CAR_Public/100702.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 2, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 129

                            Headlines

ADULT INDUSTRY: Accused of Violating Medical Privacy Laws
AETNA LIFE: Accused in Ariz. Suit of Deceiving Insured Claimants
AMERICAN ITALIAN: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
BLUE SQUARE: Class Certification Against Subsidiary Withdrawn
BLUE SQUARE: Settles Claim Over Products without Expiry Date

BLUE SQUARE: Claim Over Spread Sold Under "Mega" Label Dismissed
BLUE SQUARE: Faces Suit Over "YOU" Car Holders Discounts
BLUE SQUARE: Subsidiary Faces Suit Over Discounts in "Alonit"
BLUE SQUARE: Class Action Plea Over "Cash Returns" Dismissed
CANADA: Settlement Fund From Tainted Blood Tragedy Drying Up

CITIGROUP INC: Pa. Suit Complains About Payment Protection Plan
DELL INC: Court Grants Class Status to Call Center Workers' Suit
FEDEX CORP: Indiana Court Dismisses ERISA Claims
G. WILLI: Rejects Settlement Offer From Plaintiffs' Attorney
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Suit Over Fruit Roll-Ups Health Claims

HADERA PAPER: Petition Filed Against Hogla-Kimberly Unit
HONDA MOTOR: Still Subject to Liability in Over 44 Suits in U.S.
INTERNATIONAL PAPERS: No Hearing Yet on Toxic Claims Suit
JAYANT PATEL: Former Patients Mull Malpractice Class Suit
KINROSS GOLD: Claims Bar Date in Brown Action Moved to July 30

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Burns & Levinson Files Suit Over Zicam Gel
MIND C.T.I.: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Ct. Rejects Kodak, Xerox Retirees' Claims
ORLEANS LEVEE: Hearing on Summary Judgment Today
PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Certify CT Scan Suit in NY Remains Pending

PRUDENTIAL PLC: Suits v. Jackson Over Insurance Products Pending
QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Court Held Final Fairness Hearing on June 30
TENNESSEE DMV: Sued for Illegal Seizure of Naturalization Docs
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Consolidated Complaint in California
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Nine Suits Over Defects in Braking Systems

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Six Shareholder Suits in California
WAL-MART: Court Denies Class Status on Former Janitors' Suit
WALGREEN CO: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
WEBLOYALTY.COM: Accused in Calif. of Deceptive Sales Practices
WELLS FARGO: Wants to Settle Military Veterans' Claims

XTO ENERGY: Accused of Cheating Land Lessors of Royalties

* Class Actions Rise in Australia Due to Availability of Funding

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Ameron Int'l. at May 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Corp. Cites JPY503MM Expense at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota, Japan Gov't. Face 7 Suits Since May '07
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court OKs Union Carbide's Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Supreme Court OKs Ruling in Riedel Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court OKs Chesterton Petition for Allowance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. District Court Dismisses Zawoysky's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Summary Judgment Denied in Aurand Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands Segars Case for More Development
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Upholds Ruling in Sunbeam Corp. Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Ruling in Kozak Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Tufts Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Seeling Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Denies Bid in Sulzer Pumps Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marco Island, Quality to Settle CAA Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huddersfield Engineer's Death Linked to Hazards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Pegler Polisher's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SEPT Junks Dadex Plea in Ahmad Case on June 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Actions in Mo. Referred to AG for Enforcement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Developers Fined for Citadel Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Springfield Affirms $167,747 for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Records $2.9MM Probable Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Facing 529 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Kankakee Residents Charged for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whitehaven Engineer's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Resident Charged for Disposal Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Trustee Criticizes Bondex Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hastings Firm Fined $118,750 for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ch. 11 Cases Highlighted in Asbestos Conference
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Abated From Mo.'s Kiel Opera House



                            *********

ADULT INDUSTRY: Accused of Violating Medical Privacy Laws
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that two "former
actresses in the adult film industry" filed a class action
claiming the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation
illegally provides film producers online access to health
information about performers, without their consent.  They also
claim the Foundation jeopardizes the health of porn performers by
discouraging use of condoms and other safe-sex practices.

In their Superior Court complaint, the plaintiffs say the Adult
Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM) "enjoys a virtual
monopoly on testing adult film performers for sexually transmitted
diseases ('STDs').  In exchange for its monopoly, AIM provides the
producers of adult films with unfettered access to the private
medical records of performers, and acts as a public defender of
unsafe working practices and conditions in the production of adult
films.  AIM is a central component in the adult film industry's
failed experiment in 'self-regulation' to prevent the spread of
STDs in the adult film industry."

The plaintiffs -- Diana Lee Grandmason and Bess Garren -- claim
AIM competes unfairly and violates personal and medical privacy
laws.

"AIM violates the privacy rights of performers in the adult film
industry by allowing the producers of adult films online access to
workers' health care information without the individual consents
and releases required by federal and California law," the
complaint states.  "AIM knowingly and intentionally provides this
private information to producers of adult films in order to
facilitate the production of adult films.

"AIM further jeopardizes the health and well-being of performers
in the adult film industry by discouraging the use of condoms and
other safer-sex practices known to prevent and dramatically reduce
the spread of STDs."

The women seek class certification, an injunction and punitive
damages for unfair and deceptive trade, public disclosure of
private facts, and civil code violations.  They are represented by
F. Brian Chase, Esq.


AETNA LIFE: Accused in Ariz. Suit of Deceiving Insured Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aetna Life Insurance and
Chickering Claims Administrators deceive, mislead and deny claims
to University of Arizona students insured through the University,
in bad faith and in breach of contract, a class action claims in
Pima County Court, Tucson.

A copy of the Complaint in Hill v. Aetna Life Insurace Company, et
al., Case No. C20105017 (Ariz. Super. Ct., Pima Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/29/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce G. Macdonald, Esq.
          Sue Ann Welch, Esq.
          Brian Marchetti, Esq.
          MCNAMARA, GOLDSMITH & MACDONALD, P.C.
          1670 E. River Rd., Suite 200
          Tuczon, AZ 85718-5834
          Telephone: 520-624-0126


AMERICAN ITALIAN: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders complained to
the Delaware Chancery Court that the American Italian Pasta Co. is
selling itself too cheaply to Ralcorp Holdings and Excelsior
Acquisition Co., for $53 a share or $1.2 billion.

A copy of the Complaint in Klenck v. American Italian Pasta
Company, et al., Case No. 5603 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/29/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: 302-295-5310


BLUE SQUARE: Class Certification Against Subsidiary Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
The request for certification as a class action against Blue
Square Chain (Hyper Hyper) Ltd. was withdrawn by the plaintiffs,
according to Blue Square-Israel Ltd.'s June 24, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Hyper Hyper is Blue Square-Israel's subsidiary.

In June 2008, a claim was filed against Hyper Hyper and other
defendants in connection with the marketing of ink cartridges.
The plaintiffs have requested to certify the claim as a class
action.

The claim alleges that the defendants coordinated the prices of
certain Hewlett-Packard ink cartridges sold by them in a manner
that allegedly constitutes an agreement in restraint of trade.
According to the claim, the defendants allegedly sell HP ink
cartridges for a higher price than the price charged for such ink
cartridges by smaller retailers.  The plaintiff's personal claim
is estimated at NIS496, and if the claim is certified as a class
action, the approximate claim against all the defendants is
estimated by the plaintiff at NIS81 million.

The claim requests a declaratory relief of an agreement in
restraint of trade, monetary compensation and an injunction to
stop the alleged price coordination.  Hyper Hyper denied all
allegations.

On Oct. 29, 2009, the request for certification as a class action
was withdrawn by the plaintiffs with respect to Hyper Hyper.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a retailer
based in Israel.  Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets
under different formats, each offering varying levels of services
and prices.


BLUE SQUARE: Settles Claim Over Products without Expiry Date
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Square-Israel Ltd. has agreed to settle a claim regarding the
sale of cosmetics and perfume products without marking the expiry
date, according to the company's June 24, 2010, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the company was served with a claim and a
request for approval as a class action, in which the company is
being sued regarding the sale of cosmetics and perfume products
without marking the expiry date or the allowed period of use after
opening the product, as is allegedly obligatory pursuant to the
Fifteenth Amendment to the Pharmacists Directive [new edition]
1981 which is in effect since July 1, 2009.

The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated by him at
approximately NIS175 and if the claim is approved as a class
action, the approximate claim is estimated by the plaintiff at
least at NIS13 million.  In addition, the plaintiff requests that
the court issue an injunction forbidding the company from selling
such products without the marked expiry date or the maximum
allowed period of use after opening.

The company and the plaintiff signed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the company will pay to the plaintiff an amount
not material to the Company.  The settlement agreement is subject
to court approval.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a retailer
in Israel.  Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets under
different formats, each offering varying levels of services and
prices.


BLUE SQUARE: Claim Over Spread Sold Under "Mega" Label Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A claim against Blue Square-Israel Ltd. alleging
misrepresentations as to the contents of fruit spreads sold under
the company's private label "Mega," has been dismissed, according
to the company's June 24, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the company was served with a claim and a request
for approval as a class action in which the company is being sued
regarding alleged misrepresentations as to the contents of fruit
spreads sold by the company under its private label "Mega".

The plaintiff estimates his personal claim at approximately NIS52
and if the claim is approved as a class action, the approximate
claim is estimated by the plaintiff at least at NIS8.4 million.

On April 28, 2010, the claim was dismissed following an agreement
reached by the company and the plaintiff.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a retailer
in Israel.  Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets under
different formats, each offering varying levels of services and
prices.


BLUE SQUARE: Faces Suit Over "YOU" Car Holders Discounts
--------------------------------------------------------
Blue Square-Israel Ltd. is being sued regarding the grant of
discounts to "YOU" card holders, according to the company's June
24, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In February 2010, the company was served with a claim and a
request for approval as a class action in which the company is
being sued regarding the grant of discounts to "YOU" card holders.
The plaintiffs have requested to certify the claim as a class
action.

The claim alleges that during a period of time unknown to the
plaintiff, the company held a special sale in which customers of
Mega that are members of the YOU club loyalty plan will receive an
additional discount of 10% on the sale price of certain products,
and such discount was not granted fully as advertised.  The
plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at NIS3.10, and if the
claim is certified as a class action, the approximate claim is
estimated by the plaintiff to be at least NIS2 million.

The company is currently reviewing the claim.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a retailer
in Israel.  Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets under
different formats, each offering varying levels of services and
prices.


BLUE SQUARE: Subsidiary Faces Suit Over Discounts in "Alonit"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Square-Israel Ltd.'s wholly owned subsidiary Mega Retail Ltd.
and its "YOU" customer loyalty plan face a claim  regarding the
grant of discounts to "YOU" card holders in certain stores of
"Alonit" chain, according to the company's June 24, 2010, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 2010, the company's wholly owned subsidiary Mega Retail
Ltd. and its "YOU" customer loyalty plan were served with a claim
and a request for approval as a class action, in which they are
sued together with Dor-Alon Energy In Israel (1988) LTD. (which
holds 25% of the customers club) regarding the grant of discounts
to "YOU" card holders in certain stores of "Alonit" chain.

The Claim requests that the customer loyalty plan return discount
amounts that according to the Claim should have been granted to
"YOU" card holders who purchased in certain Alonit stores and did
not receive a discount, or received a discount of 5% instead of
allegedly Claimed discount of 10%.

The plaintiff's personal Claim is estimated by him at
approximately NIS130, and if the Claim is approved as a class
action, the approximate Claim is estimated by the plaintiff at
approximately NIS49.4 million.  In addition, the plaintiff
requests a declaratory relief according to which the customers
club must grant a 10% discount in all Alonit chain stores.

The company is currently reviewing the Claim.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a retailer
in Israel.  Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets under
different formats, each offering varying levels of services and
prices.


BLUE SQUARE: Class Action Plea Over "Cash Returns" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A request for approval as a class action in a claim against Blue
Square-Israel Ltd. has been dismissed by the court, according to
the company's June 24, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

During January 2009, the company was served with a claim and a
request for approval as a class action, in which it is being sued
regarding the return of a credit note instead of cash, in
accordance with the Deposit on Drink Containers Law 1999.

The Claim alleges that Blue Square has to return cash returns to
customers returning empty reusable bottles according to the law,
while in fact instead of returning cash returns, it gives the
customers a credit note.

The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at NIS51.75, and if
the claim is approved as a class action, the approximate aggregate
claim is estimated by the plaintiff at NIS5.8 million.

On Nov. 4, 2009, the request for approval as a class action and
personal claim concerning refund in cash of the deposit on the
beverages were both dismissed by the court upon the plaintiff's
request.

Blue Square-Israel Ltd. -- http://www.bsi.co.il/-- is a retailer
in Israel.  Blue Square currently operates 188 supermarkets under
different formats, each offering varying levels of services and
prices.


CANADA: Settlement Fund From Tainted Blood Tragedy Drying Up
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Picard, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that victims
of the tainted blood tragedy had until midnight of Wednesday to
apply for compensation, and that despite some C$2.7-billion
invested in making amends, there are growing fears the money is
running out.

"I think there is a moral obligation to make sure everyone is
compensated," said Trevor Breslin, a claimant from Burlington,
Ontario.

Mr. Breslin's father, Bob Green, contracted hepatitis C from a
blood transfusion he received while undergoing dialysis in 1985
and died in 1992.  The family, after a ponderous process, was
awarded nearly half a million dollars under the terms of a class-
action settlement, but has received only C$125,000.

"They told us that the fund is nearly exhausted," Mr. Breslin
said. "This is quite shocking."

Peter Roy, Esq., a lawyer involved in the class action by those
infected by hepatitis C prior to 1986 and after 1990, said there
was C$1-billion in the fund at the outset and there is about
C$250-million left.  To date, more than 11,000 claimants have been
paid and some C3,500 claims are outstanding.

The problem of money being held back, he said, is largely a
technical one: Monies were set aside to compensate for pain and
suffering and for loss of income, and the latter portion is
running low.  Money cannot be shifted around without an actuarial
analysis and the approval of the courts.

"I believe this is going to get fixed; everybody will be
compensated," Mr. Roy said.

The tainted blood tragedy is Canada's worst-ever public-health
disaster.  About 2,000 hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients
contracted HIV/AIDS, and another 20,000 recipients of blood and
blood products contracted hepatitis C.  A high-profile public
inquiry revealed that many of those infections were due to
bureaucratic bungling and foot-dragging, and the failure to take
the threat of contaminated blood seriously.  Over the years,
governments, the Red Cross (which used to collect and distribute
blood) and insurance companies have created a number of
compensation programs and settled class-action lawsuits in a bid
to make amends.  But it has been a long, drawn-out and expensive
affair.

The largest fund, C$1.2-billion, was set aside to compensate those
who contracted hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990. (In that period,
a test was available to screen blood for the deadly virus but it
was not used.)

Harvey Strosberg, Esq., one of the lawyers overseeing the fund,
said there have been more than 12,600 claimants paid to date, and
there are nearly 600 claims outstanding, but "there is no danger
of running out of money."  In fact, he said, "this is one of the
great success stories of class actions . . . it worked out better
than anyone every imagined." One of the unique features is that
claimants can apply for more money as they get sicker; this is
important for a degenerative illness like hepatitis C.

The first compensation program, created in 1989, was markedly
different: It assumed that everyone who contracted HIV/AIDS from
tainted blood would be dead within four years. They were given a
lump-sum payment of C$120,000, a program that Ottawa announced on
Christmas Eve to ensure it would get no media attention.

