
seeking damages over allegations of sexual and physical abuse
along with cultural losses, one of the group's lawyers, Steve
Cooper, said Tuesday.

He bases the value of an out-of-court settlement on similar cases
in other parts of the country.

Ottawa can appeal the certification within 30 days.

Margot Geduld, a federal spokeswoman for Indian and Northern
Affairs, said the government is reviewing Justice Robert Fowler's
decision.

Ottawa claims it had no involvement with the schools and excluded
former students from its official apology and $4-billion
compensation deal.

The allegations in the class-action lawsuit involve the Yale,
Lockwood, Makkovik, Nain and St. Anthony schools. German-based
Moravian Missionaries ran two of the schools while the
International Grenfell Association, a non-religious charity, ran
three.

None of the allegations in the lawsuit has been proven in court.
In an interview Tuesday, Cindy Lyall said she was almost six
years old when she moved as a young Inuit girl to a student
dormitory in North West River in Labrador to start residential
school.

A year later, she said she was raped by an older student and
sexually abused by another person.

"I grew up, I never ever really felt like I belonged anywhere or
fitted in place anywhere. I always felt awkward ... like I wasn't
as good as anyone else," said Lyall, who is now 46 and is part of
the lawsuit.

"An apology would be nice."

The class action also includes some immediate family members of
students who attended the schools.

Cooper said many were devastated when they were left out of the
compensation package and official apology by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper almost two years ago.

Ottawa has argued the schools existed before the province joined
Canada in 1949. It therefore claims it is not responsible for
what happened at the schools between 1949 and when the last
closed some 30 years later.

Cooper calls that argument "factually incorrect." He said Canada
adopted responsibility for the well-being of the Labrador Metis,
Innu and Inuit students when the province became part of
Confederation.

"They truly have been revictimized by the government's
unconscionable and unreasonable decision to maintain their
exclusion," he said in an interview.

"There were reasons, I presume, that they were excluded at the
time that the negotiations took place. There were just no
representatives there to represent them around the table (during
talks), largely in Toronto. But there's no excuse for this now."
Geduld declined to comment on why the province was left out. But
she noted that the historic compensation deal for former students
in other parts of Canada was reached with input from aboriginal
leaders and was approved by courts in nine jurisdictions.

Cooper said he has worked on residential school cases elsewhere
in the country since 1997 and is baffled by Ottawa's position.
"Our clients -- and I've spoken personally with hundreds of them
-- are distraught, are confused, are frustrated, are feeling
victimized by a system that is exclusive.

"The fact that the prime minister in his apology expressly
excluded the people of Labrador in his apology was extremely
hurtful."

Many parents were forced to enrol their children in the schools
under threat of arrest, he said.

Lyall said a cash payment could never erase the trauma she
suffered, but she hopes compensation would help former students
get help.

She, her sister and brother were placed in residential school
after her parents divorced and her father couldn't care for them,
she said.
Lyall, who lives in St. John's, said she is still fighting
battles from her experience.

"I'm in recovery and I'm getting treatment," she said of her
diagnosis 10 years ago of depression and post traumatic stress
disorder.

"It's sad to see people and know that they probably suffered
terrible abuses and haven't been able to deal with them."


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Barkwell Counterclaim Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend itself
from a purported class action counterclaim filed in Georgia,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.  

PRA is currently a defendant in a purported class action
counterclaim entitled PRA v. Barkwell, 4:09-cv-00113-CDL, which
was originally filed in the Superior Court of Muscogee County,
Georgia and subsequently removed to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

The counterclaim allege that in pursuing arbitration claims
against Barkwell and other consumer debtors, pursuant to the
terms and conditions of their cardholder agreements, PRA breached
a duty of good faith and fair dealing and made negligent
misrepresentations concerning its "arbitration practices."  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, to vacate the
arbitration awards that PRA has obtained before the National
Arbitration Forum and have PRA disgorge the amounts collected
with respect to such awards.  It is not possible at this time to
accurately estimate the possible loss, if any.  PRA believes it
has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the
counterclaim and intends to defend itself vigorously against
them.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. --
http://www.portfoliorecovery.com-- is a full-service provider of  
outsourced receivables management and related services.  The
company is engaged in the business of purchasing, managing and
collecting portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables, as well
as offering a range of accounts receivable management and payment
processing services.  The majority of the company's business
activities involve the purchase, management and collection of
defaulted consumer receivables.  It also provides fee-based
services, including collateral-location services for credit
originators, through PRA Location Services, LLC, and revenue
administration, audit and debt discovery/recovery services for
government entities through PRA Government Services, LLC, and
MuniServices, LLC.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Freeman Counterclaim Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend itself
in a purported class action counterclaim filed in North Carolina,
according to the company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.  

PRA is currently a defendant in a separate purported class action
counterclaim entitled PRA v. Freeman, 10-CVD-1003, filed in the
District Court for Wake County, North Carolina.

The counterclaim allege that in pursuing arbitration claims
against Freeman and other consumer debtors, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of their cardholder agreements, PRA breached a
duty of good faith and fair dealing and made negligent
misrepresentations concerning its "arbitration practices."  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, to vacate the
arbitration awards that PRA has obtained before the National
Arbitration Forum and have PRA disgorge the amounts collected
with respect to such awards.  It is not possible at this time to
accurately estimate the possible loss, if any.  PRA believes it
has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the
counterclaim and intends to defend itself vigorously against
them.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. --
http://www.portfoliorecovery.com-- is a full-service provider of  
outsourced receivables management and related services.  The
company is engaged in the business of purchasing, managing and
collecting portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables, as well
as offering a range of accounts receivable management and payment
processing services.  The majority of the company's business
activities involve the purchase, management and collection of
defaulted consumer receivables.  It also provides fee-based
services, including collateral-location services for credit
originators, through PRA Location Services, LLC, and revenue
administration, audit and debt discovery/recovery services for
government entities through PRA Government Services, LLC, and
MuniServices, LLC.


STEWART INFO: Dismissal of Suit in New York and Texas Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of antitrust class-action lawsuits against Stewart
Information Services Corp. in New York and Texas have been
affirmed by the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 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 February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates
for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized
and licensed rate service organization.

Other complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S. District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.

All of the complaints make similar allegations, except that
certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act statutes and various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified
amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

Seventy-eight such complaints have been filed, each of which
names the company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a
defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned
states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of April 15, 2010, the company have obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware (where plaintiffs then
filed an amended complaint for injunctive relief only), Florida,
Massachusetts, New Jersey (where plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint for injunctive relief only), New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania (where plaintiffs may pursue injunctive relief
only), Texas and Washington.

The company is awaiting decisions on motions to dismiss in
Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia (where all proceedings
have been stayed and the docket closed) and have moved for
summary judgment on the claims for injunctive relief in
Pennsylvania.

The dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the
U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively.

Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com/--  
is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction
management company.  The company provides title insurance and
related information services required for settlement by the real
estate and mortgage industries throughout the United States and
international markets.  Stewart also provides post-closing lender
services, automated county clerk land records, property ownership
mapping, geographic information systems, property information
reports, flood certificates, document preparation, background
checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges.  The company's
international division delivers products and services protecting
and promoting private land ownership worldwide.  Stewart's
primary international operations are in Canada, the United
Kingdom, Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia.


TAYLOR BEAN: Employee's WARN Act Claims Must Be Filed by June 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee at the Ocala Star-Banner reports that with
certification of a class-action lawsuit still pending, a
bankruptcy judge on Tuesday held firm the date by when former
employees of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. must file
individual proofs of claim against the fallen mortgage lender.

That date is Tuesday, which an attorney representing the class of
approximately 2,400 laid-off individuals unsuccessfully attempted
to push further out.

It is "in the abundance of caution" that New York employment law
attorney Jack Raisner advises former workers to file such claims,
before the cut-off date essentially seals off any chance to
recover financial reimbursement in the event certification is
denied.

A ruling on that matter has not yet been made by U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Jerry A. Funk, and Raisner said he doesn't believe it will
be issued in the next week.

The attorney acknowledges denial of class certification, which
would prevent the lawsuit from moving forward, is infrequent, at
least in his experience. But he said judges' rulings can also be
unpredictable.

"Every former employee who has not filed a proof of claim by June
15 will be out of luck unless the WARN Act grants class
certification," Raisner said Tuesday.

The class-action lawsuit seeks to recover 60 days' worth of lost
wages and benefits on behalf of those individuals abruptly
notified they were out of a job when Taylor Bean, once the
nation's third-largest lender underwriting Federal Housing
Administration-insured loans, toppled last August.

Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act, at least 60 days' advance notice must be provided to
workers prior to a mass layoff.

The first such notification occurred Aug. 5, the same day Taylor
Bean ceased operations and shut its doors at its Ocala
headquarters and began closing offices elsewhere around the
country. The terminations continued forth for another 30 days,
according to a motion for certification filed in March.

The class-action lawsuit, which automatically encompasses the
roughly 2,400 employees thrust into this position, involves a
claim in the ballpark of roughly $10 million to $20 million,
according to Raisner.

"It would be premature to gauge what their [class-action
defendants'] ultimate recovery could be, but on the scale, that's
a rather large claim, and it's a priority claim," he said.

So far, 141 individuals have filed separate individual proofs of
claim.

Raisner's firm initially requested the extension of the filing
date on May 28, so as to prevent "the wasteful expense of filing
and processing more than a thousand Proofs of Claim, and avoid
the impact that a denial of class certification will have on any
individuals..relying on the class action," according to a motion.

However, because that motion was filed only in the separate
adversary proceeding, and not the main bankruptcy case, which
would have alerted "the full mailing matrix of interested
parties," the judge denied the extension of time in an order
issued last week.

On Tuesday morning, during a hearing in a Jacksonville courtroom,
he declined to reverse that decision.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs' Plea for Attorney's Fees Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lenawee County, Michigan Circuit Court has denied the
plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees in its entirety in a
shareholder class action lawsuit against five of Tecumseh
Products Company's former directors, 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 Dec. 10, 2008, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed by
Alan Kahn against five of Tecumseh's former directors, alleging a
breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant directors and seeking
injunctive relief and damages for our proposed recapitalization
plan.

With the plaintiff's consent, on Nov. 5, 2009, the court
dismissed the complaint but retained jurisdiction to decide a
subsequently filed application seeking reimbursement of attorney
fees and costs.

On March 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a fee application seeking
reimbursement of $155,000 in fees and expenses allegedly incurred
in this matter.  On April 26, 2010, in a ruling from the bench,
the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees in
its entirety.

Plaintiffs had 21 days from the date of the Order denying their
fee application to file an appeal as of right.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a  
full-line, independent global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and specialty air conditioning,
household refrigerators and freezers, and commercial
refrigeration applications, including air conditioning and
refrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat
pumps and complete refrigeration systems.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Suit in Canada on Labels in Lawnmowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company faces a lawsuit in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice alleging that the company, along with other
defendants, conspired to fix prices of lawnmowers and lawn mower
engines in Canada, 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 March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen
competition in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and
to mislabel the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in
violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy
prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who
purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower
containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less
provided that either the lawnmower or the engine contained within
the lawnmower was manufactured and/or sold by a Defendant or
their predecessors between Jan. 1, 1994, and the date of
judgment.

Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs and equitable relief.

In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum
Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its
subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified the
company that they claim indemnification with respect to this
lawsuit under the company's Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a  
full-line, independent global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and specialty air conditioning,
household refrigerators and freezers, and commercial
refrigeration applications, including air conditioning and
refrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat
pumps and complete refrigeration systems.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Court Okays Settlement in U.S. HP Label Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement entered into by Tecumseh Products Company,
along with defendants, to resolve suits over horsepower labels in
lawnmowers, has been preliminarily approved 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.

A nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the company and
other defendants (Ronnie Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck
Corporation et al., No. 04-L-334 (20th Judicial Circuit, St.
Clair County, IL)) alleged that the horsepower labels on the
products the plaintiffs purchased, which included products
manufactured by the company's former Engine & Power Train
business, were inaccurate.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons in
the United States who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995, through the
present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two stroke or four
stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was
manufactured by defendants.

On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and on May 8, 2008, the Court
issued an opinion that:

     (i) dismissed all the claims made under the Racketeer
         Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO") Act with
         prejudice;

    (ii) dismissed all claims of the 93 non-Illinois plaintiffs
         with instructions to re-file amended claims in
         individual state courts; and

   (iii) ordered that any amended complaint for the three
         Illinois plaintiffs be re-filed by May 30, 2008.

Since that time, eleven plaintiff's firms have filed 64 class
action matters in 48 states and the District of Columbia,
asserting claims on behalf of consumers in each of those
jurisdictions with respect to lawnmower purchases from Jan. 1,
1994, to the present.

The company has joined the joint defense group with other
lawnmower and component manufacturers who are defendants.

In the fourth quarter of 2009, a conceptual offer by a group of
the defendants, including Tecumseh, of $51.0 million was accepted
in principle with the actual settlement terms to be negotiated.

On Feb. 24, 2010, Tecumseh, along with the other settling
defendants, executed a settlement agreement with plaintiffs
resolving claims against the group of settling defendants in
exchange for a group payment of $51 million, a one-year warranty
extension for qualifying class members and injunctive relief
regarding future lawnmower engine labeling practices.
On Feb. 26, 2010, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the group settlement, certifying the settlement class,
appointing settlement class counsel and staying proceedings
against the settling defendants.

The Court will set a date for a hearing to determine the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the group settlement and
to determine whether the group settlement should be finally
approved and a final judgment entered.

The company believes that it is probable that it will achieve
final settlement and Tecumseh's allocable portion of
approximately $6.2 million has been reserved.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a  
full-line, independent global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and specialty air conditioning,
household refrigerators and freezers, and commercial
refrigeration applications, including air conditioning and
refrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat
pumps and complete refrigeration systems.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Defends Antitrust Suits in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company defends antitrust suits related to
investigations by government authorities into possible anti-
competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in
the compressor industry.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the company received a subpoena from the U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division and a formal request for
information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry
of Justice of Brazil (SDE) related to investigations by these
authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing arrangements
among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry.  The
European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the
same day.

The company intends to cooperate fully with the investigations.  
In addition, the company has entered into a conditional amnesty
agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate
Leniency Policy.  Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed
to not bring any criminal prosecution with respect to the
investigation against the company as long as it, among other
things, continues its full cooperation in the investigation.  The
company has received similar conditional immunity from the
European Commission, the SDE, and the competition authorities in
Mexico, South Africa and Turkey.

The public disclosure of these investigations has resulted in a
class action lawsuit filed in Canada and numerous class action
lawsuits filed in the United States, including by both direct and
indirect purchaser groups.

All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
Multidistrict Litigation procedures.

Discovery in these cases has not yet commenced.

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.

Tecumseh Products Company -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a  
full-line, independent global manufacturer of hermetically sealed
compressors for residential and specialty air conditioning,
household refrigerators and freezers, and commercial
refrigeration applications, including air conditioning and
refrigeration compressors, as well as condensing units, heat
pumps and complete refrigeration systems.


TEHAMA COUNTY: California Pot Growers File Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Johnson, writing for Tri-County Newspapers, reports that if
there is power in numbers, area pot growers have filed a powerful
lawsuit against Tehama County.

The lawsuit was filed recently by local medical marijuana
patients against Tehama County's marijuana cultivation ordinance,
which regulates where and how much marijuana a patient or
caregiver can grow in the county.

The plaintiffs claim that the ordinance makes it impossible for
them to legally exercise their Proposition 215 right to cultivate
medical marijuana for themselves, according to a statement
released by the law firm of E.D. Lerman and J. David Nick, which
filed the suit in Tehama County Superior Court.

The exact number of plaintiffs was not known immediately.
However, hundreds of people signed up to be part of the lawsuit
at a informational meeting held by the law firm in April.

Financially supported by California NORML, a pro-medical
marijuana group dedicated to reforming California's marijuana
laws, the lawsuit asks to strike down the county ordinance.

At the April meeting, Lerman told the group to expect a "long
haul," and she anticipates that whichever way the lawsuit is
settled - for the plaintiffs or for the county - it will be
appealed and could possibly go as far as the Supreme Court.

The attorney also told the group to start raising money to cover
some of the cost the lawsuit will incur.

"They can't take everyone's rights away," Lerman said.
"California law states (medicinal marijuana) patients can have
whatever they need for themselves and for collectives."

Tehama County Supervisor Bob Williams, who introduced the
ordinance, said he had anticipated something like this taking
place.

"They threatened this all along, through the whole process. I
stand by the ordinance and what it means to the county. Other
than that, because of the litigation, I can't say much," Williams
said.

"I am all about this. They aren't taking my rights away," medical
marijuana patient Kenny Kunselman of Rancho Tehama, said.

According to Kathy Prather, co-owner and operator of Tehama
Herbal Collective, a medical marijuana shop in Corning, there are
more than 3,600 people in the county who hold recommendations for
medicinal marijuana.

