CAR_Public/100709.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 9, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 134

                            Headlines

AMEDISYS INC: Faces Securities Suit in Louisiana
ARIZONA: Immigration Law Faces Challenge From Justice Dept.
CEMEX S.A.B.: U.S. Operations Defend Antitrust Suits in Florida
DAISO CALIFORNIA: Recalls 190 Children's Coin Purse and Jewelry
EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Injunction Hearing Set for July 19

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Privacy Violations in Canada
INCO: Port Colborne Residents Win C$36-Mil. Judgment
INTERNET GOLD: Defends Suit Over "P1000" eCommerce Web site
LANIER GOLF: Ruling on Appeal for Class Status Seen in December
LDK SOLAR: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement

MARLEY ENGINEERED: Recalls 30 Dayton Electric Baseboard Heaters
MICROSOFT CORP: Arbitration Sought Over Fees in 2007 Settlement
MYLAN PHARMA: Contesting Motion to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial
NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA: To Pay C$6-Mil. to Settle Clients' Suit
ORACLE CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Lawsuit Dismissal Ongoing

PANASONIC CORPORATION: Defends "CRT" Suits in U.S. and Canada
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Defends "Refrigerator Compressors" Suit
PET DRX: Faces Suit Over Planned VCA Antech Merger
SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Court Allows ERISA Class Suit to Proceed
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Hit With $671 Million Jury Award

SMITH & WESSON: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
TAM S.A.: Defends Seven Labor Class Actions
TELE NORTE: Court Dismisses Suits Over Customer Service Center
TELE NORTE: Court Dismisses "Subscription Fees" Lawsuit
TELE NORTE: Defends Suit Over Alleged Regulations Non-Compliance

TEKKEON INC: Recalls 500 External Laptop Batteries
THOR INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Delayed Financial Report Filing
ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: Ultragaz Defends Lawsuits Over Mall Explosion
UNITED STATES: House Passes Bill With $3.4BB Indian Settlement
WHITCO COMPANY: Recalls 2,500 Stadium Light Poles

WM WRIGLEY: $6-Mil. Settlement Reached in Eclipse(R) Class Suit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court OKs Dismissal of WLB Holding Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies Austin's Motion for Counsel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Various Motions in Larson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Commission Ruling in McGhee Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Flips Ruling in Collins v. Plant

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Issues Split Ruling in Superior Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Junks Spavone's Lawsuit v. DOCS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harless Case v. 62 Firms Filed June 17 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LVI Fined $33,500 for Naval Site Cleanup Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landers, Ministry Penalized for Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 421 Cases Filed in Madison County as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lakeland District Penalized for Botched Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Power Station Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seabeck Questions U.K. Gov't. on Payout Delays
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traces of Hazard Found in Lindsey Oil Refinery

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Davis Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Holston Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Veterans Board Ruling in Chaney Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court OKs Summary Judgment in Dean Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Ruling in Reynard Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Issued in Environmental Source's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Flips Dismissal of Simpkins Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stinson Sues 98 Firms in St. Clair Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Detected in Majority of Korean Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Unaware of Hazard at NSW Primary School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Couple Still Refusing to Leave Wittenoom
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Blazing Skip in Shanklin Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Over 2T Nottingham Council Houses Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR to Review AU$55Mil Compensation Provision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at Maroondah Floral Reserve


                            *********

AMEDISYS INC: Faces Securities Suit in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., faces a putative securities class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,
according to the company's July 1, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commision.

The suit was filed on June 7, 2010, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Amedisys securities between February 23, 2010 and May
13, 2010 against the company and certain of its senior executives
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its senior
executives made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the company's
business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the company's policies and practices
regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health
prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on the
company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects.

The complaint seeks a determination that the action may be
maintained as a class certification, an award of unspecified
monetary damages and other unspecified relief.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


ARIZONA: Immigration Law Faces Challenge From Justice Dept.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice has challenged the state of
Arizona's recently passed immigration law, S.B. 1070, in federal
court.

In a brief filed in the District of Arizona on Tuesday, the
Department said S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with the
federal government's authority to set and enforce immigration
policy, explaining that "the Constitution and federal law do not
permit the development of a patchwork of state and local
immigration policies throughout the country."  A patchwork of
state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal
immigration enforcement.  Having enacted its own immigration
policy that conflicts with federal immigration law, Arizona
"crossed a constitutional line."

The Department's brief said that S.B. 1070 will place significant
burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from
high-priority targets, such as aliens implicated in terrorism,
drug smuggling, and gang activity, and those with criminal
records.  The law's mandates on Arizona law enforcement will also
result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and
legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who cannot readily
prove their lawful status.

In declarations filed with the brief, Arizona law enforcement
officials, including the Chiefs of Police of Phoenix and Tucson,
said that S.B. 1070 will hamper their ability to effectively
police their communities.  The chiefs said that victims of or
witnesses to crimes would be less likely to contact or cooperate
with law enforcement officials and that implementation of the law
would require them to reassign officers from critical areas such
as violent crimes, property crimes, and home invasions.

The Department filed the suit after extensive consultation with
Arizona officials, law enforcement officers and groups, and civil
rights advocates.  The suit was filed on behalf of the Department
of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the
Department of State, which share responsibilities in administering
federal immigration law.

"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration,
and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively
address those concerns," Attorney General Holder said.  "But
diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as
terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact
the entire country's safety.   Setting immigration policy and
enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility.  Seeking
to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only
create more problems than it solves."

"With the strong support of state and local law enforcement, I
vetoed several similar pieces of legislation as Governor of
Arizona because they would have diverted critical law enforcement
resources from the most serious threats to public safety and
undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the
communities they serve," Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Janet Napolitano said.  "We are actively working with members of
Congress from both parties to comprehensively reform our
immigration system at the federal level because this challenge
cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws, of
which this is one.  While this bipartisan effort to reform our
immigration system progresses, the Department of Homeland Security
will continue to enforce the laws on the books by enhancing border
security and removing criminal aliens from this country."

The Department has requested a preliminary injunction to enjoin
enforcement of the law, arguing that the law's operation will
cause irreparable harm.

"Arizona impermissibly seeks to regulate immigration by creating
an Arizona-specific immigration policy that is expressly designed
to rival or supplant that of the federal government.  As such,
Arizona's immigration policy exceeds a state's role with respect
to aliens, interferes with the federal government's balanced
administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines
U.S. foreign policy objectives.  S.B. 1070 does not simply seek to
provide legitimate support to the federal government's immigration
policy, but instead creates an unprecedented independent
immigration scheme that exceeds constitutional boundaries," the
Department said in its brief.

A copy of the complaint is available at:

     http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf


CEMEX S.A.B.: U.S. Operations Defend Antitrust Suits in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEMEX, Inc., defends several purported class action lawsuits
alleging price-fixing in Florida, according to CEMEX, S.A.B. de
C.V.'s June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2009, CEMEX Corp. and other cement and concrete
suppliers were named as defendants in several purported class
action lawsuits alleging price-fixing in Florida.

The purported class action lawsuits are of two distinct types: The
first type was filed by entities purporting to have purchased
cement or ready-mix concrete directly from one or more of the
defendants.  The second group of plaintiffs consists of entities
purporting to have purchased cement or ready-mix concrete
indirectly from one or more of the defendants.

Underlying all proposed suits is the allegation that the
defendants conspired to raise the price of cement and concrete and
hinder competition in Florida.

On Jan. 7, 2010, both groups of plaintiffs independently filed
consolidated amended complaints substituting CEMEX, Inc. and some
of its subsidiaries for the original defendant, CEMEX Corp.

CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. is a Mexican corporation, a holding company
of entities which main activities are oriented to the construction
industry, through the production, marketing, distribution and sale
of cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates and other construction
materials.  CEMEX is a public stock corporation with variable
capital (S.A.B. de C.V.) organized under the laws of the United
Mexican States, or Mexico.


DAISO CALIFORNIA: Recalls 190 Children's Coin Purse and Jewelry
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Daiso California LLC of Hayward, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 190 Children's Coin Purse and Jewelry.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The surface paint on the zippers of the coin purses and the clasps
on the jewelry contain high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if
ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves children's coin purses with rainbow stripes
and children's earrings and necklaces that have blue, pink, red,
white and yellow colored droplets.  "The Coin Purse" and "Mobile
Case Coin Puase" are printed on the tag attached to the purse.
"Colorful Drop Accessory Bracelet" is printed on the front of the
necklace packages and "Colorful Drop Accessory Pierce" is printed
on the front of the earring packages.  The tag and packaging have
"Produced for Daiso Japan" on either the front or back.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10292.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Korea and
sold through Daiso stores in California and Washington from May
2009 through December 2009 for about $1.50.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled products away from
children and contact Daiso for a full refund.  For more
information, contact Daiso toll-free at (888) 580-8841 between
9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firms' Web site at http://www.daisorecall.com/


EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Injunction Hearing Set for July 19
--------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation disclosed in documents filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in In re: Emmis
Shareholder Litigation has been scheduled for July 19, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, JS Acquisition Inc. and JS Acquisition, LLC,
entities owned entirely by Emmis' Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer and President, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, announced their
intention to commence a tender offer to acquire all shares of
Emmis Class A Common Stock -- at $2.40 per share in cash --
and take the Company private.  Thereafter, a number of purported
class actions were filed against various combinations of Emmis, JS
Acquisition, Alden Global Capital, and members of the board of
directors concerning the proposed tender offer.  Emmis is aware of
these seven class action lawsuits:

     -- Fritzi Ross, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B. Bayh, Gary L. Kaseff,
Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A. Lund, Greg A. Nathanson, Lawrence
B. Sorrel, Patrick M. Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., and Alden Global Capital; Cause No. 49D13 1004
MF 019005, filed April 27, 2010;

     -- Charles Hinkle, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal,
Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel,
Patrick Walsh, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No.
49D10 1004 PL 019747, filed April 30, 2010;

     -- William McQueen, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B. Bayh, Gary L.
Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A. Lund, Greg A. Nathanson,
Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M. Walsh, JS Acquisition, Inc., and
Alden Global Capital; Cause No. 49D02 1005 MF 020013, filed May 3,
2010;

     -- David Jarosclawicz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B. Bayh,Gary L.
Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A. Lund, Greg A. Nathanson,
Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M. Walsh, JS Acquisition,
Incorporated, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No.
49D03 1005 PL 020506, filed May 6, 2010;

     -- Timothy Stabosz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal,
Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel,
Patrick Walsh, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No.
49D11 1005 PL 021432, filed May 12, 2010;

     -- Richard Frank, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff,
Richard Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Lawrence Sorrel,
Patrick Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS Acquisition,
Inc., JS Acquisition, LLC, and Alden Global Capital; Cause No.
49D10 1006 PL 025149, filed June 4, 2010; and

     -- Ted Primich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jeffrey Smulyan, Patrick Walsh, Susan Bayh, Gary
Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Lawrence Sorrel, Greg Nathanson, Peter
Lund, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS Acquisition, Inc., and
JS Acquisition, LLC; Action No. 1:10-cv-0782SEB-TAB, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, filed
June 18, 2010.

In those cases where Defendants have been served, Defendants have
been granted automatic 30-day extensions, pursuant to Court rules,
to respond to the complaints.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Jarosclawicz action served
initial discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Ross and McQueen actions moved
to consolidate those two actions into one and also moved for the
appointment of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation and Kroger
Gardis & Regas, LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. By order dated May
11, 2010, the Court conditionally approved the consolidation and
set a hearing for June 1, 2010 on the issue of lead counsel.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action served initial
discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action filed a Motion
for Expedited Response to certain document requests.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Hinkle, Jarosclawicz, and
Stabosz actions moved to consolidate those actions into the
Ross/McQueen action.

On May 21, 2010, certain of the Defendants in the Ross action
filed a Motion for Change of Venue from the Judge. By Order dated
May 24, 2010, the Court granted the motion, and a new judge has
qualified.

On May 26, 2010, the law firms representing the Stabosz and Hinkle
Plaintiffs filed in the Ross, Stabosz, and Hinkle actions motions
to appoint Cohen & Malad LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as co-lead
counsel and in opposition to the appointment of Brower Piven and
Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP as co-lead counsel.

On May 28, 2010, the law firms representing the plaintiffs in the
Ross and McQueen cases filed a memorandum in opposition to the
consolidation of the Stabosz, Hinkle and Jarosclawicz cases and
further moved to stay those two actions. In addition, those firms
moved for expedited discovery from the defendants.

Also on May 28, 2010, the plaintiff in Hinkle filed an emergency
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from
taking any steps to complete the transaction. That plaintiff also
requested expedited discovery from the defendants and the setting
of an expedited briefing schedule.

On June 4, 2010, a sixth purported class action complaint was
filed, styled Richard Frank v. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan Bayh,
Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson,
Lawrence Sorrel, Patrick Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation,
JS Acquisition, Inc., JS Acquisition, LLC, and Alden Global
Capital, Cause No. 49D10 1006 PL 025149. Like the five previously
filed actions, the Frank action was filed in the Marion Superior
Court in Indiana. Since that time, Plaintiff Frank has filed
motions seeking to have his case consolidated into the Ross matter
and to have his counsel appointed as lead counsel for a Preferred
Stock Class, the latter having been opposed by Plaintiffs Hinkle
and Stabosz. The motions filed by Plaintiff Frank remain pending.

On June 8, 2010, Defendants filed an Objection to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Expedited Discovery. Also on June 8, Plaintiffs in the
Hinkle and Stabosz actions filed Amended Complaints.

