/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100716.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 16, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 139


24 HOUR FITNESS: Sued for Racial and Gender Discrimination
ARIZONA: Suit Complains About Immigration Law Training Materials
AUSTRALIA: 4 Banks Face Suit to Produce Docs for Class Actions
AUSTRALIA: Suit v. Sydney Seeks Transfer of Bourke Rd. Cycleway
BP PLC: Class Action Lawyers Looking for Way Around NAB Ruling

BP PLC: Taylor English and Pope McGlamry File Class Suit
CHEVRON: Wants Film-maker to Turn Over Outtakes on "Crude" Movie
CONNECTICUT: Settles Suit on Relocation of Mentally Disabled
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Ga. Sup. Ct. Says Schorrs Meet Class Suit Rule
DE BEERS: 3rd Circuit Rejects $295-Mil. Class Suit Settlement

ESPANOLA SCHOOL: Sued for Failing to Promote Safe Learning Place
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement
G-M RICE LITIGATION: Bayer Unit Contaminated Rice Fields
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Action.org Eyes Suit Over Avandia Drug
PRICELINE.COM: Shelbyville Joins Suit v. Online Hotel Vendors

SEATTLE BIKE: Recalls 330 Redline Conquest Cyclocross Bicycles
STAR ASIA: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
TELIASONERA AB: Ex-Owners of Eesti Telekom May File Class Suit
TICKET RESERVE: Ill. Ct. Dismisses Fraud Claims in Super Bowl Case
TOYOTA MOTOR: Ex-NUMMI Workers Sue for More Severance Pay

TOYOTA MOTOR: Texas Suit Filed Over 2005 Camry Model Defects
TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls 137,000 Necklaces, Bracelets & Earrings
YUM! BRANDS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ill. Suit Over Oprah Promo

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Supreme Court OKs Ruling in Goodyear Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Issues Ruling in Michigan State Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Ruling in Bethel Fellowship Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Issues Rulings in Mt. McKinley Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Denies Norfolk's Dismissal Motion

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Wilson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Fostoria, Ohio Store to Cost $8,800
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 900 Tons of Asbestos Removed From Ambler House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Delegation Urges EPA to Clean Up Libby
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore Town Not Enforcing Asbestos Regulations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Reorganization Consummated on July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Faces 139 Pending Claims at May 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Files Prepack Ch.11 on July 12
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Development in Scott v. Chase Since May 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Lawsuit Against Chase in Discovery Stage

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment to Detroit Diesel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Collins Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Trenton Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Ruling in Mathison Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Glein's Remand Bid in Lawsuit v. UTC

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Homes in Waverly, Iowa Slated for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Former Leatherback Site Costs $130T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitigation at Narragansett Site to Cost $49,850
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Court Dismisses Stewart's Class Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fireman's Fund Increases A&E Reserves by $301MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Rulings in HOD Carriers Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Moore Remand Bid in Case v. Metalclad
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Kraus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eckerle's Remand Bid Denied in Case v. Northrop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Rulings in Munson Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Defendants' Summary Judgment in Lage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Upholds Decision in Gaines Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dow, UCC Dismissal in Saunders Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scott Family Awarded Payout for Wrongful Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chipperfield Resident's Death Linked to Hazards

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landlord to Cleanup Hazard From Alvaston Flats
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sabattini, Miller Suits Filed in St. Clair Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Jury Favors Union Carbide in McCauley Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hoffman-LaRoche Operator's Action Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Uralita to Pay EUR3.9MM in Damages

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gordon Square Theatre to Get $200T for Cleanup


24 HOUR FITNESS: Sued for Racial and Gender Discrimination
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the law
firm of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. said they
filed a class action law suit on behalf of employees of 24 Hour
Fitness USA, Inc. alleging discrimination on the basis of race,
color, national origin and gender.  The lawsuit, Fulcher v. 24
Hour Fitness, was filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

Plaintiffs claim that the giant chain of fitness gyms has
systematically subjected minority and female employees to
discrimination regarding promotions to management positions and
equal compensation in violation of the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act and the California Business and Profession Code.

Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF President and General Counsel, stated "24
Hour Fitness must exercise fair employment practices to ensure
that all hardworking employees have the opportunity to advance
without regard to race, national origin, or gender.  This class
action lawsuit seeks to ensure that 24 Hour Fitness gets its
employment practices in shape, consistent with longstanding
California law."

Lead plaintiff Raoul Fulcher Jr., who felt he was passed over for
promotions because he is African American, said: "I am a
competitor and I strive to be my best, but at 24 Hour Fitness that
is not recognized."

"At the Concord club, I was the only Latino Membership Counselor.
I did everything I could to reach out to our Spanish-speaking
membership, and yet I could not get a fair shake and the promotion
I deserved," said plaintiff Richard Lopez.

"My work at the company was so valued that my Regional Vice
President personally came to my club to give me a promotion, and
yet after that, even though I hit and exceeded sales goals, I was
denied any further promotion," stated plaintiff Rebecca Mason.

Bill Lann Lee, Esq., attorney from co-counsel law firm Lewis,
Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, added, "24 Hour Fitness promises
customers a family fitness environment. But, 24 Hour Fitness does
not treat its minority and women employees as part of the family.
Qualified, experienced minorities and women work lower level jobs,
but don't get a chance at management jobs. Breaking the promise of
equal opportunity is against the law."

24 Hour Fitness, a privately held fitness club, has the largest
gym membership in the world. Of the 400 fitness centers the
company has established in the United States, approximately 200
fitness clubs are located in California, where they employ
approximately 10,000 individuals.

This class action lawsuit challenges 24 Hour Fitness's improper
patterns and practices of discrimination against its minority and
female employees seeking promotion to managerial jobs and equal
compensation in California. The suit asks the court to order 24
Hour Fitness to end its discriminatory employment practices and to
provide back pay and damages to the employees who have been
treated unfairly.

Any current or former 24 Hour Fitness employee who feels he or she
has been discriminated against on the grounds of race or gender
should visit http://www.24hourdiscrimination.com/or call the
toll-free number: 1-800-884-0448 to find out more about the

In addition to Saenz and Lee, other attorneys on the case, Fulcher
v. 24 Hour Fitness, include:

MALDEF: Victor Viramontes, National Senior Counsel

Lewis Feinberg may be reached at:

    Todd Jackson, Esq.
    Kirsten Scott, Esq.
    Julia Campins, Esq.
    1330 Broadway, Suite 1800
    Oakland, California 94612
    Telephone: (510) 839-6824
    Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
    E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com

A copy of the complaint is available at:


Additional information on the suit may be obtained at:


Founded in 1968, MALDEF -- http://www.maldef.org/-- is the
nation's leading Latino legal civil rights organization.  Often
described as the "law firm of the Latino community," MALDEF
promotes social change through advocacy, communications, community
education, and litigation in the areas of education, employment,
immigrant rights, and political access.

ARIZONA: Suit Complains About Immigration Law Training Materials
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that training
materials for police officers who will enforce Arizona's new
immigration law allow cops to consider a person's clothing,
ability to speak English, and "demeanor" to determine the person's
immigration status, the League of United Latin American Citizens
claims in a federal class action.

LULAC claims that the training does not take into account "that
numerous categories of immigrants who did not enter the United
States lawfully nevertheless are eligible for legalization of

The training material was developed by the Arizona Peace Officer
Standards and Training Board.

LULAC, the largest and oldest Latino civil rights group in the
United States, says that Arizona's training materials "seek to
criminalize immigrants whose presence may be known to and accepted
by the federal government while it adjudicates their legalization

That status would apply to applicants for political asylum.  LULAC
sued Gov. Jan Brewer and the State of Arizona.

The state law intends to force suspected undocumented aliens out
of the state, though some of them may have claims to lawful
status, based on fear of persecution, as victims of domestic
violence, as victims of crime who are cooperating with law
enforcement, or from their relationship to U.S. citizens, LULAC

The training materials fail to fully explain what a "public
offense" is, or what classes of immigrants are "removable," or not
removable under federal law.  The law makes no exception for
undocumented aliens "whose removability has already been resolved
by federal authorities, despite the fact that only the federal
government can actually issue removal decisions," and may result
in the arrest of immigrants based on out-of-state crimes, even if
they have already been resolved.

LULAC adds that the law's requirement to detain a person until his
or her immigration status has been verified will cause a major
increase in the number of verification requests being issued to
the Department of Homeland Security by local law enforcement
officers, "necessitating reallocation of DHS resources away from
its policy priorities."

The federal government will be required to take time and resources
away from "carefully considered enforcement priorities --
dangerous aliens who pose a threat to national security and public
safety -- to address the work that Arizona will now create for

The law requires local police to enforce immigration laws and
allows them to search vehicles without warrant if an officer has a
reasonable suspicion that the occupants don't have immigration

LULAC seeks declaratory judgment that its members "may not be
detained, arrested, or prosecuted" for not registering or for
seeking employment in Arizona.

A copy of the Complaint in League of United Latin America
Citizens, et al. v. State of Arizona, et al., Case No.
10-cv-01453 (D. Ariz.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Peter A. Schey, Esq.
         Carlos Holguin, Esq.
         256 S. Occidental Blvd.
         Los Angeles, CA 90057
         Telephone: (213) 388-8693
         E-mail: pschey@centerforhumanrights.org

              - and -

         Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Esq.
         1325 Riverview Towers, 111 Soledad
         San Antonio, TX 78205-2260
         Telephone: (210) 225-3300

              - and -

         Ray Velarde, Esq.
         1216 Montana Ave.
         El Paso, TX 79902
         Telephone: (915) 532-6003

              - and -

         T. Anthony Guajardo, Esq.
         2001 E. Campbell Ave., Suite 202
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Telephone: (602) 544-0607

AUSTRALIA: 4 Banks Face Suit to Produce Docs for Class Actions
Alison Bell, writing for The Australian Associated Press Pty.
Limited, reports that four banks face legal action for failing to
provide lawyers Maurice Blackburn with information necessary to
launch planned class actions to recover as much as A$7 billion in
bank fees that the firm says is unfair.

Commonwealth Bank and its subsidiary BankWest, ANZ Banking Group
and Bank of Queensland are on notice to comply by late Friday with
Maurice Blackburn's written request dated May 31 or face action in
the Federal Court, the firm's principal Andrew Watson told AAP.

"We intend to institute proceedings promptly unless we get
satisfactory responses by the end of the week," he said, declining
to comment on the firm's motivation.

CBA said it had undertaken to provide Maurice Blackburn with the
information this week and would so.

ANZ said it had been "actively co-operating with Maurice Blackburn
and continues to do so and we are disappointed with their

BankWest declined to comment, and comment was sought from BoQ.

Twelve banks are targeted by Maurice Blackburn on behalf of
litigation funder IMF Australia and its subsidiary Financial
Redress for charging what they claim are excessive punitive fees
on transaction and credit card accounts from 2004.

Most banks have complied with the requests made under 1015D of the
Corporations Act and Banking Code for historical product
disclosure statements applying to transaction accounts and
contracts relating to banking services, Mr. Watson said.

Maurice Blackburn is aiming to launch the first of several class
actions against individual banks in six weeks but is still
assessing which actions should be pursued against specific banks,
he said.

The other banks that are proposed to be defendants in the class
actions are Bank of South Australia, Bendigo Bank, Citi, HSBC,
National Australia Bank, Suncorp, Westpac and its subsidiary St.

New registrations of claimants are running at 250 a day, with
142,000 claimants already registered in respect of 183,500
separate bank accounts.

Fraudsters have targeted potential claimants.  In a press
statement, The Australian Bankers' Association warned of
fraudsters telephoning bank customers and claiming they are
entitled to exception fee refunds as part of the proposed fees
class action against banks.

The ABA has been informed by member banks that the fraudsters are
using at least two methods to attempt to defraud customers:

  1. A customer receives a call and the caller claims that under
     the proposed fees class action the customer is entitled to
     receive about A$2,500 back in fees.  In order to get this
     refund, they have been instructed to send A$150 via Western
     Union to India. This suggests that scammers have a false
     identity set up in India to collect the funds.

  2. A customer receives a call and the caller claims that under
     the proposed fees class action they are entitled to a fee
     refund and are asked to provide their credit card number and
     expiry date and/or their Internet banking login and
     passwords.  The request for credit card details suggests the
     criminals intend to use the card for fraudulent means such
     as purchasing goods or services or accessing cash advances.

In the telephone scams, the fraudsters have purported to be from a
bank, a company called 'Reclaim Limited' or from the 'Justice of
Taxation'.  The criminals claim to have the customer's full name
and address details, date of birth and/or driver's license number.

Steven Munchenberg, Chief Executive of the ABA, said, "The banking
industry is very concerned about any attempts by fraudsters to
defraud bank customers.  As with any of these scams, we urge
customers not to provide their bank details over the phone,
Internet or though e-mails."

"Clearly these fraudsters are seeking to obtain customer
information so that they can defraud customers' bank accounts. If
anyone has received a call such as this and provided information
to the criminals, then they should contact their bank so it can
take immediate action to protect the bank account."

"We believe that the litigation funder, IMF, and its subsidiary,
Financial Redress, also have a responsibility to warn consumers
about these scams, given the criminals are using the possible
class action as cover for these scams," he said.

Financial Redress managing director James Middleweek told AAP the
company had placed a scam alert on its Web site on May 31 warning
potential claimants of fraudsters' attempts to solicit their bank
details.  He said Financial Redress also wrote directly to all
registered claimants on June 1, warning them of the scams.

Mr. Watson said Financial Redress had no legal responsibility to
warn consumers of the scams.  Financial Redress' Web site had
never asked potential claimants for their bank account details,
Mr. Middleweek said.

AUSTRALIA: Suit v. Sydney Seeks Transfer of Bourke Rd. Cycleway
Nichols Street, writing for StreetCorner.com.au, relates that more
than 30 businesses that have an interest in the Bourke Rd cycleway
are making a class action against Sydney City Council.  The action
is based on evidence that City Council has not sufficiently
examined and taken into account all matters affecting the
environment in building the cycleway along Bourke Rd Alexandria

Class action lawyers are John Mahony, Esq., at Mahony Dominic
Lawyers.  They are basing their case on Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979 No 203, Part 5, Section 3.

The lawyers are presenting their brief to City Council.  The class
action will be asking the court: to rip up the Bourke Rd cycleway
and relocate it along Alexandria Canal

If successful the controversial Bourke St. and other cycleways,
may have a class action.  It's claimed Sydney City Council failed
to take into account overseas studies and ignored American cycling
infrastructure experts such as John Forester in planning the
Bourke St. Cycleway.

Overseas research showed that separated bi-directional cycleways
such as Bourke St. are not appropriate and safe on roads with a
large number of intersections, says Nichols Street Community Group
spokesperson Brian Noad.

BP PLC: Class Action Lawyers Looking for Way Around NAB Ruling
Michael Peel, Legal Correspondent for The Financial Times, reports
that attorneys specializing in so-called class action lawsuits
said they were looking at ways round a U.S. Supreme Court judgment
that appears to prevent claims by the almost three-quarters of BP
investors who bought their shares on foreign stock exchanges.

The FT says the debate could be important to BP's efforts to
control its legal liabilities, as shareholder losses during the
Gulf of Mexico oil leak have amounted to tens of billions of

According to The FT, Robert Schachter, Esq., partner at Zwerling,
Schachter & Zwerling, which has taken on one of several lawsuits
filed by BP investors, said the case was probably "going to get
kind of convoluted" because of last month's US Supreme Court
ruling.  "It has a major impact.  The question is how the courts
are going to interpret that decision, based on the facts of [the
BP] case."