The Tehama ordinance declares it a public nuisance to grow
marijuana anywhere within 1,000 feet of a school, school bus
stop, church, park, or youth-oriented facility.

It also states no more than 12 mature or 24 immature marijuana
plants can be grown in an area 20 acres or less, and if both
mature and immature plants are growing there shall be no more
than 24 total; in an area greater than 20 but less than 160 acres
no more than 30 mature and 60 immature plants, with no more than
60 total at one time; and in an area 160 acres or greater no more
than 99 plants, whether mature or immature.

The ordinance requires outdoor gardens be surrounded by an opaque
fence at least six feet high and located 100 feet or more from
the property boundaries; and requires every patient garden to be
registered with the county health services agency.

In another lawsuit filed by Lerman and Nick, Mendocino County
medical marijuana patients are challenging an ordinance that
limits patient cultivation to 25 plants per parcel, regardless of
the number of patients. The ordinance was recently amended to let
collectives apply for licenses for larger gardens of up to 99
plants under certain conditions.


WILLIS GROUP: Outcome on Employee Benefits Lawsuits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Plc continues its defense against the
purported class-action lawsuits filed against the company and its
newly-acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company, according to the
company's May 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Since August 2004, the company and HRH have been named as
defendants in purported class actions in various courts across
the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated
into a single action in the US District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one
that addresses employee benefits -- EB Complaint -- and one that
addresses all other lines of insurance -- Commercial Complaint -.  
HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since been
voluntarily dismissed. HRH is a named defendant in the Commercial
Complaint. The company is a named defendant in both MDL
complaints.  

Each of the EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seeks
monetary damages, including punitive damages, and equitable
relief and makes allegations regarding the practices and conduct
that have been the subject of the investigation of state
attorneys general and insurance commissioners, including
allegations that the brokers have breached their duties to their
clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with
either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and
participated in other improper activities.  

The complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute and the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.  In separate decisions issued in August and
September 2007, the antitrust and RICO Act claims were dismissed
with prejudice and the state claims were dismissed without
prejudice from the Commercial Complaint.

In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with
prejudice from the EB Complaint and the state law claims without
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the
dismissal of the antitrust and RICO claims and oral arguments on
this appeal were heard in April 2009 but there is no indication
when a ruling will be issued.  Additional actions could be
brought in the future by individual policyholders, the company
relates.  

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.



WILLIS GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company and other defendants
in a consolidated class action relating to Stanford Financial
Group's collapse have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
according to the company's May 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010

On July 2, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:09-CV-01274-N, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others, relating
to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which Willis
of Colorado, Inc., acted as broker of record on certain lines of
insurance. The complaint generally alleged that the defendants
actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by
providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that
they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or
prospective Stanford client investors. The complaint alleged that
these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the
insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford,
contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in
this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly
fraudulent certificates of deposit. The putative class consisted
of Stanford investors in Mexico and the complaint asserted
various claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. On August 12, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, which, notwithstanding the addition of certain factual
allegations and Texas common law claims, largely mirrored the
original and sought the same relief.

On July 17, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-22085, was
filed against Willis Group Holdings and Willis of Colorado, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
relating to the same alleged course of conduct as the Troice
complaint described above. Based on substantially the same
allegations as the Troice complaint, but on behalf of a putative
class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors,
the Ranni complaint asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as
well as various claims under Florida statutory and common law,
and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial and
costs.

On or about July 24, 2009, a motion was filed by certain
individuals with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to consolidate and coordinate in the Northern District
of Texas nine separate putative class actions - including the
Troice and Ranni actions, as well as other actions against
various Stanford-related entities and individuals and the
Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda - relating to Stanford and
its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

On August 6, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:09-CV-01474-D, was filed against Willis Group Holdings, Willis
of Colorado, Inc., and the same Willis associate, among others,
also in the Northern District of Texas, relating to the same
alleged course of conduct as the Troice complaint. Based on
substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, but
on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan investors, the
Canabal complaint asserted various claims under Texas statutory
and common law and sought actual damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On or about August 10, 2009, the Movants filed with the JPML a
Notice of Related Action that referred the Canabal action to the
JPML. On October 6, 2009, the JPML ruled on the transfer motion,
transferring seven of the subject actions (including the Troice
and Ranni actions) - i.e., the original nine actions minus two
that had since been dismissed - for consolidation or coordination
in the Northern District of Texas. On October 27, 2009, the
parties to the Canabal action stipulated to the designation of
that action as an 'xyz case' properly part of the new Stanford
MDL proceeding in the Northern District of Texas.

On September 14, 2009, a complaint, captioned Rupert, et al. v.
Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on behalf of 97
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in
Texas state court (Bexar County). Based on substantially the same
allegations as the Troice complaint, the Rupert complaint asserts
claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as various Texas
statutory and common law claims, and seeks rescission, damages,
special damages and consequential damages of $79.1 million,
treble damages of $237.4 million under the Texas Insurance Code,
attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed the
Rupert action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this
additional 'tag-along' action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. In
November 2009, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for
the transfer of the Rupert action to the Northern District of
Texas. On December 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
vacate, or alternatively stay, the CTO, to which Willis of
Colorado, Inc. responded on January 4, 2010. That motion is also
currently pending. On April 1, 2010, the JPML denied the
plaintiffs motion to vacate the CTO and issued a final transfer
order for the transfer of the Rupert action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On December 18, 2009, the parties to the Troice and Canabal
actions stipulated to the consolidation of those actions and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs therein, collectively, filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely mirrors the
Troice and Canabal predecessor complaints, but seeks relief on
behalf of a worldwide class of Stanford investors. Also on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in the Canabal action filed a
Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Canabal action without
prejudice. On February 25, 2010, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated Troice/Canabal action.

The defendants have not yet responded to the Ranni or Rupert
complaints.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Gender Discrimination Case Still Ongoing in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., continues to face a purported
class action lawsuit filed by a former female employee, alleging
gender discrimination, according to the company's May 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
of the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In March 2008, the company settled an action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York commenced
against the Company in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide
class of present and former female officer and officer equivalent
employees alleging that the Company discriminated against them on
the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

Although the Court had denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a
nationwide class or to grant nationwide discovery, it did certify
a class of approximately 200 female officers and officer
equivalent employees based in the Company's offices in New York,
New Jersey and Massachusetts.  The settlement agreement provides
for injunctive relief and a monetary payment, including the
amount of attorney fees plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to
receive, which was not material to the Company.

In December 2006, a former female employee, whose motion to
intervene in the class action was denied, filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, with almost identical allegations as those contained in
the suit that was settled in 2008, except seeking a class period
of 1998 to the time of trial.  

The company's motion to dismiss this lawsuit was denied and the
Court did not grant the company permission to immediately file an
appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss.  The parties are
in the discovery phase of the litigation.  The lawsuit was
amended to include one additional plaintiff and another has filed
an arbitration demand that includes a class allegation.  The
Court has decided that, to the extent a class is ever certified,
the class period will end at the end of 2007 and not up to the
time of trial as plaintiffs had sought.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: Cornwall Firm Fined GBP4.5T for Disposal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Cornwall development company, Norwegian Homes Limited, was
fined GBP4,500 for failing to undertake a survey for the presence
of dangerous asbestos fibers at a demolition site in Perranporth,
England, according to a Health and Safety press release dated
June 2, 2010.

Norwegian Homes was responsible for demolishing the former Cellar
Cover Hotel at Droskyn Point, in Perranporth in July 2006, which
was being converted into guesthouses and holiday apartments.

During a visit to the site, HSE inspectors discovered suspected
asbestos insulation boards underneath a caravan, in polythene
sacks and in the ashes of a bonfire. The samples were later
confirmed as containing asbestos at the Health and Safety
Laboratory.


Truro Magistrates Court heard how there were no measures in place
to properly remove the asbestos-containing material, nor were
there any protections in place for staff working on the site.

Norwegian Homes of Cligga Head Industrial Estate, St George's
Hill, Perranporth, pleaded guilty on May 26, 2010 to breaching
Regulation 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations
2002. As well as the fine, the company was also ordered to pay
GBP11,942.85 in costs.

HSE inspector, Martin Lee, said, "Asbestos is extremely harmful
to human health and is the most serious occupational health issue
in the country. More than 4,000 people die every year from
asbestos-related diseases.

"Norwegian Homes should have carried out a survey for the
presence and quantity of asbestos in the building, prior to
demolition. This incident was entirely preventable and the clean-
up costs far outstripped the costs of a survey and safe removal
of the asbestos material."