On June 9, 2010, the Court in the Ross action granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, consolidating the Hinkle,
McQueen, Jarosclawicz, and Stabosz actions into the Ross action
before Judge Moberly. The consolidated action was re-captioned In
re: Emmis Shareholder Litigation by order of the Court dated June
15, 2010. Also, on June 9, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle
filed a Reply in Further Support of Their Motions for Expedited
Discovery and Preliminary Injunction.

On June 10, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the five
consolidated purported class actions.

On June 11, 2010, Defendants filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition to
Motions for Expedited Discovery by Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle.

On June 14, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle filed their
Response to Defendants' Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motions for
Expedited Discovery.

On June 15, 2010, the Court issued an Order Appointing Cohen &
Malad, LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs,
and also issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite
Response to Document Requests and For Four Depositions of
Defendants and their Representatives Relating to Emergency Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. The parties currently are exchanging
discovery in accordance with the latter order pursuant to an
agreed-upon schedule.

On June 18, 2010, a seventh purported class action complaint was
filed, styled Ted Primich v. Jeffrey Smulyan, Patrick Walsh, Susan
Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Lawrence Sorrel, Greg
Nathanson, Peter Lund, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., and JS Acquisition, LLC, action number 1:10-cv-
0782SEB-TAB, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.

On June 25, 2010, Alden filed a joinder in the Motion to Dismiss
filed on June 10, 2010. The joinder was filed in the four actions
in which Alden was named as a defendant -- the Ross, Hinkle,
McQueen, and Stabosz actions.

The parties agreed to a Stipulation and Proposed Order Relating to
the Scheduling of Depositions, Briefing, and Hearing on
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in In re: Emmis Shareholder
Litigation, which was entered by the Court on July 2, 2010.
Pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation, depositions were taken and
concluded by June 30, 2010.

On July 3, 2010, also pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation,
Plaintiffs served on Defendants their Memorandum of Law in Support
of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to the Scheduling
Stipulation, Defendants' response is due on July 10, 2010, and
Plaintiff's reply is due on July 14, 2010.

Emmis also disclosed that several law firms and investor advocacy
groups that have not appeared in the lawsuits mentioned, including
but not limited to Finkelstein Thompson LLP, the Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, Levi & Korinsky, LLP, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.,
Tripp Levy PLLC, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP and the
Shareholders Foundation, Inc., have commenced investigations into
potential claims with respect to the JS transactions.

Emmis Communications Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- is a
diversified media company, principally focused on radio
broadcasting.  Emmis operates the 8th largest publicly traded
radio portfolio in the United States based on total listeners.
Emmis also operates an international radio business and publishes
several city and regional magazines.  Emmis also engages in
various businesses ancillary to Emmis' broadcasting business, such
as Web site design and development, broadcast tower leasing and
operating a news information radio network in Indiana.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Privacy Violations in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP has launched class proceedings litigation
against Facebook Inc. for improper handling of confidential
information and privacy issues. The allegations made in the class
action litigation are pending before the courts.

Henry Rowlands of MAARS News reports that Tony Merchant Q.C stated
Friday that "this claim asserts that Facebook shamelessly breached
the privacy of people who trusted it."

Mr. Rowlands notes that Facebook has had a number of legal
problems over its privacy policies in recent times.  Mr. Rowlands
cited that on February 4, 2009, without proper communication to or
agreement by its Users, Facebook revised its Terms of Service,
asserting broad, permanent, and retroactive intentions to reveal
Users' information, even as to Users who deleted their
Facebook.com accounts.  According to Mr. Rowlands, the Company
stated it could make public a User's "name, likeness and image for
any purpose, including commercial or advertising." Having met with
numerous objections from Users and after being threatened with
action by U.S. federal government regulators, Facebook withdrew
the proposed changes, Mr. Rowlands relates.

According to Mr. Rowlands, this latest claim alleges that the
tools provided by Facebook to Users of the social network are
materially misleading and calculated to result in unauthorized
breaches of Users privacy and conversion of their personal
information, including but not limited to the breach of Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act., 2000, c. 5.
and other breaches of statute and common law.  Mr. Rowlands adds
that the claim also states that "in effect the changes enacted
by Facebook on or about November 19, 2009, and on or about
December 9, 2009 and on or about January 20, 2010 were deceptively
described by Facebook, leading Users to believe their personal
information was protected from unauthorized sharing, use, and
dissemination."

Mr. Rowlands quoted Mr. Merchant as saying: "This is classic bait
and switch. The window invites you to increase your security.
Anything unchanged goes to a less private default position
allowing Facebook to sell your personal information. Data Miners,
Harvesters can then demographically target Facebook users selling
specifically based on age, income, sex, interest, and affinities."

According to Mr. Rowlands, Merchant Law Group will pursue the
Facebook class action from its offices in Montreal, Toronto,
Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and
Victoria. The claim was issued in Winnipeg, Manitoba one of the
North American class action jurisdictions which exercises
authority nationally and internationally.

Sheena Goodyear at QMI Agency relates that Mr. Merchant said more
than 100 people joined within a couple hours after the class
action suit was launched.  Ms. Goodyear notes that research firm
Inside Network estimates that 48% of Canadians have Facebook
accounts.

According to Ms. Goodyear, the lawsuit is seeking undetermined
damages, because Mr. Merchant says they don't yet know how much
Facebook is profiting from its data mining.  But it must be
significant, he says, if they continue to do it in the face of
widespread criticism and controversy, the report adds.

Ms. Goodyear relates that Facebook has 30 days to file a statement
of defence, and Mr. Merchant said he estimates the lawsuit will
proceed within six months.

Ms. Goodyear recounts that in July 2009, Canadian Privacy
Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart issued a report, alleging the site
broke Canadian privacy laws, specifically decrying the changes to
privacy settings.

Facebook is also facing a class-action lawsuit in the United
States, which was launched in February over the same concerns.

Mr. Merchant can be reached at:

     Tony Merchant, Esq.
     MERCHANT LAW GROUP LLP
     Deerfoot 17 Building
     400 - 2710 - 17th Ave S.E.
     Calgary, Alberta T2A 0P6
     Telephone: (306) 359-7777
     Facsimile: (403) 273-9411

Brian Jackson, writing for ITBusiness.ca, reports that the class
action complaint was filed before a Winnipeg court.  The court
document filed on the Manitoba Courts registry names Donald J.
Woligroski against defendant Facebook Inc.

ITBusiness.ca relates that as of July 1, 2010, Facebook reported
nearly 15.5 million Canadian users.  But only users who had
accounts before the changes to privacy settings were rolled out in
November could be involved in the lawsuit.  On July 1, 2009, there
were 11.9 million Canadian Facebook users.  Data is reported by
blogger Nick Burcher, global head of social media at
ZenithOptimedia.

ITBusiness.ca says Jason Zushman is the lawyer listed in the court
document.  He may be reached at:

     Jason Zushman, Esq.
     MERCHANT LAW GROUP LLP
     Contact Information
     812 - 363 Broadway Ave.
     Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3N9
     Telephone: (204) 896-7777
     Facsimile: (204) 982-0771

"You've got people filling out the longest consumer survey ever,
and they're not even aware that's what they're doing,"
ITBusiness.ca quotes Mr. Zushman as saying. "I got taken in, too."

Mr. Zushman normally locks down his Facebook profile with the
strictest privacy settings available.  But after clicking on a
pop-up window in November 2009, some of his settings were
automatically changed to a new default that made his information
publicly available.  It wasn't until a friend pointed it out to
him that he realized what had occurred.

"I was surprised," he says. "If you're uploading stuff to the
Internet, you shouldn't have an expectation of privacy, unless the
person handling your information has given you an assurance of
privacy."


INCO: Port Colborne Residents Win C$36-Mil. Judgment
----------------------------------------------------
Peter Cameron at The Canadian Press reports that residents of Port
Colborne, Ontario, whose properties were contaminated by emissions
from a nickel refinery, have won a class action lawsuit against
Inco.  The Ontario Superior Court justice released a decision
Tuesday in Welland, Ontario, awarding about 7,000 households in
Port Colborne a total of C$36 million.

The residents claimed the elevated levels of nickel negatively
affected the values of their properties.  The claim was for the
decrease, or lack of increase, in the values of properties from
September 2000 to date.

Inco acknowledged that its Port Colborne refinery, which ceased
nickel emissions in 1984, was the source of the vast majority of
the elevated levels of nickel found in the area.  The company
argued the limitation period to make a claim had expired, but
Justice J.R. Henderson ruled that the extent of contamination
wasn't generally known until early 2000.

"Extremely pleased and almost in shock," is how lawyer Eric
Gillespie, Esq., who represented the homeowners, described his
clients following the decision.  Mr. Gillespie said households in
the area closest to the refinery were each awarded $23,000.

Justice Henderson did not award any punitive damages in the case.
"Inco's conduct in this case does not justify an award of punitive
damages," Justice Henderson wrote.

"Clearly, Inco's conduct was wrong in law and has caused
widespread damage that has affected several thousand people," he
added. "However, Inco's conduct has not been so malicious or
oppressive that it offends the court's sense of decency."

The Inco refinery started operations in Port Colborne, a city of
about 18,000 located on the north shore of Lake Erie, in 1918.
Its primary business for many years was nickel refining, but that
part of Inco's operations ceased in 1984.  Since that time, Inco
has continued to operate in Port Colborne, but no nickel refining
has been done.

Justice Henderson's decision noted that throughout its history,
Inco has generally complied with environmental regulations.  Inco
reduced emissions of nickel from its refinery over time, and
eventually ceased nickel emissions altogether in 1984.  After the
September 2000 disclosure of nickel contamination, Inco
participated in, and paid for, studies and the remediation of 24
properties.

Mr. Gillespie noted that Inco can appeal the decision.

The case is Smith v. Inco.  The Plaintiff class is represented by:

     Kirk M. Baert, Esq.
     KOSKIE MINSKY LLP
     20 Queen Street West, Suite 900
     Toronto, ON M5H 3R3
     Telephone: (416) 595-2117
     Facsimile: (416) 204-2889
     E-mail: kbaert@kmlaw.ca

          - and -

     Eric K. Gillespie, Esq.
     CUNNINGHAM & GILLESPIE
     10 King Street East, Suite 600
     Toronto, ON M5C 1C3
     Telephone: (416) 703-5400
                (416) 703-6362
     Facsimile: (416) 703-9111
     E-mail: ekg@cunningham-gillespie.com

Inco is represented by:

     Alan Lenczner, Esq.
     LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH GRIFFIN LLP
     130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 2600
     Toronto, Ontario M5H 3P5
     Telephone: (416) 865-3090
     E-mail: alenczner@litigate.com

          - and -

     Larry Lowenstein, Esq.
     OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP
     100 King Street West, 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 6100,
     P.O. Box 50
     Toronto, ON M5X 1B8
     Telephone: (416) 862-6454
     Facsimile: (416) 862-6666
     E-mail: llowenstein@osler.com


INTERNET GOLD: Defends Suit Over "P1000" eCommerce Web site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Internet Gold Golden Lines Ltd. defends a suit filed against
several corporations operating eCommerce sites, according to the
company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 2, 2007, a motion to certify a class action was filed
with the Tel Aviv - Jaffa District Court, against several
corporations operating eCommerce sites, including GoldMind's P1000
Web site, as well as against several suppliers.  The petitioners
claim that these sites have deceived and defrauded participants in
online auctions, by unrightfully preventing them from wining
products that the sites determined as "under-priced."

The petition also claims that this practice was carried out
through the use of fictitious bidders during the auction process.
In addition, the petitioners asked for a temporary injunction to
prevent the Web sites from amending, erasing, or disposing of any
auction or sales data that is in their possession, in order to
enable the petitioners to discover the extent of the alleged fraud
and related damages.  On Oct. 15, 2007, the Court granted the
petitioners such temporary injunction.  On Jan. 13, 2008, the
company filed its response to these petitions.

On March 17, 2008, the petitioners asked the court to delete from
the certification motion one of the respondents who was a supplier
and to decide that all the claims made against such respondent be
deemed as claimed against GoldMind.  As a result, the petitioners
claim that the company intervened illegally in the auctions not
only as a Web site, but also as a supplier.
The court allowed the motion.

On Dec. 30, 2008, the petitioners filed a motion to approve a
settlement agreement with one of the respondents, City Sport Ltd,
which admitted that persons on its behalf were fictitiously
participating in auctions of its products on the Israeli shopping
Web site "www.olsale.co.il".

During 2008-2010, certain preliminary motions, appeals and
hearings were filed and conducted in the certification motion, and
cross examinations were conducted in October 2009 and February
2010.  At present, the parties are at the stage of submitting
written summations, after the completion of which the court is
expected to decide whether or not to certify as a class action.

Internet Gold Golden Lines Ltd. -- http://www.igld.com/-- is a
communications and interactive media company in Israel.  The
company's subsidiaries are 012 Smile.Communications Ltd. (012
Smile.Communications) and Smile.Media Ltd. (Smile.Media).  012
Smile.Communications is a communication services provider in
Israel, offering a range of broadband and traditional voice
services.  012 Smile.Communications' broadband services include
broadband Internet access with a suite of value-added services,
specialized data services and server hosting, as well as new
services, such as local telephony via voice over broadband (VoB)
and a wireless fidelity (WiFi) network of hotspots across Israel.
012 Smile.Communications' traditional voice services include
outgoing and incoming international telephony, hubbing, roaming
and signalling and calling card services.  Smile.Media is an
Internet media company in Israel.


LANIER GOLF: Ruling on Appeal for Class Status Seen in December
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Arrington at Forsyth County News, in Cumming, Ga., reports
that a lawsuit seeking class-action status in an attempt to stop
residential development of the 172-acre Lanier Golf Course on
Buford Dam Road is again being reviewed.  Filed nearly three years
ago, the suit has twice been denied class status.