According to the Class Action Reporter on June 28, 2010, Reuters'
Dominique Vidalon reported that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
foreign investors who bought shares of National Australia
Bank on an overseas stock exchange cannot sue in a New York court
over large writedowns tied to the bank's onetime U.S. mortgage
unit.  The justices upheld a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that
dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that American courts did not
have jurisdiction.

The Financial Times' Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Ben Hall reported
that the Supreme Court's ruling struck a blow against shareholders
outside the U.S. seeking big legal pay-outs when it ruled to limit
foreigners' rights to use the American legal system to sue
corporations.  The FT said the ruling to dismiss the lawsuit
against NAB by Australian investors will have broad ramifications
for a number of other pending multi-million dollar cases.  It will
also be likely to force non-U.S. shareholders to think twice
before attempting to use U.S. courts to make claims against
companies if they did not buy their shares there.

The FT's Michael Peel further reports that lawyers for BP
investors are finalizing submissions ahead of a deadline on July
20 for them to bid for their clients to become leaders of a
consolidated lawsuit against the company.  BP declined to comment
on the unfolding litigation.

The FT says the lawsuits against BP -- which could be extended to
pull in other corporate defendants involved in the explosion and
leak -- allege that the company misled investors over its safety
record and its ability to deal with large oil spills.

The FT further relates about 27% of BP's shares were bought in the
US, according to company data, meaning that they are probably
unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling.  The other 73%, including
just under one-third of the stock held by US investors, were
bought outside the US and so could potentially be excluded from
legal claims.

According to The FT, class action lawyers say they are examining
ways in which shares bought on foreign exchanges could still be
used to mount lawsuits.  One option would be to argue that a US
shareholder using a local broker to buy BP shares on the London
market had, in law, purchased the shares domestically.

According to The FT, John Coffee, professor of law at Columbia Law
School, said: "There can be ambiguities and disputes as to which
side of the line that a particular case falls."

Other options, The FT continues, would be to bring legal action
under US states' laws or in the countries where the shares were
bought, which in BP's case is mainly Britain.  But UK legal
experts say that it could be tricky to bring such a claim in
London, which is less friendly towards such lawsuits.

BP PLC: Taylor English and Pope McGlamry File Class Suit
Georgia law firms Taylor English Duma LLP and Pope, McGlamry,
Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood LLP filed a lawsuit against BP,
Transocean and other parties on behalf of Georgia residents
affected by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The suit was filed on behalf of Georgia residents who own property
in the areas affected by the spill, one of the biggest
environmental disasters in U.S. history.  It seeks compensation
for loss of income, loss of property value, and loss of enjoyment
by property owners based in Georgia as well as punitive damages
for alleged gross negligence and willful misconduct.

The suit is the first to be filed in a federal court in Georgia
seeking certification of a class composed solely of Georgia

Property owners have been deeply impacted by BP's damaged well,
which officials estimate has been gushing between 1.5 million to
2.5 million gallons each day since April 20.

Chris Schorr, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, owns
land in Cape San Blas in Florida that has already been impacted.
His land, which he's trying to develop, has lost an enormous
amount of value due to the oil spill.

"I was planning on using vacation property rental income to pay
for my son's college education," said Mr. Schorr, who lives in
Atlanta. "But no one wants to develop property or rent vacation
homes with the threat of tar balls and oily water. Now, I'm left
with a property that has virtually no value that I'm being asked
to pay on."

In anticipation of the oil reaching Gulf beaches in North and
Central Florida, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has expanded the closed fishing area to include
waters off Cape San Blas, which is south of Panama City.

Tourism officials recently told Congress that $500 million would
be needed to combat negative public perception due to the oil's
effect on Gulf Coast beaches.  In Florida, tourism was down 20
percent in June -- and appears to be getting much worse, according
to USA Today.

Taylor English partner Foy R. Devine, a veteran trial lawyer, said
the negative effects will be felt for many years by residents who
own Gulf Coast properties.

"Even if the leak were plugged today, it would take years to
restore the Gulf and its beaches to the condition they were in
before the spill," Mr. Devine said. "As a result, property owners
in the Gulf have suffered losses estimated in the billions of

The lawsuit, Schorr, et al. v. BP, et al., filed in the Federal
District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, seeks damages
outside of BP's $20 billion trust fund. However, any damages
plaintiffs receive from the fund will be figured into the lawsuit.

Taylor English has joined forces with veteran trial lawyer Mike
McGlamry of the Pope McGlamry firm in preparing the lawsuit and
representing the proposed class.  Pope McGlamry has a long history
handling claims on behalf of large classes of plaintiffs.

For more information, go to http://www.georgiaspillsuit.com/or
call (770) 434-6868.

Taylor English -- http://www.taylorenglish.com/-- is an Atlanta-
based full-service business law firm that provides high quality
legal services for optimal value.  Areas of practice include
Employment & Labor, Technology, Business Transactions, Corporate &
Taxation, Creditors' Rights, Litigation and Dispute Resolution and
Real Estate, Development & Construction. Taylor English, which is
ranked by Atlanta Business Chronicle as the fastest-growing law
firm in Atlanta, represents all types of clients -- from Fortune
500 companies and start-ups to individuals.  The firm has grown
from four attorneys in 2005 to over 70 today.

Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood is a regional and
nationwide civil trial law firm, with offices in both Atlanta and
Columbus, Georgia, committed to excellent representation and legal
counsel. The firm specializes in significant business fraud and
commercial tort cases, often involving extensive damages; contract
disputes; business to business litigation; cases of catastrophic
injury and wrongful death involving issues related to automotive
and general products liability; car, truck, and construction
accidents; consumer litigation, including deceptive trade
practices; insurance coverage litigation and premises liability

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

    Foy Devine, Esq.
    1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400
    Atlanta, Georgia  30339
    Telephone: (678) 336-7186
    Facsimile: (770) 434-7376
    E-mail: fdevine@taylorenglish.com

CHEVRON: Wants Film-maker to Turn Over Outtakes on "Crude" Movie
Trudie Styler at The Huffington Post reports that the ongoing saga
of the class action lawsuit, Aguinda v. Chevron, originally filed
in 1993 by the people of Ecuador whose rainforest land had been
contaminated by oil production practices, and documented on film
by Joe Berlinger in "Crude", has taken a new turn.  Chevron's
latest diversionary and delaying tactic is to engage in a
widespread and unprecedented legal assault on the First Amendment
in their attempt to force Mr. Berlinger, the celebrated
independent documentarian, to turn over more than 600 hours of
private film outtakes from Crude.

John Horn, writing for The Los Angeles Times, relates that for 17
years, Chevron, based in San Ramon, Calif., has fought a class-
action lawsuit in Ecuador that could cost it up to $27 billion in
damages and cleanup costs.  Lawyers for Chevron are convinced that
the environmental contamination litigation is tainted, alleging
that an expert was not impartial, a report was fabricated and a
judge was bribed.

According to Mr. Horn, when Chevron saw Mr. Berlinger's 2009
documentary "Crude," a behind-the-scenes look at the lawsuit, the
company believed it had found cinematic proof of misconduct -- and
demanded to see everything else Mr. Berlinger discovered in the
three years he spent making the film.  Some documentarians say
Chevron's action against Mr. Berlinger, the focus of an oral
argument Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York,
is part of a movement to marginalize nonfiction filmmakers by
subjects unhappy over how they have been depicted.

According to Mr. Horn, Chevron and Dole Food Co. argue that some
of today's documentarians, who like Michael Moore increasingly use
their cameras more for dogmatic activism than neutral reporting,
are mouthpieces for plaintiffs' lawyers, and should not
necessarily enjoy all of the legal protections afforded most
journalists against turning over unused material such as notes and

According to Huffington Post's Ms. Styler, Chevron's legal tactic
has attracted widespread criticism from prominent individuals
across the media community, including actor and filmmaker Robert
Redford, journalist Bill Moyers, bestselling author John Perkins,
documentarians Michael Moore and Ric Burns, the Director's Guild
of America, the Writer's Guild of America, and others.  Virtually
every major U.S. media outlet, including the NY Times, LA Times,
CBS, NBC, ABC, Associated Press, Dow Jones, HBO, and others have
opposed Chevron's action in court.

Ms. Styler says the latest action by Chevron is part of a
worldwide, desperate litigation campaign by the oil giant to
escape liability for what is thought to be the world's worst oil-
related environmental catastrophe.  The extent of the
contamination is almost unfathomable -- by Chevron's own admission
they dumped at least 15.8 billion gallons of toxic 'produced
water' in the region, and their own audits indicate that the
number may actually be much higher -- more than 18.5 billion

Ms. Styler says, of the 18.5 billion gallons of toxins, at least
345 million gallons of it was pure crude oil. To put this in
perspective, as of June 15, 2010, U.S. government estimates have
indicated that the BP spill in the Gulf has spilled somewhere
between 73 and 126 million gallons of oil. At least the BP spill
was not intentional. By contrast, Chevron's dumping was, by the
company's own admission, a deliberate production decision to
maximize profits. According to experts, a saving of approximately
$1-3 per barrel of oil was achieved by dumping the toxins rather
than disposing of them properly.

Ms. Styler says the end result of this has been incredible
devastation of a formerly pristine section of Ecuador's Amazon
rainforest. Though Chevron no longer operates in the area (having
ceased Ecuadorian drilling operations in 1990), the pollution
still remains.

Ms. Styler says the people living in that region do not have
widespread running water or plumbing, and have had no access to
water that has not been polluted by the oil operations for nearly
four decades. I have seen firsthand the reality of the aftermath
of Chevron's actions in Ecuador. I have seen some of the unlined,
unfenced waste pits that Chevron left behind. I have met many
people there who have lost their parents, their children, and who
are losing heir own lives. The area is besieged with oil-related
illnesses; families are plagued with extremely elevated levels of
childhood leukemia, spontaneous abortions, birth defects, and
other serious oil-related health impacts. Experts have estimated
that at least 1,400 people have died needlessly from oil-related
sicknesses due to the illegal dumping.

In 1993, Ms. Styler says, the people in the region brought a
lawsuit against the oil giant to force the company to clean-up the
damage it caused on their land. An independent court-expert has
estimated that the damage caused in the region could cost as much
as $27.3 billion to clean up. However, even that amount will be
insufficient to return the people to the lifestyles they knew
before the Chevron showed up.

"Small wonder Chevron are running scared.  Without taking sides in
the lawsuit itself, the enormous legal liability tied to all of
these harms provides the context for why Chevron is so
aggressively attacking its critics across the world," Ms. Styler

"Chevron has one animating principle in their attacks on Joe
Berlinger, the Ecuadorean people, and anyone attempting to hold
the company responsible for the pollution it left behind in
Ecuador: to find some way of eliminating the legal liability to
protect the company's bottom line.

"But the time has come for Chevron to stop its attacks, and to
stop trying to evade its responsibilities. The company should
cease its futile attempts to force documentarians and journalists
to open up their files to the company's lawyers, and instead focus
on the essential issue: how they will remediate the damage it
caused in Ecuador to the 30,000 affected people and their land."

CONNECTICUT: Settles Suit on Relocation of Mentally Disabled
The Associated Press reports that Connecticut officials have
agreed to a class-action lawsuit settlement that calls for better
efforts to place mentally disabled residents of the Southbury
Training School into the community.

The proposed settlement filed Monday in U.S. District Court in New
Haven said the Department of Developmental Services, which runs
the training school, will have experts recommend the best settings
for the facility's 450 residents.  Under the settlement, residents
and their guardians will be entitled to assessments and other
information that will help them make decisions about possible
community placements.

Senior U.S. District Judge Ellen Bree Burns will decide whether to
approve the agreement.  She ruled in 2008 that the state hadn't
done enough to help the residents relocate into the community.
She said the state failed to adequately evaluate residents for
placement and later move them into the community if they were able
to live outside the facility.

Judge Burns also ruled in 2008 that allegations of poor
conditions, services and programs at the Southbury facility were
moot because a separate federal lawsuit settled those matters.
Judge Burns found in 2006 that the state had met all 94
requirements of a consent decree requiring improvements at

The Developmental Services Department said in a statement Tuesday
that the agreement resolves the only remaining issue in the class-
action lawsuit -- that the agency fully comply with the American
with Disabilities Act in its process for community placements.

Officials with The Arc of Connecticut, an advocacy group for the
developmentally disabled that was a party to the lawsuit, said in
a statement Tuesday that the settlement was a "momentous occasion"
for the training school residents.  They said they have long
believed that Southbury residents and their families were not
given community placement options.

"With this agreement in place, the focus is now rightly on
opportunities and solutions rather than roadblocks and
litigation," said Lynn Warner, executive director of The Arc of

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Ga. Sup. Ct. Says Schorrs Meet Class Suit Rule
Bradley and Lori Schorr financed the purchase of their home in
Georgia, they executed a security deed which was subsequently
assigned to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.  Upon full repayment of
the loan in 2003, the Schorrs demanded in writing that Countrywide
cancel the security deed.  Countrywide allegedly failed to cancel
the security deed within the 60-day period set forth in former
OCGA Section 44-14-3 (b) (1).  The Schorrs made a written demand
for $500 in liquidated damages.  Upon Countrywide's failure to pay
such liquidated damages, the Schorrs filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on
behalf of Countrywide customers whose security deeds had not been
cancelled as required by former OCGA Section 441-4-3.  Countrywide
filed a motion to dismiss the claims of putative class members on
the ground that the complaint failed to allege that they had
individually made written demands for liquidated damages.

The district court certified this question to the Supreme Court of
Georgia Court: "Whether named plaintiffs in a class action may,
pursuant to OCGA S[ection] 44-14-3, satisfy the pre-suit written
demand requirement for liquidated damages on behalf of putative
class action members by the named plaintiffs' satisfaction of the
written demand requirement."

All the justices agreed with the ruling, except Justice Harold
Melton, J., who dissented.

Justice George H. Carley, writing for the majority, said the
district court correctly noted that . . . exhaustion of
administrative remedies by Schorrs satisfies that pre-suit
requirement for all class members.

Judge Melton pointed out the issue of Countrywide's liability to
the class of individuals who have paid off their loans and whose
security deeds have not yet been canceled, has not been
determined.  Liability in the case is still very much an open
question, as liability cannot even arise under former OCGA Section
44-14-3 until a borrower has satisfied the liquidated damages
demand requirement of the statute.

A copy of the decisions is available at:


DE BEERS: 3rd Circuit Rejects $295-Mil. Class Suit Settlement
Shannon P. Duffy, at The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
federal appeals court has set aside a $295 million settlement of a
class action antitrust suit alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in
the international market for diamonds that was allegedly
orchestrated by the De Beers group of companies headquartered in
South Africa.

In its 75-page opinion in Sullivan v. DB Investments Inc., the 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the settlement must be
vacated because the lower court had improperly certified a
nationwide class of indirect purchasers despite recognizing that
some of those plaintiffs would be barred from pursuing such
indirect claims under the laws of their own states.