COMPANY PROFILE:

Norwegian Homes Limited
Unit 1d Cligga Head Industrial
Estate St. Georges Hill
Perranporth, Cornwall
England
Phone: 44-1872571155


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Party to AO Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation continues to have exposure (including asbestos-
related) in connection with a safety respiratory products
business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical
Corporation (AO) in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction.

The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its
acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain
circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including
costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and
judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the
1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of AO
respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed or
labeled.

There were about 51,000 claimants as of March 31, 2010 (52,000
claimants as of Sept. 30, 2009) in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products.

The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of
liability for existing and future respirator liability claims.
The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the expected
cash flow period, which is through 2052.

At March 31, 2010, the reserve was US$13 million on a discounted
basis (US$22 million on an undiscounted basis). Cash payments
related to this liability were about US$1 million in the first
six months of both fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2009.

Based in Boston, Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a
reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and
coatings. It has about 25 percent of the world market for the
product. The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed metal
oxides like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used as
anti-caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives and
coatings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Records $24MM ARO at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Hawaiian
Electric Company, Inc. (HECO), as of March 31, 2010, recorded an
asbestos-related asset retirement obligation of US$24 million,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of September 2009, HECO recorded an asbestos-related asset
retirement obligation of US$23 million. (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 20, 2009)

In July 2009, HECO hired an industrial hygienist to conduct an
inspection at HECO's Honolulu power plant to determine the extent
of asbestos and lead-based paint at a non-operating, sealed and
vacant portion of the plant. The inspection indicated that
retired Generating Units Nos. 5 and 7 at the plant were now
deteriorating, and the industrial hygienist recommended removing
the asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.

Based on prior assessments, HECO believed the timing of the
removal of asbestos and lead-based paint was not estimable.

Based on the inspection, however, HECO now intends to remove
Units Nos. 5 and 7, including abating the asbestos and lead-based
paint, over a 5-year period (2010 to 2014).

In accordance with accounting principles for asset retirement and
environmental obligations, HECO recorded an asset retirement
obligation in September 2009.

Based in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is
the holding company for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and some
nonutility businesses. HECO serves more than 440,400 customers as
the sole public electricity provider on the islands of Hawaii,
Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Five Hilco Exposure Claims Stay After March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, subsequent to March 31,
2010, one plaintiff filed an asbestos action, which results in
five remaining plaintiffs in lawsuits filed against Hilco, Inc.

Subsequent to Dec. 31, 2009, six plaintiffs in asbestos cases
filed against Hilco had their actions dismissed and one plaintiff
filed an action, which resulted in four remaining plaintiffs in
these lawsuits. (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2010)

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

As of March 31, 2010, there existed four plaintiffs in these
lawsuits relating to alleged sales of asbestos products, or
products containing asbestos, by Hilco.

The Company never sold any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of March 31, 2010, 1 filed an
action in 2010, 2 filed actions in 2009, and 1 filed an action in
2007. There are 207 other plaintiffs that have had their actions
dismissed and 15 other plaintiffs that have settled as of March
31, 2010 for a total of $3,360,500. There has been no judgment
against the Universal Predecessor.

Based in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts
and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and
plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New
Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern
Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Facing One Exposure Claim at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and
settled asbestos-related actions, there existed one plaintiff
that names Company unit, Universal Supply Group, Inc., as of
March 31, 2010.

Following dismissed and settled actions, there existed three
asbestos-related plaintiffs that named Universal as of Dec. 31,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2010)

Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs. Of these, one filed an
action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in
2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one
filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,360,500 of settled actions,
three plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500.  No
money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Based in Hawthorne, N.J., Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts
and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and
plumbing and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New
Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern
Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Corp. Still Subject to Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, may
be parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations
and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury,
asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,
environmental, antitrust, health and safety and employment
matters.

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

Based in St. Louis, FutureFuel Corp. has two reportable segments:
chemicals and biofuels. The Chemicals segment manufactures
diversified chemical products that are sold externally to third
party customers. The Biofuels segment manufactures and markets
biodiesel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation continues to be subject to claims and
litigation relate to product liability claims, including claims
related to the Company's current products and asbestos-related
claims concerning premises and historic products of its corporate
affiliates and predecessors.

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

Based in Middlebury, Conn., Chemtura Corporation delivers
innovative, application-focused specialty chemical and consumer
product offerings. The Company operates in various end-use
industries, including automotive, transportation, construction,
packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-
durable goods, electronics, and pool and spa chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx's Current Reserve at $7.5Mil at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's current reserve for asbestos liability claims
was US$7.5 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$8
million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on May 13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's long-term reserve for asbestos liability claims was
US$42.5 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$44 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation
installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement
services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters
into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 239 Actions Still Pending v. Entrx at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation faced 239 pending asbestos cases as of both
March 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 13, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Prior to 1975, the Company sold and installed asbestos-related
insulation materials, which has resulted in numerous claims of
personal injury allegedly related to asbestos exposure. Some of
these claims are now being brought by the children and close
relatives of persons who have died, allegedly as a result of the
direct or indirect exposure to asbestos.

The numbers of asbestos-related cases which have been initiated
naming the Company (primarily its subsidiary, Metalclad
Insulation Corporation) as a defendant have fluctuated from 199
in 2005, to 232 in 2006, to 163 in 2007, to 187 in 2008, and to
188 in 2009.

There were 38 new claims made in the first three months of 2010,
compared to 51 in the first three months of 2009.

During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company
recorded 38 new cases initiated, 27 defense judgments and
dismissals, 11 plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 38
total resolved cases. Total indemnity payments were US$990,000;
the average indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled
cases were US$90,000; and the average indemnity paid on all
resolved cases was US$26,053.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 188 new
cases initiated, 168 defense judgments and dismissals, 52
plaintiff judgments and settled cases, and 220 total resolved
cases. Total indemnity payments were US$5,345,000; the average
indemnity paid on plaintiff judgments and settled cases were
US$102,788; and the average indemnity paid on all resolved cases
was US$24,295.

Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation
installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement
services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters
into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entrx Records $50M Future Liability at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation has determined that the minimum probable
insurance coverage available to satisfy asbestos-related injury
claims exceeds its estimated future liability for such claims of
US$50 million as of March 31, 2010 and US$52 million as of Dec.
31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
May 13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This determination assumes that the general trend of reducing
asbestos-related injury claims experienced prior to 2006 will
resume and that the average indemnity and direct legal costs of
each resolved claim will not materially increase. The
determination also assumes that the insurance companies remain
solvent and live up to what the Company believes is their
obligation to continue to cover the Company's exposure with
regards to these claims.

Accordingly, the Company has included US$50 million as of March
31, 2010 and US$52 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 of such insurance
coverage receivable as an asset its balance sheets.  

Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation
installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement
services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters
into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metalclad Still Party to ACE's Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entrx Corporation's subsidiary, Metalclad Insulation Corporation,
continues to be party to asbestos insurance coverage litigation
filed by ACE Property & Casualty Company, Central National
Insurance Company of Omaha, and Industrial Underwriters Insurance
Company.

On Feb. 23, 2005, ACE, Central National, and Industrial, which
are all related entities, filed a declaratory relief lawsuit (the
ACE Lawsuit) against Metalclad and a number of Metalclad's other
liability insurers, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

ACE, Central National and Industrial issued umbrella and excess
policies to Metalclad, which has sought and obtained from the
plaintiffs both defense and indemnity under these policies for
the asbestos lawsuits brought against Metalclad during the last
four to five years.

The ACE Lawsuit seeks declarations regarding a variety of
coverage issues, but is centrally focused on issues involving
whether historical and currently pending asbestos lawsuits
brought against Metalclad are subject to either an "aggregate"
limits of liability or separate "per occurrence" limits of
liability.

The ACE Lawsuit also seeks to determine the effect of the
settlement agreement between the Company and Allstate Insurance
Company on the insurance obligations of various other insurers of
Metalclad, and the effect of the "asbestos exclusion" in the
Allstate policy. The ACE Lawsuit does not seek any monetary
recovery from Metalclad.

The ACE Lawsuit is principally about coverage responsibility
among the several insurers, as well as total coverage.

Allstate, in a cross-complaint filed against Metalclad in October
2005, asked the court to determine the Company's obligation to
assume and pay for the defense of Allstate in the ACE Lawsuit
under the Company's indemnification obligations in the settlement
agreement.

If Allstate is required to provide indemnity for the Company's
asbestos-related lawsuits, it is likely that the Company would
have to indemnify Allstate for asbestos-related claims that it
defends up to US$2.5 million in the aggregate. If Allstate is not
required to provide indemnity, the Company would have no
liability to Allstate. The Company has accrued US$375,000 as a
potential loss in connection with the Allstate matter.