Bob McFarland Sr., Esq., the attorney representing Michael Peck
and about 120 other landowners adjacent to the course, said it
could be December before the State Appellate Court issues a
decision on their most recent appeal.

"I have always been of the opinion that if we win the class-action
suit, the case with the county doesn't matter because there would
be an implied easement in the golf course," Mr. McFarland said.

Last week, a Superior Court judge sided with course owners Jack
Manton and George Bagley Jr. and against Forsyth County, ruling
that the property's agricultural zoning is unconstitutional.

If the case is again dismissed, Mr. McFarland said, he could apply
for it to be reviewed by the Georgia Supreme Court.  If that
doesn't work, he said the landowners could file individual
lawsuits and the cases could be combined.

The most recent denial occurred in 2009.  Cherokee County Superior
Court Judge Frank Mills' order found that there were enough
landowners in the case to establish status, but "no written,
recorded document expressly restricting the Lanier Golf property
to use as a golf course has been found."  He also wrote that Mr.
Peck, who serves as the class-action representative, failed to
prove he is a member of the group and that he was promised a
membership or the right to use the course.

"We're optimistic that Judge Mills was right," Mr. Manton said.
"This case has been to the court of appeals already once. They
sent it back for further clarification and that's why it's come
back up again."

Messrs. Manton and Bagley filed suit against Forsyth in 2007 after
the county commission denied their request to rezone the site from
agricultural to a master planned district.  That suit was amended
to include the allegation that the denial constituted an inverse
condemnation of the property, for which Georgia law requires
compensation.  Court documents show the plaintiffs estimated
damages of about $100 million as a result of the denial.

Appalachian Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Roger E. Bradley
last week gave attorneys for both sides until July 20 to submit
orders he said he would consider in making his decision on what
relief to grant the plaintiffs.  The inverse condemnation claim,
however, would appear to be a separate matter, one that Mr. Manton
has said would be decided later by a jury.  Mr. Manton had
testified in court that he and Mr. Bagley had entered a $35
million contract with Wellstone LLC contingent upon the rezoning.
The company wanted to build a 772-unit residential development on
the site that would include a 300-unit continuing care retirement
community.  Wellstone initially joined the owners in the suit
against the county, but dropped out in 2009 when it relocated to
Texas.

After Judge Bradley's ruling, Mr. Manton said he hopes they can
come to an agreement with the county on the property's future.  He
said the price range for what he and Bagley would be willing to
accept for the property starts at $120,000 to $135,000 an acre.

The first denial of class-action status occurred in September
2008.  But the following June, the State Appellate Court ruled
Senior Superior Court Judge Albert Pickett's decision had to be
sent back because it was based on the merits of the request for
class status.  Also, according to the Appellate Court, it failed
to address whether each factor of Georgia's class-action statute
had been met.

The case had been assigned to Judge Pickett -- and later to judge
Mills -- after both local Superior Court judges recused
themselves.

Complicating matters, several Forsyth officials have expressed
interest in having the county purchase the course.  The county
commission is considering a proposal to buy the course for $12
million and then lease it for 99 years to a company that would
maintain and operate it as a golf course.


LDK SOLAR: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
consolidated securities suit against LDK Solar Co., Ltd.,
according to the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

In October 2007, the company's former financial controller,
Charley Situ, alleged that the company incorrectly reported its
inventories of silicon feedstock.  As a result of Mr. Situ's
allegations, several securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the company and several of its current officers and
directors during October 2007 in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of California and the Southern District of New
York.

Those actions were consolidated into a single action in the
Northern District of California, entitled In re LDK Solar Sec.
Litig., Case No. C07-05182 WHA.

The complaint in the consolidated lawsuit sought substantial
monetary damages on behalf of a class of persons who purchased our
securities from June 1, 2007 to Oct. 7, 2007, and alleged that the
company overstated its silicon feedstock inventory, among other
things.

In response to Mr. Situ's allegations, in October 2007, the
company formed an internal committee to investigate the
allegations and conduct an immediate physical inventory count of
its polysilicon materials.  The company found no material
discrepancies as compared to its financial records.

Additionally, the independent directors of the company's audit
committee conducted an independent investigation of the
allegations by Mr. Situ.  The independent investigation was
primarily conducted by the company's audit committee's independent
counsel (a major U.S. law firm) and forensic accountants from a
"big four" independent accounting firm that was separate from the
company's external auditors, as well as independent experts in the
fields of silicon feedstock and manufacturing multi-crystalline
solar wafers.  The independent investigation found no material
errors in the company's stated silicon inventory quantities as of
Aug. 31, 2007, and concluded that Mr. Situ's allegations of an
inventory discrepancy were incorrect because Mr. Situ failed to
take into account all locations where the company stored its
silicon feedstock.

The independent investigation further concluded that the company
was using each of its various types of silicon feedstock in the
manufacture of its multi-crystalline solar wafers, and that a
provision for obsolete or excess silicon feedstock was not
required.

On Feb. 15, 2010, the company submitted a proposed settlement
agreement to the court, and the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement on Feb. 17, 2010.  The court held a hearing on
June 17, 2010 to consider any objections to the proposed
settlement, and determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement and enter judgment concluding the case.

On June 22, 2010, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement and dismissing with prejudice the
claims in the action.

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of multi-crystalline
solar wafers, which are the principal raw material used to produce
solar cells. LDK Solar sells multi-crystalline wafers globally to
manufacturers of photovoltaic products, including solar cells and
solar modules. In addition, LDK Solar provides wafer processing
services to mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline solar cell and
module manufacturers.  LDK Solar's headquarters and manufacturing
facilities are located in Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Xinyu City,
Jiangxi Province in the People's Republic of China.  LDK Solar's
office in the United States is located in Sunnyvale, California.


MARLEY ENGINEERED: Recalls 30 Dayton Electric Baseboard Heaters
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Marley Engineered Products LLC, of Bennettsville, S.C., announced
a voluntary recall of about 30 Dayton Electric Baseboard Heaters.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The baseboard heaters are labeled for 240 or 208 volt use.
However, some of the heaters have an internal heater built for a
maximum of 120 volts.  If the heater is connected to a 240 or 208
volt electrical circuit as directed, the unit could catch fire.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Dayton 240/208 volt model 3UG82D electric
baseboard heaters.  The white, rectangular heaters are 30 inches
long by 6 3/4 inches high by 2 7/8 inches deep.  A nameplate on
the bottom right side of the base has "Dayton Electric Mfg. Co.,"
model 3UG82D and date code 1209.  Only heaters purchased after
December 21, 2009 with a date code of "1209" are included in this
recall.  The recalled heaters have yellow and white wires inside
the panel where the heater connects to the power source. Heaters
with red and black wire are not included in this recall.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10745.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Grainger branch stores nationwide from December 2009
through March 2010 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and inspect
the product's nameplate to determine whether it is involved in the
recall.  Consumers with affected heaters should disconnect the
product at the circuit breaker or fuse.  A qualified electrician
should inspect the color of the wires inside the heater's
electrical access panel to determine if the wires are yellow and
white.  Consumers should return the affected heaters to Marley for
a free replacement.  Marley will pay reasonable labor charges
required to inspect and exchange units. Marley is directly
notifying known consumers.  For more information, contact Marley
at (800) 642-4328 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.marleymep.com/


MICROSOFT CORP: Arbitration Sought Over Fees in 2007 Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys representing 23 states
involved in a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. are
suing the Iowa attorney who spearheaded a $179.5 million
settlement with the software company over attorney fees.

Roxanne Conlin of Des Moines negotiated the 2007 settlement which
included $75 million in attorney fees that she split with attorney
Richard Hagstrom and the Zelle Hoffmann law firm of Minneapolis.

The lawsuit filed last month in Polk County says Ms. Conlin signed
an agreement with the Microsoft Litigation Consortium that called
for the group to receive 20% of attorney fees awarded in the case.
The agreement also says disputes were to be resolved through
arbitration.

The lawsuit says Ms. Conlin has refused to enter into arbitration.

Ms. Conlin says in a statement that the lawsuit is without merit.


MYLAN PHARMA: Contesting Motion to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
drug maker Actavis Totowa and distributor Mylan Pharmaceuticals
are contesting a motion to reconsider denial of class
certification filed by plaintiffs in a consumer class action over
heart medicine Digitek.

According to Mr. Korris, defense lawyer Richard Dean of Cleveland
wrote that "plaintiffs do not identify any new law or evidence
that would support a different outcome, nor do they identify any
clear legal error on the court's part."

The report notes that Mr. Dean reminded U.S. District Judge Joseph
Goodwin that economic damage claims of class representatives
included toll charges, eyeglasses and enemas.  Mr. Dean said the
claims demonstrated the vast array of individual damages that
class members would seek under an extremely broad class
definition, the report added.

In the motion for reconsideration, Mr. Korris relates, Fred
Thompson of Motley Rice wrote that the judge acted prematurely and
seized upon "a few outrageous damages requests."  Mr. Thompson
wrote that "the claims administration process could easily reject
such ludicrous claims should any potential class member attempt to
make one," the report added.

Judge Goodwin presides over Digitek suits from federal courts
around the nation by appointment of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multi District Litigation.  Litigation began in 2008, after
Actavis Totowa discovered 20 pills of double thickness in a batch
at its plant in Little Falls, New Jersey.  Actavis Totowa recalled
the batch, and no plaintiff has produced a double thick pill. Some
plaintiffs nevertheless claimed personal injuries and
wrongful death.  Others claimed only economic damages.  Mr.
Thompson sought certification of a national economic damages
class or single state classes in West Virginia, New Jersey, Kansas
and Kentucky.  Judge Goodwin denied both.  Judge Goodwin declined
Mr. Thompson's request to apply New Jersey law nationwide and
wrote, "The transactions at issue here relate only minimally to
New Jersey."  Judge Goodwin wrote that he and colleagues in state
courts have taken great care to track Digitek litigation for a
just and efficient resolution.  "Adding a complex certified class
to these already complicated state and federal proceedings makes
little sense," he wrote.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

     Fred Thompson III, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     Charleston Area 28 Bridgeside Blvd.
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Telephone: (843) 216-9118
     Facsimile: (800) 768-4026
     E-mail: fthompson@motleyrice.com


NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA: To Pay C$6-Mil. to Settle Clients' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gibbens, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that The
National Bank of Canada said it will pay a total of C$6 million in
compensation to 48,000 clients to settle a class-action suit by
L'Union des consommateurs and Montreal consumer Marie-Claude
Bibaud.

In 2003, the Union des consommateurs and Bibaud filed the class-
action suit contesting the bank's C$5 charge when clients used
their "Marge manoeuvre protection" personal lines of credit.

Superior Court Judge Clement Gascon ruled Friday that C$99.15
should be paid by the bank to each of the 48,000 clients in and
outside of Quebec who between July 1, 2003, and April 30, 2005,
paid the C$5 fee when they used the lines of credit.  The judgment
recognized that the bank and the Union des consommateurs
negotiated together and reached a settlement agreement, and the
court approved the terms.  The bank did not admit any wrongdoing,
but concluded contesting the suit would have been long and costly.

Those of the 48,000 who remain National Bank clients will be paid
directly in September, a bank spokesperson said, while those no
longer clients should fill in a claim form available from the
Union des Consommateurs and send it to the bank by Oct. 31.


ORACLE CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Lawsuit Dismissal Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the dismissal of the consolidated class-
action lawsuit against Oracle Corp. remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's July 1, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2010.

Stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the company and
its Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001.

Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and revised second
amended complaint.  The last dismissal was with prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The revised second amended complaint named the
company's Chief Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial
Officer, who currently is Chairman of the company's Board of
Directors, and a former Executive Vice President as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's actual and expected financial
performance and the performance of certain of the company's
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.

Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants
sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.

Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting
violations.

On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against
all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.

On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.  On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a
default judgment against defendants or various other sanctions
because of defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.

A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.  On
April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge.

On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on
plaintiffs' sanctions motion.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants.
The order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for sanctions.  The court denied plaintiffs' request that
judgment be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged
destruction of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions
were appropriate for several categories of evidence.

The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences
were appropriate for two categories of evidence:

     (1) e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's
         account, and

     (2) materials that had been created in connection with a
         book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer.

The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's
Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and re-
file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of the
adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these
inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary
judgment.

The court also directed the parties to address certain legal
issues in the briefing.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement.

On Oct. 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.

The parties also filed several motions challenging the
admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses.
Opposition briefs were filed on Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs
were filed on Dec. 12, 2008.

A hearing on all these motions was held on Feb. 13, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice.

On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Nov. 30, 2009.

Defendants filed their opposition brief on Feb. 4, 2010, and
plaintiffs filed their reply on March 15, 2010.

The court scheduled oral argument on this appeal for July 13,
2010.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

The suit is In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-0988 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
         Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP
         1438 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Phone: (415) 896-1000
         Fax: (415) 896-2249
         E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Dorian Daley, Esq.
         500 Oracle Parkway
         Redwood City, CA 94065
         Phone: (650) 506-5200
         Fax: (650) 506-7114


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Defends "CRT" Suits in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panasonic Corporation continues to defend a number of class action
lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada alleging antitrust violations
relating to cathode ray tubes.

Since November 2007, the company and MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.,
a subsidiary of the company, are subject to investigations by
government authorities, including the Japan Fair Trade Commission,
the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission, in
respect of alleged antitrust violations relating to cathode ray
tubes.