As a result, the 3rd Circuit found that a single objector from
Texas had identified a fatal flaw in the lower court's class
certification analysis by showing that the common issues did not

"The objection regarding the lack of predominance of class issues
in this case raises an insurmountable hurdle to certification of
the indirect purchaser class," U.S. Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan

"Two plaintiffs cannot be joined in a single class to adjudicate
the same set of facts when those facts give only one of them a
legally cognizable claim," Jordan wrote in an opinion joined by
visiting U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose of the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

U.S. Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell concurred in the judgment,
but wrote a separate opinion that said she disagreed with Judge
Jordan's decision to undertake his own analyses of predominance
and the plaintiffs' entitlement to injunctive relief, rather than
allowing the lower court on remand to evaluate these issues in the
first instance.

The ruling is a victory for attorneys Howard J. Bashman, Esq., of
Willow Grove, Pa., and George M. Plews, Esq., and Christopher J.
Braun, Esq., of Plews Shadley Racher & Braun in Indianapolis, who
represented objector Susan M. Quinn.  Mr. Bashman writes a monthly
column for The Legal Intelligencer.

It's also a major setback for the team of plaintiffs lawyers led
by Joseph J. Tabacco Jr., Esq., of Berman DeValerio in San
Francisco, along with William Bernstein, Esq., and Eric B.
Fastiff, Esq., of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, also in San

In the suits, the plaintiffs alleged that De Beers, a privately
held group of foreign-based companies, had monopolized the
international diamond business through its control of mines and a
web of agreements with diamond suppliers in other countries. De
Beers denied the allegation and maintained that it is not subject
to the jurisdiction of United States courts.

According to court papers, De Beers initially refused to appear in
the lawsuits, asserting that courts in the United States lacked
personal jurisdiction over it and that any judgment entered by
those courts would be a legal nullity. By September 2004, defaults
or default judgments had been entered against De Beers in six of
the seven actions.

But in May 2005, counsel for De Beers approached the plaintiffs
counsel to discuss settlement of the indirect purchasers' claims.
Those discussions produced a settlement of the indirect
purchasers' claims in four of the cases.

Under the terms of the indirect purchaser settlement, De Beers
agreed not to contest certification of a settlement class of
indirect purchasers and promised to establish a settlement fund of
$250 million to be paid to class members. De Beers also agreed to
a stipulated injunction that restrained it from violating U.S.
antitrust law.

In May 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted
final approval to the settlement.

But on appeal, the objector contended that Judge Chesler had been
too quick to certify the class and, in doing so, had ignored
differences among class members that rendered the certification of
a national class impossible.  Specifically, Ms. Quinn argued that
since the national class was premised on the state law claims of
each plaintiff, the court had a duty to scrutinize the potential
for claims from each state.  In doing so, she said, it would have
become clear that many of the class members would have no legal
right to pursue an indirect purchaser claim.

Now the 3rd Circuit has agreed, saying the appeal forced the court
to "consider for the first time whether a national class of
indirect purchaser claimants under state law is 'sufficiently
cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.'"

In approving the settlement, Judge Chesler found that the shared
antitrust harm sustained by all indirect purchasers predominated
over other issues in the case, making those claims appropriate for
class treatment.

But Judge Jordan found Judge Chesler's approach was flawed because
it effectively "grouped antitrust claims under the laws of all 50
states and the District of Columbia into a single class."

"There can be no certification of a nationwide class of state
indirect purchaser plaintiffs because there is no common question
of law or material fact," Judge Jordan wrote.

"It is improper to certify a nationwide class when the legal right
shared by class members purportedly arises under the laws of
multiple jurisdictions, but only some of those jurisdictions
extend standing to class members to enforce that right."

Judge Jordan said the plaintiffs lawyers tried to minimize the
legal disparities "by characterizing them as little more than
impediments to litigation that would make trial management
difficult but that may safely be ignored for settlement purposes."

That argument failed, Judge Jordan said, because it "places
management issues above the more basic question of substantive
law. It is akin to suggesting that a really good cook, by means of
superior kitchen management, can make a cake out of nothing."

The lack of substantive rights, Judge Jordan said, "cannot be
wished away by the promise of easier litigation management."

Mr. Tabacco, who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, could not
be reached for comment by press time.

A copy of the decision is available at:


DeBeers SA is represented by:

     Jessica Biggio, Esq.
     Francis Ciani-Dausch, Esq.
     Tara S. Emory, Esq.
     Matthew P. Hendrickson, Esq.
     4 Times Square
     New York, NY 10036
     E-mail: jessica.biggio@skadden.com

          - and -

     Mark J. Sagat, Esq.
     Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
     1440 New York Ave., N.W. - Rm. 08-08
     Washington, DC 10005
     E-mail: steven.sunshine@skadden.com

ESPANOLA SCHOOL: Sued for Failing to Promote Safe Learning Place
Evan Prieskop at Courthouse News Service reports that Espanola
School District refuses to rein in its private security officers,
who assault and batter students and sexually batter them, parents
say in a federal class action.  The district is north of Santa Fe
and south of Taos.

Eight sets of parents say their lawsuit seems from a series of
videos that students posted on the Internet.  The videos show
fights, drug use and intimidation among students, and the parents
say this culture of threats and violence has not been sufficiently
discouraged by schools' staff and security forces, and in many
cases has been facilitated or worsened.

Many allegations in the 74-page complaint allege that security
guards threaten students, ignore reports of threats and
intimidation, and conduct unnecessary and intrusive search and

One student cited a "strip search" that she aborted by refusing to
take off her bra.

A mother claims a Big Ross Security guard statutorily raped her
daughter, 16-year-old special education student, alleging that he
"had sexually penetrated her daughter in his car on a number of

The long list of defendants include the Espanola Public School
District and its board, school administrators, Espanola police
officers, Big Ross security services dba ProSec Services, and
individual security guards.

A copy of the Complaint in Montoya, et al. v. Espanola Public
School District Board of Education, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00651
(D. N.M.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Shannon L. Kennedy, Esq.
         Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq.
         1000 Second St. NW
         Albuquerque, NM 87102
         Telephone: (505) 244-1400

FEDERATED INVESTORS: Court Preliminarily Approves Settlement
Federated Investors issued the following statement pursuant to an
order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

On May 26, 2010, the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland preliminarily approved of a settlement of class action
lawsuit against Federated Investors, Inc., Federated Investment
Management Company, Federated Equity Management Company of
Pennsylvania, Federated Services Company, Federated Securities
Corporation, and certain individual Defendants.

The lawsuit asserted claims against the Defendants relating to
alleged "market timing" and "late trading" within certain
Federated Fluctuating Value Mutual Funds.  As a part of this
proceeding, the Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or the
Defendants.  The members of the class that has been preliminarily
approved include all shareholders in Federated fluctuating value
mutual funds from October 21, 1998 to the present.  The Court also
preliminarily approved a subclass, the members of which will
receive a separate notice of the settlement through the U.S. mail.

The proposed settlement still requires the Court's final approval.
On October 21 and 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a
hearing on the proposed settlement at U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, 101 W. Lombard Street,
Baltimore, MD 21201. At the hearing, the Court will consider the
proposed settlement, and the applications for awards of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses of Class Counsel, Derivative
Counsel and Plaintiffs' Administrative Chair and Liaison Counsel,
including administrative costs. Any class member or subclass
member may appear at the settlement fairness hearing and be heard
on any of the matters to be considered at the hearing; provided,
however, that no such person shall be heard unless his, her, or
its objection or opposition is made in writing and is filed by
him, her, or it with the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, 101 W. Lombard
Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, no later than September 21, 2010.

The full settlement terms are contained in a Stipulation of
Settlement dated December 14, 2009.  A copy of the Stipulation, as
well as detailed information regarding the proposed settlement and
the rights of Class and Subclass members with respect to the
proposed settlement, is available on the Internet at
http://www.noticeclass.com/federatedsettlement/ If you have any
additional questions regarding the settlement, please contact:

     U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
     10 East 40th Street
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 779-1414.

G-M RICE LITIGATION: Bayer Unit Contaminated Rice Fields
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Joe Whittington at Bloomberg News report
that in In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, 06-md-1811
(E.D. Mo.), a Bayer AG unit carelessly contaminated U.S. long-
grain rice fields with its genetically engineered seed, causing a
dive in exports to Europe, a lawyer for a Louisiana grower told
jurors at the end of a trial.

The rice growers' "reputation for producing a pure product was
destroyed, with the export market lost," attorney Don Downing,
Esq., told the federal court jury on July 13, 2010, in St. Louis.
"It was Bayer's carelessness, and Danny Deshotels was hurt," said
Mr. Downing, who represents the Deshotels family and its rice-
growing business.

The trial is the fifth against the German company and its Bayer
CropScience unit over rice crop contamination in the southern U.S.
Bayer has lost four trials so far, two in state court and two in
federal, for a total of more than $52 million in jury awards.

The company faces about 500 additional lawsuits in federal and
state courts with claims by 6,600 plaintiffs, Greg Coffey, a Bayer
CropScience spokesman, told Bloomberg in a phone interview.  A
sixth case is scheduled to begin trial July 19 in state court in
Arkansas, followed by a federal trial in St. Louis in October, he

Farmers in five states claim the company and Bayer CropScience
negligently contaminated the U.S. long-grain rice crop with its
genetically modified LibertyLink seed, leading to export
restrictions, bans on two kinds of high-yield seeds and a plunge
in prices.

Bayer, based in Leverkusen, Germany, denies negligence and
disputes the damages claims, contending that rice sales rebounded
after an initial drop.

"You have not heard of any negligence by Bayer," Mark Ferguson,
Esq., the company's trial attorney, said.  "It was Bayer's rice,
it was released and other rice was contaminated. The question is,
did Bayer act reasonably?" he said.

Louisiana Fields

The plaintiffs are several members of the Deshotels family and
their rice fields in Louisiana.  Danny Deshotels lives in
Lettsworth, Louisiana, about 100 miles north of New Orleans and
two miles west of the Mississippi River, Mr. Downing said.

Deshotels asked for about $1.5 million in damages for lost sales
and contamination of his land, seed and equipment. The Deshotels
family can't seek punitive damages because the case was tried
under Louisiana law, which doesn't allow for such awards,
plaintiffs' lawyer Bruce Kingsdorf, Esq., said in an interview.

The jury of seven women began deliberating on July 13.

Bayer's LibertyLink brand of genetically altered rice was being
studied at Louisiana State University in an effort to create a
crop that could be safely sprayed with a weed-killer.  In August
2006, the U.S. Agriculture Department announced that Bayer's
genetically modified seed had been found in commercially grown
long-grain rice in Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas and

Import Ban

Five days later, the European Union announced a ban on U.S.
imports to the 27 countries in that group, Mr. Downing said at the
start of the trial.  Within four days of the announcement, a
decline in rice futures had cost U.S. growers about $150 million,
according to the farmers' complaint in federal court in St. Louis.

Restrictions were eased after Bayer's rice was declared safe by
the Agriculture Department in November 2006.  There are no claims
in the rice litigation that LibertyLink harmed or risked human
health.  Farmers claim that the contamination cost them the
European market for long-grain rice and that sales haven't

"Our rice exports to the EU fell off a cliff, almost literally,
and you will see that they still haven't recovered," Mr. Downing
said in opening statements at the trial June 21.  Europeans "are
still eating rice, but the customers we were selling to are now
buying from these countries: Thailand, Pakistan, India and


The farmers' losses "were minimal and short-lived," Mr. Ferguson,
the Bayer lawyer, said.  "Global prices recovered quickly with the
discovery of other markets."

Farmers in five states began suing Bayer in federal court in 2006,
asking to be allowed to pursue their claims in class action, or
group suits, one action per state.  U.S. District Judge Catherine
Perry in St. Louis in August 2008 refused to allow the claims to
be combined in class-action suits, instead setting bellwether, or
test, trials on typical claims.

Bayer lost the first two trials in federal court, one for about $2
million in December and another in February for about $1.5
million.  The federal juries didn't award punitive damages.

Bayer also lost the first two trials in state court, both in
Arkansas.  The first of these trials ended in a jury verdict of
about $1 million, including $500,000 in punitives.  The second
resulted in a verdict of almost $48 million, with $42 million in
punitives, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Appellate Review

Bayer has filed post-trial motions to set aside the verdicts in
federal court and "is seeking appellate review in the two state
trials," said Mr. Coffey, the company spokesman.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Action.org Eyes Suit Over Avandia Drug
Class Action.org is actively investigating Avandia side effect
claims on behalf of patients who have suffered heart attack, heart
failure, stroke, and other serious health complications after
taking Avandia.  Avandia is a drug used to treat Type Two
diabetes, a disease that affects millions of Americans.  Avandia
was designed to be a safer alternative to drugs that were
previously available.  However, serious and potentially life
threatening side effects have been reported by some Avandia users.

Avandia (Rosiglitazone) is a prescription drug manufactured by
GlaxoSmithKline.  It is used in the treatment of Type Two diabetes
and works by aiding the body's natural use of insulin. Avandia was
introduced in 1999 and has been used by millions of diabetes
patients.  However, this drug has been linked to potentially
dangerous side effects, including congestive heart failure, heart
damage, heart attack, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. Additional
Avandia side effects include liver toxicity and increased
cholesterol levels.

In May 2007, the Food & Drug Administration released a safety
alert on Avandia warning doctors and patients of the potential
risk of heart attack and heart-related death associated with this
drug. Prior to issuing this safety alert, the FDA updated
Avandia's warning label on several occasions in order to inform
users about the possibility of negative side effects and health

Patients who were prescribed Avandia as part of a treatment
program for Type Two diabetes and suffered serious side effects
may be eligible to participate in an Avandia lawsuit and recover
damages.  Family members of individuals who passed away as a
result of Avandia side effects may also be entitled to financial
compensation.  Visit http://www.classaction.org/avandia.htmland
complete the Free Case Evaluation to learn more about your legal
options.  An Avandia lawyer can make sure your rights are
protected and pursue justice on your behalf.

                       FDA Sued Over Avandia

Jenna Greene at The National Law Journal reports that a group of
doctors on July 13, 2010, filed suit against the Food & Drug
Administration for failing to alert diabetes patients to safer
alternatives to Avandia and other diabetes drugs that may increase
the risk of stroke, heart attack and death.  The suit, filed in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the non-profit
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, faults FDA
Commissioner Margaret Hamburg for failing to act on the group's
2007 petition.  The petition urged the FDA to require diabetes
drugs to carry a warning label telling patients that a low-fat,
plant-based diet can be as effective or better than drugs in
reducing blood glucose and cholesterol.

"People are getting sick and sometimes dying because they are
taking a medicine they may not even need," said Daniel Kinburn,
who is general counsel of the Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine. "A low-fat, vegan diet is clearly safer and at least as

The group in its petition asked the FDA to require labeling
disclosures about the effect of diet on diabetes and to advise
consumers and doctors that "oral medications are not always
necessary to manage diabetes."

But Mr. Kilburn said the FDA failed to provide a substantive
response to the petition in a reasonable time, in violation of the
Administrative Procedure Act. Instead, all the FDA did was issue
an "interim response" in which it stated it had been "unable to
reach a decision" about the petition, according to the complaint,
which was filed by Kilburn.

The suit asks the court to order the FDA to respond to the
petition, and to award the Physicians Committee attorney fees and

The risks from Avandia first became public in May 2007.  The New
York Times reported that drugmaker SmithKline Beecham (now
GlaxoSmithKline) had data hinting at Avandia's extensive heart
problems almost as soon as the drug was introduced in 1999.

The FDA is currently reviewing the drug, and held a special joint
meeting of two advisory panels to determine whether to pull
Avandia from the market.

GlaxoSmithKline faces more than 13,000 suits for hiding the drug's
heart attack risks.  Bloomberg reported that the company will
settle 10,000 cases for $460 million.