Based in Minneapolis, Entrx Corporation provides insulation
installation and removal services, including asbestos abatement
services, primarily on the West Coast. The Company also enters
into contracts to repair and maintain existing insulation
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Named in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
has been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in
lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos during work at such formerly owned
facilities.


Those facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors
have contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.

CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may
be asserted in the future.

Based in Houston, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and
operates natural gas distribution systems in six states. Its
subsidiaries own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas
gathering systems and provide various ancillary services. The
Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Has $24.2MM Adjustment at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE recorded unfavorable asbestos
adjustments of US$24.2 million for the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, according to a Company report,
on Form 6-K, filed on May 28, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

During the full year of the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, the
Company recorded asbestos adjustments of US$224.2 million.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries SE
manufactures fiber cement products and systems for internal and
external building construction applications in the United States,
Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. The Company employs
around 2,300 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Has $106.7Mil March 31 Current Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE recorded current asbestos liabilities
of US$106.7 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$78.2
million as of March 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on
Form 6-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 28, 2010.

Under current liabilities, the Company recorded workers'
compensation for asbestos claims of US$100,000 as of March 31,
2010, compared with US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009.

Long-term asbestos liabilities were US$1.512 billion as of March
31, 2010, compared with US$1.206 billion as of March 31, 2009.
Workers' compensation for asbestos claims was US$98.8 million as
of March 31, 2010, compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31,
2009.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$16.7 million as of
March 31, 2010, compared with US$12.6 million as of March 31,
2009.

Current asbestos restricted cash and cash equivalents were
US$44.5 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$45.4
million as of March 31, 2009. Current restricted asbestos short-
term investments were US$13.3 million as of March 31, 2010,
compared with US$52.9 million as of March 31, 2009.

Current deferred asbestos income taxes were US$16.4 million as of
March 31, 2010, compared with US$12.3 million as of March 31,
2009. Under current assets, workers' compensation for asbestos
claims was US$100,000 as of March 31, 2010, compared with
US$600,000 as of March 31, 2009.

Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$185.1 million as
of March 31, 2010, compared with US$149 million as of March 31,
2009. Long-term deferred asbestos income taxes were US$420
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$333.2 million as
of March 31, 2009.

Under long-term asbestos assets, long-term workers' compensation
for asbestos claims was US$98.8 million as of March 31, 2010,
compared with US$73.8 million as of March 31, 2009.

Based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, James Hardie Industries SE
manufactures fiber cement products and systems for internal and
external building construction applications in the United States,
Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. The Company employs
around 2,300 people.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deere & Company Subject to Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company continues to be subject to various unresolved
legal actions which arise in the normal course of its business,
the most prevalent of which relate to product liability
(including asbestos related liability), retail credit, software
licensing, patent and trademark matters.

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

Based in Moline, Ill., Deere & Company makes farm equipment and
produces construction, forestry, industrial, and lawn care
equipment. The Company makes 60 percent of its sales in North
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 99 Actions Pending v. Met-Pro Corp. at April 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were a total of 99 asbestos cases pending against Met-Pro
Corporation as of April 30, 2010 (with most of those cases
pending in Mississippi, North Carolina and New York), compared
with 106 cases that were pending as of Jan. 31, 2010, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on June 4, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in 2002, the Company began to be named in asbestos-
related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial
companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid
handling industries.

The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of
these cases. The sum total of all payments through April 30, 2010
to settle these cases involving asbestos-related claims was
US$540,000, all of which has been paid by the Company's insurers
including legal expenses, except for corporate counsel expenses,
with an average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, of
about US$32,000.

For the three-month period ended April 30, 2010, five new cases
were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed
from 12 cases.

Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early
stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules
leading to, or are scheduled for trial.

Based in Harleysville, Pa., Met-Pro Corporation manufactures and
sells product recovery and pollution control equipment for
purification of air and liquids, fluid handling equipment for
corrosive, abrasive and high temperature liquids, and filtration
and purification products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United America Unit Dismissed From Suit in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, one of United America Indemnity, Ltd.'s insurance
companies was dismissed from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it
and other unrelated insurance companies, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit involved issues related to about 3,900 existing asbestos
bodily injury claims and future claims. The dismissal was the
result of a settlement of a disputed claim related to accident
year 1984.

The settlement is conditioned upon certain legal events occurring
which will trigger financial obligations by the insurance
company.

Based in George Town, Cayman Islands, United America Indemnity,
Ltd., a specialty property and casualty insurer, provides its
insurance products across a full distribution network - binding
authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance. The Company
manages the distribution of these products in two segments: (a)
Insurance Operations and (b) Reinsurance Operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock, Anchor Still Involved in Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiaries, primarily Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC and The Anchor Packing Company, are among a
large number of defendants in actions filed in various states by
plaintiffs alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos fibers.

Among the many products at issue in these actions are industrial
sealing products, including gaskets and packing products. The
damages claimed vary from action to action, and in some cases
plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

To date, neither Garlock nor Anchor has been required to pay any
punitive damage awards, although there can be no assurance that
they will not be required to do so in the future.

Since the first asbestos-related lawsuits were filed against
Garlock in 1975, Garlock and Anchor have processed more than
900,000 asbestos claims to conclusion (including judgments,
settlements and dismissals) and, together with their insurers,
have paid over US$1.4 billion in settlements and judgments and
over US$400 million in fees and expenses.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 92,900 Cases Pending v. EnPro Ind. at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, of about 92,900 open asbestos
cases at March 31, 2010, the Company is aware of about 5,500 (5.9
percent) that involve claimants alleging mesothelioma.

Of those claims resolved, about three percent have been claims of
plaintiffs alleging the disease mesothelioma, about seven percent
have been claims of plaintiffs alleging lung or other cancers,
and about 90 percent have been claims of plaintiffs alleging
asbestosis, pleural plaques or other non-malignant impairment of
the respiratory system.

About 1,300 new claims were filed against the Company's
subsidiaries in the first quarter of 2010, up from the 1,100
claims filed in the first quarter of 2009. The number of new
actions filed against the Company's subsidiaries in 2009 (4,400)
was about 20 percent lower than the number filed in 2008 (5,500)
and also lower than the number filed in 2007 (5,200).

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Garlock Sealing Trial Commenced During 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, during the first quarter of
2010, subsidiary Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC began one
asbestos trial, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In a Texas mesothelioma case, the jury awarded the plaintiff US$3
million; Garlock's 45 percent share of this verdict was
US$1,350,000. Garlock plans to appeal.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Garlock Sealing Appeals Pending at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that, at March 31, 2010, five Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC asbestos appeals were pending from
adverse verdicts totaling US$3.6 million, up from US$2.7 million
at Dec. 31, 2009 and $2.2 million at Dec. 31, 2008.

Garlock has historically enjoyed success in a majority of its
appeals. The Company said it believes that Garlock will continue
to be successful in the appellate process, although there can be
no assurance of success in any particular pending or future
appeal.

In March 2010, the Illinois Court of Appeals, in a unanimous
decision, overturned a US$500,000 verdict that was entered
against Garlock in 2008, granting a new trial. In June 2007, the
New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, overturned a
US$800,000 verdict that was entered against Garlock in 2004,
granting a new trial.

In March 2006, a three-judge panel of the Ohio Court of Appeals,
in a unanimous decision, overturned a US$6.4 million verdict that
was entered against Garlock in 2003, granting a new trial. The
case subsequently settled.

The Maryland Court of Appeals denied Garlock's appeal from a 2005
verdict in a mesothelioma case in Baltimore and Garlock paid that
verdict, with post-judgment interest, in 2006. In a separate
Baltimore case in 2006, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
denied Garlock's appeal from another 2005 verdict.

The subsequent appeal of that decision was also denied and
Garlock paid that verdict in 2007, also with interest.

In some cases, appeals require the provision of security in the
form of appeal bonds, potentially in amounts greater than the
verdicts. The Company has been required to provide cash
collateral or letters of credit to secure the full amount of the
bonds, which can restrict the use of a significant amount of the
Company's cash for the periods of such appeals.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had about US$3.3 million of appeal
bonds secured by letters of credit.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Cites $22.9MM Settlement Payments in 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. says that asbestos settlement payments in
the first quarter of 2010 were US$22.9 million, up from US$8.5
million in the first quarter of 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Company unit, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, settles and
disposes actions on a regular basis. Garlock's historical
settlement strategy was to settle cases in advanced stages of
litigation. In 1999 and 2000, Garlock employed a more aggressive
settlement strategy.