Subsequent to these actions by the authorities, a number of class
action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. and Canada against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries

No further details were disclosed in the company's June 30, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Panasonic Corporation -- http://www.panasonic.net/-- is a Japan-
based electronics manufacturer operating in five segments.  The
Digital Audio-Visual Computer (AVC) Network segment offers audio
and video equipment, such as plasma televisions, liquid crystal
displays and optical devices; information and communication
devices, such as personal computers, telephones, facsimiles,
traffic related system devices and others.  The Appliance segment
provides refrigerators, compressors, automatic dispensers and
others.  The Electric & Pana Home segment offers lighting
fittings, medical and welfare facilities, cluster housing and
others.  The Device segment offers semiconductors, electronic
components, motors and batteries.  The SANYO Electric segment
provides solar cells, lithium ion batteries and optical pickups.
The Others segment offers electronic component automatic
implementation systems and industrial robots.  In December 2009,
SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. and it subsidiaries became the company's
consolidated subsidiaries.


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Defends "Refrigerator Compressors" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Panasonic Corporation continues to defend a number of class action
lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada alleging antitrust violations
relating to compressors for refrigerator use.

Since February 2009, the Company is subject to investigations by
government authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice
and the European Commission, in respect of alleged antitrust
violations relating to compressors for refrigerator use.

Subsequent to these actions by the authorities, a number of class
action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. and Canada against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

No further details were disclosed in the company's June 30, 2010,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Panasonic Corporation -- http://www.panasonic.net/-- is a Japan-
based electronics manufacturer operating in five segments.  The
Digital Audio-Visual Computer (AVC) Network segment offers audio
and video equipment, such as plasma televisions, liquid crystal
displays and optical devices; information and communication
devices, such as personal computers, telephones, facsimiles,
traffic related system devices and others.  The Appliance segment
provides refrigerators, compressors, automatic dispensers and
others.  The Electric & Pana Home segment offers lighting
fittings, medical and welfare facilities, cluster housing and
others.  The Device segment offers semiconductors, electronic
components, motors and batteries.  The SANYO Electric segment
provides solar cells, lithium ion batteries and optical pickups.
The Others segment offers electronic component automatic
implementation systems and industrial robots.  In December 2009,
SANYO Electric Co., Ltd. and it subsidiaries became the company's
consolidated subsidiaries.


PET DRX: Faces Suit Over Planned VCA Antech Merger
--------------------------------------------------
Pet DRx Corporation faces a putative class action captioned
Phaneendra Kondibona vs. Gene Burleson, et al., No. 38538, in
connection with its planned merger with VCA Antech, Inc., accoring
to the company's July 2, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 1, 2010, Snow Merger Acquisition, Inc., an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of VCA Antech, Inc., consummated the
purchase of 23,073,863 shares of common stock, par value $0.0001
per share, of Pet DRx Corporation for $0.33523 per share of common
stock in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Stock
Purchase Agreement dated June 2, 2010, by and among VCA Antech,
Acquisition Sub, Harry L. Zimmerman, an individual in his capacity
as the sellers' representative, and those parties listed as a
seller on the signature pages thereto.

The suit was filed in connection with the merger on June 15, 2010.

The suit alleges on behalf of a purported class of the company's
shareholders against the defendants breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the approval of the merger.  The complaint seeks
to enjoin the proposed transaction, or alternatively, rescission
or damages.

Pet DRx Corporation provides veterinary primary care and
specialized services to companion animals through a network of
fully-owned veterinary hospitals.  The company currently owns and
operates 23 leading veterinary hospitals in the state of
California, which it has organized into unique, regional 'hub-and-
spoke' networks.  Pet DRx provides a full range of general medical
treatments for companion animals, including (i) preventive care,
such as examinations, vaccinations, spaying/neutering and dental
care and (ii) a broad range of specialized diagnostic and medical
services, such as internal medicine, surgery, cardiology,
ophthalmology, dermatology, oncology, neurology, x-ray, ultrasound
and other services.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: N.J. Court Allows ERISA Class Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on June 29, 2010, denied a motion by
Schering-Plough Corp. et al. to dismiss an amended class action
complaint in In Re Schering-Plough ERISA Litigation.

Plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of the Schering-Plough
Employees' Savings Plan and the Schering-Plough Puerto Rico
Employees' Retirement Savings Plan.  The Amended Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period (April 19, 2007 to April 2,
2008), Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of prudent plan
management by continuing to invest Plan assets in Schering-Plough
Corporation stock even though they knew or should have known that
it was not a prudent investment for retirement savings.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants knew publication of the negative
trial results would decimate VYTORIN's sales and Schering's
revenues.  Fearing the market's reaction, in October and November
2007, various Company representatives (including some of the
Defendants) made public statements regarding VYTORIN that failed
to disclose the negative ENHANCE results.  Further, it is asserted
that the ENHANCE results were not presented as initially scheduled
at the American Heart Association's Fall 2006 meeting, or any time
in 2007.  The results were not made public until a series of
disclosures between January 14 and March 31, 2008, and even then
only in response to pressure from news leaks about the negative
results.

Plaintiff's contend that Defendants knew, or were reckless in not
knowing, that Schering's stock price was inflated by the cover-up
of the ENHANCE trial results during the Class Period.
Notwithstanding this knowledge, they assert, Defendants continued
to allow the Plans to acquire and hold Schering stock.

Defendants Schering-Plough Corp., Schering-Plough Products LLC,
Schering-Plough Del Caribe, Inc., Vincent Sweeney, Fred Hassan,
Robert J. Bertolini, Hans W. Becherer, C. Robert Kidder, Philip
Leder, Eugene McGrath, Carl E. Mundy, Jr., Antonio M. Perez,
Patricia F. Russo, Jack L. Stahl, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, Robert
F.W. Van Oordt, Arthur F. Weinbach, and Kathryn C. Turner asked
the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint
for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

However, the Court held that a claim for breach of the duty of
prudence has been adequately stated.

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 78, no oral argument was heard.

A copy of the decision is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100629b29


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Hit With $671 Million Jury Award
----------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., on July 7 reported that a jury in
Humboldt County, California, returned a verdict against the
Company related to a complaint filed more than four years ago.

In the first phase of deliberations, the jury awarded the
plaintiffs $613 million in statutory damages and $58 million in
restitutionary damages.  The jury has yet to hear the punitive
damages phase of the trial and will continue to further
deliberate.

"We are deeply disappointed in the verdict, and continue to firmly
believe that our facilities are appropriately staffed and that our
caregivers work hard every day to provide the care and services
our residents need and deserve," said Boyd Hendrickson, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.  "We
strongly disagree with the outcome of this legal matter, and we
intend to vigorously challenge it."

The jury verdict was announced on July 6, 2010, and a final
judgment is expected in the next few weeks.  The Company intends
to vigorously pursue various post-trial motions, as well as an
appeal, if necessary.

Matt Drange, writing for The Times-Standard, reports that
plaintiff's Attorney Michael Thamer, Esq., said, "This is a really
strong statement to Skilled Healthcare that they have to follow
the law.  He added, "They need to know that they are going to be
held responsible."

According to Times-Standard, Mr. Thamer delivered the closing
arguments in the case and specializes in fighting corporate abuse.

The issue at the heart of the case is a California statute that
mandates 3.2 nursing hours per patient per day.  The lawsuit
covers the years 2003 to 2009, and represents a class of some
32,000 patients.

The jury assessed the maximum amount of damages allowed by Health
and Safety Code 1430 (b): California statute that mandates that
nursing homes maintain 3.2 nursing hours per-patient per-day.  The
total damages were assessed at a rate of $500 per-patient per-day
that the 22 nursing facilities involved in the suit were in
violation of the law.

Times-Standard notes that Skilled Healthcare has five facilities
in Humboldt County -- Eureka, Granada, Pacific, Seaview and St.
Luke Healthcare and Rehabilitation.  According to Times-Standard,
the total amount of damages imposed on the five Humboldt County
facilities is nearly $135 million.  A breakdown of the penalties
imposed on Skilled Heathcare's five Humboldt County facilities by
the jury -- the numbers include statutory damages and penalties
for violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act:

     Eureka Healthcare and              $25,573,913
        Rehabilitation Center, LLC

     Granada Healthcare and             $30,880,270
        Rehabilitation Center, LLC

     Pacific Healthcare and             $13,620,239
        Rehabilitation Center, LLC

     Seaview Healthcare and             $26,732,565
        Rehabilitation Center, LLC

     St. Luke Heathcare and             $37,893,698
        Rehabilitation, LLC
                                      -------------
                                       $134,700,685

According to Times-Standard, the jury will decide next week the
extent of additional punitive damages.  Judge Bruce Watson will
then decide if the court will issue an injunction against Skilled
Healthcare that would mandate the company to keep staffing levels
compliant with the law in the future.

To satisfy the typical bonding requirement to defer enforcement of
a judgment during the pendancy of an appeal, the Company would be
required to post a bond for 150% of the final judgment amount.
The Company currently has $94 million of borrowing capacity under
its $100 million revolving credit facility.  However, the
Company's ability to draw on its credit facility is limited by the
covenants of that facility.

The Company's primary professional liability insurance coverage
has been exhausted for the policy year applicable to this case.
The excess insurance carrier issuing the policy applicable to this
case has issued its reservation of rights to preserve an assertion
of non-coverage for this case due to the lack of any allegation of
injury or harm to the plaintiffs.  Even if the Company is
successful in obtaining insurance coverage for this matter, the
amount of the jury verdict far exceeds the policy limits of its
insurance.

The case is entitled VINNIE LAVENDER, by and through her
Conservator, WANDA BAKER, WALTER SIMON; JACQUELYN VILCHINSKY vs.
SKILLED HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., et al, (and 22 individually-named
California nursing facilities receiving administrative services
from Skilled Healthcare, LLC).

                           *     *    *

According to Bloomberg, the Company's revenue of $759.8 million in
2009 resulted in a net loss of $133.2 million.  For the first
quarter of 2010, the Company's net income was $8.9 million on
revenue of $189.3 million.

The balance sheet at March 31 showed current assets of $131.4
million among total assets of $859 million.  Current liabilities
were $91.7 million.  Total liabilities were $574.7 million.

The Company's stock closed July 6 at $6.22 on the New York Stock
Exchange, down 31 cents a share.

                About Skilled Healthcare Group

Based in Foothill Ranch, California, Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc. (NYSE: SKH), is a holding company with subsidiary healthcare
services companies, which in the aggregate had consolidated annual
revenues of nearly $760 million and approximately 14,000 employees
as of March 31, 2010.  Skilled Healthcare Group and its wholly-
owned companies operate long-term care facilities and provide a
wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic emphasis
on sub-acute specialty health care.  The Company operates long-
term care facilities in California, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, including 78 skilled nursing
facilities that offer sub-acute care and rehabilitative and
specialty health skilled nursing care, and 22 assisted living
facilities that provide room and board and social services.


SMITH & WESSON: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
certified a class in a consolidated securities suit against Smith
& Wesson Holding Corp., according to the company's July 1, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010.

The company, its Chairman of the Board, its Chief Executive
Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer were named in
three similar purported securities class-action lawsuits.  The
complaints in these actions, which have been consolidated
into one action, were brought individually and on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of our company between June 15,
2007 and Dec. 6, 2007.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the litigation.  On
March 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the company's Chairman of the
Board from the litigation.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification and the
company is opposing that motion.  The company's brief in
opposition was filed on March 8, 2010.

On May 11, 2010, the Court certified the consolidated action as
consisting of a class of persons who purchased the company's
securities between June 15, 2007 and Dec. 6, 2007 and suffered
damage as a result.

Court scheduled discovery concerning the facts of this action
ended on May 28, 2010.  Examination of any experts put forth by
the parties ends on Oct. 1, 2010.  The parties will then have
until Oct. 29, 2010 to move for summary disposition of the case.

The consolidated suit is Hwang, et al. v. Smith & Wesson Holding
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-cv-30238 (D. Mass.) (Ponsor, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: drosenfeld@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants are:

          John A. Sten, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          One International Place
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 310-6283
          Facsimile: (617) 310-6001
          E-mail: stenj@gtlaw.com

               - and -


          Francis D. Dibble, Jr., Esq.
          BULKLEY, RICHARDSON & GELINAS, LLP
          1500 Main Street, Suite 2700
          P.O. Box 15507
          Springfield, MA 01115-5507
          Telephone: (413) 272-6246
          Facsimile: (413) 272-6804
          E-mail: fdibble@bulkley.com


TAM S.A.: Defends Seven Labor Class Actions
-------------------------------------------
TAM S.A. is party to seven class actions, one by Panama's union of
tourism companies and the remaining six by the national airline
workers' union, according to the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The total assessed value of those actions was approximately R$256
thousand at Dec. 31, 2009, and according to the company's legal
advisors, R$6 thousand correspond to claims with a remote chance
of loss, R$231 thousand correspond to claims with a possible
chance of loss, and R$19 thousand correspond to claims with a
probable chance of loss.

The company has established provisions totaling R$19 thousand at
Dec. 31, 2009 in respect of all of these claims.  For specific
actions, the Company has made court deposits totaling R$22
thousand to address labor claims.

Based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, TAM S.A. -- http://www.tam.com.br/--
has business agreements with the regional airlines Pantanal,
Passaredo, Total and Trip.  As of Jan. 14, 2010, the daily flight
on the Corumba -- Campo Grande route in Mato Grosso do Sul began
to be operated by a partnership with Trip.  With the expansion of
the agreement with NHT, TAM will now be serving 82 destinations in
Brazil, 45 of which with its own flights.  In addition, the
company is strengthening its presence in Rio Grande do Sul and
Santa Catarina.