PRICELINE.COM: Shelbyville Joins Suit v. Online Hotel Vendors
Brian Mosely at Shelbyville Times-Gazette reports that the city
council of Shelbyville, Tennessee, voted Thursday to become part
of a class action lawsuit against a number of online hotel

The City of Goodlettsville has sued Priceline.com and other online
travel service Web sites alleging an underpayment of the
hotel/motel occupancy tax.  According to city attorney Ginger
Shofner, the U.S. District Court has now certified the suit as a
class action consisting of all Tennessee cities and counties that
charge the tax.

The suit alleges that Priceline and other Web sites only collect
and remit the tax on the wholesale price of the rooms, not the
higher retail rate that the Web sites charge customers.
Goodlettsville states that the tax should be on the retail rate
and is seeking recovery of funds for the difference.

Ms. Shofner said that the city would not incur any direct expense
and that Shelbyville "may receive money from the case."

SEATTLE BIKE: Recalls 330 Redline Conquest Cyclocross Bicycles
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Seattle Bike Supply, of Kent, Wash., announced a voluntary recall
of about 330 2010 Redline Conquest Cyclocross Bicycles and
Framesets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bicycle fork's legs can separate from the fork crown and cause
the rider to lose control, posing a fall hazard and risk of

The firm has received five reports of cracks near the fork's

This recall involves all 2010 Redline Conquest Cyclocross bicycles
and framesets.  The bicycles and framesets were sold in yellow and
black, and have aluminum frames and aluminum forks with aluminum
steering tubes.  "Redline" is printed on the bicycle frame.  The
bicycles are equipped with a 700C wheel and frame sizes ranging
from 44 cm to 60 cm.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
bicycle specialty stores nationwide between July 2009 through May
2010 for about $1,400 for the bicycle and $400 for the frameset.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
framesets and contact their local Redline bicycle dealer to
receive a free fork replacement.  For additional information,
contact Redline Bicyles at (800) 283-2453 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.redlinebicycles.com/

STAR ASIA: Recalls 2,000 Twin Trundle Beds
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Star Asia USA, LLC d.b.a Titan, of Kent, Wash., announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,000 Wire feed welders.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise

The wire welder's torch does not have a cold contactor as
erroneously stated on the packaging and instruction manual.
Without this feature, the welder generates an electrical arc
immediately upon contact with the welding material, posing a burn
hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves the Vaper 90 amp flux wire feed welders with
model number 41181.  The wire welders are red and black. "Vaper"
and "90 amp flux wire welder" can be found on the product's
operation panel . The model number can be found on the top right
hand corner of the package and on the first page of the users
manual.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Pep Boys, Auto Zone and various other auto parts and tool centers
nationwide from October 2006 through March 2010 for about $170.

Consumer should immediately stop using the wire welders and
contact Star Asia to obtain a corrected instructions manual and
packaging or for instructions on returning the product for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Customer Service at
(800) 386-0191 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Pacific Time.

TELIASONERA AB: Ex-Owners of Eesti Telekom May File Class Suit
Ott Ummelas at Bloomberg News reports that TeliaSonera AB,
Sweden's largest telephone company, may face a class-action suit
by the former minority holders of AS Eesti Telekom, who say the
state received preferential treatment in the buyout last year.

Asset manager Kawe Kapital, a former shareholder, received promise
from other former owners for half the required 300,000 krooni
($24,000) to be deposited for litigation costs, said Kawe partner
Kristjan Hanni on July 12.  Former holders that were forced to
sell shares after a buyout bid say TeliaSonera last September gave
Estonia an edge when it committed to pay itself 100% of Eesti
Telekom's profit for three years, making it liable to pay a 21%
dividend tax that effectively gave the state better financial
terms than others.

"Minority shareholders were never offered anything corresponding
to these tax revenues of about 2 euros per share," he told
Bloomberg in an e-mail interview.  "We have a clear reason due to
this treatment to try and secure compensation from TeliaSonera in
the form of a class action that would correspond to the value of
assets taken from us against our will."

TeliaSonera, which owned 60% before making its offer on Aug. 24,
bid 3.33 billion kronor ($444 million) in cash for the remaining
shares, or 5.94 euros a share for Eesti Telekom.  Estonia's
government, which owned 27% of Eesti Telekom, last September
accepted an improved offer from TeliaSonera that included an extra
dividend of 6.99 krooni per share.  This helped TeliaSonera exceed
the 90 percent threshold for a so-called squeeze-out. The suit
would affect about 1,400 shareholders forced to sell shares in the
squeeze out.

Total Compensation

Total compensation would equal about 2.8 million euros ($3.5
million), assuming a price of 2 euros per share, Hanni said. He
expects financial commitments from other former owners topping the
full sum of 300,000 krooni on July 20.  The legal deadline to
deposit the required funds to go ahead with the class-action suit
is Aug. 2.

Former owners contributing 1.5 krooni per share for litigation
costs would pay lawyers 10% of potential compensation, while those
not depositing any funds would have to pay 30% of any proceeds,
according to an agreement with the Sorainen law office.

The case would be the first class-action suit in Estonia related
to minority buyouts, after such an option was established in 2006,
Urmas Volens, a specialist counsel with Sorainen, told Bloomberg
in a phone interview on July 13.

TeliaSonera spokeswoman Irene Krohn said the company "complied
with the laws and regulations that apply" and "achieved a very
high level of acceptance for the bid," according to an e-mailed
response to Bloomberg question.  She declined further comment.

TICKET RESERVE: Ill. Ct. Dismisses Fraud Claims in Super Bowl Case
Alfred Branch Jr., writing for TicketNews.com, reports that The
Ticket Reserve, Inc., which operates the ticket futures business
FirstDIBZ, successfully won a dismissal in a U.S. District Court
of most of the allegations in a class action lawsuit lodged by
angry customers who claimed the company defrauded them out of
thousands of dollars following a massive scam.

In a 22-page decision handed down late last week, Northern
Illinois District Court Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer wrote that
plaintiffs Andrew Duffy, George Adams, Gregg Harder, Christopher
Jackman, Jason Lee, Jose Ordaz, Vincent Ruggiero, Sohail Shah and
the class they represented essentially did not prove that the
company was entirely liable for the scam that nearly wrecked it.

Judge Pallmeyer granted The Ticket Reserve's motion to dismiss the
claims that the company failed to prevent specific fraudulent
transactions and other related fraud allegations, but the judge
did not dismiss a breach of contract allegation that the company
improperly withheld online account funds, and the plaintiffs can
amend their complaints and re-file some of their allegations.

Beginning in late 2008, both FirstDIBZ and hundreds of customers
fell victim to an alleged scam involving the fraudulent sale of
Super Bowl "dibz," or options for tickets that the original seller
did not possess.  Those fraudulent dibz were resold over and over,
and once they were discovered, the company was forced to cancel
hundreds of orders.  The customers were out hundreds of thousands
of dollars, and the company claimed the fraud cost it more than
$1 million.

Judge Pallmeyer found that language in the company's contracts and
disclaimers with customers protected it in the event of situations
such as the fraud.  "The disclaimer can be reasonably construed in
conjunction with the integrated terms of the User Guide, which
state inter alia: 'One DIBZ guarantees one face-value ticket' and
'You can sell your DIBZ to other fans of your team at any point
during the season.' Those provisions provide the holders of
genuine DIBZ with access to certain rights (i.e. selling or
trading); they do not make any warranties about the security of
the website, nor do they guarantee that every DIBZ transacted on
its website is genuine," Judge Pallmeyer wrote.

Attempts to reach executives with The Ticket Reserve for comment
were unsuccessful.  Chicago attorney Dan Edelman, Esq., at
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, represented the
plaintiffs, but he also did not immediately return a message
seeking comment.

Plaintiffs' counsel may be reached at:

    Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
    120 South LaSalle St., 18th Floor
    Chicago, IL 60603-3403
    Telephone: (312) 739-4200
    Toll Free: (888) 592-6124
    Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

In its contracts with customers concerning dibz purchases, the
company stated, "TTR stands responsible for the authenticity of
Listings registered on FirstDIBZ. However, delivery of Listings is
the sole responsibility of the underlying supplier. Where delivery
of a Listing is refused, prevented, hindered, delayed or otherwise
made impractical beyond FirstDlBZ's reasonable control and such
occurrence cannot be overcome by reasonable diligence and without
unusual expense, FirstDIBZ shall be excused from delivery and have
the right, but not the obligation, to compensate the DIBZ holder
at the close of the market with a payment equal to 125% of the
average trading price of the last ten trades immediately prior to
market closing for that DIBZ marketplace.  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in no event shall FirstDlBZ refund a user less than
what they paid for the DIBZ should delivery of the tickets not

The company sought to negotiate settlements with the defrauded
customers, and some customers are believed to still be awaiting
their money.

The Ticket Reserve, despite the rocky patch during the scam,
continues to operate and recently reemerged as the ticket futures
platform provider for Major League Baseball's new ticket
reservations initiative.  Following the Super Bowl fiasco, the
company instituted improved safeguards to protect fans from future

TOYOTA MOTOR: Ex-NUMMI Workers Sue for More Severance Pay
Carolyn Said at The San Francisco Chronicle reports that several
former workers at the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant
filed a lawsuit on Wednesday claiming they were unfairly denied
some severance pay and benefits because they were out on
disability leave when the Fremont carmaker shut down.

Filed in U.S. District Court, the suit claims that Nummi and its
parent company, Toyota Motor Corp., discriminated against injured
and disabled employees because they were ineligible for full
severance packages if they didn't work the entire six months
before the plant closed.  It seeks class-action status on behalf
of about 300 Nummi workers who were out on disability during that
time. About 4,700 workers lost their jobs when the plant closed.

In a statement, Nummi spokesman Lance Tomasu said: "Nummi has
always prided itself on treating its team members with respect and
fairness, and we believe we've done so in this situation. However,
we don't typically comment on pending litigation."

About 10 people, half of them plaintiffs and half attorneys, held
a news conference Wednesday outside the Oakland Federal Building
to discuss the case.

"These workers were penalized for being injured while working for
Toyota," said attorney Antonio Lawson, Esq.  "Full severance
packages were denied to injured and disabled workers."

Mr. Lawson may be reached at:

     Antonio M. Lawson, Esq.
     6146 Mazuela Dr.
     Oakland, California

According to The San Francisco Examiner, lawyers scheduled to
participate in the news conference include Greg Mayeda, Esq., of
Oakland, Brad Seligman, Esq., of the Impact Fund in Berkeley, and
Claudia Center, Esq., of the Legal Aid Society and the Employment
Law Center.

The Chronicle relates that when Toyota closed Nummi on April 1,
former workers received base payouts of $21,175 plus a bonus that
averaged $32,000, depending on years of service.  But workers who
were out on medical or other leave in the six months before the
closure did not receive the bonus or received a partial bonus,
based on the time they worked during those months -- even if they
had many years of service, Lawson said.  They also were ineligible
for some retraining funds and services.

To receive the base payouts of $21,175, workers were required to
sign a release of all claims against Nummi by Aug. 1.  The suit
says some of the plaintiffs signed the agreement because they
urgently needed the money.

The suit says that Nummi refused to make reasonable accommodations
that would have allowed some disabled employees to return to work.

"They singled out disabled workers for a hardship and disparate
treatment compared to other workers," said attorney Claudio
Center, Esq.

Besides restoration of the full severance, the suit seeks
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

TOYOTA MOTOR: Texas Suit Filed Over 2005 Camry Model Defects
Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that the
owner of a 2005 Toyota Camry has filed a class action, case no.
10-cv-00227, against the car manufacturer after she discovered her
rear dash had disintegrated and ruined her car audio speakers.

Cathy A. Summers filed the class action against Toyota Motor
Corp., Toyota Motor North America, Toyota Engineering and
Manufacturing North America and Toyota Motor Sales USA on July 7
in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

Ms. Summers noticed depressions in the speaker covers on the "rear
package tray" in which the material had disintegrated and
collapsed on top of the car speakers, ruining them.  Ms. Summers
states she received an estimate to replace the defective parts at
approximately $500.  She states that she spoke to the dealership
about the issue in August 2008 and discovered that Toyota had
issued a technical service bulletin in December 2007 advising and
instructing dealers on how to repair the defect.  Ms. Summers
states that if she would have been notified about the issue when
the technical service bulletin was issued, the rear sundeck would
have been covered under her express warranty.

"It was obvious to Summers that the Toyota dealership did not want
to undertake these repairs either on account of the fact of her
express warranty had expired and/or the tsunami of warranty claims
that dealers were encountering at the time involving alleged
defective accelerators and sudden acceleration problems," the
lawsuit states.

The lawsuit estimates that anywhere from 1.7 million to 2.2
million vehicles are subject to the defect in the rear sundeck.

Causes of action filed against the defendants include breach of
express and implied warranty under Magnuson-Moss, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of warranty of fitness
for particular purpose, fraudulent concealment and
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and negligence.

On behalf of the proposed class, Ms. Summers is seeking more than
$5 million in compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, interest and
court costs.

U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

The proposed class will be represented by Charles W. Nichols, Esq.
He may be reached at:

    Charles W. Nichols, Esq.
    617 E. Lacy, Ste. 103
    Palestine, Texas

Jury trial requested.

TWEEN BRANDS: Recalls 137,000 Necklaces, Bracelets & Earrings
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tween Brands Inc., of New Albany, Ohio, announced a voluntary
recall of about 137,000 Metal Necklaces, Bracelets and Earrings.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The children's metal jewelry contains high levels of cadmium.
Cadmium is toxic if ingested by children and can cause adverse
health effects.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves involves 19 different styles of children's
metal necklaces, bracelets and earrings.  Styles and shapes of the
jewelry include hearts, heart locks, butterflies, cupcakes, peace
signs and crowns. Some jewelry contains the words "Best,"
"Friends" or "Forever" and/or "BFF."  Only style numbers listed
below are included in this recall.  The style number is included
on the jewelry's packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Justice and Limited Too stores and online at
http://www.shopjustice.com/ from November 2008 through February
2010 for between $7 and $16.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled jewelry away from
children and return it to any Justice or Limited Too store for a
full refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Tween Brands
at (800) 934-4497 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at

YUM! BRANDS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ill. Suit Over Oprah Promo
Andrew M. Harris at Bloomberg News reports that U.S. District
Judge James F. Holderman in Chicago rejected a request by Yum!
Brands Inc. for dismissal of four lawsuits against the company and
its KFC unit, ruling that the consumers had set forth a "plausible
claim for common law fraud."

The lawsuits, filed last year and consolidated before Judge
Holderman, claim Yum! Brands and KFC failed to honor coupons for
free grilled chicken meals after a promotion was announced by
television talk show host Oprah Winfrey.  Louisville, Kentucky-
based Yum and KFC launched the offer for their new grilled chicken
product in May 2009.  Ms. Winfrey announced the give-away on her
show.  She and KFC made coupons redeemable for two pieces of
chicken, two sides and a biscuit available on their Web sites,
according to the court.

The plaintiffs allege violations of consumer protection laws in
Illinois, Michigan and California.  They seek class action
certification together with compensatory and punitive damages of
at least $25 million.

Bloomberg relates Judge Holderman held that, while more than 10
million coupons were printed, the KFC outlets stopped redeeming
them only two days into a scheduled two-week promotion, telling
customers they could apply for a "rain check" through the
Internet.  About 5.7 million people were allegedly denied free
meals otherwise retailing for $3.99, making the suit worth more
than $22 million.