That first compensation plan, called the Extraordinary Assistance
Program, cost C$150-million. There were just over 1,200 claimants.

A few years later, it was expanded and renamed the Multi-
Provincial-Territorial Assistance Plan.  Hemophiliacs and
transfusion recipients who contracted HIV/AIDS from bad blood were
awarded C$30,000 a year for life, indexed to inflation. (The
current annual payment is nearly C$41,000.)  Spouses and children
who were infected by the recipient of tainted blood were also
eligible for smaller payments.

About 1,050 people have benefited from that program, which has
cost the provinces and territories close to C$260-million.

"These compensation programs allowed people to live their lives
with some dignity," said David Page, executive director of the
Canadian Hemophilia Society. "But I don't think we can ever talk
about lives and dollars in the same breath. We can never
adequately compensate for tainted blood."


CITIGROUP INC: Pa. Suit Complains About Payment Protection Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup
deceptively bills "thousands of retired persons" for "credit
protection" insurance though many of them are excluded from its
benefits, and it does this without telling them the terms and
conditions, without making any effort to determine if they are
qualified for it, and without even registering it as insurance, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

The 26-page class action is the latest in a long string of class
actions that accuse banks of resorting to increasingly outre and
unconscionable methods of sucking money from customers.

The class objects to Citigroup's "illicit activities" of pushing
so-called credit protection for its credit cards.  It uses a slew
of labels for this, including Credit Protect, Credit Protector,
Payment Protector, PaymentAid, PaymentAid Plus, and "other
monikers," according to the complaint.

The class claims this is insurance, but Citigroup does not market,
sell, register or identify it as insurance, "thereby avoiding
state regulation."

The class also objects to "the deceptive and misleading manner in
which it [Citigroup] offers the Payment Protection plan to
consumers, and the manner in which it administers claims for
benefits."

Citigroup pushes the "service" through telemarketers and direct
mail, the class claims.  "It represents Payment Protection as a
service that pays the required minimum monthly payment due on the
subscriber's credit card account and excuses the subscriber from
paying the monthly interest charge and the Payment Protection plan
fee for a limited period of time. . . . Citi claims that this
service provides 'so much protection and peace of mind for so
little!'"

But the class claims that the plan is actually "a dense maze of
limitation, exclusions and restrictions, making it impossible for
consumers to determine what Payment Protection covers and whether
it is a sound financial choice."

The class claims that "Citi makes no effort to determine whether a
cardholder is eligible for Payment Protection benefits at the time
of sale.  As a consequence, the company bills thousands of retired
persons -- many of whom are senior citizens -- along with the
unemployed, those employed by family members, and part-time or
seasonal Pennsylvania residents, as well as disabled individuals,
for Payment Protection coverage, even though their employment or
health status prevents them from receiving benefits under the
plan."

The class claims Citi "makes no effort to determine whether
subscribers become ineligible for Payment Protection benefits
after they are enrolled in the plan.  Accordingly, when
subscribers' employment or health status change, they will
continue to pay for the product even though they may no longer be
eligible for benefits under the plan."

The class claims that "Citi requires customers to enroll for
Payment Protection coverage before it provides subscribers with
the terms and conditions of the plan."

As a result of these "misleading and deceptive marketing
practices," the class claims that "Citi has increased its profits
by many millions of dollars, all thanks to a product which
provides virtually no benefits to thousands of Pennsylvania
residents who are nevertheless charged for the product month in
and month out."

The class seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, restitution,
and compensatory, treble and punitive damages for deceptive and
unfair trade, breach of contract and unconscionability.

A copy of the Complaint in Tractenberg v. Citigroup Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-03092 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/29/Citigroup.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market St., Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: 215-985-9177

               - and -

          Curtis L. Bowman, Esq.
          Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY WILLIAMS BATES BOZEMAN & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Dr., Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72212
          Telephone: 501-312-8500


DELL INC: Court Grants Class Status to Call Center Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeniffer Winget, writing for ADI-News.com, reports that Dell is
currently facing a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company
for underpaying 5,000 call center employees.

According to an article in the Austin American Statesman, a
federal judge in the Oregon-filed case gave the lawsuit class-
action status last week.  Any of the U.S. Dell call center
employees who worked from February 8, 2004 to the present can now
join the lawsuit to sue to company Dell as a collective.

Two employees filed the lawsuit in February 2007, claiming they
were improperly paid by Dell for their overtime, training, or work
preparation time.  The employees seek payment of missing wages,
with interest, and want Dell to pay for their attorneys fees.

Spherion Corp., a human resource agency that works directly with
Dell, is also named as a defendant, according to The Statesman.


FEDEX CORP: Indiana Court Dismisses ERISA Claims
------------------------------------------------
Bob Sechler at Dow Jones Newswires reports that Judge Robert L.
Miller Jr. in Indiana granted FedEx Corp.'s motion to dismiss some
claims in the nationwide class-action case brought against the
company by delivery drivers who contend they were improperly
classified as contractors instead of employees.  The ruling,
however, leaves the drivers the option to refile their claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act once they have
"exhausted their available administrative remedies" through the
company.

"In a word, this is a procedural ruling, not a substantive
ruling," said Lynn Faris, Esq., one of three co-lead lawyers in
the class-action case, which involves about 27,000 former and
current drivers.  "What it means is we have to jump through a few
more hoops before we can reach the substantive issue."

Ms. Faris also noted that the judge has yet to rule on dozens of
other motions involving issues such as wages, overtime and expense
reimbursements.

But FedEx spokesman Maury Lane called the ruling significant
"because it dismisses the [drivers'] nationwide ERISA claims." Ms.
Lane also called the various other claims "without merit and part
of a broad-based assault on independent contractors who have
chosen to own and operate their own businesses."

The use of independent contractors by FedEx's ground division has
long been the target of complaints and legal action by critics,
who contend the strategy was designed to save money by denying
legitimate employee benefits.  The outcome of the various cases
will determine if FedEx could be forced to pay hundreds of
millions of dollars more to cover such costs as operating expenses
and pension and health-care benefits.

Judge Miller's ruling was limited to ERISA claims made by about a
dozen drivers in Kansas, although the ruling has ramifications
nationwide because the drivers are party to the nationwide suit.
The drivers contended they were misclassified by FedEx and denied
the right to participate in six employee benefit plans.

The drivers didn't dispute that they hadn't exhausted all
administrative actions with FedEx before taking the case to court.
But they claimed, among other things, that "it would have been
futile" to do so because FedEx "has consistently taken the
position that the [drivers] aren't entitled to any plan benefits,"
according to Miller's ruling.

The judge disagreed with the contention, granting FedEx's motion
for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the ERISA
claims.


G. WILLI: Rejects Settlement Offer From Plaintiffs' Attorney
------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. has rejected an offer from the
plaintiff attorney to settle the lawsuit for NIS30,000, according
to the company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 16, 2009, the company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit alleging that it misled its customers by illegally
marking a product that the company imports and sells as "sugar
free", according to the Israeli Consumer Protection Law, 1981.
The groups which the lawsuit desires to represent include any
Israeli resident who bought this product due to such person's
preference for a sugar free or a reduced sugar product.

According to the plaintiff, the Group consists of 2,000 customers.
The plaintiff appraises its own damages at NIS2,000 (approximately
US$510) and the damages of the entire Group to be NIS4 million
(approximately US$1 million).

On Oct. 12, 2009, a preliminary hearing was held.  In the hearing,
the judge mentioned to the plaintiff's attorney that the lawsuit
does not meet a procedure of a purported class action and asked
both parties to reach a settlement within 30 days.

The company received an offer from the plaintiff attorney to
settle the lawsuit for NIS30,000 (approximately US$8,000).  The
company rejected the offer and the matter is yet to be resolved.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. --
http://www.willi-food.co.il/eng/-- is engaged in the import,
export, marketing, and distribution of food products.  The company
purchases food products from more than 220 suppliers located
around the world, suppliers located in Israel, in the Far East
(China, India, the Philippines and Thailand), in Eastern Europe
(Bulgaria and Latvia), in South America (Argentina), in the United
States and in Western, Northern, and Southern Europe (Sweden,
Denmark, Greece, The Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Belgium,
Germany, France, Turkey and Cyprus).  In February 2008, the
Company's subsidiary Gold Frost purchased a majority interest from
the owners of a dairy distributor in Denmark, Kirkeby
International Foods A/S (Kirkeby).  In January 2008, the Company
purchased 51% of the interests of Shamir Salads (2006) Ltd.  As of
July 22, 2009, the company held more than 95% interest in Gold
Frost Ltd.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Suit Over Fruit Roll-Ups Health Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Shifrel at The New York Daily News reports that Payton
McClure in Brooklyn filed a class-action lawsuit saying General
Mills' Fruit Roll-Ups are "dangerous."  In the class action filed
Tuesday in Manhattan Federal Court, Ms. McClure says the company
lies when it says the rollups, along with Fruit by the Foot and
Fruit Gushers, are naturally flavored, low fat, and "a good source
of Vitamin C."

"Unfortunately for consumers and, including children, all these
claims are false and misleading," the $5 million suit says.

Court papers say General Mills failed to note on packaging that it
uses partially hydrogenated oil in the snacks, which the lawsuit
says is "dangerous" and "unhealthy."

Ms. McClure could not be reached for comment and the law firm
representing her did not return calls.

A spokeswoman for General Mills said the company has not yet been
served the lawsuit and declined comment.


HADERA PAPER: Petition Filed Against Hogla-Kimberly Unit
--------------------------------------------------------
A petition was filed on June 7, 2010, against Hogla-Kimberly LTD,
an affiliated company of Hadera Paper Ltd. (49.9%) and against
another competitor company, for the approval of a class action,
according to the company's June 16, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Hadera Paper conducts its operations in Turkey though Hogla-
Kimberly.

According to the petition, the competitor and Hogla-Kimberly
has misled the public by presenting plastic bags as oxo
biodegradable and therefore environmentally friendly, while the
products are breaking down into fragments.

The plaintiff estimates the scope of the petition, if approved as
class action, to be approximately NIS 111 million.

At this early stage H-K is examining the petition and is not able
to assess its chances and its influences.

Hadera Paper Ltd. -- http://www.hadera-paper.co.il/--
manufactures paper and paper products.  The company is engaged in
the production and sale of paper packaging, in the production of
packaging and cardboard products, in paper recycling activities
and in the marketing of office supplies.  It also has holdings in
associated companies that are engaged in the production and sale
of paper and paper products including the handling of solid waste.
The company, along with its subsidiaries is engaged in five
sectors of operations: paper and recycling; office supplies
marketing; packaging and cardboard products; disposable, non-food
consumer goods (also known as the Hogla Kimberly Sector), and fine
paper (also known as the Mondi Hadera Paper Sector).


HONDA MOTOR: Still Subject to Liability in Over 44 Suits in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. remains subject to potential liability under
various lawsuits and claims including 44 purported class
actions in the United States.

According to the company's June 24, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010, Honda records a contingent liability when it is
probable that an obligation has been incurred and the amount of
loss can be reasonably estimated.

Honda reviews these pending lawsuits and claims periodically and
adjusts the amounts recorded for these contingent liabilities, if
necessary, by considering the nature of lawsuits and claims, the
progress of the case and the opinions of legal counsel.

Honda does not record liabilities for lawsuits or potential claims
that it believes an unfavorable outcome is not probable or when a
reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss cannot be
determined.

After consultation with legal counsel, and taking into account all
known factors pertaining to existing lawsuits and claims,
Honda believes that the ultimate outcome of such lawsuits and
pending claims including 44 purported class actions in the
United States should not result in liability to Honda that would
be likely to have an adverse material effect on its consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. -- http://world.honda.com-- is a Japan-
based company primarily engaged in the development, production
and sale of various motor products.


INTERNATIONAL PAPERS: No Hearing Yet on Toxic Claims Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Fewell Jr., Esq., said no court date has been set to hear
a proposed class action against International Paper Company
alleging personal injury and property damage claims from exposure
to chemicals released by its Bastrop mill.  Mr. Fewell is one of
the plaintiffs' lawyers, and may be reached at:

     Richard Fewell Jr.
     1315 Cypress St.
     West Monroe, LA 71291
     Telephone: (318) 388-3320

Greg Hilburn at The New Star in Monroe, La., relates the lawsuit
was filed July 28, 2009, on behalf of 79 original plaintiffs who
lived within a five-mile radius of the closed Bastrop mill.  They
claim their health and property has been harmed by toxic chemicals
released from the plant during its 80 years of operation.

On June 29, 2010, as many as 100 people who want to join the
lawsuit clogged the corner of Cypress and Drago streets at
attorney Mr. Fewell's office because they mistakenly thought
June 30 was the deadline to become part of the suit.  But Mr.
Fewell said the deadlines pertained only to the original
plaintiffs, not those who might join the suit in class action.

"It was pretty wild out here," Mr. Fewell said. "But we're waiting
for the class to be certified.  They can be brought in after that.
There's no rush."

The people who came to Mr. Fewell's office wanted to make sure
they were ultimately included.

"I have tumors in my breasts and my baby has bronchitis," said
Rita Standberry of Bastrop. "I know it has something to do with
the chemicals from the plant."

Jerri Moore said she has breathing problems that she didn't have
when she lived out of state.  "My grand baby is also having health
problems we believe were caused by the mill," Ms. Moore said.

IP closed its Louisiana Mill in Bastrop in November 2008.

"International Paper is aware of the lawsuit," IP spokesman Kinny
Haddox said. "We can't comment on specifics, but we plan to
vigorously defend against the allegations to protect the mill's
strong environmental record, which is well documented.

"The Louisiana Mill operated in Bastrop for more than 80 years by
a well-trained dedicated work force who lived and raised their
families in that area."


JAYANT PATEL: Former Patients Mull Malpractice Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Marszalek, writing for Australian Associated Press,
reports that former patients of Jayant Patel are considering
launching a class action against the disgraced surgeon and
Queensland Health officials they say ignored their complaints.

The surgeon -- dubbed Dr. Death -- was on Tuesday convicted of the
manslaughter of patients Mervyn Morris, Gerardus Kemps and James
Phillips.  The Brisbane Supreme Court jury also found him guilty
of causing grievous bodily harm to Ian Vowles.

Dr. Patel's legal team is expected to launch an appeal against the
verdict.

Dr. Patel is 60 years old.

Former patient Ian Fleming, who said his own bowel operation was
botched by Dr. Patel in 2003, said Tuesday's court verdict was a
great relief.

A founder of a patient support group for Dr. Patel's patients, Mr.
Fleming said talks were under way about a class action against the
former surgeon and others.  Queensland state MP Rob Messenger said
he'd also held discussions with a barrister about launching a
class action by patients.

"We're looking at the prospect of a group class action against a
number of different entities, first and foremost will be
Queensland Health, the medical board, and Patel himself," the
member for Burnett told the ABC.

Mr. Fleming said hundreds of patients had been affected by Dr.
Patel's actions and many were supportive of a class action.  "Dr
Patel operated on over 1000 patients and many of those suffered as
a result of his actions. I'm just one," he told the ABC.

Mr. Fleming said he was disappointed his case was not part of the
trial and he felt health officials who had allowed Patel to
continue operating despite patients' complaints about his
competence had got off "scot-free".

"They have not been held accountable for the actions of Dr Patel,
even though they allowed him to proceed," Mr. Fleming said.  "I
find the actions of these persons to be reprehensible."

Mr. Fleming also said patients had been talking for some time
about a class action, describing the government's compensation
process as a "whitewash".