TELE NORTE: Court Dismisses Suits Over Customer Service Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Justice Tribunal of Brazil has called for the dismissal
of all ongoing proceedings against Tele Norte Leste Participacoes
S.A. in connection with its customer service centers, according to
the company's July 1, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

The company is a defendant in 69 civil class actions filed by the
Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain
consumer agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service
centers.  The lower courts rendered decisions unfavorable to the
company in 24 of these civil class actions, and the company
appealed these decisions.

As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company recorded provisions in the amount
of BRL$47 million for those claims in respect of which the company
deemed the risk of loss as probable.

The Superior Justice Tribunal (Superior Tribunal de Justica),
after determining that the company's previous pricing model, which
had been contested by consumers, was legal, called for the
dismissal of all ongoing proceedings in the Special Civil Courts
(Juizados Especiais Civeis).

Headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Tele Norte Leste
Participacoes S.A. (aka Oi)-- http://www.telemar.com.br--
provides fixed-line telecommunications services in South America.
The company markets its services under its Telemar brand name.
Tele Norte's subsidiaries include Telemar Norte Leste SA; TNL PCS
SA; Telemar Internet Ltda.; and Companhia AIX Participacoes SA.


TELE NORTE: Court Dismisses "Subscription Fees" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Superior Justice Tribunal of Brazil has called for the dismissal
of all ongoing proceedings against Tele Norte Leste Participacoes
S.A. in connection with its subscription fees charged for fixed-
line services, according to the company's
July 1, 2010, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is a defendant in several class actions and individual
claims which contest the legality of the subscription fees charged
for fixed-line services.

The Superior Justice Tribunal, after determining that the
company's previous pricing model, which had been contested by
consumers, was legal, called for the dismissal of all ongoing
proceedings in the Special Civil Courts.

Headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Tele Norte Leste
Participacoes S.A. (aka Oi)-- http://www.telemar.com.br--
provides fixed-line telecommunications services in South America.
The company markets its services under its Telemar brand name.
Tele Norte's subsidiaries include Telemar Norte Leste SA; TNL PCS
SA; Telemar Internet Ltda.; and Companhia AIX Participacoes SA.


TELE NORTE: Defends Suit Over Alleged Regulations Non-Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tele Norte Leste Participacoes S.A. remains a defendant in suit
alleging non-compliance of regulations established by the Ministry
of Justice, according to the company's July 1, 2010, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed
by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
the company's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service
(Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor) regulations established by
the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica).

The company presented its defense and asked for a change of venue
to federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where the company is
headquartered.  Other defendants have been named and await service
of process.

The amount involved in this action is BRL$300 million.

However, the company says it has made any provisions with respect
to this action since it is awaiting the court's initial decision.

Headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Tele Norte Leste
Participacoes S.A. (aka Oi)-- http://www.telemar.com.br--
provides fixed-line telecommunications services in South America.
The company markets its services under its Telemar brand name.
Tele Norte's subsidiaries include Telemar Norte Leste SA; TNL PCS
SA; Telemar Internet Ltda.; and Companhia AIX Participacoes SA.


TEKKEON INC: Recalls 500 External Laptop Batteries
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tekkeon Inc. of Tustin, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 500 external laptop batteries.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.


The battery cell can short-circuit and overheat, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

Tekkeon has received one report of an overheating battery that
resulted in minor damage to nearby furnishings.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves the myPower ALL Plus External Laptop Battery
is a universal rechargeable battery used to power laptop
computers, MP3 players, mobile phones, DVD players and other
portable devices.  It is black with "Tekkeon" printed on the
front. The model number, MP3750, is printed on a label on the
back.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10744.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Amazon.com and other online retailers from September 2009 through
December 2009 for about $180.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled batteries and
contact Tekkeon for a free replacement battery.  The company is
contacting all known purchasers.  For more information, contact
Tekkeon toll-free at (888) 787-5888, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.tekkeon.com/recall


THOR INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Delayed Financial Report Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries, Inc., faces a purported class suit resulting from
the delay in the filing of its quarterly report, according to the
company's July 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2010.

Following the company's announcement on June 10, 2010, that the
filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
April 30, 2010 would be delayed, a lawsuit was filed against the
company and its officers, Peter B. Orthwein and Christian G.
Farman, on June 25, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio - Dayton Division.

The lawsuit was filed by Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds,
individually and purportedly on behalf of a class of all those who
purchased or acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 30,
2009 and June 10, 2010.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the company made false and
misleading statements in its SEC filings and press releases
regarding its financial condition, profitability, accounting
practices and internal controls.  Specifically, plaintiff claims
that the company misled shareholders by making loans to its
dealers that masked the profitability of its various divisions and
by improperly accounting for repurchase reserves relating to
agreements with lenders for its dealers.  It further contends that
the company failed to disclose that it lacked proper internal
controls to effectively account for such transactions.

The plaintiff alleges that on June 10, 2010, the company revealed
the truth by disclosing that the annual and quarterly results for
fiscal 2009 and part of fiscal 2010 may need to be restated due to
reevaluation of the accounting related to these transactions.

The company relates that its evaluation of these transactions did
not result in any changes to previously taken accounting
positions.

Thor Industries, Inc. manufactures recreation vehicles and builds
commercial buses & ambulances.


ULTRAPAR HOLDINGS: Ultragaz Defends Lawsuits Over Mall Explosion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ultrapar Participacoes SA's subsidiary, Companhia Ultragaz S.A.,
remains a defendant in legal proceedings for damages arising from
an explosion in 1996 in a shopping mall located in the City of
Osasco, State of Sao Paulo.

Ultragaz is a defendant in lawsuits relating to damages caused by
an explosion in 1996 in a shopping mall in the city of Osasco,
State of Sao Paulo.

These lawsuits involve:

     (i) individual suits filed by victims of the explosion
         claiming damages from Ultragaz for the loss of economic
         benefit and for pain and suffering,

    (ii) indemnifications of management of the shopping mall and
         its insurance company, and

   (iii) a class action lawsuit seeking indemnification for
         material damages and pain and suffering for all the
         victims injured and deceased.

The company believes that it has presented evidence that defective
gas pipes in the shopping mall caused the accident and that
Ultragaz's on-site LPG storage facilities did not contribute to
the explosion.

Of the 64 lawsuits adjudicated through December 2009, 63 judgments
were rendered in the company's favor, of which 29 have already
been dismissed, according to the company's June 30, 2010, Form 20-
F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The one unfavorable decision, which the company may appeal, was
for damages in the amount of BRL17 thousand.

There is one action yet to be decided.

Ultragaz has insurance coverage for these lawsuits, and the
uninsured contingent amount is BRL19.6 million.

Headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Ultrapar Participacoes S.A. is
a company with two main operations: LPG distribution (through its
fully owned subsidiary Ultragaz Participacoes Ltda.) and chemical
production (through its also fully-owned subsidiary Oxiteno S.A.).
A third smaller but growing business is the transportation and
storage of chemicals and fuels, Ultracargo Operacoes Logisticas e
Participacoes Ltda., which completes Ultrapar's business portfolio
and reinforces the trend for further business diversity in the
long run.


UNITED STATES: House Passes Bill With $3.4BB Indian Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. House of Representatives attached a $3.4 billion
government settlement with Indian trust beneficiaries to a war-
funding bill that it passed just before breaking for the July
Fourth holiday, The Associated Press reports.

Matt Volz, writing for the AP, relates the bill authorizes the
Obama administration to settle a class-action lawsuit with between
300,000 and 500,000 American Indians who claims the Interior
Department mismanaged billions of dollars held in trust by the
government.

According to the AP, the House originally authorized the
settlement in May, but it was tucked into the Democrats' jobs
legislation that stalled in a Senate filibuster late last month.
The report relates that the plaintiffs hope including the
settlement in the war-funding and disaster-relief bill will mean
the Senate will approve it.

"We expect that the Senate must give prompt and serious
consideration to the bill because, without enactment, there are no
funds for our war efforts and no funds for FEMA," plaintiffs
attorney Dennis Gingold told Mr. Volz Friday. "The bill is too
important to this country. Partisan politics must not obstruct
passage."

Mr. Volz relates that under the proposed settlement:

   -- $1.4 billion would go to individual Indian account
      holders;

   -- $2 billion would be used by the government to buy broken-
      up Indian lands from individual owners willing to sell,
      and then turn those lands over to tribes;

   -- $60 million would be used for a scholarship fund for young
      Indians; and

   -- Lawsuit participants would receive at least $1,500, and
      many would receive considerably more.

The tentative settlement would close the books on a class action
filed in 1996 on behalf of 300,000 American Indians. The
plaintiffs in the suit claimed that as trustee for 145 million
acres of land under the Dawes Act of 1887, the U.S. Department of
the Interior mismanaged trust accounts and allowed the federal
government to give the best land to white settlers.


WHITCO COMPANY: Recalls 2,500 Stadium Light Poles
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Whitco Company LP, of Fort Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,500 Whitco Company LP Poles.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The poles can fracture or crack and fall over, posing a risk of
serious injury or death to patrons and bystanders from being hit
or crushed.  The poles range from 1 to 4 tons increasing the risk
of death if the pole falls toward a crowded stadium or onto a
building.

As of June 2010, CPSC has confirmed 11 incidents in which Whitco
Co. LP poles fell.  In one incident, a pole fell through the roof
of a school gymnasium causing significant property damage.  In two
other incidents, the poles fell onto outdoor bleachers causing
significant property damage.  The latest incident occurred at
Integrity Park Inc. in Argyle, Texas.  The majority of incidents
occurred in Texas with others in several other states where Whitco
Co. LP poles have been installed.  To date, CPSC is not aware of
any injuries.  However, some incidents have been close calls, with
people exiting the area just minutes before a pole fell.  CPSC has
also identified more than 50 Whitco Co. LP poles that have not yet
fallen, but inspections revealed fractures and/or cracks next to
the weld that joins the pole to its base plate.  The fallen and
cracked poles were located near or around school football stadiums
and gymnasiums.

This recall to inspect and repair involves Whitco Co. LP outdoor
steel stadium light poles from about 70 to 135 feet and weigh from
about 1 to 4 tons.  The poles are constructed of steel with a
galvanized coating and were manufactured between 2000-2005.The
poles can be found at facilities such as recreational parks and
fields, schools and outdoor stadiums.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10295.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and
Mexico and sold through lighting contractors nationwide from 2000
through 2005.

To reduce the risk of injury, Whitco Co. LP light poles should be
inspected by an engineer or a Level II non-destructive testing
technician immediately to identify cracking at or near the weld
connecting the pole to the base plate flange.  A visual
examination with the naked eye or with a magnifier will not
determine the extent of any cracking.  Non-destructive techniques
such as magnetic particle inspection, dye penetrant, or ultrasonic
inspection techniques are recommended.  If any cracking or
fracturing is found, immediately have the affected poles repaired
or replaced by a qualified professional.  A design analysis to
assess the stresses placed on the pole is also recommended.  CPSC
recommends that all outdoor steel stadium light poles be routinely
inspected by a professional.  As the manufacturer has become
bankrupt, individual owners of the poles must arrange for
inspection.  For additional information, please contact CPSC's
Hotline at (800) 638-2772 anytime or send an e-mail to
info@cpsc.gov


WM WRIGLEY: $6-Mil. Settlement Reached in Eclipse(R) Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the
Wrigley Eclipse(R) Class Action Lawsuit:

In May 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Wm.
Wrigley Jr. Company, maker of Eclipse chewing gum and mints.  The
lawsuit alleged misleading advertising about the germ-killing
properties of Wrigley's Eclipse products.

On July 6, the parties announced that they have reached a
settlement, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, in which Wrigley will create a fund
of $6 million (plus up to an additional $1 million if needed to
satisfy claims) to reimburse eligible consumers up to $10 for
qualified purchases of Eclipse chewing gum and mint products with
a "natural germ killing" message, and to cover the other costs
associated with the settlement.

Additionally, Wrigley will make certain changes to its marketing
and labeling of this product.

"Wrigley has agreed to a settlement of this lawsuit to prevent
further distraction to its business and denies any wrongdoing,"
said Paul Chibe, Wrigley Vice President and General Manager U.S.
Gum and Mints.

"We are proud of the benefits that this settlement achieves for
consumers," said Jonathan Stein, Esq., a partner at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, one of the lead counsel in the case.

"Consumers deserve well-supported advertising," added Stein's co-
lead counsel, Timothy Blood, Esq., of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon,
LLP.

More information about the settlement, including the process for
filing reimbursement claims and other options, is available at:

     http://www.EclipseSettlement.com
     http://www.rgrdlaw.com/Eclipse

The case is Carol D. Smith, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, vs. WM. Wrigley Jr. Company, case no.
09-cv-60646, and the plaintiffs are represented in the case by:

     Jonathan Stein, Esq.
     Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 750-3000
     Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
     E-mail: jstein@rgrdlaw.com
             cobrien@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Timothy Blood, Esq.
     Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
     BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
     600 B Street, Suite 1550
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 338-1100
     Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
     E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com

          - and -

     Adam Balkan, Esq.
     John Patterson, Esq.
     BALKAN & PATTERSON, LLP
     601 S. Federal Highway, Suite 302
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Telephone: (561) 750-9191
     Facsimile: (561) 750-1574
     E-mail: adam@balkanpatterson.com
             john@balkanpatterson.com

Wrigley is being defended by:

     Dane H. Butswinkas, Esq.
     Thomas G. Hentoff, Esq.
     Nathan P. Kitchens, Esq.
     WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
     725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Telephone: (202) 434-5000
     Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
     E-mail: dbutswinas@wc.com
             thentoff@wc.com
             nkitchens@wc.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court OKs Dismissal of WLB Holding Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the ruling of the
Cumberland County Superior Court, which dismissed as time-barred
an asbestos lawsuit against WLB Holding, Inc. (f/k/a W.L. Blake &
Co.).