"The promotion proved to be too much of a good thing," according
to a consolidated complaint filed with the court in February.
"Faced with high demand for the free meals, KFC stopped honoring
the coupons almost immediately."

"We provided millions of free Kentucky Grilled Chicken meals
around the country when the offer was announced in 2009," KFC
spokeswoman Laurie Schalow said in an e-mailed statement.  "Due to
the overwhelming response, we distributed millions of rain check
coupons for the holders of valid coupons who we were unable to
serve during the offer period."

KFC and Yum! had told Judge Holderman of the rain check offer,
asserting that it cured any alleged breach.

"Plaintiffs' allegations, taken as true, plausibly suggest that
Defendants' 'raincheck program' was not a cure, but a requirement
for additional performance," Judge Holderman wrote.

The case is In Re Kentucky Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, 09-cv-7670 (N.D. Ill.).

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Supreme Court OKs Ruling in Goodyear Case
The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the ruling of the Eighth District
Court of Appeals, which granted summary judgment in favor of The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, in an asbestos case filed by
Cheryl Boley.

The case is styled Boley, Exr., et al., Appellants v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, Appellee, et al.

Judges O'Donnell, Lundberg Stratton, Lanzinger, Cupp, Pfeifer,
Brown, and O'Connor entered judgment in Case No. 2009-0542 on June
10, 2010. Judge Pfeifer dissented.

Ms. Boley, executor of the estate of Mary Adams, and Mary's
husband, Clayton Adams, appealed from a decision of the trial
court, which affirmed summary judgment in favor of Mr. Adams'
former employer, Goodyear, in connection with their claims for
negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied
warranties, loss of consortium, statutory products liability,
fraudulent concealment and representation, wrongful death, and
punitive damages allegedly arising from Mrs. Adams' exposure to
asbestos when she laundered Mr. Adams' work clothes in their home.

Goodyear employed Mr. Adams as a pipefitter from 1973 to 1983 at
its St. Marys, Ohio, facility. His employment caused him to work
with asbestos-containing materials, and he brought asbestos dust
home on his clothing. Mrs. Adams allegedly breathed in the dust
when she shook out his work clothes prior to laundering them.

In March 2007, Andrea Arrossi, M.D., diagnosed Mrs. Adams with
malignant mesothelioma. Following this diagnosis, Mr. and Mrs.
Adams sued more than 200 defendants, including Goodyear, alleging
that asbestos exposure caused Mrs. Adams' condition and resulted
from Goodyear's negligence in allowing asbestos to be carried off
its property.

Mrs. Adams died of mesothelioma in July 2007. Thereafter, the
trial court substituted the executor of Mary's estate, Cheryl
Boley, as a party to this case.

Goodyear then moved for summary judgment. After review, the trial
court entered summary judgment in favor of Goodyear.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Issues Ruling in Michigan State Case
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, issued rulings in a case involving asbestos styled
Michigan State University, Prince George's Community College,
Rochester Institute of Technology, The University of Cincinnati,
Fairfeild University, and Claremont McKenna College, Appellants v.
Asbestos Settlement Trust, Appellee.

District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich entered judgment in Case
Nos. 8:90-bk-10016-PMG, 8:09-cv-02444-T-EAK on June 14, 2010.

This case came before the Court on appeal from the Bankruptcy
Court's denial of Appellants' Motion for Leave to Pursue Claims
against the Trustees of the Asbestos Settlement Trust.

The appeal was filed Dec. 2, 2009. The appeal was denied.

This appeal arose out of the proceedings occurring in the asbestos
mass tort bankruptcy cases of the Celotex Corporation and Carey
Canada, Inc. pending before the Bankruptcy Court.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Ruling in Bethel Fellowship Case
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the ruling of the
Franklin Circuit Court, which affirmed an administrative decision
of the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (n/k/a Energy
and Environmental Cabinet).

The case is styled Bethel Fellowship, Inc. (d/b/a Bethel
Fellowship Christian Academy), Appellant v. Environmental and
Public Protection Cabinet, Appellee.

Judges White, Lambert, and Stumbo entered judgment in Case No.
2009-CA-000603-MR on June 18, 2010

Bethel Fellowship appealed from an Opinion and Order of the
Franklin Circuit Court affirming an administrative decision of the
Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (now Energy and
Environmental Cabinet).

The instant action arose from an administrative penalty imposed by
the Cabinet resulting from Bethel's alleged failure to obtain an
asbestos inspection of its school premises. Bethel maintained that
the circuit court erred in failing to determine that the Cabinet
failed to prove that Bethel is a corporation or owns real

It also argued that the Cabinet improperly reopened the case for
submission of additional evidence and that the hearing officer
admitted hearsay evidence and improperly shifted the burden of

The Appeals Court found no basis for disturbing the Opinion and
Order on appeal, and accordingly affirmed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Court Issues Rulings in Mt. McKinley Case
The Supreme Court, New York County, New York, issued various
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Mt. McKinley Insurance
Company (f/k/a Gibraltar Casualty Company) and Everest Reinsurance
Company (f/k/a Prudential Reinsurance Company), Plaintiffs v.
Corning Incorporated, et al., Defendants.

Judge Eileen Branstein entered judgment in Case No. 602454/2002 on
June 14, 2010.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company moved for partial summary
judgment in its favor. Mt. McKinley Insurance Company (f/k/a
Gibraltar Insurance Company) and Everest Reinsurance Company
(f/k/a Prudential Reinsurance Company) moved for partial summary
judgment in their favor and in Lumbermens' favor for a

-- That each underlying Corhart-related and Unibestos-related
  asbestos bodily injury claim constituted a separate
  occurrence under the insurance policies at issue and

-- That Corning Incorporated was obligated to pay a per
  occurrence deductible limit under the Lumbermens policies for
  each policy period implicated by each occurrence from Jan. 1,
  1972 through April 1, 1985.

Allianz Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, American
Centennial Insurance Company, Arrowood Indemnity Company,
Continental Casualty Company, Continental Insurance Company,
Hudson Insurance Company, London Market Insurers (together with
Lumbermens, Mt. McKinley and Everest, the "Moving Insurers")
joined in either the Motions or Mt. McKinley's and Everest's
motion only (Joinders).

The Supreme Court adopted Corning's nomenclature for the
statements of material facts in connection with the Motions and

Corning opposed the Motions and the Joinders. Century Indemnity
Company had joined in Corning's opposition.

Lumbermens' motion for partial summary judgment was denied. Mt.
McKinley Insurance Company's and Everest Reinsurance Company's
motion for partial summary judgment was denied. Allianz Insurance
Company's joinder for partial summary judgment was denied.
Allstate and American Centennial's motion for partial summary
judgment was denied.

Arrowood Indemnity Company's motion for partial summary judgment
was denied. Continental Casualty Company and the Continental
Insurance Company's motion for partial summary judgment was
denied. Hudson Insurance Company's motion for partial summary
judgment was denied. London Market Insurers' motion for partial
summary judgment was denied. Old Republic Insurance Company's
motion for partial summary judgment was denied. North River
Insurance Company's motion for partial summary judgment was

Ira Revich, Esq., of Charlston, Revich & Wollitz, LLP, represented

Fred L. Alvarez, Esq., and Joyce F. Noyes, Esq., of Walker Wilcox
Matousek, LLP represented Mt. McKinley and Everest.

Edward Tessler, Esq., Nicholas J. Zoogman, Esq., and Deborah E.
Greenspan, Esq., of Dickstein Shapiro LLP represented Corning.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Denies Norfolk's Dismissal Motion
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County, Court of Common Pleas,
which denied Norfolk Southern Railway Co.'s motion to dismiss an
asbestos suit filed by David F. Hoover.

The case is styled David F. Hoover, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Norfolk
Southern Railway Co., Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Larry A. Jones, Mary Eileen Kilbane, and Christine
McMonagle entered judgment in Case Nos. 93479, 93689 on June 24,

In 1970, Mr. Hoover began working for Norfolk, initially as a
brakeman. He was eventually promoted to conductor. He held that
position until he retired in 2002. For 51 years and until 2004, he
smoked two to four packs of cigarettes a day.

In 2008, Mr. Hoover sued Norfolk alleging asbestos-related
injuries under the Locomotive Boilers Inspection Act (LBIA),
seeking relief under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA).
He alleged that during his career with the railroad, he was
continuously exposed to various toxic substances, including diesel
exhaust and asbestos, in violation of federal law and that those
exposures caused and/or aggravated his continuing respiratory
problems, including lung cancer.

In 2009, Norfolk moved to dismiss Mr. Hoover's claims. The case
proceeded to a hearing and the trial court denied the motion to
dismiss. The trial court found that Mr. Hoover submitted evidence
to create a genuine issue of material fact to go to a jury to
determine, "including records and reports which, when read
together, allow this court to procedurally prioritize this case to
receive a trial date."

Mr. Hoover passed away in November 2009. His wife, Lona Hoover,
had been substituted as the party in this case.

Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Holly Olarczuk-Smith, Esq., Thomas E. Dover, Esq., Gallagher
Sharp, Esq., of Cleveland, Ohio, represented Mrs. Hoover.

Michael L. Torcello, Esq., Christopher Murphy, Esq., of Doran &
Murphy, LLP in Buffalo, N.Y., represented Norfolk Southern Railway

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Summary Judgment in Wilson
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California,
affirmed the ruling of the San Francisco City & County Superior
Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of CertainTeed
Corporation in an asbestos lawsuit filed by the wife and children
of Donald Wilson.

The case is styled Marjorie Wilson et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. CertainTeed Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Marchiano, Dondero, and Banke entered judgment in Case No.
A123720 on June 23, 2010.

Between 1959 and 1994, Mr. Wilson worked as a longshoreman at San
Francisco Bay area piers, including but "not limited to Ned Lloyd
Lines piers 19 and 23, Piers 26 and 30, San Francisco, CA and
Encinal Terminals, Alameda, Calif."

From 1962 through 1973, CertainTeed purchased raw asbestos fiber
for use at its Santa Clara manufacturing plant from Turners
Asbestos Fibres Limited. The contract between CertainTeed and
Turners specified "F.o.b. South African Port," and Turners made
the shipping arrangements for export from Africa into the United
States, through the Port of San Francisco.

The asbestos fiber, both crocidolite and chyrsotile, was packed in
South Africa, transported solely by Ned Lloyd Shipping Lines and
"passed through Piers 19 and 23 only." Turners sent CertainTeed
four to six shipments of asbestos fiber a year.

CertainTeed did not pay for storage of the asbestos fiber, and the
record did not reflect who owned or controlled the warehouses.
Longshoremen, such as Mr. Wilson, had no further contact with the
material once it was warehoused. Raw asbestos destined for
CertainTeed was transported by truck to its Santa Clara plant,
which closed in 1982.

In 2005, Mr. Wilson and his wife, Marjorie, filed this action for
damages against a number of defendants, including CertainTeed.
Following Mr. Wilson's death from mesothelioma, the complaint was
amended to add a cause of action for wrongful death and to add Mr.
Wilson's five children as plaintiffs.

After discovery, CertainTeed moved for summary judgment on the
ground there was no evidence Mr. Wilson was "injured by exposure
to an asbestos-containing product for which [CertainTeed] is
legally responsible." CertainTeed asserted it was not a
"manufacturer, distributor, or retailer" of raw asbestos.

Judgment was entered on Nov. 19, 2008, and plaintiffs filed this
timely appeal.

The judgment was affirmed.

Daniel Upham Smith, Esq., in Kentfield, Calif., Anna Maria Costa,
Esq., of Levin Simes Kaiser & Gornick LLP in San Francisco,
represented the Wilsons.

William F. Sheehan, Esq., of Goodwin Procter LLP in Washington,
D.C., Lisa L. Oberg, Esq., of McKenna, Long & Aldridge LLP in San
Francisco, represented CertainTeed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Fostoria, Ohio Store to Cost $8,800
Asbestos abatement at the former Helping Hand Thrift Store in
Fostoria, Ohio, is estimated to cost US$8,800, the Mesothelioma &
Asbestos Awareness Center reports.

Global Green Services' bid for the abatement was accepted. The
WSOS Community Action Committee has accepted a US$86,320
demolition bid from Posey Excavating.

The bids for asbestos abatement and demolition of the former
Helping Hand Thrift Store have been accepted. However, the WSOS
must first submit a request to the National Register of Historic
Places in Washington D.C., in order to receive approval for the

The property, along with all of downtown Fostoria, is registered
as a historical site. Because of this, demolition projects require
permission from the government agency.

WSOS rehabilitation specialist Rob Grimm said, "They look at the
cost comparisons for the demolition versus re-violation of the
building. We hired a structural engineer, and he determined it is
structurally not sound and should be torn down."

The asbestos abatement must first occur in the older building, in
order to prevent any disturbance of the toxic material. For when
the material is disturbed during renovation or demolition, the
hazardous particles become airborne-posing a serious health risk
to community residents.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 900 Tons of Asbestos Removed From Ambler House
From June 19, 2010 to June 21, 2010, about 900 tons of asbestos
materials were removed from a boiler house in Ambler, Pa.,
Montgomery Media reports.

Lynda Rebarchak, community relations coordinator for the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Southeast
Region, said, "The material left the site in about 37 trailers,
and it was covered with a tarp prior to leaving the site. It was
shipped to a facility in Ohio that is permitted to accept that
type of waste."

The removal was mandated by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection in 2009.

Ms. Rebarchak said, "We had been in contact with the property
owner for that parcel, Ronald Hamilton. Back in December of 2009,
we had issued an order to Mr. Hamilton requiring that he remove
some material that had been stockpiled on site. It was demolition
material from work that was done back in May of 2009. There was
some roofing material and some other material that had been
located inside the property.

"The material was then combined in a pile next to the building,"
Ms. Rebarchak added. "We had performed testing of that pile and
determined the entire pile was to be considered asbestos
containing waste material, and that was why we were requiring it
be removed as quickly as possible."

The demolition at the site in May 2010 was done without permission
from the DEP, and Mr. Hamilton received a citation as a result.
DEP officials investigated the site to find roofing materials were
being removed when the owner had not submitted an Asbestos
Abatement and Demolition/Renovation Notification Form as required
by the DEP's Air Pollution Rules and Regulations.

While the DEP ordered Mr. Hamilton to remove the asbestos
containing material back in December 2009, he had appealed the
order, and a court hearing had been scheduled for June 28, 2010,
according to Ms. Rebarchak.

Mr. Hamilton then went ahead with the removal with the court date
less than two weeks away. He did not inform the DEP about the
removal, but since it was work ordered by the DEP, he was not
required to do so, according to Ms. Rebarchak.

Ms. Rebarchak said the removal of the asbestos containing waste
should have no health or environmental impact on the area.

The owners of the boiler house submitted a rehabilitation plan for
the site earlier this year with the Redevelopment Authority of
Montgomery County. The plan, which includes the removal of
asbestos containing material, aims to convert the boiler house
into an office building.

Ms. Rebarchak said the DEP had been in touch with the
Redevelopment Authority, which had no update on when the
rehabilitation or other future work at the site would begin.

The 15,000-square-foot Ambler boiler house, located at 201 S.
Maple St., was formerly owned by the Keasbey and Mattison Co.
Keasbey and Mattison began manufacturing asbestos containing
materials at the site in 1897, and production continued until
1962. Since then, the site has been vacant.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Delegation Urges EPA to Clean Up Libby
The congressional delegation of Montana seeks assurances from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the U.S. Government will
not abandon the asbestos-town of Libby, Mont., before cleanup is
complete, the Associated Press reports.