Premier Anna Bligh said patients were entitled to take court
action if they wished and the government would do its best to
settle outside court.  She said 296 former patients had already
received payouts from a multi-million dollar compensation fund,
which had been set up to allow patients faster resolution.

Three cases were still pending.  When those had been finalized,
the payout total would be revealed, she said.

"I'm sure there are others who have chosen, for their own reasons,
not to go through that process," Ms. Bligh told reporters.  "They
have their own legal rights and if they wish to take action
through the courts then of course they are entitled to do so."


KINROSS GOLD: Claims Bar Date in Brown Action Moved to July 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C., Co-Lead Plaintiffs' counsel in the Brown
v. Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc. class action litigation, announced
the following:

___________________________________________________________

               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    DISTRICT OF NEVADA
___________________________________________________________
                                    |
Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc. | CV-S-02-0605-PMP-(RJJ)
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |
This Document Relates To:          | SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF
                                    |
                                    | EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR
                                    |
                                    | FILING PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS
                                    |
All actions.                       | AND MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
                                    |
                                    | AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
                                    |
                                    | NONTAXABLE COSTS
                                    |

YOU COULD RECEIVE FUNDS FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT IF YOU HAVE
NOT YET FILED A VALID PROOF OF CLAIM FORM AND YOU:

(1) TENDERED SHARES OF THE $3.75 SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED
STOCK OF KINAM GOLD INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE $3.75 SERIES B
CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF AMAX GOLD INC.), TO KINROSS GOLD
CORPORATION OR KINROSS GOLD U.S.A., INC., PURSUANT TO THE FEBRUARY
20, 2002, OFFER TO PURCHASE ALL PUBLICLY HELD SHARES OF THE $3.75
SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF KINAM GOLD INC. AT $16.00
PER SHARE (AS AMENDED MARCH 21, 2002) MADE BY KINROSS GOLD
CORPORATION AND KINROSS GOLD U.S.A., INC. ("TENDEROR SUBCLASS");
AND/OR

(2) DID NOT TENDER SHARES OF THE $3.75 SERIES B CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED STOCK OF KINAM GOLD INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE $3.75
SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF AMAX GOLD INC.) TO KINROSS
GOLD CORPORATION OR KINROSS GOLD U.S.A., INC., PURSUANT TO THE
FEBRUARY 20, 2002, OFFER TO PURCHASE ALL PUBLICLY HELD SHARES OF
THE $3.75 SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF KINAM GOLD INC.
AT $16.00 PER SHARE (AS AMENDED MARCH 21, 2002) MADE BY KINROSS
GOLD CORPORATION AND KINROSS GOLD U.S.A., INC., BUT HAVE SINCE
SOLD SUCH SHARES DIRECTLY TO KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION, KINAM GOLD
INC. OR KINROSS GOLD U.S.A., INC. ("LATE-TENDEROR SUBCLASS");
AND/OR

(3) CONTINUE TO HOLD SHARES OF THE $3.75 SERIES B CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED STOCK OF KINAM GOLD INC. ("HOLDER SUBCLASS") (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS THE $3.75 SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF AMAX
GOLD INC.),

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL DEADLINE FOR FILING PROOFS OF CLAIM EXPIRED
ON MARCH 31, 2009, THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND ADDITIONAL
PROOF OF CLAIM FORMS MAY BE FILED NO LATER THAN JULY 30, 2010.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Court"), dated
January 29, 2009, that the Court: (1) approved the settlement of
the claims in the above-referenced litigation (the "Action") for
the principal amount of $29,250,000, plus accrued interest and
certain returned dividends, as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
entered a Judgment as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement; (3) entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice dismissing the Action with prejudice; (4) approved
the Plan of Allocation as fair, reasonable and adequate; (5)
approved the application of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel for the
payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; (6)
approved the requested reimbursement of the Lead Plaintiffs'
expenses incurred in connection with the Action and the payment of
service awards to them; (7) established March 31, 2009, as the
initial deadline for filing Proof of Claim forms on behalf of
members of the Settlement Class who wish to participate in the
Settlement; and (8) authorized the Claims Administrator, through
and including March 31, 2010, to continue to identify members of
the Settlement Class who did not file a Proof of Claim and to
accept as timely submitted claims filed by such Settlement Class
members through and including April 30, 2010.

On October 19, 2009, the Court entered an Order that, among other
things: (1) approved the interim administrative determinations of
the Claims Administrator accepting and rejecting the Proof of
Claim forms; and (2) directed the Claims Administrator to
distribute funds from the Net Settlement Fund to eligible
claimants in accordance with the Claims Administrator's
administrative determinations.

The Interim Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund and the
Anticipated Supplemental Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund

On October 26, 2009, the Claims Administrator mailed Interim
Distribution checks totaling $12,108,084.06 to all claimants who
had submitted approved Proof of Claim forms as of that date. Based
on the approved claims set forth in the Claims Administrator's
Interim Report, the percentage of shares believed to be eligible
to receive funds from the settlement and for which the Claims
Administrator proposed for approval as of October 16, 2009, was as
follows: (i) 100% of the Late-Tenderor Preferred Shares, (ii)
30.3% of the Tenderor Preferred Shares, and (iii) 99% of the
Holder Subclass Preferred Shares. Pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, these Interim Distribution payments were made on a per
share basis, less all fees, expenses and awards approved by the
Court as of that date, as follows: $14.50 per Late-Tenderor
Preferred Share, (ii) $16.50 per Tenderor Preferred Share, and
(iii) $42.00 of the Holder Subclass Preferred Share.

As a result of the Interim Distribution, approximately
$7,582,231.48 of the Net Settlement Fund remains to be distributed
first to those claimants who submit an approved Proof of Claim
Form not later than July 30, 2010 and with the remainder of any
portion of the Net Settlement Fund that remains to be distributed
in the form of a Supplemental Distribution to all claimants who
have filed valid claims through and including July 30, 2010, and
pay any fees and/or expenses incurred and approved by the Court.

As set forth in the Notice and Plan of Allocation, any additional
funds that remain in the Net Settlement Fund, less any fees or
expenses approved by the Court, will be allocated to those
Settlement Class members who submitted approved Proof of Claim
Forms. For example, subject to the amount of any additional valid
claims submitted not later than July 30, 2010 that were not paid
as part of the Interim Distribution, it is anticipated, but not
guaranteed, that members of the Holder Subclass will receive a
Supplemental Distribution up to $8.10 per share of the Preferred
in addition to the $42.00 per share received in the Initial
Distribution which the amount is expected to equal or exceed a
total of $50.00 per share of the Preferred after all Court
approved fees, expenses and awards have been paid to Lead Counsel
and the Representative Plaintiffs. It is further anticipated that
members of the Tenderor and Late-Tenderor Subclasses will also
receive a Supplemental Distribution from the remainder of the Net
Settlement Fund, the exact amount of which will be determined
after all approved claims received as of the July 30, 2010
extended claim deadline and any supplemental fees and expenses
approved by the Court have been accounted for by the Claims
Administrator.

The Claims Administrator and Class Counsel undertook efforts to
continue to identify members of the Settlement Class who did not
file a Proof of Claim. As of the conclusion of the April 30, 2010
deadline, it was determined that additional Settlement Class
members had not been identified or required additional time to
submit Proof of Claim forms. On June 25, 2010, the Court issued an
Order granting the request of Class Counsel to extend the deadline
for submitting Proof of Claim forms until July 30, 2010. If you
are a Settlement Class Member and you have not yet filed a valid
Proof of Claim Form, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
postmarked no later than July 30, 2010.

On November 14, 2008, a detailed Notice of Class Action
Certification, Proposed Class Action Settlement, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Nontaxable Costs, and Hearing Thereon
("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form") was
mailed to all persons and entities believed to be Settlement Class
Members. Additionally, at all times since, the Notice and Claim
Form has been posted on the Internet and available for download
at: http://www.bergermontague.com/case-summary.cfm?id=28;
http://www.goldensextant.com/; and
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/bro You may also
obtain copies by writing to Brown v. Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc.,
Claims Administrator, c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP, 1515
Market St., Ste. 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19102 or by calling
1-800-528-7199.

The deadline for excluding yourself from the Settlement Class
expired on January 15, 2009.  All Members of the Settlement Class
who did not timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class are bound by the Judgment entered in the Action
pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement. Therefore, if you are a
member of the Settlement Class and you have NOT submitted a
completed Proof of Claim Form, you should do so immediately, but
not later than July 30, 2010, if you wish to participate in the
Settlement. The failure to submit a completed Proof of Claim Form
postmarked no later than July 30, 2010 may preclude you from ever
receiving any portion of the Settlement Funds.

Supplemental Request For Attorneys' Fees and Non-Taxable Costs

On January 29, 2009, the Court also granted an award of attorneys'
fees of $8,500,000, which amounted to approximately 30% of the
settlement fund less the total expenses that had been incurred in
investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating and
implementing the Settlement, as well as the expenses Plaintiffs'
Counsel anticipated would be incurred by them in implementing the
Settlement in the future. Pursuant to attorneys' fee agreements
entered into between Plaintiffs' Counsel and the Lead Plaintiffs
at the outset of the Action, in the event that the Class was
certified, as it was pursuant to the Court's May 27, 2005 Order,
Plaintiffs' Counsel were authorized to seek an award of attorneys'
fees of up to 33% of any settlement fund (less expenses, here a
maximum of $940,000) which, under this Settlement, would amount to
a maximum of $9,342,300. In connection with the final approval of
the Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel sought and were granted an
award of attorneys' fees of $8,500,000 which was $842,300 less
than the maximum award they are permitted to request from the
$29,250,000 fund. If sufficient funds remain after a provision has
been made for all Authorized Claimants' Payable Claims and all
other approved fees and expenses, for their work in the litigation
of the case and obtaining the Settlement and for the significant
time spent since the approval of the Settlement in implementing,
administering and overseeing the Settlement, not later than August
15, 2010, Plaintiffs' Counsel will file a motion with the Court to
request a supplemental award of attorneys' fees not to exceed the
remaining $842,300 that they are authorized to be paid and the
reimbursement of any non-taxable costs incurred.

Special Notice to Members of the Holder Subclass

Pursuant to the Court's January 29, 2009 Order granting final
approval of the Settlement, as part of the settlement and pursuant
to the Charter authorizing redemption and cancellation of the
Preferred, all outstanding, publicly held shares of the Preferred
were cancelled and are no longer valid outstanding shares of Kinam
Gold Inc. Therefore, if you are a member of the Holder Subclass,
even if you do nothing, your shares have been cancelled. However,
if you are a member of the Holder Subclass, and you do nothing,
not less than $50 per share (less any attorneys' fees, expenses,
service awards and additional administrative costs associated with
identifying you), has been held in escrow on your behalf.  If you
are a Settlement Class Member and you have not yet filed a valid
Proof of Claim form, in order to share in the distribution of the
Net Class Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than July 30, 2010.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact either the Claims Administrator at the address or
telephone number listed above or Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
and the Class:  Merrill G. Davidoff, Esquire, Michael Dell'Angelo,
Esquire, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215-875-3000).


   Dated:  June 25, 2010      THE HONORABLE PHILIP M. PRO

                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                              DISTRICT OF NEVADA


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Burns & Levinson Files Suit Over Zicam Gel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burns & Levinson LLP said that a Massachusetts man filed a class
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boston, claiming injuries
including loss of sense of smell and diminished sense of taste as
a result of using Zicam Cold Remedy Gel.

The plaintiff, Russell Surette of Middlesex County, was acting on
behalf of a national class of similarly situated consumers.  He
filed the lawsuit against the developer, manufacturer,
distributor, and retailer of a homeopathic product known as Zicam
Cold Remedy Gel.

The product was marketed and advertised to thwart or abate the
onset of common cold and symptoms associated with it.  Surette
claims use of the product caused him and other consumers loss or
diminishment of the senses of smell and taste and economic damage
in the amount of the purchase price paid for the product.

The defendants -- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and Zicam L.L.C., the
developer, manufacturer and distributor of the product, located in
Scottsdale and Phoenix, Ariz.; Botanical Laboratories, Inc., the
manufacturer and packager based in Ferndale, Washington; and
Costco Wholesale Corporation, the Everett, Mass., retailer of the
product -- are alleged to have put a defective and unsafe product
into the national stream of commerce including Massachusetts.

In doing so, the defendants are alleged to have breached
warranties and misrepresented and misled Surette and the class
members about the safety of Zicam Cold Remedy Gel and to have
committed unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and similar consumer
protection laws in the other states.

Surette seeks compensation and other damages, on his and the class
members' behalf, for permanent loss of the sense of smell and
diminishment in his sense of taste, pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life and recovery of the price paid for the product.

For additional information, contact plaintiff's counsel:

     Dennis J. Kelly, Esq.
     Lawrence P. Murray, Esq.
     BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
     125 Summer Street
     Boston, MA  02110
     Telephone: (617) 345-3436
     Facsimile: (617) 345-3299
     E-mail: dkelly@burnslev.com
             lmurray@burnslev.com


MIND C.T.I.: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIND C.T.I. Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a securities lawsuit remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's June 22, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 13, 2009, a class action securities lawsuit was filed
against the company, its Chairperson and CEO and two former
officers.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, the plaintiffs have asserted claims for
damages in an unspecified amount for, among other things, alleged
misleading statements relating primarily to the company's
investment in auction rate securities, on behalf of public
investors who purchased the company's shares in the period from
June 8, 2006 through Feb. 27, 2008.

The company has reviewed the allegations contained in the
complaint and believes that they are without merit.  The company
has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Jan. 29, 2010.

MIND C.T.I. Ltd. -- http://www.mindcti.com/-- is engaged in
developing, manufacturing and marketing billing and customer care
software for communication providers, including wireline and
wireless, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), broadband IP
network operators, Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave
Access, Inc. (WiMAX) operators, cable operators, third generation
(3G) operators and mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs).  The
convergent billing and customer care solution supports multiple
services, including voice, data and content services, as well as
prepaid and post-paid payment models in a single platform.  The
company also provides professional services to the billing and
customer care customers, consisting of installation, project
implementation services, customer support, training and
maintenance services, customization and project management.  It
also offer call management systems used by organizations for call
accounting, telecom expense management, traffic analysis and fraud
detection.


MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Ct. Rejects Kodak, Xerox Retirees' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Jonathan Stempel reports that a U.S. appeals court on
Tuesday threw out class-action lawsuits by Eastman Kodak Co. and
Xerox Corp. retirees that accused Morgan Stanley of inducing them
to retire early and open accounts that cost much of their wealth.

The retirees had sued Morgan Stanley in New York State courts
after investing lump-sum retirement benefits with two Morgan
Stanley brokers, who were barred from the securities industry last
year.  Morgan Stanley moved the cases to federal court, seeking to
invoke a 1998 federal law that bars state cases alleging fraud in
connection with securities transactions.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in
New York concluded that the federal law prevails, upholding a
lower court's dismissal of the retirees' claims.  "We decline to
find that the passage of 18 months between the alleged fraud and
the purchase or sale of securities necessarily defeats (the
federal law's) 'in connection with' requirement," U.S. Circuit
Judge Barrington Parker wrote.  Because the retirees waited too
long to sue, they were barred from raising other federal
securities law claims.

Robert Pearl, Esq., a lawyer for the retirees, said he was
"obviously disappointed" with the ruling, and that his clients
would consider their options.  "There was no clear connection
between the advice to retire and the investment advice that was
later given," said Mr. Pearl, a principal at The Pearl Law Firm,
P.A.