The case is styled Aubert A. Godbout et al. v. WLB Holding, Inc.

Judges Saufley, Alexander, Levy, Silver, Mead, Gorman, and Jabar
entered judgment in Docket No. CUM-09-490 on May 27, 2010.

Aubert A. and Christiane Godbout appealed from a judgment
dismissing their products liability complaint against WLB Holding.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the Godbouts instituted proceedings in the
Superior Court against W.L. Blake & Co. and WLB Holding, Inc.
f/k/a W.L. Blake & Co. (WLB), asserting several asbestos-related
causes of action in connection with Mr. Godbout's diagnosis of
mesothelioma.

On WLB's motion, the court dismissed the Godbouts' complaint after
concluding that the three-year statute of repose applicable to
dissolved corporations barred the Godbouts' claims against WLB.
The Godbouts appealed.

Paul Boots, Esq., in Portland, Maine, James J. Bedortha, Esq.,
Jeffrey V. Mansell, Esq., of Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C., in
Pittsburgh, represented the Godbouts.

Michael E. Saucier, Esq., and Rosie M. Williams, Esq., of Thompson
& Bowie, LLP, in Portland, Maine, represented WLB Holding, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Denies Austin's Motion for Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Michael Lee
Austin's motion for appointment of counsel in a case involving
asbestos exposure styled Michael Lee Austin, Appellant v. Franklin
J. Tennis, In his individual capacity only; Lieutenant Grasmirre;
c.o. Lachat; c.o. Spotts; Kevin Burke, In his individual capacity
only; John K. Walmer, In his individual capacity only;
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Prison Health Services;
Richard Ellers; In his individual capacity only; Joel Dickson.

Circuit Judges Sloviter, Ambro, and Smith entered judgment in Case
No. 10-1158 on 26, 2010.

This was an Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Austin, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed from a
judgment entered by the District Court in favor of the Defendants.

Mr. Austin is a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (DOC) who, during the relevant time, was
incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview
(SCI-Rockview).

In March 2008, Mr. Austin filed an amended complaint against the
DOC; Franklin Tennis, Superintendent at SCI-Rockview; Richard
Ellers, Medical Administrator at SCI-Rockview; Dr. John Walmer,
psychologist at SCI-Rockview; C.O. Robert Grasmyer; C.O.
Christopher Lachat; C.O. Michael Spotts, and Joel Dickson, Deputy
Secretary for Security at SCI-Rockview (Commonwealth Defendants);
Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS); and Dr. Kevin Burke, an
employee of MHM Correctional Services, Inc.

Mr. Austin is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Cresson.

In his amended complaint, Mr. Austin alleged that at various times
during 2006 and 2007, the Defendants violated state law as well as
his rights under the Eighth Amendment when they: (1) denied him
medical care during a hunger strike; (2) transferred him to a
"conduit cell" without regard to his psychological condition; (3)
employed excessive force during a cell extraction; and 4) denied
him advanced medical testing after his alleged exposure to
asbestos.

In March 2009, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part, a motion to dismiss filed by the Commonwealth Defendants.
The District Court also granted a motion to dismiss filed by PHS,
but denied Dr. Burke's. Following discovery, the Commonwealth
Defendants as well as Dr. Burke moved for summary judgment on Mr.
Austin's remaining claims.

In a December 2009 decision, the District Court granted both
motions and entered final judgment in the case. Mr. Austin filed a
timely appeal.

As Mr. Austin's appeal presented no substantial question, the
Appeal Court will summarily affirm. Mr. Austin's motion for
appointment of counsel was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Various Motions in Larson Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
various motions in a case involving asbestos styled Dianna K.
Larson, et al. v. Bondex International, et al.

U.S. Magistrates Judge M. Faith Angell entered judgment in Case
No. 09-69123 on May 24, 2010.

Defendant Georgia Pacific LLC's Motion to Exclude Testimony of
Plaintiffs' Experts was denied.  Defendant Bondex International,
Inc., RPM, Inc., and RPM International, Inc.'s Motion to Strike
the Testimony of Experts Arnold R. Brody, Ph.D. and Jacques
Legier, M.D. was denied.

Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to exclude or Limit Dose
Reconstruction Testimony was denied.  Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine
to exclude or Limit Testimony was denied.

Plaintiff Dianna Larson was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006.
Plaintiffs alleged that the mesothelioma was the result of
exposure to asbestos in joint compound products which Mrs. Larson
used in the 1970s when she and her first husband built two homes
in Utah. Named Defendants were alleged to have manufactured, sold
or distributed chrysotile-containing joint compound products.

Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Larson and her first husband
constructed the two homes from the ground up with virtually no
outside assistance.

Defendants disputed Mrs. Larson's diagnosis and further denied
that her alleged exposure to chrysotile asbestos fibers contained
in joint compound products caused or contributed to her
mesothelioma.

Julie L. Celum, Esq., of Waters & Kraus LLP in Dallas, Tex., Mark
F. James, Esq., Hatch James Dodge, Esq., in Salt Lake City, Utah,
Nathan D. Finch, Esq., of Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, in
Washington, D.C., represented Mrs. Larson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Commission Ruling in McGhee Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One,
upheld the ruling of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
in a case involving asbestos styled David G. McGhee, Employee-
Appellant/Respondent v. W. R. Grace & Co., Employer-
Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Judges Don E. Burrell, Barney, and Bates entered judgment in Case
Nos. SD 30060 and SD 30065 on May 28, 2010.

David McGhee contracted asbestosis after working for Grace in a
plant that manufactured home insulation containing asbestos. The
parties stipulated that Mr. McGhee had sustained an occupational
disease that arose out of and in the course of his employment that
rendered him permanently and totally disabled.

The claim was tried on the issue of the amount of benefits to be
awarded before an Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ's decision was
thereafter affirmed and adopted by the Commission.

Both parties now appealed the Commission's decision to the Appeals
court, and the Court had consolidated their separate appeals.

Mr. McGhee began working at Grace's Zonolite Plant in St. Louis in
1964.  Grace and Mr. McGhee agreed that Mr. McGhee's average
weekly wage at the time he ceased working for Employer in 1977 was
US$242.87. The work Mr. McGhee performed for Grace included the
bagging of various materials, including Monokote (a fireproofing
product) and vermiculite (a mineral used in attic insulation).

The vermiculite Mr. McGhee was bagging contained asbestos. His
exposure to this asbestos eventually caused him to contract
asbestosis.

Mr. McGhee testified that during the first six or seven years of
his employment with Grace, he was not provided with any safety
equipment or protective clothing. He testified that in about 1972
or 1973, Grace began providing him with throwaway paper masks.
When Grace began receiving complaints from its employees about
these paper masks, it began providing a different type of mask.

Mr. McGhee's asbestosis was first diagnosed in 2001. He sought
weekly wage benefits based on the average weekly wage statute in
effect in 2001. He also sought past and future medical benefits
and included a claim for a statutory 15 percent penalty based on
Grace's failure to provide safety equipment as required by law
during his course of employment.

The ALJ applied the US$95.00 cap on weekly wage benefits in effect
in 1977 to Mr. McGhee's weekly wage benefits claim. The ALJ
awarded Claimant past and future medical benefits and also
included a 15 percent penalty on all benefits awarded, including
medical benefits.

In their respective appeals of the ALJ's decision to the
Commission, Mr. McGhee contested the ALJ's application of the 1977
weekly benefits cap, and Grace contested the imposition of the 15
percent statutory penalty. While Grace did not contest the ALJ's
award of medical expenses, it disputed the validity of including
those expenses in the calculation of the 15 percent penalty. The
Commission, with one commissioner dissenting, affirmed the ALJ's
decision and incorporated her findings.

That portion of the Commission's order affirming the award to Mr.
McGhee of the 15 percent statutory penalty is affirmed. That
portion of the Commission's award affirming the capping of Mr.
McGhee's weekly wage benefits at US$95 was reversed, and the
Commission was hereby directed to enter an award granting Mr.
McGhee weekly wage benefits in the amount of US$161.91.

In all other respects, the award of the Commission was affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Flips Ruling in Collins v. Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California,
reversed the ruling of the trial court, which favored Cloristeen
Collins and Patricia Collins, in an asbestos case filed against
Plant Insulation Company.

The case is styled Cloristeen Collins, et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents v. Plant Insulation Company, Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Margulies, Dondero, and Banke entered judgment in Case No.
A124268 on June 3, 2010.

Cloristeen Collins and Patricia Collins are, respectively, the
wife and daughter of Ulysses Collins, who died on May 8, 2005, of
mesothelioma contracted as a result of workplace exposure to
asbestos.

Mr. Collins worked as a welder at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
from 1960 to 1973, and as a boilermaker welder at the Standard Oil
Refinery in Richmond from 1973 through 1976. His last job was at
the Mare Island Naval Shipyard, where he worked as a structural
welder and pipe welder from 1976 through 1994.

Throughout his career, Mr. Collins worked extensively with
asbestos and asbestos-containing products, including those
manufactured by Plant Insulation Company.

At the close of evidence, plaintiffs moved for a directed verdict
regarding the Navy, arguing fault could not be allocated to the
service. The trial court granted to plaintiffs' motion.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the court issued judgment against Plant for
US$1,038,000 in economic damages, US$400,000 for pain and
suffering, US$400,000 for loss of consortium, and US$1,000,000 in
wrongful death damages (US$600,000 to his wife and US$400,000 to
his daughter).

On Nov. 26, 2008, the court ordered the "judgment filed on Nov. 7,
2008 . . . modified so that the economic damages awarded against
Plant Insulation Company . . . shall be reduced by 10.349 percent
of $9,139,490.46 or $945,845.87, for a net reduction of
$93,104.13." This timely appeal by Plant followed.

The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a retrial
limited to apportionment of fault among the Navy and defendants
already found liable by the jury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Issues Split Ruling in Superior Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin issued split rulings in a case
involving asbestos styled Diocese of Superior, Plaintiff v. Swan &
Associates, Inc., and Robert Swanfeld, Defendants-Third-Party
Plaintiffs-Appellants, American Safety Casualty Insurance Company,
Defendant-Respondent v. Benson Electric Company and Western
National Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendants.

Judges Hoover, Peterson, and Brunner entered judgment in Case No.
2009AP531 on June 2, 2010.

Swan & Associates, Inc., and Robert Swanfeld appealed a judgment
and an order dismissing their coverage claims against American
Safety Casualty Insurance Company. Swan argued the circuit court
erred by enforcing a Georgia choice-of-law provision in the
insurance agreement.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's choice-of-law
determination, but remanded for a determination of coverage under
Georgia law.

The Cathedral of Christ the King in Superior, Wis., is about 75
years old.  By 2004, the building needed extensive restoration.
The Diocese of Superior, which suspected asbestos-containing
materials were used during remodeling in the 1950s, hired Swan to
test the cathedral before renovation.

Testing in limited areas revealed asbestos, but Swan allegedly
performed no additional testing on the remainder of the building.
The Diocese asserted that on Feb. 15, 2004, employees of Benson
Electric Company cut into cornices in the cathedral, releasing
asbestos particles that contaminated the church.

The Diocese filed suit on April 27, 2005, alleging Swan and its
insurer, American Safety, were liable for breach of contract,
negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. American Safety
denied coverage and sought declaratory and summary judgment. Swan
then filed its own motion for summary judgment.

The circuit court granted American Safety's motion for declaratory
and summary judgment.

Judgment and order affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause
remanded with directions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Junks Spavone's Lawsuit v. DOCS
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted
the N.Y.S. Department of Correctional Services' motion to dismiss
an asbestos lawsuit filed by Steven Spavone.

The case is styled Steven Spavone, Plaintiff v. N.Y.S. Department
of Correctional Services, Jim Hillregal, John Bendlin, and Steve
Madison, Defendants.

District Judge Denise Cote entered judgment in Case No. 10 Civ.
0833(DLC) on May 27, 2010.

Steven Spavone, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleged
that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, which constituted
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

Specifically, Mr. Spavone alleged that he was exposed to friable
asbestos while performing demolition and removal work in an area
of Woodbourne. On Feb. 3, 2010, he filed this action against the
New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), Jim
Hillregal, a Plant Supervisor at Woodbourne, John Bendlin, a
Maintenance Supervisor at Woodbourne, and Steve Madison, a
Maintenance General Mechanic at Woodbourne.

Mr. Spavone claimed that defendants were deliberately indifferent
to his health and safety, and sought compensatory and punitive
damages.

On April 12, 2010, DOCS filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The motion became fully submitted on
May 7, 2010.

DOCS' April 12, 2010 motion to dismiss was granted. Mr. Spavone's
claim against DOCS was dismissed with prejudice.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harless Case v. 62 Firms Filed June 17 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit styled Dwight R. Harless and Carol
Harless vs. 3M Company; A.O. Smith Corporation; A.W. Chesterton
Company et al was filed on June 17, 2010 in Kanawha Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Harlesses claim the 62 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Harless' usual interstitial pneumonitis and asbestosis. They seek
a jury trial to resolve all issues.

James M. Barber, Esq., and Victoria Antion, Esq., represent the
Harlesses.

Case No. 10-C-1080 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LVI Fined $33,500 for Naval Site Cleanup Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina state regulators issued a US$33,500 penalty against
LVI Environmental Services of North Carolina, an environmental
remediation firm, which was cleaning up asbestos on the Naval
Weapons Station, The Post and Courier reports.

According to air pollution control officials at the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control, LVI Environmental
did not follow proper cleanup procedures when handling asbestos at
some of the station's housing units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landers, Ministry Penalized for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Illinois
Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that Ray F. Landers, vice
president of Next Generation Ministries Inc., was fined and
sentenced to probation for putting Virden, Ill., residents at risk
of exposure to asbestos emissions, The Telegraph reports.