According to health workers, at least 400 people have died in
Libby from the contamination caused by a now-defunct W. R. Grace &
Co. vermiculite mine.

In May 2010, the EPA finalized its cleanup strategy for the first
two of eight contaminated areas, including a town park. Some Libby
residents and local elected leaders fear the EPA is rushing to
finish its work, leaving the town at risk.

U.S. Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester and Rep. Denny Rehberg
have asked the EPA to clarify its plans for the 3,000-person town.
In separate letters sent in recent weeks, the lawmakers prodded
the EPA to complete a long-delayed study of Libby asbestos.

They also wanted the EPA's pledge to return to areas already
cleaned if the study shows the health danger is worse than
previously thought.

More than a decade after the EPA arrived in Libby, regulators
still are uncertain just how toxic the asbestos is to humans.  A
risk assessment meant to answer that question is not expected to
be finalized for another five years, according to correspondence
between the EPA and Senator Baucus.

A June report by the Government Accountability Office listed Libby
as one of 75 Superfund sites across the United States with health
risks that are considered unacceptable. For Libby, that public
danger is expected to last through at least 2015.

In 2009, Libby became the first Superfund site ever declared as a
public health emergency.

EPA spokesman Ted Linnert said the cleanup method proposed for the
town park -- placing a soil "cap" over what was once a processing
site for Grace vermiculite -- should be effective no matter the
results of the risk assessment.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore Town Not Enforcing Asbestos Regulations
According to a Texas state inspector, officials of Kilgore, Tex.,
issued permits to commercial real estate owners for renovations
with checking to see if the areas had conducted asbestos surveys,
Mesothelioma reports.

The inspector found out about the oversights as he was checking a
small renovation project in Kilgore's downtown district. A state
law passed in 2002 requires that all renovation projects carry a
written asbestos survey on-site, but supervisors at this site did
not have the proper paperwork.

Kilgore special services director B.J. Owen said that the
inspector was examining a nearby site that was conducting a
licensed asbestos abatement project.

The inspector noticed the renovation work underway at 111 Rusk and
he asked to see the asbestos survey. When the project supervisor
could not produce the survey, the inspector contacted city leaders
about the violation.

Mr. Owen said that he had been following the conventional process
for issuing permits since he took over the position in 2009. After
he inspected several permit applications over the previous two
years, he found that none of them included the asbestos surveys.
He also said that most of the large-scale projects did have the
proper surveys completed, but that many of the oversights occurred
on small-scale commercial remodeling and demolition jobs.

Mr. Owen attributes the higher compliance rate for the larger
projects to the presence of architectural experts on site. He said
that the architects "were aware of the law" and would often
facilitate finding an asbestos inspector to determine the level of
contamination in any of their projects scheduled for demolition or

Mr. Owen also said that owners of larger buildings would want to
be aware of asbestos-contaminated locations within the structure
in the event that plaster or drywall came loose from those areas.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Congoleum Reorganization Consummated on July 1
The Plan Proponents, on July 1, 2010, consented to the effective
date of Congoleum Corporation's Plan of Reorganization occurring
on July 1, 2010 (Effective Date), according to a Company press
report, on Form 8-K, filed on July 8, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 31, 2003, the Company, Congoleum Sales, Inc. and Congoleum
Fiscal, Inc. each filed voluntary petitions with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey seeking relief
under chapter 11 of title 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

On or about Jan. 7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
providing for the joint administration of the Chapter 11 Cases. On
Aug. 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey withdrew the reference from the Bankruptcy Court and
assumed original jurisdiction over the Chapter 11 Cases. On March
11, 2010, the Debtors filed with the District Court the Fourth
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of the Company et al.

On June 7, 2010, the District Court held a confirmation hearing on
the Debtors' Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization, and at
the conclusion of this hearing, the District Court entered an
order under the Bankruptcy Code confirming the Debtors' Fourth
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization with certain minor

As of the Effective Date, the Company substantially consummated
the Plan, under which the Company reduced its debt level and
channeled its asbestos liability to a court-approved trust (Plan
Trust) created under the Plan that is assuming the liability for
the Company's current and future asbestos claims.

As part of the implementation of the Plan, the Company closed on a
new credit facility that increases its revolving credit line from
US$30 million to US$40 million. The Order was not a Final Order as
of the Effective Date.

A small group of asbestos plaintiffs, whose objections to the Plan
had been overruled by the District Court, filed a notice of appeal
of the Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Because the Plan has been substantially consummated, the Company
intends to move to dismiss such appeal as equitably moot and hopes
to resolve the appeal in the near term.

Mercerville, N.J.-based Congoleum Corporation makes flooring
products for residential and commercial use, including resilient
sheet flooring (linoleum or vinyl flooring), do-it-yourself vinyl
tile, and commercial flooring. The Company markets its products
through about a dozen distributors in more than 40 North American

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Faces 139 Pending Claims at May 31
GenCorp Inc. was party to 139 pending asbestos claims during the
six months ended May 31, 2010, compared with 134 claims during the
year ended Nov. 30, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on July 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange

The Company was party to 136 pending asbestos cases as of Feb. 28,
2010. (Class Action Reporter, April 9, 2010)

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases have been filed in Madison
County, Ill., and San Francisco.

During the six months ended May 31, 2010, the Company recorded 11
claims filed, five claims dismissed, and one claim settled.
Aggregate settlement costs were US$15,000 and average settlement
costs were US$15,000.

During the year ended Nov. 30, 2009, the Company recorded 27
claims filed, 23 claims consolidated, 25 claims dismissed, and two
claims settled. Aggregate settlement costs were US$35,000 and
average settlement costs were US$17,000.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for the first
six months of fiscal 2010 were US$200,000. Legal and
administrative fees for the asbestos cases were $400,000 for
fiscal year 2009 and US$500,000 for the fiscal year 2008.

Rancho Cordova, Calif.-based GenCorp Inc. manufactures aerospace
and defense products and systems with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of the Company's excess real estate assets. The
Company's continuing operations are organized into two segments:
Aerospace and Defense and Real Estate.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Files Prepack Ch.11 on July 12
CIRCOR International, Inc. said that its Leslie Controls, Inc.
subsidiary, on July 12, 2010, filed a pre-negotiated plan of
reorganization as a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on
July 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Supported by a committee of attorneys representing current
asbestos claimants and a proposed independent representative of
future claimants, the plan is intended to permanently resolve
Leslie's asbestos liability through the creation of a trust under
Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

All current and future asbestos claims against Leslie would be
channeled to the trust for review and payment, thus providing both
Leslie and the Company with permanent court protection from such

Company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bill Higgins said,
"We believe that a 524(g) trust that equitably resolves all
pending and future claims and provides CIRCOR with permanent
protection from derivative claims is in the best interest of all
our stakeholders, including CIRCOR's shareholders and Leslie's
customers, suppliers and employees. Unencumbered by financial and
legal exposure to asbestos liability, Leslie will be positioned to
grow and contribute to CIRCOR's profitability and cash flow going

Leslie intends to conduct business as usual during the Chapter 11
process, which could be completed in as little as 120 days. The
July 12, 2010 filing stays all pending and future asbestos
litigation against Leslie. As a result, Leslie expects that its
cash from operations will be sufficient to satisfy all of its
operating obligations during this period. In addition, debtor-in-
possession financing has been arranged for Leslie if needed.

Key terms of the pre-negotiated plan are as follows:

-- Funding for the 524(g) trust will consist of a US$75 million
   contribution by Leslie and the Company together with a
   contribution of proceeds from Leslie's remaining asbestos
   insurance assets;

-- A provision that permanently protects the Company and its
   affiliates from future derivative claims associated with
   Leslie's asbestos liability; and

-- Leslie will remain a subsidiary of the Company during and
   after Chapter 11.

Since 2002, Leslie has been named in an escalating number of
asbestos-related personal injury claims. These claims relate
primarily to the use of asbestos on U.S. Navy ships from the 1940s
to the 1980s.

The vast majority of asbestos on these ships was used as
insulation material around piping, and was not specified, supplied
or utilized by Leslie. While certain of Leslie's products included
asbestos-containing gaskets or packing supplied by third parties,
any asbestos in these products was encapsulated inside the
products and did not create any ambient exposure to asbestos

Therefore, Leslie strongly believes that exposure to its products
has not caused asbestos-related illness to any person.

In connection with Leslie's pre-negotiated Chapter 11 filing, the
Company expects to record an anticipated pretax charge of US$27.2
million in the second quarter of 2010. In addition, net cost for
asbestos litigation prior to the filing is expected to be US$1.6

As a result, CIRCOR anticipates incurring a total of US$28.8
million in pretax asbestos-related costs, US$18.7 million after
tax, during the second quarter of 2010.

This compares with about US$4 million in pretax asbestos-related
costs, US$2.6 million after tax, assumed in the second-quarter
2010 earnings guidance provided by the Company on May 10, 2010.

Burlington, Mass.-based CIRCOR International, Inc. provides valves
and other highly engineered products and subsystems that control
the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the aerospace, energy
and industrial markets. The Company has more than 9,000 customers
in over 100 countries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Development in Scott v. Chase Since May 2010
Chase Corporation says that, as of May 2010, there have been no
new developments as an Ohio asbestos lawsuit filed by Marie Lou
Scott has been inactive with respect to the Company, according to
the Company's latest quarterly report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company is one of over 100 defendants in a lawsuit pending in
Ohio which alleges personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in certain Chase products.

The case is captioned Marie Lou Scott, Executrix of the Estate of
James T. Scott v. A-Best Products, et al., No. 312901 in the Court
of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The plaintiff in the case issued discovery requests to the Company
in August 2005, to which the Company timely responded in September

The trial had initially been scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007.
However, that date had been postponed and no new trial date has
been set.

Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corporation makes and sells
specialty tapes, coatings, laminates, and sealants for a diversity
of applications, from wire and cable to construction and

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jansen Lawsuit Against Chase in Discovery Stage
Chase Corporation says that parties in an asbestos lawsuit filed
by Lois Jansen against various companies are still engaged in
discovery, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
June 12, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company was named as one of the defendants in a complaint
filed on June 25, 2009, in a lawsuit captioned Lois Jansen,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Thomas
Jansen v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No: 09-CV-6248 in the
Milwaukee County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court.

The plaintiff alleges that her husband suffered and died from
malignant mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos in his
workplace. The plaintiff has sued seven alleged manufacturers or
distributors of asbestos-containing products, including Royston
Laboratories (formerly an independent company and now a division
of the Company).

The Company has filed an answer to the claim denying the material
allegations in the complaint.

Bridgewater, Mass.-based Chase Corporation makes and sells
specialty tapes, coatings, laminates, and sealants for a diversity
of applications, from wire and cable to construction and

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment to Detroit Diesel
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, granted
summary judgment in favor of Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) in
an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by James Gennone and Joyce E.

The case is styled Richard James Gennone and Joyce E. Flood,
Plaintiffs v. A.J. Eckert Company, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered judgment in Case No. 1:09-
CV-968 (LEK/RFT) on June 18, 2010.

DDC is one of many Defendants named by Mr. Gennone and Ms. Flood
in this case, a personal injury suit concerning asbestos exposure
and mesothelioma. This case came before this Court following
removal by DDC from the Schenectady County Supreme Court on or
about Aug. 26, 2009.

Prior to removal, Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint on May 26,
2009, an Amended Complaint on June 8, 2009, and a Second Amended
Complaint on June 30, 2009. The Second Amended Complaint added DDC
as a Defendant, alleging that it engaged in the manufacture, sale
or distribution of products containing asbestos and which caused
or contributed to Mr. Gennone's development of mesothelioma.

Mr. Gennone alleged an array of injuries attributed to asbestos
exposure over a period of years during employment at assorted
industrial, manufacturing or shipping jobs. This action sought to
hold liable an extensive list of enterprises that performed
activities involving the asbestos products that are asserted as
causes of Mr. Gennone's harms.

Joyce Flood, as the spouse of Mr. Gennone, alleged loss of
consortium due to the asbestos-based injuries sustained by her
husband. Among the enterprises named as Defendants, DDC was
implicated in this action by Mr. Gennone's allegations that he was
exposed to asbestos while working with Detroit Diesel engines and
generators from 1944 to 1946 and 1950 to 19-51.

DDC sought summary judgment and dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims
against them on the ground that the corporation did not exist
during the period relevant for this action.

The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice as against
Detroit Diesel Corporation.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Collins Action
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California,
denied a petition for rehearing in an asbestos case styled
Cloristeen Collins, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. Plant
Insulation Company, Defendant and Appellant.

The court entered judgment on Case No. A124268 on July 2, 2010.

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

Respondents' petition for rehearing was denied.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Denies Dismissal Bid in Trenton Case
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, denied Trenton
Brakes, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a case involving asbestos styled
Team Marketing Services, Inc., Plaintiff v. Trenton Brakes, Inc.,

Judge Herlihy entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09C-08-067-JOH
on June 16, 2010.

Team Marketing Services, Inc. entered into a consignment agreement
with Trenton Brakes. Team Marketing was supposed to sell brake
products and other items owned by Trenton Brakes for a commission.
It alleged that Trenton Brakes withheld the valuable items it
owned and allowed Team Marketing to sell only its "junk."

Further, Team Marketing alleged that Trenton Brakes shipped
products containing asbestos to Team Marketing's New Castle
facility, requiring it to pay clean up fees.

Trenton Brakes moves this Court to dismiss the complaint. After
considering the contacts Trenton Brakes has with Delaware, this
Court held that Delaware's long arm statute extended jurisdiction
over Trenton Brakes and due process requirements did not mandate
dismissal. The motion was denied.

Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esq., in Wilmington, Del., represented

Bayard J. Snyder, Esq., of Snyder & Associates in Wilmington,
Del., represented Defendant.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Ruling in Mathison Action
The U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, issued rulings in a
case involving asbestos styled Ronald K. Mathison, Plaintiff v.
Stephanie Humphrey, et al., Defendants.

U.S. Magistrates Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. entered judgment in
Case No. 3:09-CV-00277-ECR(RAM) on May 25, 2010.

This Report and Recommendation was made to the Honorable Edward C.
Reed, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge. The action was referred to
the undersigned Judge McQuaid. Before the court was Ms. Humphrey's
Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Mathison had opposed and Ms. Humphrey had
replied. The District Court recommended that the motion be

Ronald K. Mathison was in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (NDOC) as an inmate at Warm Springs Correctional
Center (WSCC). Mr. Mathison, a pro se prisoner, brought this
action. Ms. Humphrey is Warden of WSCC.

Ms. Humphrey had moved to dismiss Mr. Mathison's remaining two
claims. In Count II, Mr. Mathison claimed that Ms. Humphrey acted
with deliberate indifference to his well-being, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, by exposing Mr. Mathison to
asbestos during his 10 years of incarceration at the Northern
Nevada Correctional Center.

Mr. Mathison also claimed that asbestos is currently being
removed, that Ms. Humphrey should have informed all prior
inhabitants of the housing units involved of their exposure to
asbestos, and that Defendant should provide appropriate medical
treatment to those inmates exposed.

Ms. Humphrey moved to dismiss because Mr. Mathison had failed to
exhaust the available administrative remedies.