The purpose of this strategy was to achieve a permanent reduction
in the number of overall asbestos claims through the settlement
of a large number of claims, including some early-stage claims
and some claims not yet filed as lawsuits.

Due to this short-term aggressive settlement strategy and a
significant overall increase in claims filings, the settlement
amounts paid in those years and several subsequent years were
greater than the amounts paid in any year prior to 1999.

In 2001, Garlock resumed its historical settlement strategy and
focused on reducing settlement payments to match insurance
recoveries. As a result, Garlock reduced settlement payments from
US$106 million in 2000 to US$143 million in 2001 and US$120
million in 2002.

Settlement payments continued to decline in 2007 through 2009,
totaling US$88 million in 2007, US$83 million in 2008, and US$79
million in 2009.

Most of the increase is related to the timing of payments, which
were heavily weighted to the first quarter of 2010 and relatively
light in the first quarter of 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Records $219.4Mil Coverage at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, at March 31, 2010, had US$219.4 million of
insurance coverage and trust assets that the Company believes
will be available to cover current and future asbestos claims and
certain expense payments.

In addition, at March 31, 2010, Garlock had classified US$5
million of otherwise available insurance as insolvent. Garlock
collected about US$1 million from insolvent carriers in 2009, and
the Company said it believes that Garlock may collect some
additional amounts from insolvent carriers in the future.

Of the US$219.4 million of collectible insurance coverage and
trust assets, the Company considers US$216 million (98 percent)
to be of high quality because (a) the insurance policies are
written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating
by S&P is investment grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best
rating is excellent (A-) or better, or (b) the assets are in the
form of cash or liquid investments held in insurance trusts
resulting from commutation agreements.

The Company considers US$3.4 million (two percent) to be of
moderate quality because the insurance policies are written with
various London market carriers.

Of the US$219.4 million, US$177.8 million is allocated to claims
that have been paid by Garlock and submitted to its insurance
companies for reimbursement and the remainder is allocated to
pending and estimated future claims as described later in this
section.

Arrangements with Garlock's insurance carriers limit the amount
of insurance proceeds that Garlock is entitled to receive in any
one year. Based on these arrangements, which include settlement
agreements in place with most of the carriers involved, the
Company anticipates that it will collect about US$70 million of
insurance in 2010 and an average of US$20 million per year in
each of the years 2011 through 2018.

After 2018, Garlock will no longer have solvent insurance
remaining for asbestos claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Unit Has 350 Unresolved Claims in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
is a named defendant in about 350 unresolved asbestos-related
claims filed in Mississippi, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Leslie,
which the Company acquired in 1989, has been and continues to be
named as a defendant in product liability actions brought on
behalf of individuals who seek compensation for their alleged
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. In some instances, the
Company also has been named individually and/or as alleged
successor in interest in these cases.

As of April 4, 2010, Leslie was a named defendant in about 1,150
active, unresolved asbestos-related claims filed in California,
Texas, New York, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Rhode Island,
Illinois and 23 other states. About 623 of these claims involve
claimants allegedly suffering from (or the estates of decedents
who allegedly died from) mesothelioma.

During the three months ended April 4, 2010, the Company recorded
150 cases filed, 104 cases resolved and dismissed, and 623 open
mesothelioma cases.

As of April 4, 2010, the Company recorded net pre-tax asbestos
recovery of US$648,000. As of March 29, 2009, the Company
recorded net pre-tax asbestos expense of US$8,263,000.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Accrues $600,000 for Outstanding Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
has recorded $600,000 in accrued interest for the remaining
outstanding adverse asbestos verdict, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

During 2007, Los Angeles state court juries rendered two verdicts
that, if allowed to stand, would result in a liability to Leslie
of about US$3.8 million. Although Leslie accrued a liability
during 2007 for each of these verdicts, both verdicts were
appealed and, during November 2009, the California Court of
Appeals issued its final ruling reversing one of the two
judgments against Leslie.

As a result of this ruling, during the fourth quarter of fiscal
2009, the Company reduced the accrued liability associated with
Leslie's asbestos claims by US$1.3 million.

With respect to the remaining verdict, appellate arguments have
now occurred and a decision by the appellate court is expected in
the next few months.

The Company said it continues to believe there are strong grounds
for overturning this verdict, or for significantly reducing the
amount of the award or requiring a new trial.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie's Net Liability at $51.83Mil at April 4
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
had a net asbestos liability of US$51,834,000 as of April 4,
2010, compared with US$55,646,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of April 4, 2010, Leslie has recorded asbestos liabilities for
resolution of pending and future claims anticipated to be filed
through the next five years of US$59.8 million (US$11.4 million
short-term and US$48.4 million long-term) compared to US$60.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The US$59.8 million liability as of April 4, 2010 is comprised of
US$39.8 million for the estimated cost of resolving those future
claims filed during the next five years, US$14.8 million for the
estimated cost of resolving existing claims, US$3.1 million
related to the remaining adverse verdict on appeal, and US$2.1
million for incurred but unpaid legal costs.

Asbestos related insurance receivable amounts totaled US$8
million (all short-term) as of April 4, 2010 compared to US$4.6
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The US$8 million receivable as of April 4, 2010 is comprised of
US$4.6 million resulting from a recent settlement with
Continental Casualty, US$1.2 million for existing claims, US$1.1
million related to the remaining adverse verdict and US$1.1
million for incurred but unpaid legal costs.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie, Continental Inks Deal During April 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.,
and Continental Casualty, a CNA company, during April 2010,
reached an agreement to settle a dispute regarding Continental's
remaining asbestos-related defense and indemnity obligations for
a lump sum payment of US$4.6 million.

To date, Leslie's insurers have paid the majority of the costs
associated with its defense and settlement of asbestos-related
actions.

Under Leslie's cost-sharing arrangements with its insurers,
Leslie's insurers, through 2008, paid 71 percent of defense and
settlement costs associated with asbestos-related claims and
Leslie was responsible for the remaining 29 percent of all such
defense and indemnity costs.

The amount of indemnity available under Leslie's primary layer of
insurance coverage was therefore reduced by 71 percent of any
amounts paid through settlement or verdict during this period.

During the first quarter of 2009, Zurich, an insurer that paid
eight percent of Leslie's historical asbestos defense and
indemnity costs, reached its maximum indemnity obligation under
the applicable insurance policy. As a result, Leslie is now
responsible for the eight percent share previously paid by
Zurich.

Also during the first quarter of 2009, one of Leslie's other
primary insurers, Continental, informed Leslie that indemnity
payments had exhausted a three-year policy covering Leslie from
1967 through 1970. In so claiming, Continental expressed its
belief that the policy in question contained a single aggregate
limit of US$1 million for the three-year period rather than
annual limits of US$1 million for each of the three years.

As a result of the revised claimed coverage limit, Continental
believed that its allocation under the cost sharing arrangement
should be 15.44 percent compared to the 27 percent historically
paid by Continental.

Leslie strongly disagreed with Continental's position and
informed Continental of its intention to vigorously dispute
Continental's position. However, in light of the uncertainty
surrounding this dispute, Leslie reduced its insurance recovery
receivable by US$2.1 million in the first quarter of 2009.

Because the settlement with Continental includes a complete
buyout of Continental's responsibilities under the subject
policies, Leslie is now responsible for Continental's 27 percent
share of defense costs going forward, thus raising Leslie's
responsibility for defense costs to 64 percent.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Has $2.1M Remaining Indemnity at April 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of April 4, 2010, CIRCOR International, Inc. says it believes
that the aggregate amount of indemnity (on a cash basis)
remaining on subsidiary Leslie Controls, Inc.'s primary layer of
asbestos insurance was about US$2.1 million.

After giving effect to the Company's accrual for an adverse
verdict currently on appeal, the remaining amount of Leslie's
primary layer of insurance is about US$1.2 million.

Leslie estimates that it may be able to recover from its excess
carriers about US$18 million associated with defense and
resolution of its pending asbestos claims and those claims
anticipated to be filed during the next five years.

Because the probability and amount of such recovery is uncertain,
however, Leslie had not accrued an insurance receivable for such
recovery as of April 4, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Suits Still Ongoing Against Spence, Hoke
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that asbestos-related claims have
been filed against two of its subsidiaries, Spence and Hoke,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on May 10, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company acquired Spence in 1984 and Hoke in 1998.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro's Unit Files for Reorganization on June 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. announced that its wholly owned
subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, has taken an
important step toward permanently resolving its asbestos
litigation, according to a Company press release dated June 5,
2010.