Morgan Stanley spokesman Jim Wiggins said the New York-based bank
was pleased with the ruling.  The bank has settled with more than
100 of the brokers' other customers.

In March 2009, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay more than $7.2 million
to settle Financial Industry Regulatory Authority charges over the
activities of the brokers, David Isabella and Michael Kazacos, who
worked in a Rochester, New York office.  Regulators had accused
the brokers of promising retirees they could earn double-digit
returns each year, and withdraw money for living expenses without
reducing principal.  Instead, the retirees suffered market losses
and an inability to withdraw the promised sums, regulators said.

Richard McGuirk, Esq., a partner at Nixon Peabody LLP representing
the former brokers as well as Morgan Stanley, did not immediately
return a call seeking comment.  Kodak is based in Rochester, and
Xerox in Norwalk, Connecticut.

The cases are Romano et al v. Kazacos et al., U.S. Second Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 08-6187; and Lawton et al v. Isabella et al.
in the same court, No. 08-6190.

The Pearl Law Firm may be reached at:

     Robert J. Pearl
     THE PEARL LAW FIRM, P.A.
     1159 Pittsford Victor Road, Suite 220
     Pittsford, New York 14534
     Telephone: (585) 381-3820
     Facsimile: (585) 381-3886
     E-mail: robert@investorattorneys.com


ORLEANS LEVEE: Hearing on Summary Judgment Today
------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
that Judge Piper Griffin will hear a motion for summary judgment
in a class action suit against the Board of Commissioners for the
Orleans Levee on Friday in Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

Jefferson parish residents Susan and William Laurendine are the
lead class members in a class action suit against the Orleans
Levee district, the Parish of Orleans, the Department of
Transportation and Development, the Sewerage and Water Board and
the state of Louisiana.

The class is suing because of the damage caused by the failure of
the 17th Street levee which resulted in a 500-foot breach that
flooded several houses and commercial businesses.  The suit claims
the Orleans Levee District is liable for building levees and flood
walls "which were below standard," failing to test the barriers
and failing to "bind the walls together."

Plaintiffs filed motion for partial summary judgment, citing
La. R.S. 36:508.3A as amended by Acts 2004 No. 130, (1) which
created the Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation
under the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD)
which sees to matters "including engineering, relating to the
programs of the state with respect to the design, construction,
extension, improvement, repair, and regulation of . . . public
works functions of the state related to flood and drainage
control . . ."

The motion states that "Petitioners simply seek partial summary
judgment on the limited issue of whether, on or before August 25,
2005, the DOTD had a duty to undertake those matters set fort in
the version of La. R.S. 36:508.3A that was in effect at the time."

The defense opposition to the motion argues that the plaintiffs
"provide no evidence concerning what 'matters' the DOTD was
require to undertake or did undertake as a matter of fact because
they have conduct no discovery on any of these issues."

The opposition further claims that the plaintiffs "have failed to
present a concrete, justiciable controversy to be resolved" . . .
"they seek an impermissible advisory opinion regarding Louisiana
Revised Statue 36:508.3(A), which Louisiana courts repeatedly have
held is improper."

New Orleans attorney Darlene Jacobs, Esq., is representing the
class.

Orleans Levee is represented by:

     Thomas Anzelmo Sr., Esq.
     MCCRANIE, SISTRUNK, ANZELMO, HARDY, MCDANIEL & WELCH LLC
     3445 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 800
     Metairie, LA 70002
     Telephone: (504) 831-0946
     Facsimile: (504) 831-2492
     E-mail: tanzelmo@mcsalaw.com

The rest of the defendants are represented by:

     Lambert Hassinger Jr., Esq.
     Timothy Hassinger, Esq.
     GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH, PLC
     One Shell Square, 701 Poydras Street, 40th Floor
     New Orleans, LA 70139
     Telephone: (504) 525-6802
     Telecopy: (504) 525-2456
     E-mail: jhassinger@gjtbs.com
             thassinger@gjtbs.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Bid to Certify CT Scan Suit in NY Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a federal class action brought by two long-time Marlboro
smokers residing in Massachusetts on behalf of a class of an
estimated 60,000 similarly situated Massachusetts residents, the
Honorable Nancy Gertner has granted class certification, clearing
the way for a landmark trial against Philip Morris.

A motion to certify a class of Marlboro smokers residing in the
State of New York remains pending in a similar lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New
York in Brooklyn.

The case is unique in that the plaintiffs are not seeking money
damages and they do not have symptoms of lung cancer.  Instead,
they are seeking a medical monitoring program which would allow
lung cancer to be detected while it is more curable.  The medical
monitoring program would utilize low-dose CT scans rather than
conventional X-rays.

In its opinion released on June 24, 2010, the Massachusetts Court
summarized evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, stating: "Prior
technology, such as x-rays, was only able to identify lung cancer
when it had reached an advanced stage.  LDCT scans, however, can
identify lung cancer at a much earlier stage, significantly
increasing survival rates from about fifteen percent to eighty-
five percent."

Although not covered by most insurance plans, the use of LDCT
scanning to screen for the early detection of lung cancer is
endorsed by many leading medical institutions worldwide, including
members of an organization known as International Early Lung
Cancer Detection Program (I-ELCAP), http://www.ielcap.org/

The Class Action Reporter on June 28, citing The Boston Globe,
reported that Philip Morris USA plans to appeal the decision.
"The overwhelming majority of federal and state courts have
rejected class certification of smokers' claims, including those
seeking medical monitoring, because the claims raise issues unique
to each individual smoker," said Murray Garnick, a spokesman for
the company, according to reporting by The Globe. "T[he] ruling is
contrary to the law and we will ask the court of appeals to
reverse the decision."

Philip Morris also said in a statement issued Thursday that it
still had "numerous strong defenses" available to it if the case
proceeds.

Plaintiffs in both the Massachusetts and New York class actions
are represented by class action attorneys at Levy Phillips &
Konigsberg, LLP, a New York-based law firm, which has a 25-year
history of handling complex personal injury litigation.  In
addition to its class action litigation team, the firm also has
some of the leading birth defect lawyers and mesothelioma lawyers
in the nation.  The law firms of Thorton & Naumes, LLP, and Todd &
Weld, LLP are serving as co-counsel in the Donovan case.

LPK's headquarters are located at 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor,
New York, NY 10022.

The Massachusetts class action is Donovan et al. v. Philip Morris
USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 06cv12234 (D. Mass).

The New York class action is Caronia et al. v. Philip Morris USA,
Inc., Civil Action No. 06-0224 (E.D.N.Y.).

On the Net: http://www.lpklaw.com/


PRUDENTIAL PLC: Suits v. Jackson Over Insurance Products Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Federal Bank, which is owned by the Jackson National Life
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of British insurance company,
Prudential plc, is involved as a defendant in class action
litigation relating to its insurance products.

The action is substantially similar to class action litigation
pending against many life insurance companies that allege:

     -- misconduct in the sale and administration of insurance
        Products; and

     -- class action litigation that alleges violation of law
        forbidding unsolicited mass facsimile transmission.

Jackson with respect to pending litigation generally accrues a
liability for legal contingencies once management determines that
the contingency is probable and estimable.

Accordingly, at April 30, 2010, Jackson had recorded an accrual of
$16.7 million for class action litigation, according to
Prudential plc's June 22, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Prudential plc -- http://www.prudential.co.uk-- is an
international retail financial services group.  Its products
include retail products, which include annuities, corporate
pensions, with-profits and unit-linked bonds, savings and
investments, protection, equity release and health insurance, and
wholesale products, which include bulk annuities and annuity back-
books.  The company's primary segments are long-term business,
banking, and broker-dealer and fund management.


QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Court Held Final Fairness Hearing on June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing concerning the fairness of the settlement
of four franchisee class action lawsuits filed against the Quiznos
Franchise Company and others was scheduled for June 30, 2010,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2119 of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern
Division), 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604.

The Court, the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer presiding, has reserved
the right to adjourn or reset the hearing on the final approval of
the Settlement, approve the Settlement with or without
modifications, enter a final judgment dismissing the Lawsuit, with
prejudice, and order the payment of counsel fees and expenses,
without further notice of any kind.

Judge Pallmeyer has preliminarily approved the settlement in
November.  The settlement will provide more than $206 million in
benefits for Quiznos sub sandwich shop owners and the system as a
whole.

The cases in Colorado, Wisconsin and Illinois, the earliest of
which has been pending since 2006, allege violations of various
state and federal laws in connection with the sale and operation
of Quiznos franchises.  Quiznos denied all claims, and the
settlement agreement involves no finding or admission of
liability.

The settlement contains financial benefits for current and former
franchisees that elect to participate in the form of cash refunds,
food purchase discounts, and debt forgiveness. In addition,
amongst other things, the settlement agreement provides for the
creation, endorsement and funding of an independent franchisee
association; a retraining program for franchisees; annual
benchmark studies by an independent third party to review costs of
goods sold to franchisees; and an internal dispute resolution
process for franchisee disputes.

Janet Sparks, writing for Blue MauMau, reports that the amended
settlement filed on June 24 under Ilene Siemer, et al. vs. The
Quizno's Franchise Company LLC, et al., states, "The settlement
puts millions of dollars in cash into franchisees' pockets and
into advertising funds for their direct benefit, and achieves far-
reaching improvements to the Quiznos System."

Fredric "Ric" Cohen, Esq., at Cheng Cohen LLC, outside counsel for
Quiznos said, "We think the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and under applicable standards should receive final
approval from Judge Pallmeyer." He said out of the thousands of
class members there had only been a single objection, which is
insubstantial.  "That in and of itself speaks volumes about the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement."

When asked if the majority of franchisees did not respond one way
or the other to the settlement offer, which automatically placed
them as approving the settlement, Mr. Cohen said, "That is always
the case in class action litigation. However, in our case the
participation rate was significantly higher than what is typical
in these types of cases."

The amended settlement brief filed by law firms Kravit Hovel &
Krawczyk, S.C. and Marks & Klein, LLP, states, "The settlement has
been well received by the franchisee community. Of more than 8,468
franchisees and former franchisees who were sent notice of the
settlement, only one filed an objection, which is substantively
meritless."

In their brief, the franchisee attorneys advise Judge Pallmeyer,
"It is now time for this Court to join the parties, their counsel,
and the class members and place its final approval on the
settlement. The Court should also approve the incentive awards to
representative plaintiffs and franchisees who helped further the
lawsuits, the attorney fees to be paid by Quiznos to Class
Counsel, and the litigation expenses that have been submitted for
reimbursement."

A telephone call to franchisees' lead counsel Justin Klein was not
returned.

                     Amended Settlement Terms

The settlement agreement divides franchise operators into
different groups and classes, depending on their status at the
time of the settlement with Quiznos.  It lists the benefits or
payments made to franchise owners in various categories.

First on the list is the SNO portion, "sold but not opened,"
referring to investors who signed franchise agreements to open
Quiznos sub sandwich shops, some paying approximately $25,000 in
initial franchise fees, but never opening their franchises. In
many cases, investors accused the franchisor of unfairly
disapproving their selected locations, causing them to default on
their agreements when they could not open their store on time.

Depending on what class the SNO members are in, they will receive
10%, 20% or 32% rebate of their initial fee for each rescinded
agreement. Others who signed releases according to the terms in
the settlement, will receive a payment of $250 or $500.

Some franchise operators in the class action will receive $3,150,
made in the form of credits applied to food purchases. Other
classes will receive either $475 or $1,700 by check promptly after
the court's judgment is deemed final.

Forty-five franchise operators will be recognized for the
substantial time and effort they expended in pursing claims on
behalf of the franchise class members in the litigation. They will
be awarded $2,250 in incentive payments, according to the terms of
the settlement.

Quiznos will also contribute to the National Marketing Fund Trust
and Regional Advertising Program Trust in the amount of
$19,400,000, which it is otherwise not obligated to pay.  The
company also agrees to forgive debts, mostly arising from past due
royalties and other payments, owed by certain class franchise
operators who do not opt out of the settlement agreement.  And,
Quiznos agrees to release them from future lost royalties.

Attorney fees by class counsel will be capped at $10 million, and
Quiznos has agreed to pay up to $1 million in litigation expenses.

                   Economic Value of Settlement

Attorneys for the class action lawsuits engaged Bruce S.
Schaeffer, Franchise Valuations, Ltd., as an expert to provide a
valuation of the various provisions of the settlement.  His report
gave the settlement agreement an estimated value of $206,317.58.

Mr. Schaeffer reported that changes to Quiznos' franchise
disclosure document, FDD, will make litigation less likely,
resulting in benefits to franchisees and to Quiznos of
$18,684,592.

Although the franchisee plaintiffs' brief stated that it is widely
recognized that an independent franchisee association is one of
the most potent sources of power for franchisees in their ongoing
discussions and negotiations with franchisors, Schaeffer viewed
most of the benefits of the association as unquantifiable. He
assigned a specific value of only $175,000 for such an
organization.

He further reports that the independent pricing audit is estimated
to provide cost savings to franchisees worth $34,000,000 over
time. And, the retraining program will make franchisees more
profitable and efficient and thus will increase royalties received
by Quiznos, for aggregate benefits to Quiznos and to franchisees
of $30,898,675.

The forgiveness of existing franchisee debt plus the waiver of
future lost royalty claims total $72,276,821 in benefits,
according to Schaeffer's calculations in his report. The expert
viewed numerous elements of the settlement as providing intangible
benefits that were not readily quantifiable, such as the
advertising council, the dispute resolution program, and the
protocols for requesting permission to use alternative suppliers.
He accordingly calculated a total benefit from those provisions of
only $8,500,000, which could yield substantially greater
improvements as they are implemented, the settlement brief states.

               Explaining Settlement as a Good Thing

Counsels for the settlement agreement explain why the court should
enter judgment approving the settlement:

    In evaluating a proposed settlement, the court recognizes that
the "essence of settlement is compromise" and will not represent a
total win for either side . . . Accordingly, the court is not
called upon to determine whether the settlement reached by the
parties is the best possible deal, nor whether class members will
receive as much from a settlement as they might have recovered
from victory at trial."

The brief also addresses the complexity, length, and expense of
further litigation.

    Even after years of litigation, dozens of depositions,
millions of pages of document discovery, $1,212,112.10 in
litigation costs and expenses and $6,504,195.83 in attorney time
on the plaintiffs' side alone, all the cases comprising the
Franchise Operator Class Action Litigation were only at the motion
to dismiss stage.

Counsels state that there is no suggestion anywhere in this record
that the class counsel were unwilling or unable to bring these
cases to trial, had that been the most reasonable and prudent
course of action. For the reason discussed in detail [in the
amended brief] it was not. The choice of settlement over continued
litigation was not collusive and therefore supports approval.