Judge McQuaid recommended that the District Judge enter an Order
granting Ms. Humphrey's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Judge
McQuaid recommended that the District Judge enter an Order
dismissing Ms. Humphrey in her official capacity without
prejudice. Judge McQuaid recommended that the District Judge enter
an Order denying as moot Mr. Mathison's Motion for Summary
Judgment and Motion to Supplement.

Ronald K. Mathison, Carson City, Nev., represented himself.

Frederick J. Perdomo, Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, Nev.,
represented Defendants.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Glein's Remand Bid in Lawsuit v. UTC
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, granted
Betty Glein's motion to remand an asbestos case styled Betty
Glein, Plaintiff v. Boeing Company, et al., Defendants.

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Ill., for lack of federal subject matter

District Judge Murphy entered judgment in Civil Action No. 10-452-
GPM on June 25, 2010.

On April 30, 2010, Mrs. Glein filed this action in Illinois state
court against United Technologies Corporation (UTC) in connection
with mesothelioma that she allegedly contracted due to secondary
exposure to asbestos fibers on the skin, hair, and clothing of her
ex-husband Eldon Glein as a result of his work on or around Pratt
& Whitney aircraft engines during his service as an aviation
mechanic in the U.S. Navy from 1970 until 1974.

UTC had removed the case from state court to this Court,
contending that Mrs. Glein's claims against it are based on UTC's
alleged failure to warn of the dangers relating to asbestos used
as insulation in aircraft engines supplied by UTC to the Navy.

Mrs. Glein in turn had filed what she styled an "emergency" motion
for remand of this case to state court for lack of subject matter

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11 Homes in Waverly, Iowa Slated for Abatement
Eleven flood-damaged homes in Waverly, Iowa, are set to undergo
asbestos removal as part of the first phase of demolition and
salvaging, the Waverly Democrat reports.

The homes, which are the first of 16 that have been considered
significant to the Iowa Historic Preservation Commission, will
likely have the abatement completed by the middle of September
2010, said Community Development and Zoning Official Ben Kohout.

Mr. Kohout said, "It's a staggered approach to salvage around 11
to 15 (homes) over the next few months. It will take 15 to 20 work
days and after 30 days, (the abatement) should be completed."

As voted by members of City Council, Site Services of Algona will
have first dibs at contracting the project, as suggested by
INRCOG. The business is proposing to do the job for US$16,550, the
lowest of the three bids.

City Administrator Dick Crayne said that the City picks
contractors through standards set by INRCOG and FEMA.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Former Leatherback Site Costs $130T
The discovery of tainted soil and asbestos at the defunct
Leatherback Industries site in Hollister, Calif. added US$130,000
to the cost for the Hollister Redevelopment Agency, the Hollister
Free Lance reports.

This brings the total contract cost to US$401,000.

Hollister City Council members approved the supplemental
appropriation of US$130,000 toward the demolition project,
contracted to Pantano Excavating.

The original contract from July 2009 was for US$234,000. However,
city officials in February added US$37,000 to the cost for removal
of "various concrete structures" and the disposal of hazardous
waste oil, according to a staff report.

The city's RDA about three years ago bought the former Leatherback
site near downtown Hollister after the company shut down.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mitigation at Narragansett Site to Cost $49,850
Town Manager Grady Miller said that asbestos mitigation at the
Town Beach North Pavilion at Narragansett, R.I., will cost
US$49,850 and will be paid for through the beach enterprise fund,
the South County Independent reports.

Vortex, a company that provided asbestos mitigation for the town's
schools, will begin power washing and painting the roofs of the
changing rooms to encapsulate and seal the asbestos. Work will be
conducted for four to five days during daytime and early evening

Vortex will seal off each changing unit during the cleaning and
painting project so as to not affect the inside of each unit, but
public areas such as restrooms and the concession stand will
remain open.

Mr. Miller said, "The Parks and Recreation Department is in the
process of notifying pass holders by letter about the project to
alert them about the issue and to inform them that the changing
rooms will be unavailable to them for the duration of the project.
During the project, the restrooms, first aid area and concession
stand will remain open to the public as they are outside of the
project area."

Plans to replace the pavilion, which was built in the 1950s, were
scrapped by the Town Council in June 2010 after disagreements
arose over a US$9.5 million proposal. At that time, the council
agreed on emergency repairs to the aging facility.

After a recent inspection of the site, Vortex determined that
there were areas on the roof where the asbestos had become
friable, a condition in which asbestos becomes soft and weak and
can be broken by touching it.

Once the project begins, there will be no access to the changing
area until completion of the project, so Town officials are
telling owners to remove beach items now or leave them secured in
the unit through the duration of the project.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Court Dismisses Stewart's Class Action
The Court of Queen's Bench Justice in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
dismissed a class-action asbestos lawsuit filed by former
employees of the Holy Cross Center medical facility, the
Mesothelioma Resource Center reports.

The Calgary Herald reports that, in 2008, Jim Stewart, a
registered nurse employed at the center for two months during
2001, filed the suit claiming that asbestos in the building was
improperly removed during a renovation project, thus endangering
staff members.

Mr. Stewart and his asbestos attorneys named brothers Dr. Peter
Huang, Dr. Ian Huang and Dr. John Huang as defendants, as well as
their company, Enterprise Universal, which has a history of
similar occupational safety claims.

In 2005, the Company was required to pay a fine for failing to
comply with a stop-work order from Occupational Health and Safety
during an investigation into asbestos management, says the news

In the instant case, Justice Sheliah Martin ruled that, "There is
no genuine issue concerning the personal liability of Dr. Peter
Huang and Dr. Ian Huang and the action against them is dismissed."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fireman's Fund Increases A&E Reserves by $301MM
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co., in a three-sentence statement last
July 9, 2010, said it will "increase its reserves for asbestos and
environmental risks on a stand-alone statutory basis by US$301
million," the San Francisco Business Times reports.

The Novato, Calif.-based property-casualty insurer, a unit of
Germany's Allianz Group, said the move follows the completion of
its regular independent external asbestos exposure review, and
will have no impact on Allianz Group's financial results.

Spokesman Atle Erlingsson said, "There's absolutely nothing out of
the norm. We've been building our reserves since 2002." He added
that Fireman's Fund's reserves now total US$1.4 billion.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Rulings in HOD Carriers Case
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at
Seattle, issued split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled
HOD Carriers and General Laborers Union Local 242, and Washington
& Northern Idaho District Council of Laborers, Plaintiffs v. 3
Kings Environmental Inc., Defendant.

District Judge James L. Robart entered judgment in Case No. C09-
1759JLR on June 29, 2010.

Before the court was 3 Kings Environmental Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration and dismiss under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). 3
Kings moved the court for an order compelling arbitration of the
contract claim brought by HOD Carriers and General Laborers Union
Local 242, and Washington and Northern Idaho District Council of
Laborers (collectively, "the Union").

The court, having reviewed the papers filed in support and
opposition and having heard the arguments of counsel, granted in
part and denied in part the motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration but
denied the motion to dismiss.

The matter was stayed pending the conclusion of the settlement
procedures set forth in the parties' agreement to arbitrate.

The Union represents employees in the construction industry
throughout Washington and Northern Idaho. 3 Kings specializes in
environmental cleanup, including removal of building materials
containing asbestos. On or about July 10, 2009, the parties
entered into an agreement known as the Laborers Compliance
Agreement (LCA), which incorporates the Western/Central Washington
Master Labor Agreement 2007-2010, referred to by the parties as
"Collective Bargaining Agreement" or "CBA".

In late July 2009, a dispute arose as to whether Union workers who
were referred to work for 3 Kings at the McMicken Elementary
project located in Sea-Tac, Washington were required to have a
physical before beginning asbestos abatement work on the project.

3 Kings' position was that laborers will not be permitted to work
performing asbestos-removal duties unless they first obtain a
physical showing their ability to perform the duties safely.

On Dec. 11, 2009, the Union filed the instant suit seeking to
enforce the "arbitration" award and for damages. Specifically, the
Union requested lost wages and fringe benefits for workers that
were turned away at the job site by 3 King because they did not
have a physical.

On Jan. 5, 2010, 3 Kings formally demanded that the Union
participate in arbitration under the AGC Master Labor Agreement.
The Union again refused to continue with the settlement procedures
and 3 Kings brought the instant motion to compel arbitration.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Moore Remand Bid in Case v. Metalclad
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted Homer Moore's motion to remand an
asbestos lawsuit filed against various defendants, including
Metalclad Insulation Corporation.

The case is styled Homer Moore, Plaintiff v. Asbestos Defendants
(B*P), et al, Defendants.

District Judge Richard Seeborg entered judgment in Case No. CV 10-
01638 RS on July 1, 2010.

Mr. Moore filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco on March 2, 2010, alleging asbestos-
related injuries against various defendants, including Metalclad.
He alleged that he was exposed to asbestos while working at Mare
Island Naval Shipyard as a shipwright from 1964 to 1971 and as an
insulator from 1971 to 1974.

Mr. Moore alleged that Metalclad was liable because, in December
1968, Metalclad brokered a shipment to the U.S. Navy of asbestos-
containing Unibestos thermal insulation from Pittsburg Corning for
use in the nuclear reactor compartments of certain U.S. Navy
submarines: the USS Drum, the USS Guitarro, the USS Hawkbill and
the USS Pintado.

Metalclad filed its Notice of Removal with this Court on April 16,
2010. Mr. Moore moved to remand the case back to the San Francisco
Superior Court.

The motion to remand was granted. However, because Metalclad
presented additional arguments based upon new evidence and because
those arguments raised a close question of law, the request for
sanctions was denied.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Kraus
The Court of Appeals of Minnesota upheld the ruling of the St.
Louis County District Court, which granted judgment in favor of
Kraus-Anderson Construction Company in a case styled Kraus-
Anderson Construction Company, Respondent v. Superior Vista LLC,
et al., Defendants, Dale E. Brandt, et al., Appellants.

Judges Shumaker, Larkin, and Bjorkman entered judgment in Case No.
A09-1530 on July 6, 2010.

Superior Vista, LLC purchased and developed property in Duluth,
called Superior Vista Condominiums (the project), that was at the
center of this dispute. On April 21, 2005, Superior Vista entered
into a US$11.5 million construction contract with Kraus-Anderson
Construction Company, for its services as general contractor for
the project.

Kraus-Anderson agreed to provide Superior Vista with a short-term
loan of US$1.3 million to assist in purchasing the project
property. Superior Vista purchased the property on April 29, 2005.

Superior Vista relied on CoPar Finance, Inc. to arrange financing
for the rest of the project. CoPar entered into two loan
agreements with Superior Vista, one of which involved a US$13
million loan (the construction loan) that was secured by a
mortgage and recorded on Oct. 10, 2005. At the time the
construction loan was recorded it was a contingent loan,
conditioned on CoPar finding financing from another source.

Kraus-Anderson began its work on the property on Oct. 17, 2005,
and worked through the fall and winter of 2005-2006 without
payment because the construction loan had not yet been funded.

The City of Duluth required that Superior Vista perform asbestos
abatement on the existing building on the project property prior
to any demolition work. Because Kraus-Anderson typically does not
contract abatement services involving contaminated or hazardous
materials, Superior Vista contracted directly with Veit
Environmental to perform the abatement work.

However, Kraus-Anderson gathered competitive bids on the abatement
for Superior Vista, scheduled Veit, and followed up on Veit's
performance and paperwork. Veit began its asbestos abatement work
on the existing buildings located on the project site on Sept. 19,
2005, and completed the work no later than Oct. 12, 2005.

CoPar eventually obtained funding from North American Banking
Company (NABC) in February 2006, and accordingly assigned the
CoPar mortgage to NABC. On March 16, 2006, CoPar, Superior Vista,
Kraus-Anderson, and NABC signed a subordination Agreement.

On Oct. 18, 2007, Kraus-Anderson filed a mechanic's lien statement
against the project for US$1,526,449.41, which indicated that the
first date of work on the project was Oct. 17, 2005, and the last
date of work was July 13, 2007.

On May 14, 2008, Kraus-Anderson sued NABC, the owners of the
condominiums, and Superior Vista, to determine and foreclose its
mechanic's lien, and for other relief. NABC and the unit owners
brought counterclaims against Kraus-Anderson, asking the court to
enforce the subordination agreement between Kraus-Anderson, NABC,
Superior Vista, and CoPar.

NABC sought a declaratory judgment that NABC's remaining interest
in the project was prior and superior to Kraus-Anderson's
interest, or, in the alternative, a judgment dismissing Kraus-
Anderson's complaint and its prayer for enforcement of the
mechanic's lien.

NABC moved for summary judgment as to the priority of its interest
in the unsold units of the project over Kraus-Anderson's
mechanic's lien, based on either the subordination agreement or
the inability of Kraus-Anderson to relate its mechanic's lien back
to asbestos abatement work performed by Veit because the abatement
work was preparatory. In response, Kraus-Anderson moved for
summary judgment on priority.

A bench trial was then held on Feb. 24-25, 2009, to determine the
validity and amount of Kraus-Anderson's mechanic's lien. The court
ordered judgment in favor of Kraus-Anderson regarding the priority
of the mechanic's lien, with US$240,000 of the lien amount
subordinated to NABC.

NABC moved for amended findings or in the alternative a new trial.
With few exceptions not material to the appeal, the district court
denied the motions. This appeal followed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eckerle's Remand Bid Denied in Case v. Northrop
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, denied
Ronald Eckerle's motion to remand an asbestos lawsuit styled
Ronald Eckerle v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., et al.

District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 10-1460 on June 25, 2010.

Mr. Eckerle filed this class action in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana seeking to recover
medical monitoring costs on behalf of him and a class of similarly
situated persons who were employed by Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc. f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. f/k/a
Avondale Industries, Inc. and some of its former executives

The purported class consists of all persons who were exposed to
respirable asbestos fibers while working at the Avondale Shipyard
Main Yard or Harvey Yard at any time prior to Oct. 1, 1976, such
that periodic medical monitoring is medically advisable.

Mr. Eckerle alleged that the class includes thousands of people.
Northrop Grumman, a citizen of Virginia, removed the action,
alleging that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act

Mr. Eckerle filed a motion to remand arguing that the federal
district court did not have jurisdiction over this action under
CAFA because it is primarily a local controversy.

Frank J. Swarr, Esq., David Ryan Cannella, Esq., Mickey P. Landry,
Esq., Philip C. Hoffman, Esq., of Landry & Swarr, LLC in New
Orleans, represented Ronald Eckerle.

Brian C. Bossier, Esq., Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Esq., Erin
Helen Boyd, Esq., Stacie L. Jirovec, Esq., Edwin A. Ellinghausen,
III, Esq., of Blue Williams, LLP in Metairie, La., represented the

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Rulings in Munson Action
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, issues
various rulings in a case involving asbestos styled James Munson,
Plaintiff v. Donald Hulick, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Gilbert entered judgment in Civil Action No. 10-cv-
52-JPG on July 7, 2010.

James Munson, an inmate at the Menard Correctional Center, brought
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights. He
sought injunctive and monetary relief for alleged violations of
his Eighth Amendment rights.