On June 5, 2010, Garlock filed a voluntary petition in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina in
Charlotte, N.C., to establish a trust that would resolve all
current and future asbestos claims against Garlock under Section
524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Steve Macadam, president and chief executive officer of the
Company, said, "Our goal is an efficient and permanent resolution
of these claims. Garlock is a fundamentally sound business with
excellent products and prospects.

"We believe a trust established through the bankruptcy court
would provide Garlock an opportunity lacking in the tort system
to completely resolve its asbestos claims while preserving the
inherent value of the Company and protecting its future. We
believe a fairly valued trust could be established and funded by
Garlock for a cost less than the cost of remaining in the tort
system."

Garlock will operate in the ordinary course under court
protection from asbestos claims, while using the process
available under Chapter 11 to develop and implement an asbestos
claims resolution plan. All pending litigation against Garlock
will be stayed during the process.

The filing includes Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's operations
in Palmyra, N.Y., and Houston, Tex. It does not include EnPro
Industries or any other EnPro operating subsidiary.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC contributed about US$149 million
of third party sales and US$20 million of segment operating
income to the Company's results in 2009. Garlock plans to
negotiate with representatives of asbestos claimants to establish
the 524(g) trust. Absent a negotiated resolution, Garlock intends
to ask the court to determine the amount necessary to fund the
trust.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Still Pending v. Joy Global
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries are still involved in
unresolved legal matters relating to product liability (including
over 1,000 asbestos and silica-related cases).

No other asbestos-related matters were involved in the Company's
quarterly report filed on June 8, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Based in Milwaukee, Joy Global Inc. manufactures and markets
original equipment and aftermarket parts and services for both
underground and surface mining and certain industrial
applications. The Company's equipment is used in mining regions
throughout the world to mine coal, copper, iron ore, oil sands
and other minerals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEP Issues $4.5T Fine to Grants Pass Contractor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
US$4,500 penalty to Ronald Carl Nunn for performing an asbestos
abatement project in Grants Pass, Ore., last November 2009
without a license, according to a DEQ press release dated June 3,
2010.

The penalty stems from Mr. Nunn's removal of about 70 square feet
of asbestos-containing flooring from a commercial building at
772-774 Rogue River Highway in Grants Pass.

During removal of the flooring, Mr. Nunn and his employees
crushed and pulverized the flooring, likely releasing asbestos
fibers into the air.

None of the workers on the project, nor the Company itself, were
certified or licensed by DEQ to perform asbestos abatement
projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Headley's Lawsuit Filed in Tex. Court on May 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit on behalf of Claudia Headley was
filed on May 28, 2010 in the Tyler Division of the Eastern
District of Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

After years of cleaning the asbestos-containing clothes of her
father, husband, and son, Mrs. Headley was diagnosed with
malignant mesothelioma and died from the disease on May 30, 2008.

Mrs. Headley's husband, Robert Headley, and her sons, Scott and
Steven Headley, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Shell
Energy North America (US) LP, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Exxon Mobile
Corp. and Alon USA, as successor in interest to Cosden Petroleum.

According to the complaint, Mrs. Headley's father worked at a
refinery in Big Spring for 38 years. Robert Headley and Scott
Headley also worked for refineries.

The Headleys seeks wrongful death damages for pecuniary loss,
termination of the husband-wife relationship, mental anguish,
loss of household services, termination of the parent-child
relationship, necessary medical, funeral and burial expenses,
exemplary damages, interest and court costs.

Scott W. Wert, Esq., of Foster & Sear LLP of Grand Prairie, Tex.,
represents the Headleys.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to Case No.
6:10cv00273.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mancuso Men Sentenced for Environmental Crimes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Mancuso and his two sons, Paul Mancuso and Steven Mancuso,
were sentenced to prison on June 9, 2010 in federal court in
Syracuse, N.Y., for multiple violations of asbestos-related
environmental laws, according to a U.S. Department of Justice
press release dated June 9, 2010.

The announcement was made by Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant
Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and
Natural Resource Division, and Richard S. Hartunian, U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Paul Mancuso was sentenced to 78 months in prison, three years of
probation and a US$20,000 fine. Steven Mancuso was sentenced to
44 months in prison and three years of probation. Lester Mancuso
was sentenced to 36 months in prison and three years of
probation.

The three men were sentenced on June 9, 2010 Frederick Scullin,
U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York.

After a two-week trial on Oct. 28, 2009, a jury found Paul and
Steven Mancuso guilty of conspiring to defraud the United States,
violating the Clean Air Act's asbestos-related regulations,
illegally dumping asbestos in Poland, N.Y, and committing mail
fraud. Lester Mancuso pleaded guilty the day before the trial
started.

Ronald Mancuso, who cooperated with the investigation and
prosecution, is scheduled to be sentenced on June 16, 2010.  

Paul Mancuso was convicted of similar crimes in federal court in
2003 and in New York state court in 2004. As a consequence of the
latter conviction, Paul Mancuso was expressly forbidden from
affiliating himself with the asbestos-removal industry.

Steven Mancuso subsequently allowed his brother to operate
asbestos businesses out of his law office and assisted Paul
Mancuso in the operating these asbestos companies.

Specifically, Steven Mancuso and the other co-conspirators
produced false and fraudulent documents and then submitted them
to clients and regulating agencies to fraudulently conceal their
non-compliance with federal and state regulations; submitted
false partnership agreements, invoices and other records
including, but not limited to, certified payroll records, to
clients requesting payment for work that was not performed in
compliance with law; and made false statements to clients,
regulators, and law enforcement personnel to conceal their
illegal activities and defraud the United States.  

On some of these asbestos-projects, asbestos was removed in
violation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and was
then illegally dumped on unwitting landowners' properties in
Poland, N.Y.

This case was investigated by special agents of the EPA. The case
was prosecuted by the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes
Section and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oxford Local's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Oxfordshire Coroner's Court, on June 8, 2010,
heard that the death of Peter Franklin, a member of the Royal
British Legion, was related to exposure to asbestos,
thisisoxfordshire reports.

Mr. Franklin developed mesothelioma in 2009 as a result of
working with asbestos during his career as a joiner and
carpenter. He regularly attended repatriation ceremonies for
British soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, held outside the
John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

Mr. Franklin, who died at the age of 82, left school at 14 to
work in his uncle's hardware store in the village. He lied about
his age to join the National Fire Service as a messenger boy at
the start of the Second World War, before later joining the
Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, seeing service in
Egypt.

Mr. Franklin trained as a carpenter after the war and in later
life regularly collected money for the Royal British Legion's
annual Poppy Appeal.

On June 8, 2010, the Oxfordshire Coroner's Court was told Mr.
Franklin developed breathlessness in February 2009. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma a month later, and died at home on
Jan. 6, 2010.

In a statement read to the court, Robert Davies, Professor of
Respiratory Medicine at the Churchill Hospital, in Oxford, said
exposure to asbestos was to blame for the disease. He said, "Mr.
Franklin's work as a carpenter involved working with asbestos,
which sadly precipitated the mesothelioma."

Consultant pathologist Dr. Elizabeth Soilleux performed an
autopsy at the John Radcliffe Hospital. Recording a verdict of
death by industrial disease, Oxfordshire Coroner Nicholas
Gardiner said, "I am quite satisfied that he was exposed to
asbestos, which led to mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Corp.'s Reorganization Plan Confirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congoleum Corporation, on June 8, 2010, reported that the
District Court of New Jersey has entered an order confirming the
Company's Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization, according to a
Company press release dated June 8, 2010.

With the District Court's confirmation order, the Company will
now proceed with the steps necessary to implement the plan.

Roger S. Marcus, Chairman of the Board, commented, "I am
absolutely elated to see Congoleum's plan confirmed at last. It
has been a long, difficult journey out of the complicated
asbestos and insurance litigation we faced nearly nine years ago.
I could not be happier about putting this chapter of our history
behind us."

Mr. Marcus added, "Through their dedication and hard work, the
employees of Congoleum have seen this company through not only
this bankruptcy but also the worst economic downturn in a
generation. This confirmation order rewards their efforts in
putting our asbestos problems behind us, reducing our other debt,
and giving the company a fresh start toward prosperity in the
future."

Mr. Marcus concluded, "Consummation of our reorganization
requires various transactions such as closing on our new
financing arrangements. While we have been working on these
steps, we could not complete them until the confirmation order
was entered. We expect to complete these remaining steps and
emerge from bankruptcy shortly."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Rules on Van Brunt Case on June 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals, on June 2, 2010, ruled on a case
filed by Mary Van Brunt, who claimed that the home remodeling
products she bought from the Canton, Mass., retailer Grossman's
in 1977 contained asbestos, Meso RC reports.