More information on the settlement is available at:

                  http://qnationalsettlement.com/

The Class is represented by:

     Gerald A. Marks, Esq.
     Justin M. Klein, Esq.
     MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
     63 Riverside Avenue
     Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
     Telephone: (732) 747-7100
     Facsimile: (732) 219-0625
     E-mail: Jerry@MarksKlein.com
             Justin@MarksKlein.com

         - and -

     Stephen E. Kravit, Esq.
     Mark M. Leitner, Esq.
     Joseph S. Goode, Esq.
     KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK S.C.
     825 North Jefferson Street, Suite 500
     Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3737
     Telephone: (414) 271-7100
     Facsimile: (414) 271-8135
     E-mail: kravit@kravitlaw.com
             leitner@kravitlaw.com
             goode@kravitlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Fredric A. Cohen, Esq.
     Amy C. Haywood, Esq.
     CHENG COHEN LLC
     311 North Aberdeen Street, Suite 400
     Chicago, Illinois 60607
     Telephone: (312) 243-1701
     Facsimile: (312) 277-3961
     E-mail: fredric.cohen@chengcohen.com
             amy.haywood@chengcohen.com

          - and -

     Leonard H. MacPhee, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE LLP
     1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 700
     Denver, Colorado 80202-1043
     Telephone: (303) 291-2300
     Facsimile: (303) 291-2400
     E-mail: LMacphee@perkinscoie.com


TENNESSEE DMV: Sued for Illegal Seizure of Naturalization Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, a
naturalized citizen claims the Tennessee DMV confiscated and
defaced her naturalization documents when she tried to get a
driver's license, because of her ethnicity.  Diana Mata Cuellar
wants the Tennessee Department of Safety and Hamblen County DMV
enjoined from subjecting other people to this.

Mata Cuellar claims the Hamblen County DMV confiscated and defaced
her citizenship documents because of baseless suspicions they were
bogus.  She claims this is a TDS "policy": "subjecting foreign-
born applicants to a burden-shifting requirement that they act
affirmatively to prevent the destruction of their valid
naturalization certificates or other valid identification."

She also claims that TDS keeps "naturalization certificates or
other identification documents for unreasonable periods of time
beyond what is necessary for verification purposes," and that it
does not train its agents properly.

She seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, and compensatory
and punitive damages for civil rights violations.

A copy of the Complaint in Mata-Cuellar v. Tennessee Department of
Safety et al., Case No. 10-cv-00619 (M.D. Tenn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/29/Tennessee.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elliott Ozment, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELLIOTT OZMENT
          1214 Murfreesboro Pike
          Nashville, TN 37217
          Telephone: 615-321-8888
          E-mail: elliott@ozmentlaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Consolidated Complaint in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation faces a consolidated complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
alleging that certain Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles contain
defects that lead to unintended acceleration, according to the
company's June 25, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

There are approximately 200 putative class actions that have been
filed since November 2009 alleging that certain Toyota, Lexus and
Scion vehicles contain defects that lead to unintended
acceleration.  Many of the putative class actions allege that
malfunctions involving the floor mats and accelerator pedals do
not cover the full scope of possible defects related to unintended
acceleration.  Rather, they allege that Electronic Throttle
Control-intelligent (ETCS-i) is the true cause and that Toyota has
failed to inform consumers despite its awareness of the problem.
In general, these cases seek recovery for the alleged diminution
in value of the vehicles, injunctive and other relief.

In April 2010, the approximately 190 federal cases were
consolidated for most purposes into a single multi-district
litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  In addition, around half of the approximately 125
individual product liability personal injury cases relating to
unintended acceleration pending against Toyota have been
consolidated into the federal class action suit.  (The remaining
individual product liability personal injury cases relating to
unintended acceleration remain pending in various state courts in
the United States.)  This consolidated federal class action suit
is in its very early stages and currently activity centers around
case organization and scheduling.

Additionally, there are approximately ten putative class actions
in various state courts, including California.  The claims are
similar to the class actions in federal court.  One of the
putative California class actions was filed by the Orange County
District Attorney and, among other things, seeks statutory
penalties alleging that Toyota sold and marketed defective
vehicles and that consumers have been harmed as a result of
diminution in value of their vehicles.

Toyota Motor Corporation -- http://toyota.jp/-- primarily
conducts business in the automotive industry.  Toyota also
conducts business in the finance and other industries.  It is
organized in three segments: automotive operations, financial
services operations and all other operations.  Toyota's automotive
operations include the design, manufacture, assembly and sale of
passenger cars, minivans and commercial vehicles, such as trucks
and related parts and accessories.  Toyota's financial services
business consists primarily of providing financing to dealers and
their customers for the purchase or lease of Toyota vehicles.
Toyota's financial services also provide retail leasing through
the purchase of lease contracts originated by Toyota dealers.
Related to Toyota's automotive operations is its development of
intelligent transport systems (ITS). Toyota's all other operations
business segment includes the design and manufacture of
prefabricated housing and information technology related
businesses.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Nine Suits Over Defects in Braking Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation faces nine putative class actions
alleging defects in the braking systems in various hybrid
vehicles, according to the company's June 25, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

Beginning in February 2010, Toyota has been sued in nine putative
class actions in federal and state courts alleging defects in the
braking systems in various hybrid vehicles that causes the
vehicles to fail to stop in a timely manner when driving in
certain road conditions.

The plaintiffs claim that while a remedy for this braking issue
has been implemented on vehicles in production since January 2010
and has been offered to current owners of certain of the vehicles,
that owners and lessees of all of the vehicles should recover for
diminution in the value of the vehicles.  They also seek
injunctions ordering Toyota to repair the vehicles and to take
other actions, punitive damages and other relief.

Toyota Motor Corporation -- http://toyota.jp/-- primarily
conducts business in the automotive industry.  Toyota also
conducts business in the finance and other industries.  It is
organized in three segments: automotive operations, financial
services operations and all other operations.  Toyota's automotive
operations include the design, manufacture, assembly and sale of
passenger cars, minivans and commercial vehicles, such as trucks
and related parts and accessories.  Toyota's financial services
business consists primarily of providing financing to dealers and
their customers for the purchase or lease of Toyota vehicles.
Toyota's financial services also provide retail leasing through
the purchase of lease contracts originated by Toyota dealers.
Related to Toyota's automotive operations is its development of
intelligent transport systems (ITS). Toyota's all other operations
business segment includes the design and manufacture of
prefabricated housing and information technology related
businesses.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Six Shareholder Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation faces six putative shareholder class
actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's June 25, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010.

From February through April 2010, Toyota has been sued in six
putative shareholder class actions on behalf of investors in
Toyota American Depository Shares and common stock, and in a
putative bondholder class action.

The complaints of these securities class action lawsuits allege
that defendants made statements that were false or misleading in
that they failed to disclose problems with, or the causes of,
sudden unintended acceleration in a number of vehicle models.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Toyota Motor Corporation -- http://toyota.jp/-- primarily
conducts business in the automotive industry.  Toyota also
conducts business in the finance and other industries.  It is
organized in three segments: automotive operations, financial
services operations and all other operations.  Toyota's automotive
operations include the design, manufacture, assembly and sale of
passenger cars, minivans and commercial vehicles, such as trucks
and related parts and accessories.  Toyota's financial services
business consists primarily of providing financing to dealers and
their customers for the purchase or lease of Toyota vehicles.
Toyota's financial services also provide retail leasing through
the purchase of lease contracts originated by Toyota dealers.
Related to Toyota's automotive operations is its development of
intelligent transport systems (ITS). Toyota's all other operations
business segment includes the design and manufacture of
prefabricated housing and information technology related
businesses.


WAL-MART: Court Denies Class Status on Former Janitors' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that Chief U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown in Trenton, N.J.,
declined to give final class certification to a suit by former
Wal-Mart janitors over the retailer's labor practices.  The Court
found that because the plaintiffs worked for a variety of Wal-Mart
contractors around the county, not for the company directly, they
could not show they were "similarly situated" for class action
purposes.

The 114 putative class members in Zavala v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
03-cv-5309, worked in 180 stores in 33 states for 70 different
contractors and subcontractors, for varying hours and wages, Judge
Brown noted.  The lack of uniformity extended to their working
schedules, how often they were paid, whether taxes were withheld,
the duration of the employment and whether they worked for the
contractor at other stores in addition to Wal-Mart.

The factual differences arising from the multiple contractual
arrangements would also affect whether a particular worker would
be deemed a Wal-Mart employee for purposes of federal hour and
wage laws, a determination that turns on factors like the degree
of control Wal-Mart had over their work.

Although Wal-Mart had guidelines on how its stores were to be
maintained, "that does not establish that Defendant had the degree
of supervision and control over every worker such that all
workers, no matter what contractor they worked for or at what
store, can be said to be an employee of Defendant for purposes of
the [Fair Labor Standards Act, or FSLA]," wrote Judge Brown.

"Whether the individual claimants were employees of Defendant
within the meaning of the FLSA depends on the individual facts and
circumstances relating to the various contractors and the
activities at each separate store location," he added.

When U.S. District Judge Joseph Greenaway granted conditional
certification on Dec. 29, 2004, allowing plaintiffs to notify
potential class members and take discovery, he used a liberal
standard, but a stricter standard applies at this later stage when
there is more information and the decision is whether to decertify
the class or grant final certification, Judge Brown said.

The suit was filed in the wake of a coordinated raid by federal
immigration authorities on Wal-Mart stores around the country on
Oct. 23, 2003, that turned up hundreds of undocumented workers.
Facing the possibility of criminal charges, Wal-Mart paid the
government $11 million in a March 2005 civil settlement without
admitting any wrongdoing.

In the meantime, Victor Zavala and 16 other plaintiffs sued on
Nov. 10, 2003, only weeks after the raid, alleging Wal-Mart
exploited their undocumented status, inducing them, through the
contractors, to put in seven-day work weeks at low pay with no
overtime, no weekends off and no sick days, vacations, medical
coverage or worker's compensation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the contractors, with the knowledge
and approval of higher-ups at Wal-Mart, routinely hired illegal
immigrants from Mexico and Eastern Europe to work long hours,
housed them in squalid quarters, paid them less than minimum wage
and even locked them in Wal-Mart stores at night.

In addition to alleged violations of the FLSA, tax and
discrimination laws, the plaintiffs asserted a claim under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, contending
Wal-Mart and the contractors created, engaged in and profited from
a national criminal enterprise that employed, harbored and
trafficked in illegal immigrant workers.

The plaintiffs originally sued some of the contractors, too, but
in 2004 dropped the claims against them.

In 2007, Judge Greenaway threw out the RICO counts and refused to
allow an interlocutory appeal.

Meanwhile, armed with the conditional certification, the
plaintiffs tried to construct a national class of undocumented
workers employed as contract janitors at Wal-Mart stores since
January 2000.

Unlike a typical class action, class members had to opt-in and the
parties agreed on a questionnaire to be filled out by each would-
be member. More than 200 opted in but only 114 fully completed the
questionnaire and Greenaway held that only those 114 could be
taken into account in deciding the final certification motion,
filed Nov. 13, 2009.

When Judge Greenaway was elevated to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals earlier this year, Judge Brown took over the case.

The plaintiffs lead counsel, James Linsey, Esq., at Cohen Weiss &
Simon in New York, declined comment on Judge Brown's ruling, but
he had argued in a brief that certification was warranted because
Wal-Mart centrally managed its contracting of janitorial services
and dictated uniform standards and methods of cleaning. He had a
supporting declaration from Christopher Walters, who he identified
as Wal-Mart's largest janitorial contractor at the relevant times.

Wal-Mart's attorney, Thomas Golden, Esq., at Willkie Farr &
Gallagher in New York, referred a request for comment to Lorenzo
Lopez, a company spokesman.  Mr. Lopez issued a statement that
Wal-Mart was pleased with the decision and that it has "strong
policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with all
laws and we expect our service providers to do the same. " It also
states that the case involves a seven-year old situation and since
then, Wal-Mart has "implemented programs, to better ensure that
all Wal-Mart vendors follow applicable laws, including employment
and labor laws. Those who do not comply will no longer provide
services to our company."

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     James L. Linsey, Esq.
     COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON LLP
     330 West 42nd Street
     New York, NY  10036-6976
     Telephone: (212) 356-0214
     Facsimile: (646) 473-8214
     E-mail: jlinsey@cwsny.com

Wal-mart is being defended by:

     Thomas H. Golden, Esq.
     WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
     787 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019-6099
     Telephone: (212) 728-8657
     Facsimile: (212) 728-9657
     E-mail: tgolden@willkie.com


WALGREEN CO: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co.'s motion to dismiss a second amended complaint
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the
company and its former and current chief executive officers.  The
plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon the
company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24, 2009.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to
reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further
amend the complaint.  The District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion on Nov. 11, 2009.

The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of
purchasers of company common stock during the period between June
25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007.

As in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
charges the Company and its former and current chief executive
officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors
by failing to disclose (i) declining rates of growth in generic
drug sales and (ii) increasing selling, general and administrative
expenses in the fourth quarter of 2007, which allegedly had a
negative impact on earnings.

On Feb. 1, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's June 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 31, 2010.

Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail
drugstore business.  As of Aug. 31, 2009, the company operated
7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam.  During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the company opened or acquired 691 locations.  Total
locations do not include 337 convenient care clinics operated by
Take Care Health Systems, Inc. within the company's drugstores.
The company's drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of
prescription and non-prescription drugs and general merchandise.
General merchandise includes, among other things, household items,
personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing,
candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers customers the choice
to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as
through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet.  In
January 2010, the company announced that it has completed the
acquisition of the assets of 12 Eaton Apothecary pharmacies.


WEBLOYALTY.COM: Accused in Calif. of Deceptive Sales Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Webloyalty.com and
MovieTickets.com defraud online purchasers of movie tickets with
promos that appear to offer discounts but unwittingly sign them up
for a membership program" that costs $10 to $12 a month, a class
action claims in San Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Berry v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01358 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/29/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: 916-235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-756-6990
          E-mail: jpatterson@hpolaw.com
                  amartin@hpolaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Wants to Settle Military Veterans' Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Dale Russell, writing for Fox News in Atlanta, Ga., reports that
Wells Fargo says it is trying to settle a class action lawsuit
that claims military veterans were systematically overcharged on
their home loans.  It is a story, the FOX 5 I-Team first reported
last year.

Now, during a court hearing on the case, a Wells Fargo lawyer says
his client wants to resolve the case.  The legal battle between
veterans and Wells Fargo is making its way through a Clayton
County courtroom.

The veterans' lawyers wanted closing documents to try to prove its
case.  The Wells Fargo attorney told a judge they haven't produced
them yet, for a reason.


XTO ENERGY: Accused of Cheating Land Lessors of Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that XTO Energy, Barnett
Gathering, and Cross Timbers Energy Service cheat land lessors of
royalties, a class action claims in Oklahoma City Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Dark v. XTO Energy, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-00667 (W.D. Okla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/29/NatGas.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry W. West, Esq.
          Bradley C. West, Esq.
          Gregg W. Luther, Esq.
          J. Shawn Spencer, Esq.
          THE WEST LAW FIRM
          124 W. Highland
          P.O. Box 698
          Shawnee, OK 74802-0698
          Telephone: 405-275-0040

               - and -

          Russell Jackson Drake, Esq.
          WHATLEY, DRAKE & KALLAS
          1000 Park Place Tower
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-328-9576
          E-mail: jdrake@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Steve Nicholas
          CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
          1601 Dauphin St.
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: 251-471-6191
          E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com

               - and -

          Larry Wright, Esq.
          3529 7th Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35222
          Telephone: 205-328-9200
          E-mail: larry@elglaw.com

               - and -

          Brandy Bramlett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRANDY BRAMLETT
          3005 S. Lamar Blvd. D-109-388
          Austin, TX 78704-4785
          Telephone: 512-501-6333
          E-mail: Brandy@bramlettlaw.net

                - and -

          Michael T. Howell, Esq.
          HOWELL LAW FIRM
          4309 Yoakum Blvd., Suite 3000
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 281-935-3509
          E-mail: mike@mhowell-law.com


* Class Actions Rise in Australia Due to Availability of Funding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Spectator reports IMF Australia Ltd. managing director
Hugh McLernon says increased availability of litigation funding is
behind the growing number of class actions and large litigation
cases in the country.  In an interview with ABC TV's Lateline, Mr.
McLernon said the claims are not just class actions but individual
pieces of litigation as well, and the growth in claims reflected
the fact that litigation funding is now available so people are
able to take on companies like banks over exception fees.