Mr. Munson alleged that he had been confined in the North I
building at Menard Correctional Center since 2006. He alleged that
the conditions in the North I building--either alone or in
combination--violated the Eighth Amendment's guarantee that no
person shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

In support of his claim, Mr. Munson asserted the following
"laundry list" of conditions in the North I building: (1)
inadequate cell size (40 square feet total in cell; two men to a
cell) and confinement in said cells for about 21 to 22 hours per
day; (2) lack of exercise; (3) inadequate lighting; (4) peeling
paint (possibly containing lead) that sometimes gets into his
food; (5) inadequate ventilation (cell temperatures reaching 115
to 120 degrees); (6) inadequate cleaning supplies for the cells;
(7) inadequate personal hygiene items for prisoners; (8) exposure
to mold; and (9) exposure to possible asbestos fibers.

Mr. Munson was ordered to serve upon defendant or, if appearance
has been entered by counsel, upon that attorney, a copy of every
further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by
this Court.

Defendants were ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the complaint, and shall not waive filing a reply.

This case was referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge for further pre-
trial proceedings.

Mr. Munson's motion for appointment of counsel was denied without

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Defendants' Summary Judgment in Lage
The U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment in a case involving
asbestos styled Jeremy Aron Lage, Plaintiff v. John Thompson, et.
al, Defendants.

District Judge Harold A. Baker entered judgment in Case No. 08-
1293 on July 7, 2010.

Mr. Lage, a state prisoner, filed his complaint and had the
following surviving claim against Bureau County Sheriff John
Thompson: the defendant violated the plaintiff's Fourteenth
Amendment rights based on living conditions at the jail.

Mr. Thompson said he is the Bureau County Sheriff and responsible
for the operation of the Bureau County Jail. He said the Bureau
County Jail does not have fire sprinklers because it was built
before there was a requirement.

The Sheriff said he was not aware of any asbestos in the Bureau
County Jail and there were no asbestos containing products
associated with the furnace or ventilation system. In addition,
the sheriff said any plumbing problems in the jail are repaired
"expeditiously" by a licensed plumbing contractor.

Jeremy Aron Lage, Sumner, Ill., represented himself.

William Joseph Charnock, Esq., of Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen in
Peoria, Ill., represented the Defendants.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Upholds Decision in Gaines Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the March 5,
2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Leon
Gaines' claim for service connection for a lung disability, to
include asbestosis.

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

Judge Lance entered judgment in Case No. 08-1739 on July 7, 2010.

Mr. Gaines served in the U.S. Navy from December 1968 to February
1970. About 25 years later, in November 1995, he received a VA
medical examination. The examiner noted no objective findings of
active lung disease at that time.

Mr. Gaines submitted a statement from Alvin J. Schonfeld, D.O.,
who had reviewed a single chest x-ray for evidence of asbestosis.
Dr. Schonfeld noted that the x-ray showed pleural thickening and
opined that this was seen following asbestos exposure and was
consistent with a diagnosis of pleural asbestosis.

In March 1997, a VA medical examination found no radiological
evidence of asbestosis; the examiner found Mr. Gaines had mild
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), secondary to
longstanding smoking.

In November 1997, Mr. Gaines requested service connection for
asbestosis, claiming that he had been exposed to asbestos on a
ship during active duty. In March 1998, a VA examination noted a
history of asbestos exposure but found that Mr. Gaines' pulmonary
function tests were within normal limits. In August 1998, Mr.
Gaines' claim was denied.

Mr. Gaines filed a Notice of Disagreement, and the Board remanded
the claim twice before denying it in February 2004. He filed a
timely appeal, and in February 2006, the Court remanded the claim
because the Board had failed to provide adequate reasons or bases.

On March 5, 2008, the Board issued the decision here on appeal.
The Board found that Mr. Gaines did not currently suffer from
asbestosis or any other asbestos-related lung disability, and that
Mr. Gaines' current lung disability was not related to his
military service. Accordingly, the Board denied his claim.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dow, UCC Dismissal in Saunders Action
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia,
granted The Dow Chemical Company and Union Carbide Corporation's
motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit styled Dorothy Saunders, the
wife of decedent Tyrone Saunders, deceased, Plaintiff v. Union
Carbide Corporation and Dow Chemical Company, Defendants.

District Judge Robert C. Chambers entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 3:10-0746 on July 8, 2010.

This suit arose out of injuries to and the May 7, 2008, death of
Tyrone Saunders, the deceased husband of Dorothy Saunders. Mr.
Saunders worked for Defendants from June 1977, until May or June
2001. Over this period, he was present during, and otherwise
involved in, three occupational chemical spills, in 1985, 1995 and

Additionally, Mr. Saunders apparently suffered from occupational
exposure to asbestos and other illness-inducing chemicals over the
course of his employment, at a minimum from April 1978 to June
2001. He died on May 7, 2008, and, according to the death
certificate issued on May 13, 2008, his death was caused by
pulmonary sarcoidosis, resulting from "Occupational exposure to

Mrs. Saunders filed a pro se complaint against Union Carbide and
Dow on May 18, 2010.

On June 14, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing
that Mrs. Saunders' personal injury and wrongful death claims were
time-barred. On June 15, 2010, the Court issued a notice to Mrs.
Saunders concerning Defendants' motion. She filed a letter-form
response on June 24, 2010.

On July 7, 2010, Defendants filed their reply. Accordingly, the
motion to dismiss was ripe for determination.

The Court found that Mrs. Saunders knew or by reasonable diligence
should have known of her claims more than two years before filing
suit, on May 18, 2010.

Specifically, the record reflected that Mr. Saunders was treated
for sarcoidosis as early as 1995; that he explicitly claimed work-
related injuries resulting from exposure in 2001, with his date of
last exposure listed as June 29, 2001; and that Mrs. Saunders was
notified that Mr. Saunders' death was the result of occupational
exposure to chemicals, at the latest, on May 13, 2008.

Each of these events occurred more than two years before filing.
Consequently, Mrs. Saunders' claims were time-barred and the
complaint was dismissed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scott Family Awarded Payout for Wrongful Death
Adessi Limited says that Irwin Mitchell, an industrial illness law
firm, has won justice for the family of a man who died after being
exposed to asbestos while working at the Sellafield nuclear plant
near Seascale, England, according to an Adessi press release dated
July 14, 2010.

John Scott was 76 years old when he died of mesothelioma in June
2008. He worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
from 1958 until 1993 as an electrician, charge-hand electrician
and eventually as foreman.

Mr. Scott's nephew, Joseph Cunningham, of Stockport, England
instructed Isobel Lovett from Irwin Mitchell, to pursue a claim
against the company, now known as Sellafield Ltd. She secured a
settlement to the value of GBP57,500.

Ms. Lovett said, "Exposure to asbestos was simply an everyday
occurrence for Mr. Scott -- he was routinely exposed to the deadly
substance as its dust particles hung in the air around him.

"He was particularly exposed whilst working in the AGR and
Calderhall areas of the plant where asbestos lagging was used on
pipe work. Whenever this was disturbed -- or when new asbestos
insulation was applied -- vast amounts of dust would be thrown
into the air.

"His employers failed to provide any respiratory protection that
would have stopped him inhaling the fibers and dust -- when you
consider that it only takes a single asbestos fiber to cause
mesothelioma, you can see the gamble that employers took with the
lives of their workforce.

"Nothing can bring back Mr. Scott but we are pleased to have
achieved justice for a family that was robbed of a loved one whose
only crime was spending his life working hard."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chipperfield Resident's Death Linked to Hazards
A July 13, 2010 inquest heard that the death of Keith Baker, of
Scatterdells Lane, Chipperfield, England, was related to second-
hand exposure to asbestos, the Watford Observer reports.

Mr. Baker died at the age of 57 at the Hospice for St. Francis in
Spring Garden Lane in Berkhamsted, England, on June 3, 2010.

The inquest heard how Mr. Baker had developed a cough in 2009, and
found he was also suffering from shortness of breath. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in September 2009, and following
chemotherapy, his condition deteriorated.

Coroner Edward Thomas said, "Dr Robert Rudd examined Mr. Baker's
medical records and those of his father, Kenneth Baker, who died
in 2004 from industrial disease.

"Mr. Keith Baker told his solicitors that although he was not
exposed to asbestos while working, his father Kenneth Baker was -
he would come home with his overalls covered in asbestos dust.

"More likely than not Keith Baker was exposed to the asbestos dust
when he was living at home with his father. I am recording a
narrative death of malignant mesothelioma as result of exposure to
his father's exposure to asbestos."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Landlord to Cleanup Hazard From Alvaston Flats
Tony Davis, the landlord of several flats in Wilkins Drive,
Alvaston, England, vowed rid the run-down block of flats of
asbestos sheets that are believed to have been dumped there by
fly-tippers, the Derby Telegraph reports.

Mr. Davis said he was "well aware" that sheets of the hazardous
material were inside a store room at Brindley Court and that they
would be cleared this week from the flats in Wilkins Drive. He
added that he would also look into getting rid of asbestos in the
walls and ceiling of the building. He spoke out after residents
told the Telegraph they were alarmed at the presence of the

A mother living at Brindley Court said a hole in the ceiling along
a corridor contained asbestos. She said, "The council came round
to fix a hole in the ceiling but the workman said he could not fix
it as there was asbestos. I'm terrified of letting my children
play around here."

Residents and people living nearby have been calling for action to
improve Brindley Court for years. The freehold of the building was
owned by Waterglen Ltd, based in Southend. It sub-let the flats to
private landlords who charged tenants rent and employed a
maintenance company -- HLM -- to look after the building.

Earlier this year, HLM gave up its responsibility for maintaining
Brindley Court and the private landlords agreed to take over the
contract. Waterglen has since sold the freehold of the building to
another company, which it refuses to name.

Mr. Davis has promised to improve conditions at the run-down
1960s-built block, and remove the asbestos. He said, "It's being
dealt with. I can't perform miracles, it can't happen overnight
but I'm trying my level best to sort it out."

A spokeswoman for Derby City Council said inspectors had been
unable to confirm there was asbestos at Brindley Court. She said,
"Environmental Health officers visited Brindley Court last week
but found no evidence of asbestos in the building. But the
officers couldn't access the storeroom as it was locked."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sabattini, Miller Suits Filed in St. Clair Co.
The asbestos-related lawsuits of Edward Sabbatini and Bernard and
Patricia Miller were filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court,
Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mr. Sabbatini of Minnesota filed the 16th lawsuit, while the
Millers filed the 17th lawsuit.

Jeffrey J. Lowe of The Lowe Law Firm in St. Louis, represents Mr.
Sabbatini. The Cates Law Firm and Cooney and Conway represent the

In his complaint filed June 4, 2010, Mr. Sabbatini claims 94
defendant companies caused his recently deceased wife, Muriel
Louise Sabbatini, to develop lung cancer after she was secondarily
exposed to asbestos fibers through her husband, who worked as a
machinist for Northern Machine Works from 1949 until the 1960s, as
a brakeman for Great Northern Rail Road from the 1950s through the
1960s and as a boiler operator at the Hibbing Public Utilities
Commission from the early 1960s until 1985.

According to the Millers' complaint filed on June 14, 2010, Mr.
Miller developed mesothelioma after his work as a boiler operator,
naval machinist mate and maintenance mechanic at various locations
from 1971 until 1991.

In his five-count complaint, Mr. Sabbatini seeks a judgment of
more than US$275,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems

In their three-count complaint, the Millers seek a judgment in
excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of St. Clair County
Circuit Court, plus costs.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Jury Favors Union Carbide in McCauley Claim
A jury in Louisville, Ky., voted 9-3 in favor of the defense after
a six-day trial against Union Carbide Corporation, the sole
defendant in a case filed by 45-year-old Eddie McCauley that began
with nearly 30 defendants, Law.com reports.

Mr. McCauley was diagnosed in 2008 with pleural mesothelioma. In
2009, he sued on behalf of himself and his two teenage children,
claiming that his father, Jerry McCauley, had brought the fibers
into their home from work on his clothes in the 1960s and 1970s.

The suit initially named Union Carbide, a subsidiary of Dow
Chemical Co., and 26 other corporate defendants as the sources of
the asbestos.

However, by the time the case got to trial in June 2010, the other
defendants had reached a confidential settlement, according to
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith partner R. Scott Masterson, Esq.,
who defended the case with associate Katherine Barrett, Esq., both
of the firm's Atlanta office, and Bruce T. Bishop, Esq., of
Willcox & Savage in Norfolk, Va.

When they were young, said Mr. Masterson, Eddie and his brother
Terry shared a bedroom that also housed the family's washing
machine, so in addition to any exposure he may have picked up by
hugging and playing with his father, he could have been exposed to
asbestos fibers from the laundry.

Mr. McCauley's suit charged that, in addition to the various
asbestos-containing products manufactured by some of the co-
defendants, he had been exposed to a joint compound that contained
Calidria, a type of asbestos that was mined and distributed by
Union Carbide for use in numerous products.

Jerry McCauley also worked on Saturdays hanging drywall with his
brother from the mid-1960s into the 1970s, according to
plaintiffs' pleadings.

During a six-day trial before Jefferson Circuit Court Judge A.C.
McKay Chauvin, the jury was asked to decide whether exposure to
the joint compound was deemed responsible for Mr. McCauley's
cancer and, if so, to what degree. They were also asked to decide
whether Union Carbide, if liable for Mr. McCauley's injuries, had
acted with "indifference to or a reckless disregard for the health
or safety of others."

At about 11 p.m. on June 14, 2010, after what attorneys described
as more than eight hours of deliberations, the jury returned with
a defense verdict.

The case is McCauley v. Bondex et al., No. 09-CI-01313.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hoffman-LaRoche Operator's Action Still Ongoing
An asbestos case involving a former chemical operator at Hoffman-
LaRoche in Nutley, N.J., is ongoing, Asbestos.com reports.

The lawsuit alleges that the former worker passed away as a direct
result of being exposed to asbestos while at work. The estate of
the deceased worker is filing against several manufacturers and
suppliers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

In addition, the lawsuit is alleging that the companies that
mined, processed and sold asbestos and asbestos products were
knowledgeable of the side effects triggered by asbestos exposure,
but failed to enlighten those exposed about the hazards.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Orders Uralita to Pay EUR3.9MM in Damages
A Spanish court ordered Uralita, a Spanish construction materials
firm, to pay EUR3.9 million (US$4.9 million) in compensation to
residents whose health was harmed by exposure to asbestos from one
of its factories, Agence France-Presse reports.

Uralita was ordered to pay damages to 45 people who for decades
lived near its factory in a Barcelona suburb, for "damage to the
lungs, leading in some cases to death," according to the ruling
obtained by AFP last July 14, 2010.

The financial compensation will be shared between residents who
became sick because of their asbestos exposure, and their families
in the case of victims who have died.

It is the first time in Spain that a court orders a company to
compensate local residents, as opposed to employees, for health
problems related to asbestos exposure, according to daily
newspaper El Pais.

The factory, which made cement, used asbestos for years until the
use of asbestos, which has been found to cause cancer was banned
in 2001.

Uralita said it will appeal the Madrid court's decision.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gordon Square Theatre to Get $200T for Cleanup
On July 14, 2010, the Ohio Department of Development said that
US$200,000 from a new fund to clean up and revitalize historic
sites is headed to the Cleveland Public Theater, in Cleveland's
Detroit-Shoreway neighborhood, for asbestos removal, The Plain
Dealer reports.

The theater is part of the historic Gordon Square Arts District,
which has seen a multimillion-dollar redevelopment in recent

The new money should pay for asbestos removal in the ceiling of
Gordon Square Theatre, one of three performance venues that
constitute Cleveland Public Theatre, said general manager Denis


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  * * *