The 57-year-old Mr. Landers, of Auburn, Ill., was sentenced last
June 24, 2010 in Macoupin County Circuit Court to 18 months of
probation and 90 days in jail. Mr. Landers is scheduled to serve
his jail sentence at the end of his probation.

Mr. Landers also was ordered to perform 100 hours of community
service; pay a fine of US$2,500 plus court costs; make restitution
in the amount of US$2,500 payable to the IEPA Permit and
Inspection Fund; and publish a letter of apology to the residents
and citizens of Virden.

Equipping the Saints Ministry was fined US$75,000 plus court
costs. Court documents list the ministry's directors as Billie
Landers, Ray Landers, Jennifer Chance and Rayna Sidener, all of
Auburn.

As a further condition of the Mr. Landers' conditional discharge,
and by agreement of the parties, he must within the first 120 days
of the period of conditional discharge reacquire title to the 402
W. Loud St. property in Virden, the location of the former Virden
Nursing Home.

Mr. Landers must tender it to the city of Virden free of charge,
and free and clear of all and any liens and other encumbrances,
for the use as a city park dedicated to the memory of Wayne Molen,
and other than its use as a park, subject to acceptance by the
city of Virden.

The Illinois EPA initially investigated the case after it learned
that Landers was in the process of renovating the former Virden
Nursing Home and had not properly inspected and removed the
materials containing asbestos. Mr. Landers also had failed to
notify the IEPA about the presence of the asbestos.

Mr. Landers and the ministry were indicted by a grand jury in
Macoupin County Circuit Court on eight felony counts in 2007.

According to the EPA, the ministry pleaded guilty to improper
removal of asbestos, and Landers pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor,
failure to provide notification of demolition or renovation, and
all other counts were dismissed.

According to court documents, after the guilty plea, the ministry
transferred the property to a related corporation headed by Mr.
Landers' wife, Billie Landers, who was not charged with any
crimes.

The criminal investigation was conducted by the Illinois State
Police and was initiated by the Macoupin County State's Attorney's
Office.

The case was prosecuted by Special Appointed Assistant State's
Attorney Daniel Merriman of the Illinois EPA and Colette Kennedy
of the Illinois Attorney General's Office's Environmental Crimes
Bureau.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 421 Cases Filed in Madison County as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to figures released by the Madison County Circuit
Clerk's Office, as of June 30, 2010, about 421 asbestos cases have
been filed in Madison County, up by 29 cases from June 30, 2009,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Madison County has one of the most active asbestos dockets in the
United States. Filings are also picking up in St. Clair County,
where 25 asbestos cases have been filed so far in 2010.

In prior interviews with The Record, Madison County Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack, the current asbestos judge, has indicated that the
current batch of asbestos filings stem from so-called secondary
exposures.

Secondary exposure claims arise from people who allege they have
developed asbestos-related illnesses although they had not had
direct exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

Judge Stack has predicted in the past that asbestos case filings
will peak within the next two decades and then gradually decline.

Meanwhile, Judge Stack has been working with Madison County
Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder to prepare her to take over his role
overseeing the asbestos docket.

Madison County has already seen one asbestos case go to a jury in
2010. That suit, brought by plaintiffs Meta and Larry Williams,
was presided over by Judge Crowder.

The verdict went to defendant Ford Motor Company on March 12,
2010.

Judge Stack plans to continue on the bench until the end of his
current term in November 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lakeland District Penalized for Botched Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakeland Central School District in New York State was fined
US$2,500 after two custodians (Carmine Di Bernardo and another)
were found to have improperly removed asbestos-laden floor tiles
from Lakeland High School in the summer of 2009, Meso RC reports.

Mr. Di Bernardo and the other custodian disposed of the tiles in
trash receptacles around the school without providing any warning
that the debris contained asbestos, LoHud.com reports.

Neither of the men who collected the broken tiles in at least 10
classrooms last July 2009 was certified to handle asbestos, says
the state Labor Department.

Jean Genovese, a spokeswoman from the state Labor Department,
says, "Uncertified school employees were instructed by the head
custodian to remove the loose pieces, cut away and remove portions
of broken floor tile still attached to the floor and then they
replaced them with non-asbestos floor tiles."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Power Station Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derby Coroner's Court heard that the death of Mervin
Davies, a power station worker from Castle Gresley, Derbyshire,
England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby
Telegraph reports.

Mr. Davies, who died at the age of 63, spent more than a decade
working as a pipe lagger at power stations including Willington
and Drakelow. In the 1960s and 1970s, he worked in boiler houses
and said asbestos dust was "everywhere."

The inquest heard that Mr. Davies was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in June 2009. He died in May 2010.

When Mr. Davies took on the role of a lagger at Willington and
Drakelow power stations, he said he would sometimes work seven
days a week on 12-hour shifts.

Mr. Davies said he found out about his mesothelioma after
developing a cough in the run-up to a charity bike ride. He was
also involved in a compensation claim because of the exposure.

A postmortem examination concluded that Mr. Davies' medical cause
of death was malignant mesothelioma caused by occupational
asbestos exposure.

Derby and South Derbyshire's assistant deputy coroner Paul
McCandless recorded a verdict of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seabeck Questions U.K. Gov't. on Payout Delays
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labour MP for Plymouth Moor View, Alison Seabeck, challenged the
United Kingdom Government regarding Devonport constituents still
waiting for a GBP5,000 asbestos-related compensation, The Herald
reports.

Plymouth is a hotspot for asbestos-related deaths, many of them
former workers at Devonport.

It was after a long delay that the previous Labour government
decided in February 2010 against overturning a 2007 legal ruling
blocking compensation for sufferers of pleural plaques.

However, it was announced people who had already started a legal
claim at the time of the Law Lords ruling would receive a GBP5,000
payment.

Speaking in the Commons, Ms Seabeck said, "The deadline for the
payment to pleural plaques victims of compensation worth 5,000
has come and gone.

"On at least two occasions in this House, Ministers have said that
the payment would be made by the end of June.

"Will the Deputy Leader of the House please ensure that the
appropriate Minister makes a statement to the House to explain to
victims of this dreadful disease in my constituency exactly why
they are still having to wait for the much promised and expected
GBP5,000 payment?"

Deputy Leader David Heath said, "She raises an issue that I know
is very important to a large number of members and constituents. I
will pass her comments on to the relevant Ministers. Hopefully,
there will be statement in the near future, but I cannot promise
it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traces of Hazard Found in Lindsey Oil Refinery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Oil Refinery workers were sent home by the GMB union due
to asbestos concerns after a June 29, 2010 explosion and
subsequent fire at the refinery in Lincolnshire, England,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The explosion killed Robert Greenacre, a contractor who was
working close to a crude oil distillation unit when the explosion
occurred.

GMB's lead organizer for engineering construction, Phil
Whitehurst, noted, "Independent specialists from Yorkshire have
found traces of asbestos at the scene of the explosion. Workers on
the HDS-3 plant have been sent home on full pay until Monday while
specialists deal with the asbestos problem."

More than 50 firefighters were called in to fight the fire.
Employees have noted that the fire started in an industrial heater
-- close to where they walked to work. Two employees were treated
for injuries, following the explosion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Davis Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California,
conditionally affirmed the ruling of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, which awarded judgment in favor of John R. Davis
and Anna J. Davis, in an asbestos case filed against Leslie
Controls, Inc. and Warren Pumps LLC.

The case is styled John R. Davis, et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents v. Leslie Controls, Inc., et al., Defendants and
Appellants.

Judges Woods, Perluss, and Jackson entered judgment in Case No.
B205984 on June 3, 2010.

Leslie and Warren appealed from the judgment in favor of the
Davises. The jury awarded the Davises economic damages of
US$100,000 and non-economic damages of US$25 million and awarded
Mrs. Davis non-economic damages of US$10 million.

Mr. Davis, who was born in 1933, was 74 years old at the time of
trial. Eight months before trial, he had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

The Davises' occupational-medicine expert opined that Mr. Davis
had experienced "three substantial periods of cumulative asbestos
exposure": in the Navy between 1951 and 1955, at Shell Oil Company
refineries from 1956 to 1963, and at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Lab (INEEL) from 1964 through 1976.

Throughout Mr. Davis' years of exposure to asbestos-containing
products (including Leslie valves and Warren pumps), no employer,
manufacturer, physician or anyone else, ever warned him about any
danger associated with asbestos. He breathed asbestos dust when he
worked on defendants' products. None of his employers took any
measures to control asbestos dust such as the use of respirators
or wetting procedures.

On March 6, 2007, the Davises filed a complaint for personal
injury -- asbestos, asserting causes of action for negligence,
strict liability, false representation, intentional
tort/intentional failure to warn and loss of consortium.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Davises on their
claims for strict liability based on design defect, strict
liability based on the failure to warn and negligence. The jury
assigned 7.1 percent of the liability to each of these two
defendants as well as to each of five other manufacturers and 16.6
percent to each of Mr. Davis' three employers -- the Navy, Shell
Oil and INEEL.

The jury awarded Mr. Davis US$100,000 in economic damages and
US$25 million in non-economic damages and awarded Mrs. Davis US$10
million in non-economic damages for loss of consortium.

After reducing the verdict based on the jury's fault allocation,
the court entered judgment against Leslie and Warren in the amount
of US$2,578.360.05 each. After the court entered judgment in favor
of plaintiffs, defendants moved for a new trial on several
grounds, including those raised on appeal. The court denied the
motions.

Warren and Leslie filed timely notices of appeal from the judgment
entered in favor of the Davises and the order denying their
motions for new trial.

Carroll, Burdick & McDonough (James P. Cunningham, Esq., and
Laurie J. Hepler, Esq.) represented Warren Pumps.

Munger, Tolles & Olson (Mark H. Epstein, Esq., and Paul J.
Watford, Esq.); Gordon & Rees (Michael Pietrykowski, Esq., and Don
Willenburg, Esq.) represented Leslie Controls, Inc.

Waters Kraus & Paul (Paul C. Cook, Esq., and Michael B. Gurien,
Esq.) represented the Davises.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Holston Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
which granted Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Goodrich Corporation (f/k/a
the B.F. Goodrich Company, Inc.), and Foseco, Inc.'s motion to
administratively dismiss an asbestos complaint filed by Edward and
Karen Holston.

The case is styled Edward Holston, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. Adience, Inc. (f/k/a BMI), et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Patricia Ann Blackmon, Kenneth A. Rocco, and Larry A. Jones
entered judgment in Case No. 93616 on June 3, 2010.

On Feb. 26, 2008, Mr. Holston was diagnosed with lung cancer. On
Jan. 21, 2009, he and his wife, Karen, filed an asbestos-related
complaint against several companies, including Goodyear Tire &
Rubber, Goodrich Corporation, Foseco's, Inc., and Adience, Inc.,
as well as "John Does 1-100 Manufacturers, Sellers or Installers
of Asbestos-Containing Products." The complaint alleged injury to
Mr. Holston from workplace exposure to products containing
asbestos during the period from 1971 through 2000.

On March 19, 2009, the appellees filed a motion to
administratively dismiss the Holstons' complaint for failure to
submit prima facie evidence of a physical impairment. On April 1,
2009, the Holstons filed a memorandum in opposition to appellees'
motion to administratively dismiss, and provided a Nov. 3, 2008
report of one of Mr. Holston's treating physicians, Edgar H.
Sanchez, M.D.

On May 4, 2009, the appellees filed a reply memorandum to further
support their motion to administratively dismiss the complaint and
argued that Dr. Sanchez's letter did not fulfill the requirements
of R.C. 2307.92.

On June 12, 2009, the trial court held a hearing on appellees'
motion to administratively dismiss the Holstons' complaint. On
June 17, 2009, the trial court issued an order administratively
dismissing the Holstons' complaint without prejudice. The Holstons
appealed appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Veterans Board Ruling in Chaney Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the Sept. 30,
2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Willie
W. Chaney entitlement to disability benefits for lung cancer due
to asbestos exposure.

The case is styled Willie W. Chaney, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 08-3250 on June 4, 2010.

Mr. Chaney served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January
1971 to December 1972. He also served on active duty in the U.S.
Navy from April 1976 to December 1980. In its decision, the Board
found that Mr. Chaney "may have been exposed to asbestos in
service."

In the late 1980s, Mr. Chaney was placed on an asbestos
surveillance program as part of his civilian employment for the
Department of Defense. As part of this program, Mr. Chaney
received regular chest x-rays searching for evidence of asbestos-
related lung problems. From 1988 through 1995, none of these
screenings or B reader reports uncovered evidence of asbestos-
related health problems.

In February 2000, a private physician found a growth in Mr.
Chaney's left lower lung. A doctor determined that the growth was
malignant and Mr. Chaney was diagnosed with lung cancer. The
growth was removed in April 2000.

In February 2002, a computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan
uncovered a recurrence of Mr. Chaney's lung cancer. He was
treated, and, by November 2002, there was no evidence of cancer in
his lungs.

Mr. Chaney sought entitlement to VA disability benefits for lung
cancer as secondary to asbestos exposure. In October 2004, he
testified at a Board hearing that he was exposed to asbestos
during his time in the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army.

In May 2007, a VA examiner evaluated Mr. Chaney and reviewed his
medical records, pathology reports, and claims file. The examiner
noted that older images of Mr. Chaney's lungs "do not show pleural
thickening or calcification nor any other changes to suggest
asbestosis."