IMF has a portfolio of claims worth A$1.6 billion and is targeting
A$2 billion by June 2011.

The current claims IMF Australia is funding include a case against
Bauxite Resources Ltd. relating to a placement of 60 million
shares by Bauxite Resources at a price of 95 cents each on or
about October 30, 2009, and more than 10 class actions against a
group of banks over exception fees.

Mr. McLernon thinks the case against the miner is a good one, and
the bank case was unique in the world for being digitally
organized.

"I think probably around the world it's the first class action
that's been organized entirely in a digital manner. In other
words, people found us on the internet, we supplied them with
info, they inter-reacted (sic) with us and they signed up all with
no personal contact at all, all thru the program that'd been
written by our in-house IT people," he said.

Mr. McLernon said people had signed up for about 168,000 accounts,
on average worth between A$1,000 and A$1,500.  The total amount is
now around A200 million.

There has been no backlash from the banks, which are cooperating
by showing IMF documents concerning contractual arrangements, and
the matter will be dealt with in "the normal way" through the
courts.

"It's a business question, not an emotional one, I think."


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Lawsuits Ongoing v. Ameron Int'l. at May 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant on 17 asbestos-
related cases as of May 30, 2010, compared with 22 cases as of
Feb. 28, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on June 25, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits. These cases generally seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to
products previously manufactured by the Company and others.

During the quarter ended May 30, 2010, there was one new asbestos-
related case, five cases dismissed, one case settled, no judgments
or recovery; and expenses totaled US$16,000. In the six months
ended May 30, 2010, the Company recovered US$36,000, net of
expenses.

Pasadena, Calif.-based Ameron International Corporation
manufactures highly-engineered products and materials for the
chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and infrastructure
markets. The Company produces water transmission lines;
fiberglass-composite pipe for transporting oil, chemicals and
corrosive fluids and specialized materials; and products used in
infrastructure projects.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota Corp. Cites JPY503MM Expense at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation's asbestos-related expenses during the year
ended March 31, 2010 was about JPY503 million, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 25, 2010.

The Company expenses the payments for the health hazard of
asbestos based on the Company's policies and procedures. The
expenses include payments to certain residents who lived near the
Company's plant and current and former employees, and a special
contribution in accordance with the New Asbestos Law.

Of the JPY503 million, JPY360 million represented expenses
relating to the payment for the residents who lived near the
Company's plant under the relief payment system established in
April 2006.

The recorded expenses totaled JPY1.155 billion for the year ended
March 31, 2009 and JPY1.090 billion for the year ended March 31,
2008.

The Company accrued the asbestos-related expenses of JPY352
million at March 31, 2010, JPY721 million at March 31, 2009, and
JPY968 million at March 31, 2008.

Though the Company said it believes that this amount appears to be
a better estimate than any other amount within a reasonably
estimable range of amounts, the additional exposure to loss in
excess of this accrued amount of JPY760 million exists.

Osaka, Japan-based Kubota Corporation has four segments: Farm &
Industrial Machinery; Water & Environment Systems; Social
Infrastructure; and Other.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kubota, Japan Gov't. Face 7 Suits Since May '07
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kubota Corporation, since May 2007, has been subject to seven
asbestos-related lawsuits in Japan, which were filed against the
Company or defendant party consisting of the Japanese Government
and asbestos-related companies including the Company.

The claims for compensation consisted mostly of four lawsuits,
which concerned a total of 388 construction workers who suffered
from asbestos-related diseases, and were filed against the
Japanese Government and 46 asbestos-related companies including
the Company.

The Company does not have any cost-sharing arrangements with other
potentially responsible parties for these seven lawsuits,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2010.

Osaka, Japan-based Kubota Corporation has four segments: Farm &
Industrial Machinery; Water & Environment Systems; Social
Infrastructure; and Other.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Court OKs Union Carbide's Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals of
Texas, in Houston, affirmed the ruling of the Eleventh District
Court, Harris County, Tex., Trial Court, which granted summary
judgment in favor of Union Carbide Corporation in an asbestos case
filed by Tommie Fay Darden, Henry Darden, Ronald Darden, Kim K.
Darden, and Klint K. Darden.

Justices John S. Anderson, Hedges, and Sullivan entered judgment
in Case No. No. 08-cv-00843 on May 6, 2010.

In 1989, Henry H. Darden and Tommie Fay Darden, alleging that Mr.
Darden was injured as a result of being exposed to asbestos while
employed by Union Carbide, filed suit against numerous defendants.

Some of the defendants in this litigation were members of the
Center for Claims Resolution (CCR), a nonprofit consortium of 21
asbestos exposure defendants formed in 1988 to act as agent for
its member companies in asbestos related litigation.

Union Carbide was a member of the CCR from its inception through
2001, when the CCR stopped handling the defense of claims for its
members. In 1990, a year after Henry H. Darden retired from his
employment with Union Carbide, the Dardens' attorney negotiated a
payment from the CCR to the Dardens in settlement of their
asbestos exposure lawsuit.

While Union Carbide was not a party to the underlying asbestos
exposure lawsuit, the CCR included Union Carbide as a party to the
settlement and release.

Following Mr. Darden's death, appellants filed suit against Union
Carbide asserting gross negligence claims and seeking to recover
exemplary damages. Union Carbide answered the lawsuit and asserted
release as an affirmative defense.

In addition, Union Carbide counterclaimed for indemnity. Union
Carbide eventually moved for summary judgment on both its
affirmative defense as well as its indemnity counterclaim.

The trial court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary
judgment on both its affirmative defense of release and on its
indemnity counterclaim. This appeal followed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Supreme Court OKs Ruling in Riedel Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the ruling
of the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, which granted
railroads' motion for administrative dismissal as to asbestos-
related claims in a case styled Riedel et al., Appellees v.
Consolidated Rail Corporation et al., Appellants.

Judges Paul Pfeifer, Maureen O'Connor, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith
Ann Lanzinger, Robert R. Cupp, and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton
entered judgment in Case No. 2009-1070 on May 6, 2010.

Appellees Jack E. Riedel, Danny R. Six, and Josephine Weldy
(collectively "Riedel") separately brought suit against
Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Premier Underwriters,
Inc., and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (collectively
"Consolidated Rail"), alleging various occupational-disease claims
under the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

Because the complaints included claims for asbestosis based on
occupational exposure to asbestos, they were assigned to the
court's separate asbestos docket, a special docket in the Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court designed to manage the court's heavy
caseload of asbestos claims.

Consolidated Rail moved for an administrative dismissal. When the
court ordered Riedel to make the required showing, Riedel offered
evidence. Finding Riedel's evidence insufficient to establish a
prima facie case, the court granted Consolidated
Rail's motion for administrative dismissal as to the asbestos-
related claims, but severed the remaining claims and ordered them
to be scheduled for trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court OKs Chesterton Petition for Allowance
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted
A.W. Chesterton, Inc.'s Petition for Allowance of Appeal in a case
involving asbestos styled Herbert L. Daley and Evelyn Daley, H/W,
Respondents v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., U.S. Supply Co., and Duro-
Dyne Corp.

On May 11, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal was granted,
limited to the issue below. Allocatur was denied as to all
remaining issues.

The issue was "Did the Superior Court err by permitting suits for
more than one malignant disease resulting from the same asbestos
exposure under the 'two-disease' rule?"

This case was consolidated for oral argument with No. 415 EAL
2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. District Court Dismisses Zawoysky's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Pennsylvania, dismissed a lawsuit involving asbestos filed by
Joseph Zawoysky, Jr. against Charles E. Kelley Support Facility
(CEK) USAR Installation.

The case is styled Joseph Zawoysky, Jr., Plaintiff v. Charles E.
Kelley Support Facility (CEK) USAR Installation, Defendant.

District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-1186 on May 17, 2010.

At the time Mr. Zawoysky filed his Complaint, he was a civilian
army employee working at the Charles E. Kelly U.S. Army Reserve
Support Facility. The Complaint asserted that Mr. Zawoysky was
subject to unsafe working conditions due to improper maintenance
of the ventilation system, including the removal of asbestos in
November 2000.

Mr. Zawoysky became ill in March 2001 and by July 2001, he was in
a coma for two to three weeks. He returned to work on a partial
basis in April 2002. In 2003, he started to think about filing a
lawsuit, but decided to wait until he retired. Then, during an EEO
meeting in July of 2008, he was told he had
45 days to file a complaint. As a result, he filed an EEO
Complaint in August 2008.

On Oct. 17, 2008, Mr. Zawoysky's EEO Complaint was dismissed as
untimely. He filed a timely appeal with the EEOC, which affirmed
the agency's final decision dismissing Mr. Zawoysky's Complaint on
the basis of timeliness on April 16, 2009.

Mr. Zawoysky then filed a request for reconsideration, which was
denied on June 4, 2009, because the request failed to meet the
requirements for reconsideration.

On Sept. 1, 2009, Mr. Zawoysky filed his Complaint in this Court.
On March 5, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the
alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted. The Complaint was
hereby dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Summary Judgment Denied in Aurand Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division, denied Norfolk Southern Railway
Company's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by Dennis
Aurand.

The case is styled Dennis Aurand, Plaintiff v. Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, Defendant.

Judge Philip P. Simon entered judgment in Case No. 3:08-CV-398 PPS
on May 14, 2010.

Mr. Aurand began working as a yard conductor at a railroad yard in
Elkhart, Ind., in 1974. Norfolk took control of the Elkhart yard
in June 1999, and Mr. Aurand retired from Norfolk in 2006. He
filed the present action against Norfolk on Aug. 26, 2008.

Mr. Aurand brought claims under the Federal Employers' Liability
Act, alleging that he developed multiple myeloma from exposure to
chemicals at the Elkhart yard. After this case was filed, he died
from complications relating to the myeloma.

Prior to this suit, in August 2004, Mr. Aurand filed a different
suit against Norfolk in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, alleging damages related to his
occupational exposure to asbestos. In that lawsuit, Mr. Aurand
alleged injuries related to asbestosis.

While his earlier case was pending, in November 2005, Mr. Aurand
was diagnosed with the multiple myeloma that is now the subject of
this case. Norfolk Southern and Mr. Aurand settled the earlier
lawsuit dealing with his exposure to asbestos for US$7,500, and
Mr. Aurand signed a standard release agreement drafted by Norfolk
Southern.

Mr. Aurand's signature on the release was notarized and witnessed
by two individuals.

The parties dispute whether Mr. Aurand released his multiple
myeloma claim when he signed this release. Norfolk's Motion for
Summary Judgment on Release alleged that Mr. Aurand's prior
release bars his current suit in this Court.

Mr. Aurand's rejoinder was that he had no intention of releasing
his current claim because at the time he signed the release, he
did not even know that his myeloma was connected to his employment
at the Elkhart yard.

Norfolk's Motion for Summary Judgment on Release (DE 30) was
denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands Segars Case for More Development
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
vacated the Jan. 17, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans, which
denied Theodore J. Segars entitlement to disability benefits for
adenocarcinoma of the colon and metastatic carcinoma of the right
lung.

The Court remanded the matter for further development and
readjudication.

The case is styled Theodore J. Segars, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Lawrence B. Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 08-1449 on
May 24, 2010.

Mr. Segars served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from August
1953 through January 1964 and October 1969 through August 1975. He
was exposed to asbestos while in the military.

In April 1984, Mr. Segars was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in his
colon. In June 1984, he applied for entitlement to disability
benefits for the disease. A month later, he was diagnosed with
adenocarcinoma in his right lung consistent with primary colon
adenocarcinoma. In September 1984, a VA regional office denied
entitlement to disability benefits for adenocarcinoma of the colon
and right lung. Mr. Segars did not appeal the decision, and it
became final.

In November 2002, Mr. Segars sought to reopen his previously
denied claims based on new and material evidence. The regional
office sent Mr. Segars a letter advising him to submit records
related to his treatment for adenocarcinoma of the colon and lung.
Mr. Segars responded with a letter indicating that the medical
evidence was already in his claims file.

In April 2004, Mr. Segars was provided with a VA examination. The
examining physician opined that, based on a consultation with a
specialist whose opinion is not in the record, "there is no proven
connection between exposure to asbestos and colorectal cancer.
There are several articles in the literature that had a
statistical concurrence; but as both of these things are common,
asbestos exposure and colon cancer, it is not surprising that
there should be some concurrent occurrences."

The examiner further stated that "to the best of my ability, I
should have to say that the colorectal cancer and the lung
metastasis that accompanied it was unrelated to asbestos exposure
during the military. Any statement saying otherwise would be
purely speculative on [my] part."

In February 2006, Mr. Segars submitted a letter written by Dr.
Albert Ehrlich, a private physician, dated Oct. 4, 1986.

In January 2008, the Board issued the decision on appeal,
reopening Mr. Segars' claims for benefits for adenocarcinoma of
the colon and right lung, but denying entitlement to benefits for
either disease.

Mr. Segars appealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Upholds Ruling in Sunbeam Corp. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld the
ruling of the Court of Appeals, Hancock Circuit Court, which
denied Sunbeam Corporation's petition for a writ to compel its
dismissal from a wrongful death action.

The case is styled Sunbeam Corporation, Appellant, Honorable
Ronnie C. Dortch, Judge, Hancock Circuit Court, Appellee and
Sherry J. McGlenon and Terry L. Parker, Co-Executors of the Estate
of Leon J. Fischer, Real Parties in Interest.

Justice Lisabeth Hughes Abramson entered judgment in Case No.
2009-SC-000501-MR on May 20, 2010.

Sunbeam Corporation (n/k/a American Products, Inc.) was one of
several defendants in a wrongful death suit now proceeding in the
Hancock Circuit Court. The wrongful death action was being pursued
by Sherry McGlenon and Terry Parker, the real parties in interest
who are co-executors of the estate of their father, Leon Fischer.

Mr. Fischer died from lung-related mesothelioma, and the executors
alleged that he contracted that disease as a result of being
exposed to asbestos fibers during the course of his career as a
maintenance worker, including during his work for National
Aluminum in Hawesville, Ky.  At National Aluminum, allegedly, Mr.
Fischer was exposed to asbestos-containing furnaces supplied by
Sunbeam or a predecessor in interest.

Sunbeam moved to be dismissed from the executors' suit on the
ground that its 2002 reorganization under the bankruptcy laws
discharged any claim that Mr. Fischer may have had against it.

Sunbeam added to its motion a contention that jurisdiction over
claims bearing on its discharge was lodged exclusively in the
bankruptcy court and accordingly that the Hancock Circuit Court
lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

By order entered April 23, 2009, the trial court denied the motion
to dismiss, whereupon Sunbeam moved the Court of Appeals for a
writ compelling the dismissal. The Court of Appeals denied
extraordinary relief.

Sunbeam appealed from the Court of Appeals' decision, and
reiterated its contentions that only the bankruptcy court had
jurisdiction to construe its discharge and that it will suffer
irreparable injury if not given immediate relief from the trial
court's erroneous refusal to give effect to Sunbeam's discharge.

The Supreme Court affirmed the July 9, 2009 Order of the Court of
Appeals denying Sunbeam's petition for a writ.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Ruling in Kozak Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the First District Court of Appeals of Texas,
in Houston, issued split rulings in asbestos litigation involving
Keith Scrifres and Shanda Kozak, Individually and as a personal
representative of the heirs and estate of Walter Scifres.