The Appeals Court may restrict the capacity of asbestos injury
plaintiffs to seek compensation against companies that have filed
for bankruptcy.

In the 1990s, Grossman's filed for bankruptcy protection, and was
later purchased by the Oregon-based company JELD-WEN. In
Grossman's reorganization plan, the Company claimed that it
discharged all legal claims that arose before the plan went into
effect, and did not mention that it could face future asbestos
lawsuits, BusinessInsurance.com reports.

The Appeals Court overturned the decision of a U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Wilmington, Del., asserting, "Whether a particular claim
has been discharged by a plan of reorganization depends on
factors applicable to the particular case and is best determined
by the appropriate bankruptcy court or the district court."

The Appeals Court remanded the case to the District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sholing Dockworker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Southampton Coroner's Court heard that the
death of Peter Mathieson, a former dockworker from Sholing,
England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the
Southern Daily Echo reports.

Mr. Mathieson died at the age of 67 from mesothelioma caused by
contact with the deadly material during the 1960s, where he
worked for shipping companies and at Southampton docks.

Southampton Coroner's Court heard how one of Mr. Mathieson's jobs
was unloading sacks of asbestos from the cargo hold of ships from
South Africa, where he would tie up the sacks of material for a
crane.

Asbestos would often spill from the sacks and rain down on Mr.
Mathieson before he would then sweep out the cargo hold, the
inquest heard.

Deputy coroner Gordon Denson recorded a verdict of death by
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parkinson Awarded AUD500,000 in Asbestos Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Parkinson, an electrician exposed to asbestos while
working in Canberra, Australia's city center 40 years ago, was
awarded more than AUD500,000 in damages, ABC News reports.

The 72-year-old Mr. Parkinson, who worked for Lend Lease at the
Monaro Mall in Civic (now known as the Canberra Centre) from 1969
to 1976. During that time, he Parkinson worked in the building's
ceiling and plant room where he was exposed to asbestos.

Mr. Parkinson was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2008 and has a
life expectancy of 18 months. He has had two major operations,
including one to remove part of his lung.

In the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court on June 4,
2010, Chief Justice Terence Higgins said it was a tragic and
distressing case. He said Mr. Parkinson will continue to suffer
extreme pain and anger over his employer's actions.

Judge Higgins ordered that Lend Lease pay Mr. Parkinson just over
AUD521,000 in damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Council, Firm Fined for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Lincoln Council and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd were
fined after a worker left a family exposed to asbestos fibers for
three days, according to a Health and Safety Executive press
release dated June 3, 2010.

The City Council and County Waste were prosecuted by the HSE
after allowing asbestos insulation boards to be incorrectly
removed.

Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard that in June 2008, the City
Council was refurbishing the bathroom of a property in Winn
Street in the city and contracted County Waste to investigate the
fixing of asbestos insulation boards, with a view to their
removal. However, County Waste was not licensed to work with
asbestos.

The employee carrying out the work lacked adequate information or
training about the hazards from exposure to asbestos. The Court
was told he simply pried off the panels with a crowbar, breaking
them in the process, before putting the pieces in a sack to
transport to a yard for disposal.

Broken panels and pieces of asbestos debris were left on the
bathroom floor of the property, and the worker walked around for
the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated
with asbestos fibers.

After the tenant complained to the Council, employees visited the
property to inspect the damage. However, they failed to tell the
tenant there was a problem and did not move the family to another
property for three days.

City of Lincoln Council was fined GBP10,000 and County Waste, of
Exchange Road, Lincoln, England, was fined GBP4,250 and ordered
to pay costs of GBP12,000 and GBP6,000, respectively, after
pleading guilty to a number of health and safety breaches.

HSE inspector Martin Giles said, "The Council failed to ensure
the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no
procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and
imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its
tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their
health following the release of asbestos fibers. Not informing
the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them
in the property for three days before re-housing them was an
irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.

"Because County Waste (Lincs) Ltd failed to provide adequate
information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable
to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and
others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the
bathroom and removed the material from the property without being
in an appropriately sealed receptacle or wrapping."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Globe, Ariz. to Receive $7.5T Brownfields Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality officials, on
June 7, 2010, announced that a brownfields grant of US$7,500 has
been awarded to the City of Globe to conduct an asbestos survey
on three buildings the city wants to demolish to build a new city
library, according to a Arizona DEQ press release dated June 7,
2010.

One of the three buildings, located in the 300 block of South
Broad Street, is Globe's current municipal library. The other two
buildings are known as the Tee-Pee Building and Rogue's Gallery.

The city completed the first phase of an environmental site
assessment on the three buildings in October 2009 before the city
purchased the other two buildings. That assessment concluded that
a demolition asbestos survey should be conducted.

ADEQ Director Benjamin H. Grumbles said, "We commend the City of
Globe for taking action to redevelop safely and environmentally.
Our brownfields program is all about partnering with communities
like Globe to identify and reduce environmental hazards and put
properties like these to productive use again."

A brownfield is an abandoned or under-used property with an
active redevelopment potential that suffers from known or
perceived environmental contamination.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Government to Establish Asbestos Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tasmanian Government announced it will honor a pre-election
promise to establish an asbestos unit, ABC News reports.

Before the March 2010 state election, the Government promised
US$800,000 over four years for the program. The compensation fund
will come from an as yet unspecified levy on businesses.

Workplace Relations Minister David O'Byrne says it will include a
register of contaminated sites and a compensation fund. He said,
"Asbestos is a very dangerous substance, it's a level one
carcinogen, there is no safe exposure. And at the moment we have
a framework which is very reactive."

Mr. O'Byrne added, "Once we set up the asbestos unit and the head
is appointed, their role will be to work on legislation to ensure
there is a framework for a register for all companies and all
buildings. There will be a system of rating the asbestos, in
terms of how dangerous it is, and all companies and all
businesses will need to have a management plan for prioritized
removal."

The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is supporting the
program and suggests a four percent levy added to workers
compensation premiums would build adequate reserves for asbestos
compensation payouts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Gov't. to Pay For Lennox Head Asbestos Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Government will pay the bill for residents
who had asbestos dumped on their properties during a tornado that
hit Lennox Head, New South Wales, ABC News reports.

Up to 30 properties were damaged when a water spout crossed the
coast on June 3, 2010, prompting the government to declare a
natural disaster.

Some residents were told they would have to pay for the cleanup
themselves, because it was on private property and not public
land.

Ballina Shire Mayor Phil Silver says that was unfair and he
raised the issue at June 8, 2010's recovery committee meeting
involving government representatives. He says there has been a
positive breakthrough for resident who had asbestos in their
yards but no damage to their homes.

Mr. Silver said, "The big achievement is the disaster funding or
emergency services will cover that cost and council will organize
it at the request of the householder."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phase III of Abatement Commences at BoRit Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The third phase of asbestos remediation has now commenced at the
BoRit asbestos site in Montgomery County, Pa., Mesothelioma.com
reports.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working to address
issues at both the onsite reservoir, and the Tannery Run Creek.
The BoRit site has been on the EPA's Superfund National
Priorities List since April 2009.

Three creeks run through the site--Rose Valley, Tannery Run and
Wissahickon, and so it is necessary to prevent asbestos from
traveling through such outlets, and off-site. If asbestos
materials were to be carried away by the three creeks,
individuals throughout Montgomery County would be put at risk for
contracting malignant mesothelioma.

Since 2009, crews have worked to stabilize the creeks' stream-
banks. The first phase of the asbestos abatement project focused
on the upper section of the Wissahickon creek, and was completed
in the summer of 2009. In March 2010, Phase II, which stabilized
the Rose Valley Creek stream-banks, concluded.

The current phase plans to tackle the reservoir berm which lays
closes to the Wissahickon creek, along with Tannery Run's stream-
banks, the Montgomery News reports.

EPA onsite coordinator, Eduardo Rovira, anticipates work on the
berm to conclude in mid-June 2010. At that time, crews will
direct their focus towards Tannery Run creek.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar International Subject to Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation is still subject to an
increase in the number of asbestos-related claims in recent
years.

In general, these claims relate to illnesses alleged to have
resulted from asbestos exposure from component parts found in
older vehicles, although some cases relate to the alleged
presence of asbestos in the Company's facilities.

In these claims, the Company is not the sole defendant, and the
claims name as defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a wide variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.

Based in Warrenville, Ill., Navistar International Corporation is
a holding company whose principal operating subsidiaries are
Navistar, Inc. and Navistar Financial Corporation. The Company
operates in four principal industry segments: Truck, Engine,
Parts, and Financial Services.

                            *********

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  * * *