In September 2008, the Board issued the decision on appeal,
denying Mr. Chaney entitlement to disability benefits for lung
cancer due to asbestos exposure. The Board found that Mr. Chaney
may have been exposed to asbestos while in service, but defined
the relevant issue as whether there was evidence of a nexus
between Mr. Chaney's lung cancer and his exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court OKs Summary Judgment in Dean Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Muskingum County,
affirmed the ruling of the Muksingum County, Common Pleas Court,
which granted summary judgment in favor of Conesville Coal
Preparation Company, American Electric Power (AEP) and the
Administrator of Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, in an
asbestos case filed by Beatrice Dean.

The case is styled Beatrice Dean, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
Administrator, Bureau of Workers' Compensation, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Gwin, Edwards, and Delaney entered judgment in Case No.
CT2010-0003 on June 3, 2010.

James Dean worked as an electrician from 1958 to 2003, about 45
years. He was often dispatched out of his local union hall and
thus worked for numerous employers, including Conesville and AEP.
On Jan. 15, 2006, Mr. Dean, husband of Mrs. Dean passed away due
to lung cancer. He smoked 1/2 to one pack of cigarettes per day
for 45 years.

On Jan. 15, 2008, Mrs. Dean filed a claim with the Ohio Bureau of
Workers' Compensation seeking to participate in the Workers'
Compensation Fund for the death of her husband. Her claim was
denied at all administrative levels, and she appealed to the Court
of Common Pleas of Muskingum County on Sept. 10, 2008.

Mrs. Dean's petition alleged that her husband's cancer was caused
by his exposure to asbestos during employment at various
employers. The appellees took Mrs. Dean's deposition on Sept. 18,
2009, after which the appellees filed motions for summary
judgment.

Mrs. Dean filed a memorandum in opposition asserting that the
Bureau and Conesville did not meet their initial burden. The trial
court granted summary judgment in favor of all appellees on Dec.
29, 2009. Mrs. Dean filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

John Regginello, Esq., of Austintown, Ohio, represented Beatrice
Dean.

Robert McClelland, Esq., of Rademaker, Matty, McClelland & Greve
in Cleveland, Ohio, represented LTV Steel Company.

Chris Russell, Esq., of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur in
Columbus, Ohio, represented Conesville Coal Preparation Co. & AEP.

Kevin Reis, Assistant Attorney General in Columbus, Ohio,
represented Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation; State Fund
Employers Muskingum Electric, Inc. & Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Ruling in Reynard Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
rulings in the asbestos case styled Barbara Reynard, Executrix of
the Estate of Ray Fellows, Deceased, and Barbara Reynard, in her
own right v. Allied Glove Corporation, et al.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey entered judgment in the
case on June 7, 2010.

This asbestos case was initially brought in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

Plaintiffs submitted a Physician's Report prepared by Satyasagar
Morisetty, M.D., and a pathology report from Trinity Health
System. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on April 24, 2009, and was subsequently
transferred to this district by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

The case was referred to Judge Hey for settlement and for pretrial
purposes by the Honorable Eduardo Robreno, judicial overseer of
the asbestos multidistrict litigation.

On Feb. 16, 2010, Judge Hey entered a scheduling order, setting a
fact discovery deadline of July 1, 2010, and a deadline for
plaintiffs' expert reports of July 30, 2010.

On April 15, 2010, Dr. Morisetty was served with a deposition
subpoena. On April 20, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to quash
the subpoena, to which defendants had responded, and Plaintiffs
have filed a reply. Judge Hey held oral argument on June 1, 2010.
For the reasons that follow, Judge Hey will deny plaintiffs'
motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Issued in Environmental Source's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts, Central
Division, issued rulings in the case styled Environmental Source
Corporation, Plaintiff v. Massachusetts Division of Occupational
Safety; Massachusetts Division of Unemployment Assistance; and
Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents, Defendants.

Bankruptcy Judge Melvin S. Hoffman entered judgment in the case on
June 8, 2010.

This matter came before Judge Hoffman on June 2, 2010 for a
continued non-evidentiary hearing on the Debtor's Emergency Motion
for Injunctive Relief for the purpose of considering whether to
extend a temporary restraining order entered on May 27, 2010 by
entry of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts through any of the Defendant agencies, including the
Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA), from
continuing to deny the Debtor an asbestos removal license.

The Debtor is in the business of commercial asbestos removal and
mitigation).

On Sept. 4, 2009, prior to the Debtor's bankruptcy filing, its
workers' compensation insurance policy was canceled for non-
payment of the premium. On Sept. 24, 2009, an investigator for the
DIA determined that the Debtor lacked workers' compensation
insurance and was not qualified as a self-insurer.

Consequently, on the same day, the investigator issued a so-called
Stop Work Order requiring the Debtor to cease doing business in
the Commonwealth. In addition, the Debtor incurred civil penalties
of US$250 a day.

The Debtor appealed the issuance of the Stop Work Order and at the
appeal hearing requested and was granted a continuance. The Debtor
failed to appear at the continued hearing. On April 8, 2010 the
Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code. Shortly thereafter, the Debtor obtained
workers' compensation insurance.

Subsequent to the commencement of the Chapter 11 case, the
Division of Occupational Safety (DOS) denied the Debtor's
application for renewal of its asbestos removal license for
reasons which included the lack of workers' compensation
insurance, the existence of unpaid monetary obligations to state
agencies, and the existence of the Stop Work Order.

The Debtor commenced this adversary proceeding and sought
emergency injunctive relief against the Defendant state agencies.

On May 27, 2010, Judge Hoffman held a hearing on the Debtor's
Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief and at the hearing the DOS
acknowledged that, in light of the Debtor's bankruptcy, it could
no longer condition the issuance of the asbestos removal license
on the payment of outstanding prepetition obligations to any
governmental authority and agreed that if the Debtor submitted an
application it would be acted upon within three business days,
provided that the Stop Work Order was removed or closed. The DIA
agreed to "close" the Stop Work Order.

A continued hearing to consider further relief was scheduled for
June 2, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Flips Dismissal of Simpkins Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, reversed the
ruling of the Circuit Court of Madison County, which dismissed
Cynthia Simpkins' asbestos case filed against CSX Corporation and
CSX Transportation, Inc.

The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

The case is styled Cynthia Simpkins, Individually and as Special
Administrator for the Estate of Annette Simpkins, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation,
Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

Justices Chapman, Donovan, and Wexstten entered judgment in Case
No. 5-07-0346 on June 10, 2010.

Annette Simpkins was exposed to asbestos fibers brought home on
the work clothes of her husband, Ronald Simpkins. He was exposed
to asbestos while working for various employers, including the
defendants' predecessor, the B & O Railroad.

Mrs. Simpkins died of mesothelioma cancer in April 2007 while the
instant action was pending in the trial court. Her daughter, Ms.
Simpkins, was appointed as the special administrator of Annette's
estate and was substituted as the plaintiff.

Ms. Simpkins now appealed an order dismissing three counts of the
complaint against CSX. The counts were dismissed on the grounds
that an employer has no duty to protect the family of its employee
from the dangers of asbestos brought home on the work clothes of
the employee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stinson Sues 98 Firms in St. Clair Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Donna Stinson of Virginia, on June 4, 2010, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 98 defendant corporations in St. Clair County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

In her complaint, Mrs. Stinson alleges the defendants caused her
recently deceased husband, Gerald P. Stinson, to develop lung
cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products
throughout his career. Mr. Stinson worked as a boilermaker from
1963 until 2001.

In her nine-count complaint, Mrs. Stinson seeks a judgment of more
than US$475,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

She is represented by Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq., of The Lowe Law Firm
in St. Louis represents Mrs. Stinson in Case No. 10-L-282.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Detected in Majority of Korean Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citing data from the Korean Education Ministry, Rep. Kim
Choon-jin said on July 5, 2010 that asbestos was detected in the
structures of 85.7 percent of kindergarten, primary, middle and
high schools nationwide, The Korea Herald reports.

Rep. Kim, of the main opposition Democratic Party, said that among
the 19,815 schools nationwide, 16,982 or 85.7 contained the
substance in their buildings.

Though 16,263 schools had an insignificant amount of asbestos,
about 22 schools were classified in the top danger group, with
more than 10 percent of the building containing the substance,
showed the data.

Fourteen of the most affected schools were located in Gyeonggi
Province, four in Busan, three in Gangwon Province and one in
North Chungcheong Province.

An official of the Education Ministry said, "Among the 22 schools
classified as the top danger group, 20 have already been
adequately repaired."

Rep. Kim said that a special law on the control of asbestos in
school buildings will be submitted to the National Assembly in the
September plenary session.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Unaware of Hazard at NSW Primary School
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parents were not informed on their children's potential exposure
to asbestos until five weeks after demolition work at Katoomba
North Public School, located in the Blue Mountains, New South
Wales, Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

A WorkCover NSW investigation found asbestos had been disturbed at
the school in May 2010. No proper handling measure were followed.

Children, parents and staff were present when a covered walkway
was demolished, despite a Department of Education and Training
audit in 2008 identifying asbestos in ceiling structures and
linings throughout the school.

The demolition work, which was not part of the school's Building
the Education Revolution program, was halted in May 2010 when the
asbestos fears were raised. However, the school delayed informing
parents about the discovery until June 21, 2010.

Suspected contaminated areas have been vacuumed and sprayed as
part of remediation strategies undertaken by the department.

Michael de Wall, a NSW Teachers Federation organizer for the Blue
Mountains, said senior departmental officials and occupational
health and safety staff were aware of the asbestos disturbance at
the school from the beginning.

The principal trusted the department was handling the removal
correctly, Mr. De Wall said.

Eleanor Gibbs, a Blue Mountains City councilor, said parents had
contacted her with fears for the long-term health of their
children.

The council is working with WorkCover to ensure all the standards
relating to asbestos have been met at Katoomba North and other
schools in the Blue Mountains.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Couple Still Refusing to Leave Wittenoom
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Hartmann and Gail Malcom are a few of the eight remaining
residents in the barren town of Wittenoom, Western Australia,
Asbestos.net reports.

Once a booming mining town in the 1950s and 1960s, Wittenoom
attracted new residents to fill high-paying mining jobs. But the
1966 asbestos mine closure commenced the town's slow demise into
its current state.

The town is no longer recognized by the government, after a
massive cleanup attempt failed to lower asbestos levels in the
area.

Maps and road signs now warn travelers to keep windows closed and
to stay in one's vehicle when passing through, and the government
has eliminated all basic services in the area -- essentially
rendering Wittenoom a ghost town.

But these dire warnings do not bother Mr. Hartmann and Ms. Malcom,
the latter being the first person to move to the town in decades
and subsequently meeting her future husband when everyone else
seemed to be moving out. For them, it seems leaving the town they
met was unthinkable -- as they turned turn a government offer of
AU$43,000 to move out.

Of course, there is a reason Mr. Hartmann and Ms. Malcom are one
of only eight remaining residents. They are willing to take a
chance that is not statistically good -- that one can breathe in
asbestos fibers on a daily basis for years and experience little
to no side effects.

About 1,000 of 20,000 former residents have already succumbed to
asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Blazing Skip in Shanklin Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
A blazing skip with asbestos caused a fire alert in the early
hours of July 4, 2010 in Shanklin, Isle of Wight, England, the
Isle of Wight County Press reports.

The alarm was raised by residents living along Northbourne Avenue,
Shanklin, at around 3:00 a.m.

The skip, which contained burning asbestos, was outside a property
being renovated. Firefighters gave the all clear at 5:16 a.m.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Over 2T Nottingham Council Houses Have Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Nottingham Post disclosed that more than 2,200 council houses
contain "high-risk" asbestos, in which the Nottingham City Council
has set aside GBP8.7 million to deal with the problem.

So far, about two thirds of the City's 29,000 council homes have
been surveyed and 13 percent of them contain amosite, a more
dangerous form of asbestos.

The number with high-risk asbestos will rise once surveys are
completed.

The United Kingdom Government has told local authorities to remove
asbestos from homes or make it safe, although ministers do not
accept there is a "major risk" of fatal diseases from the material
in council houses.

A spokesman for NCH said asbestos is often removed when works are
carried out.

Conservative councilor Georgina Culley questioned why the City
council had not acted sooner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSR to Review AU$55Mil Compensation Provision
--------------------------------------------------------------
CSR Limited will check its AU$55 million provision for asbestos
compensation as it decides how to deploy the AU$1.66 billion net
proceeds from the sale of its Sucrogen sugar business, The Sydney
Morning Herald reports.

On July 5, 2010, the Company said that it would consider
investment opportunities "over the coming months" before deciding
how much of the money to return to shareholders. The Company's
March 2010 balance sheet includes an asbestos provision of AU$455
million.

The managing director, Jeremy Sutcliffe, said it was reasonable
for shareholders to expect to benefit via a special dividend or a
share buyback.

The Company's former plan to put the sugar assets into a new
company and distribute Sucrogen shares to CSR shareholders
provoked a legal challenge from several parties, including the New
South Wales government.

The July 5, 2010 sale to Singapore-based Wilmar International does
not reduce CSR's assets as long as the cash proceeds remain on its
balance sheet, but any large distribution to shareholders will
revive the asbestos debate.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at Maroondah Floral Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos has been found dumped at Maroondah, Victoria, Australia's
largest and most diverse floral reserve, the Maroondah Leader
reports.

Parks Victoria found asbestos cement sheets up to 3.5 meters deep
in the south-east section of Croydon North's Hochkins Ridge Flora
Reserve in June 2010.

A qualified asbestos removal company removed the material, which
was disposed of according to Environment Protection Authority
guidelines.

Parks Victoria ranger Conrad Annal said it appeared the sheets
were dumped "some time ago." Nearby residents were informed prior
to the asbestos' removal.

The 18.5-hectare habitat is home to 250 native plant species,
including two of state significance.

                            *********

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  * * *