Judges Sherry Radack, Jane Bland, and Michael C. Massengale
entered judgment in Case No. 08-cv-00896 on May 20, 2010.

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial
Court Cause No.2008-17991

By motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, Universal
Oil Products, L.L.C. moved against all claims asserted by Shanda
Kozak and Keith Scifres on the basis that the Kozak Plaintiffs had
failed to obtain a certificate of merit (dismissal motion) and on
the claims' merits or on the basis of the statute of repose
(summary-judgment motion).

By two interlocutory orders, the 11th District Court Harris
County, Texas Trial Court, dismissed or rendered judgment on all
of the Kozak Plaintiffs' claims against UOP, except for a claim
based on UOP's alleged failure to warn of the dangers of asbestos.
Both parties appealed the ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Walter Scifres worked at the Sun Oil refinery in Duncan, Okla.,
for several decades. The Kozak Plaintiffs alleged that UOP
designed the Sun Oil refinery and acted afterwards as a general
contractor at the refinery facility. In 2005, Walter Scifres died
of mesothelioma.

The Appeals Court reversed the trial court's Sept. 26, 2008 order
to the extent that it denied UOP's motion to dismiss the failure-
to-warn claim against UOP.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's Sept. 26, 2008 order
in all other respects.

The Appeals Court remanded the case with instructions for the
trial court to dismiss the referenced claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Tufts Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
upheld a Feb. 14, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals,
which denied John D. Tufts entitlement for various disorders,
including asbestos exposure.

Judge Mary J. Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-0677 on May
24, 2010.

Mr. Tufts appealed the Feb. 14, 2008 Board decision that denied
entitlement to:

-- Service connection for a heart disorder, including
   ventricular tachycardia, as secondary to a service-connected
   disability;

-- Service connection for scarring of the right chest and back,
   as secondary to a service-connected disability; and

-- A compensable evaluation for residuals of asbestos exposure
   with interstitial pulmonary fibrosis, including restoration
   of a previously assigned 30 percent evaluation.

Mr. Tufts served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1960 to
July 1963. He was granted service connection for interstitial
pulmonary fibrosis as a residual of asbestos exposure in September
1993, and assigned a 30 percent disability rating.

In March 2005, Mr. Tufts filed a claim for (1) an increased
disability rating for his service-connected interstitial pulmonary
fibrosis, (2) service connection for painful scars with loss of
chest and back muscles from lung surgery, and (3) service
connection for a heart condition secondary to his service-
connected lung condition.

The regional office (RO) issued a rating decision in December
2005, which proposed to reduce Mr. Tufts' disability rating for
residuals of asbestos exposure with interstitial pulmonary
fibrosis from 30 percent to 0 percent, and denied his claims for
entitlement to service connection for a heart condition and
scarring of the right chest and back, secondary to lung surgery.

Later that month, Mr. Tufts filed a Notice of Disagreement. The RO
issued a Statement of the Case in June 2006 and Mr. Tufts
perfected his appeal to the Board.

The Board's Feb. 14, 2008 decision was affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Seeling Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
upheld a Dec. 10, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals,
which denied entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation
for the cause of Gilly L. Seeling's death, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.

The case is styled Norma Seeling, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Bruce E. Kasold entered judgment in Case No. 09-0330 on May
25, 2010.

Norma Seeling, surviving spouse of Mr. Seeling, appealed pro se
the Dec. 10, 2008 decision.  She argued that the Board erred in
determining that Mr. Seeling's COPD was not related to service.

The Board stated that it found Mr. Seeling's COPD was not related
to exposure to asbestos or herbicides in service, as Mrs. Seeling
had contended, because there was no evidence that he had been
exposed to asbestos during his service in Korea, and the military
did not use Agent Orange and other herbicides in Korea while Mr.
Seeling was stationed there.

Mrs. Seeling argued that the Board failed to consider her
testimony that her husband's COPD began shortly after service and
continued until his death.

Accordingly, the Dec. 10, 2008 decision of the Board that denied
compensation for the cause of Mr. Seeling's death was affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Denies Bid in Sulzer Pumps Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WestLaw reports that the Second District Court of Appeal in
California denied a petition for a writ of mandate in a case
involving asbestos styled Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc., Petitioner v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Pacific
Indemnity Company et al., Real Parties in Interest.

Judges H. Walter Croskey, Richard D. Aldrich, and Joan D. Klein
entered judgment in Case No. B222280 on May 20, 2010.

Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc. sought a writ of mandate directing
respondent superior court:

-- To vacate its order denying Sulzer's motion to dismiss or
   stay the instant litigation on the ground of forum non
   conveniens and to enter a new order dismissing this action in
   favor of an action pending in Oregon; and

-- To vacate its order granting a motion by real parties in
   interest Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Certain
   London Market Insurance Companies (collectively, London) to
   lift a stay of these proceedings and to enter a new order
   denying London's motion.

Atkinson's principal place of business was in Lafayette, Calif.,
and Pacific Indemnity's home office was in Los Angeles.

Under a purchase and sale agreement in 1986 and another
transaction in 1988, Sulzer acquired the property known as the
Portland Plant, previously owned by a division of Atkinson. The
Portland Plant consists of 24 acres in Portland, Ore., bordering
the Willamette River.

The prior declaratory relief action in the Los Angeles Superior
Court, resulting in a 2005 declaratory judgment that Sulzer was
not entitled to benefits under the Policies due to the lack of
consent by Pacific Indemnity to any assignment of the Policies.

Sulzer was faced with thousands of personal injury claims,
principally in Mississippi, arising out of exposure to asbestos
from products made by Atkinson. Sulzer claimed it was entitled to
the benefits of the Policies issued by Pacific Indemnity to
Atkinson.

In 2003, Pacific Indemnity filed an action in the Los Angeles
Superior Court against Sulzer and various insurer defendants for
declaratory relief and contribution. That action was resolved in
2005 on summary judgment.

Sulzer sues in Oregon, again seeking coverage under Atkinson's
Pacific Indemnity Policies; Pacific Indemnity files this action in
California, again seeking declaratory relief.

In December 2008, Sulzer filed suit in Oregon against Pacific
Indemnity and other insurers.

On Jan. 22, 2009, Pacific Indemnity filed the instant action in
the Los Angeles Superior Court for declaratory relief and
contribution.

On April 10, 2009, the Oregon court issued an order granting
Sulzer's motion for an anti-suit preliminary injunction.  On June
25, 2009, the Oregon court denied Pacific Indemnity's motion for
summary judgment. The Oregon action was set for trial on June 1,
2010.

Sulzer moved to dismiss the instant litigation. ATKN separately
moved to stay the instant action. London moved to lift a
previously entered stay of the proceedings.

On Jan. 26, 2010, the three motions came on for hearing.  On Feb.
2, 2010, the trial court denied Sulzer's motion to dismiss or stay
the action on grounds of forum non conveniens, denied ATKN's
motion to stay the proceedings, and granted London's motion to
lift an existing stay, enabling this case to proceed.

On Feb. 18, 2010, Sulzer filed the instant writ petition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Marco Island, Quality to Settle CAA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Marco Island, Fla., and Quality Enterprises USA, Inc.
have entered into an administrative consent agreement with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to settle allegations that
the City and Quality violated the Clean Air Act and the federal
asbestos regulations known as the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Asbestos, according to an EPA press
release dated June 24, 2010.

Under the consent agreement, the City and Quality have agreed to
pay a penalty of US$81,722. In accordance with a separate
agreement between the City and Quality, Quality will pay the
entire penalty.

The alleged violations occurred during the City's Collier
Boulevard road-widening and sewer and drinking water pipe
installation project that began in 2005. The Consent Agreement was
finalized on June 23, 2010.

The alleged violations of the asbestos regulations include:

-- Failure to conduct a thorough inspection for asbestos prior
   to the excavation of asbestos-containing cement piping;

-- Failure to provide timely written notification to the Florida
   Department of Environmental Protection prior to beginning the
   construction project;

-- Failure to remove the excavated asbestos-containing piping
   prior to conducting construction activity that would break
   up, dislodge or disturb the asbestos material;

-- Failure to adequately wet and keep wet the excavated
   asbestos-containing piping until disposed;

-- Failure to have on-site a supervisor properly trained in the
   asbestos regulations; and

-- Failure to properly dispose of the excavated asbestos-
   containing piping and asbestos-contaminated debris as soon as
   practical.

Kenneth Lapierre, EPA Region 4 Deputy Director of the Air,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Division, said, "It is incumbent
that building owners, developers, contractors and municipalities
involved in renovation and demolition projects, properly remove
and dispose of asbestos in order to protect the health of the
public and immediate community.

"The notification, work practice, and disposal requirements of the
asbestos regulations are designed to ensure that asbestos
emissions are avoided during renovation and demolition
construction work."

In 2006, EPA learned that fragments and sections of the asbestos-
containing cement piping that had been excavated during the
project had been disposed of and/or otherwise had come to be
located at three separate sites near the construction project on
Marco Island.

Due to the presence of asbestos contamination at the three sites,
EPA determined that cleanup action was required. The City and
Quality fully cooperated with EPA in the development and
implementation of sampling and cleanup plans to address the
contamination at the sites.

Cleanup actions were satisfactorily completed in accordance with
the work plans in May 2007, April 2008, and November 2008,
respectively. Subsequent confirmatory soil sampling did not
indicate the presence of any remaining asbestos fibers.

Under the Consent Agreement, the City and Quality have certified
that they are in compliance with all relevant requirements of the
asbestos regulations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huddersfield Engineer's Death Linked to Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Huddersfield Coroner's Court heard that the
death of 66-year-old Royston Waterhouse, a former thermal
insulation engineer, was linked to exposure to asbestos, The
Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports.

Mr. Waterhouse died on May 12, 2010 at the Kirkwood Hospice.

The court heard that Mr. Waterhouse, of Heckmondwike, England, had
worked as a thermal insulation engineer.  He was employed at H
Medley and Sons, based in Bradford, where he was regularly exposed
to asbestos.

Mr. Waterhouse was admitted into Dewsbury District Hospital in
April 2010, where he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Coroner Roger Whittaker recorded that Mr. Waterhouse died from an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Pegler Polisher's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Doncaster Coroner's Court heard that the death
of Dorothy Lillian Scott, a former polisher who died at the age of
63, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Doncaster
Free Press reports.

Ms. Scott came into contact with asbestos while she was working as
a polisher at Pegler in Balby, Doncaster, England, or at
Sheffield-based cutlery firm Viners, the hearing heard. She worked
for a total of five years and died in November 2009 after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma.

After leaving Northcliffe School in Conisbrough in the 1960s, Ms.
Scott got a job polishing cutlery and taps at Viners and then
Pegler and would complain of being covered in dust, the court was
told.

After working for a total of five years, Ms. Scott, of Warren
Road, Conisbrough, stopped working to start a family and she never
worked again, the court heard.

At the time of her death, Ms. Scott was suffering from a large
tumor in her abdomen, pathologist Dr. Anju Verghese said in a
statement to the court.

Assistant deputy coroner Jonathan Goddfrey said that he believed
that Ms. Scott's cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SEPT Junks Dadex Plea in Ahmad Case on June 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2010, the Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal
(SEPT) of Pakistan rejected the plea of Dadex on a complaint
lodged by Haroon Ahmad, alleging the Company of using asbestos,
the Daily Times reports.

Dadex had filed the application against the maintainability of the
complaint at SEPT through its counsel Barrister Jamshaid Ahmad,
who challenged the jurisdiction of the tribunal and said the
tribunal has no authority to hear or proceed this complaint.

Barrister Ahmad stated the proper jurisdiction was a magistrate's
court under the Section 14 of Pakistan Environmental Protection
Act (PEPA), 1997 and it may be maintainable at lower/trial courts
(judicial magistrate).

However, Deputy District Prosecutor General Abdul Maroof said the
SEPT has the authority to hear the complaint.

Haroon Ahmad, a resident of Gulistan-e-Jauhar, approached the SEPT
to file a complaint against the prominent pipe-making company,
alleging that unfavorable conditions at the factory had caused
cancer to his brother, who later died of the ailment.

SEPT said the complaint was maintainable and adjourned the matter
until July 29, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Actions in Mo. Referred to AG for Enforcement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission referred cases involving three Missouri
businesses to the Missouri Attorney General's Office to pursue
legal action for violations of Missouri's Air Conservation Law and
Regulations, according to an MDNR press release dated June 28,
2010.

The commission, at its June 24, 2010 meeting in Jefferson City,
Mo., voted to refer the cases to the AG's office to compel
compliance and to seek an appropriate civil penalty for the
violations.

The following entities refused to take appropriate responsibility
for their violations and would not negotiate reasonable
settlements with the department. Therefore, the department had no
recourse but to ask the attorney general to take legal action
against the violators:

-- Accurate Building Inspections, Springfield -- Failed to
   register with the department as a certified asbestos
   contractor and failed to provide notification prior to
   beginning an asbestos removal project involving regulated
   quantities of asbestos-containing materials. The Air
   Pollution Control Program also documented that Accurate
   Building Inspectors used improper work practices in removing
   asbestos materials.

-- Final Finish, Kansas City -- Failed to submit their 2008
   Emissions Inventory Questionnaire. Emissions Inventory
   Questionnaires are a required part of Missouri's Air
   Conservation Law and help the department track potentially
   harmful emissions from certain facilities.

-- T.J. Metals, Cadet -- Failed to submit an Emissions Inventory
   Questionnaire, failed to obtain a construction permit and
   violated Missouri's open burning regulations. Because of the
   potential level of lead and particulate matter emissions from
   the facility, T.J Metals is required to obtain a construction
   permit before building a new facility or an existing facility
   is expanded or modified.

In each of the cases, the department contacted the residents or
business owners of these facilities multiple times, but has not
received an adequate response.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Developers Fined for Citadel Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to U.S. Attorney Beth Phillips, William M. Threatt Jr.
and Anthony Crompton, two developers with the Kansas City, Mo.-
subsidized Citadel Plaza project were indicted on charges of
improper handling of asbestos, the Kansas City News reports.

The 69-year-old Mr. Threatt and the 40-year-old Mr. Crompton were
indicted by a federal grand jury for improperly removing and
disposing of materials containing asbestos as part of the
construction project, Ms. Phillips said in an e-mail.

Mr. Threatt was president and operator of the Citadel project. Mr.
Crompton was site operator and real estate director.

Federal officials allege the two men directed workers who
performed development on the site. The more than US$90 million
Citidel project was intended as a residential and commercial
development, which taxpayers have helped pay for, that would lead
to the revitalization of the inner city.

The allegations stem from April 2001 to July 2006 during which
time federal prosecutors say the two men illegally removed and
disposed of asbestos materials. The grand jury found this violated
the federal Clean Air Act.

The two men are subject to sentences of up to seven years in
prison and fines of up to US$500,000 if convicted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Springfield Affirms $167,747 for Abatement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The School Committee has awarded three bids amounting to
US$167,747 to remove asbestos from three public schools in West
Springfield, Mass., The Republican reports.

The committee voted unanimously 6-0 on June 24, 2010 to take that
action on the recommendation of interim Assistant School
Superintendent Kevin A. McQuillan.

Mr. McQuillan said 10 contractors attended the pre-bid conference
on the project, but the field dwindled to two after they learned
the work needs to be done as soon as possible.

The two contractors that submitted bids for the projects were
Compass Restoration Services Inc., of Springfield, and Bay State
Contracting Services Inc., of Springfield.

In every case, Mr. McQuillan recommended and committee members
voted to award the projects to the lowest bidder.

The winning bids were as follows: Compass at US$78,529 for
Memorial Elementary School, Compass at US$84,344 for Tatham
Elementary School, and Bay State at US$4,874 for Mittineague
Elementary School.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Records $2.9MM Probable Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company's probable liabilities related to asbestos
claims were US$2,933,000 as of May 29, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on June 30, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of May 29, 2010, the Company's insurance recoveries related to
asbestos claims were US$1,627,000.

As of Feb. 27, 2010, the Company recorded probable liabilities of
US$3.35 million and insurance recoveries of US$1,999,000 related
to asbestos claims. (Class Action Reporter, April 9, 2010)

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in various
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products
containing asbestos manufactured more than 25 years ago. The
plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple
defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very
large amounts.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company and a group of
other defendants entered into negotiations with certain law firms
to settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and claims over a
period of years. In total, the Company expects to contribute up to
US$4,114,000 towards the settlement amount to be paid to the
claimants in exchange for a full release of claims. Of this
amount, the Company's insurers have committed to pay US$2,043,000
based on a probable liability of US$4,114,000.

Given that the remaining settlement payouts are expected to occur
over a period of years and the accrual is based on the maximum
number of cases to be settled, which has been its experience, the
Company applied a present value approach and has accrued
US$2,820,000 and recorded a receivable of US$1,466,000 due from
insurers, as of May 29, 2010.

During the 26 weeks ended May 29, 2010, the Company settled three
lawsuits and claims, reached settlements of US$448,000 and
received or expects to receive insurance payments of US$359,000.

During the 26 weeks ended May 30, 2009, the Company settled one
lawsuit and claim and reached settlement of US$1,000.

St. Paul, Minn.-based H.B. Fuller Company makes adhesives,
sealants, powder coatings for metals (office furniture,
appliances), and liquid paints (in Latin America). The Company's
industrial and performance adhesives customers include companies
in the packaging, graphic arts, automotive, woodworking, and
nonwoven textiles industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Facing 529 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's former companies faced 529 open
asbestos-related claims during the year ended March 31, 2010,
compared with 534 open claims during the year ended March 31,
2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on June 30,
2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF) provides
compensation payments for Australian asbestos-related personal
injury claims against the Former James Hardie Companies.

These former companies include ABN 60 Pty Limited, Amaca Pty Ltd
and Amaba Pty Ltd.

During the year ended March 31, 2010, the Former James Hardie
Companies recorded 535 new claims and 540 closed claims. The
average settlement amount per settled claim was AU$190,627
(US$162,250) and the average settlement amount per case closed was
AU$171,917 (US$168,248).

During the year ended March 31, 2009, the Former James Hardie
Companies recorded 607 new claims and 596 closed claims. The
average settlement amount per settled claim was AU$190,638
(US$151,300) and the average settlement amount per case closed was
AU$168,248 (US$133,530).

Based in Dublin, Ireland, 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: 3 Kankakee Residents Charged for CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Kankakee, Ill., area men have been charged with felony
offenses under the Clean Air Act for alleged violations relating
to the removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from a Kankakee
building in August 2009, according to a U.S. Attorney's Office
press release dated June 21, 2010.

Those charged are 41-year-old Michael J. Pinski of Kankakee; 57-
year-old Duane L. O'Malley of Bourbonnais; and 47-year-old James
A. Mikrut of Manteno, Ill.

The grand jury returned the indictment earlier in June 2010 but
the charges had remained sealed pending Mr. O'Malley 's arrest and
initial appearance in court. On June 11, 2010, Mr. O'Malley, also
known as "Butch," of the 5600 block of North 5000 E Road,
Bourbonnais, was arrested and appeared before U.S. Magistrate
Judge David G. Bernthal in federal court in Urbana. Mr. O'Malley
was released on bond and a trial date scheduled on Aug. 16, 2001.

Mr. Pinski, of Marquette Lane, Kankakee, and Mr. Mikrut, of South
Poplar, Manteno, are scheduled to appear for arraignment on July
15, 2010.

Each of the men has been charged with five counts of violating the
Clean Air Act related to the alleged illegal removal, disposal and
handling of asbestos from a building owned by Mr. Pinski, through
his company, Dearborn Management, Inc., at 197 South West Ave., in
Kankakee.

The indictment alleges that in August 2009, Mr. Pinski hired Mr.
O'Malley, owner and operator of Origin Fire Protection, to remove
asbestos-containing insulation from pipes in the five-story
building.

According to the indictment, neither Mr. O'Malley nor his company,
Origin Fire Protection, was trained to perform asbestos removal
work. He allegedly agreed to remove the asbestos insulation for an
amount that was substantially less than a trained asbestos
abatement contractor would have charged to remove the asbestos
insulation.

The indictment alleges that Mr. O'Malley arranged for Mr. Mikrut
to recruit and oversee workers to remove the asbestos; Mr. Mikrut
allegedly recruited five individuals who removed the asbestos
insulation from the pipes inside the building from
Aug. 15 to Aug. 20, 2009.

The indictment alleges that the three men violated provisions of
the Clean Air Act and the federal asbestos regulations. The
indictment alleges that the asbestos insulation was placed in
about 127 large, unlabeled plastic garbage bags, which Mr.
O'Malley directed Mr. Mikrut to dump, and on Aug. 23, 2009, Mr.
Mikrut and another individual allegedly drove to a field in
Hopkins Park, where they dumped the bags of insulation in an open
field, resulting in asbestos contamination in the soil.

Mr. Pinski and Mr. Mikrut have also each been charged with one
count of making false statements to investigators. According to
the indictment, each allegedly made false statements, that they
knew nothing about asbestos removal at the site, when they were
interviewed by an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
investigator on separate occasions in September 2009.

If convicted, the penalty for each violation of the Clean Air Act
is up to five years in prison and a fine of up to US$250,000. The
penalty for making a false statement is up to five years in prison
and a fine of up to US$250,000.

The charges are the result of an investigation conducted by EPA,
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Criminal Investigation Division.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugene L. Miller is prosecuting the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whitehaven Engineer's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Andrew White Ross, a former
heating engineer from Hensingham, Whitehaven, England, was linked
to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Whitehaven News reports.

Mr. Ross died at the age of 84 in the West Cumberland Hospital on
Oct. 26, 2010.

A post-mortem revealed that Mr. Ross had a "significant amount" of
asbestos exposure and the pathologist, Dr. Joanne Wilkinson, was
completely satisfied that the death was asbestos related.

The inquest heard that from the 1950s until he retired in 1989,
Mr. Ross had worked all over the country fitting pipework,
radiators and boilers.

He worked for contractors and undertook a number of large-scale
projects, including extending the West Cumberland Hospital and
taking on work at Lillyhall, BNFL and Barrow. In all of these
projects, he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibers.

Coroner David Roberts recorded a verdict of death as a result of
an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sydney Resident Charged for Disposal Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dib Hanna Abdalla Hanna was penalized for dumping asbestos in
vacant areas in Sydney, Australia, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Mr. Hanna was paid to dump building waste for companies. He was
caught in a sting dumping building waste that included dangerous
asbestos on four occasions between July 2009 and October 2009.

Mr. Hanna was fined AU$133,000 for related activities.

Acting DECCW (Department of Environment Climate Change and Water)
Director General, Simon Smith, said, "Mr. Hanna operated with
complete disregard for and indeed in defiance of the law.

Illegal dumping is not only a blot on the landscape; it threatens
the health of our waterways and, in the case of asbestos, the
health of our communities. It also costs taxpayers, councils and
the community hundreds of thousands of dollars in clean up costs
every year."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Trustee Criticizes Bondex Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------
A plan by RPM International, Inc. to put two non-operating units
into bankruptcy in order to resolve thousands of asbestos claims
filed by mesothelioma lawyers has come under criticism by the U.S.
Trustee assigned to monitor the bankruptcy, according to a Cooney
& Conway press release dated June 28, 2010.

RPM, a manufacturer of specialty chemicals and paints, faces in
excess of 10,000 asbestos lawsuits that have been filed against it
or one of its subsidiaries.  On May 31, 2010, two of its units,
Specialty Products Holding Corp. and Bondex International Inc.,
filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.

RPM had planned to use the two holding companies to create a fund
to resolve the asbestos cases. Similar claims had already cost RPM
as much as US$82 million a year since 2005.

Under U.S. bankruptcy law, a bankrupt company can force all of its
asbestos lawsuits to be settled by an adequately funded trust. In
one example of this strategy, Federal-Mogul Corp., the maker of
Champion spark plugs, used a trust to resolve up to US$9.4 billion
in asbestos claims.

But the trustee, Richard Schepacarter, told U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Kevin Carey in Wilmington, Del., that "there needs to be a hard
look at [this] case." He told the court that RPM's plan appears to
conflict with previous bankruptcy court rulings involving asbestos
trusts.

RPM is not the only company to place units in bankruptcy in an
attempt to resolve asbestos lawsuits.  Less than a week after its
Chapter 11 filing, EnPro Industries, Inc., another manufacturer
facing thousands of asbestos claims, saw its Garlock Sealing
Technologies subsidiary file for Chapter 11 protection.  Garlock,
too, is planning to create a trust to pay claims.

In the RPM bankruptcy case, Judge Carey issued a 14-day moratorium
on asbestos lawsuits pending against the Company. During that
period, a panel is to be created to represent individuals who
developed asbestos related illnesses, like mesothelioma, related
to materials produced by an RPM company. Judge Carey set a hearing
on June 15, 2010 to determine whether to continue or rescind that
temporary restraining order.

Mr. Schepacarter's concern as a trustee focused on the non-
operating status of the two RPM units. "Because they are holding
companies with no operations, he questioned whether the companies
are eligible to use bankruptcy to set up an asbestos trust". Judge
Carey said the question was legitimate and required an answer
before the case went much further.

Attorneys representing the RPM units have requested the judge to
bar any asbestos lawsuits from proceeding during the time that the
trust is being created and funded under bankruptcy court
supervision.

That request was opposed by Natalie Ramsey, Esq., the attorney
representing the law firms that have filed asbestos lawsuits
against RPM on behalf of thousands of asbestos victims. Ms. Ramsey
and the other mesothelioma lawyers contend that the bankruptcy
case might have been improperly filed.

According to the company attorney for RPM, "In order for the trust
to comply with bankruptcy law, it must be supported by 75 percent
of the people who currently have asbestos claims against the two
RPM units."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hastings Firm Fined $118,750 for Safety Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth Director
Stanley "Skip" Pruss, on June 30, 2010, announced the Michigan
Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Hastings
Manufacturing Company, LLC, of Hastings, Mich., with US$118,750 in
proposed penalties for allegedly failing to adequately protect
employees from serious health and safety hazards, according to a
DELEG press release dated June 30, 2010.

Director Pruss said, "The conditions found during the MIOSHA
inspection were very serious. It is imperative that Hastings
Manufacturing Company correct the serious health hazards which are
endangering their employees. They must fulfill their obligations
under the MIOSH Act and provide a safe and healthy work
environment for their employees."

The MIOSHA General Industry Safety and Health Division (GISHD)
conducted a planned, joint safety and health inspection at
Hastings Manufacturing Company, LLC, in Hastings.

The company designs and manufactures piston rings for the engine
manufacturing and remanufacturing industries and employs about 185
workers. The Hastings location is considered a high-hazard
facility, based on the type of work being performed. The current
owners acquired the company in 2005.

On Jan. 5, 2010, a GISHD health compliance officer began a health
inspection at the company. The inspection identified numerous
violations of the following MIOSHA standards: hexavalent chromium,
dipping and coating operations, asbestos, formaldehyde, and noise.

The most serious violations involved employee overexposures to
highly hazardous air contaminants. The health inspection
identified seven Willful Serious, four Serious, and three Willful
Other-than-Serious violations, with a total penalty of US$115,000.

Failure to maintain deteriorated asbestos products, as well as
improper removal and/or disturbance of asbestos, can cause
asbestos fibers to become airborne. Inhalation of airborne
asbestos fibers can cause lung cancer, a lung disease known as
"asbestosis," and mesothelioma, a cancer of the chest and
abdominal cavities.

On Dec. 22, 2009, a GISHD safety compliance officer began a safety
inspection at the company. The safety inspection identified nine
Serious violations involving unguarded machinery, with a total
penalty of US$3,750. These citations were issued on Jan. 27, 2010.
The company has abated all safety items, did not appeal the
citations and paid the penalty.

"Employers have a legal responsibility to protect their workers,
especially when they're working with hazardous materials such as
hexavalent chromium and formaldehyde or working where asbestos may
be present," said MIOSHA Director Doug Kalinowski. "We strongly
encourage companies to use all available resources to ensure the
safety and health of their workers."

A Willful violation is one committed with an intentional disregard
or plain indifference to the requirements of MIOSHA regulations
and employee safety and health. A Serious violation exists where
there is a substantial probability that serious physical harm or
death can result to an employee.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ch. 11 Cases Highlighted in Asbestos Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos defense attorney Kirk Hartley, Esq., of Childress Duffy
Goldblatt, Ltd. said that rules being developed in asbestos
Chapter 11 cases are serving as precedent for resolution of other
mass torts, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Hartley, in Chicago, co-chaired an asbestos bankruptcy
conference that featured discussions on how bankruptcies are
affecting asbestos and tort litigation as a whole.

Plaintiff's attorney John Cooney, Esq., of Cooney & Conway in
Chicago co-chaired the conference with Hartley.

One particular session, "The Continued Impact of the General
Motors and Chrysler Bankruptcies: Upcoming Issues on Estimation,
Liability and the Effect on Co-Defendants," discussed the Chapter
11 filings of the major automobile manufacturers and how they
impact pending and future lawsuits, sparking heated debate on the
issue of transparency in bankruptcy trusts.

The session's moderator, Richard Ames of California-based Carroll,
Burdick & McDonough, stated that the trusts make it much more
difficult - and sometimes prohibit - attorneys from getting access
to documents related to claims that have already been paid.

However, Joseph Rice, Esq., co-founder of the personal injury firm
Motley Rice in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., shot back saying that defense
attorneys would have to go through the regular discovery process
if a company had not filed bankruptcy.

One of the most anticipated sessions of the conference was a
judicial panel comprised of bankruptcy and state court judges from
across the nation, including Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel
Stack, who presides over one of the busiest asbestos dockets in
the country.

Other speakers were Judge Judith Fitzgerald, U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Judge James Murray Lynn,
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas; Judge William D. Maddux,
Circuit Court of Cook County and Judge. Randall J. Newsome, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard to be Abated From Mo.'s Kiel Opera House
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos is slated to be removed from the Kiel Opera House in St.
Louis, Mo., before undergoing a US$78 million renovation, the
Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Deputy St. Louis mayor for development, Barbara Geisman, noted
that bond sales are likely to seal the deal. She said, "The
proposed renovation of the Kiel Opera House took a big step
forward -- Many agreements related to private debt and equity
financing needed for the development have been substantively
completed."

Stacy Hastie, president and chief executive of Environmental
Operations Inc., noted that asbestos and lead paint removal is set
to begin within the next few days.

Asbestos abatement must occur before the renovation, for when
asbestos is disturbed, airborne particles may be inhaled.

The Kiel Opera House was once home to the St. Louis Symphony
Orchestra, and is expected to host concerts and touring Broadway
productions. Its main theater seats 3,200 people and contains
smaller theaters with ranging seat capacities.

It is unclear when the renovation will conclude.

                            *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
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  * * *