CAR_Public/100723.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 144

                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wash. Woman Sues for Baggage Fee Refunds
AMERICAN EXPRESS: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Grumbling About Insulation Industry Assistance Package
BANK OF AMERICA: Tex. Suit Alleges Systematic Servicing Scheme
BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Hearing on A$300 Mil. Stadium Settlement

DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Directs Dismissal of Cancellation Fee Case
FIRST TRANSIT: Bus Company Charged with Employment Discrimination
FLAG TELECOM: Fairness Hearing on $24.4 Mil. Deal Set for Oct. 29
GEO GROUP: Inks $3 Mil. Settlement in Prisoner Strip Search Case
GUAM: Families Complain About Land Swap Law Implementation

INDIANA: State Accused of Cutting Aid to Food Stamp Users
IOWA TELECOM: Windstream Deal Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 23
ISRAELI BANKS: Supreme Ct. to Near NIS 7 Bil. Class Action Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Class Plaintiffs Want to Tap Insurance Policies
NYMAGIC INC: Accused of Selling Company Too Cheaply to ProSight

PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Claim Against Arthur Andersen
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Green Light for Earl Jones Class Action
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Race Discrimination Class Suit Filed
SPOKEO: Sued in C.D. Calif. for Credit Reporting Law Violations
TAX-MASTERS: Texas Attorney General Brings Additional Litigation

ZIMMER INC: Conn. Man Says Durom Cup Artificial Hip is Defective
ZIMMER INC: Ariz. Woman Says Durom Cup Artificial Hip Defective
ZIMMER INC: Ohio Woman Says Durom Cup Artificial Hip is Defective

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Still Involved in Occupational Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Ind. Records $545Mil Settlement at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Refining Records $400,000 for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Transfers Liabilities to National Indemnity
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Court Junks Brock's Summary Judgment Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Liability Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motions in Martin Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Court Issues Split Ruling in Haden's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Court Awards Payout to Gateshead Ex-Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bennett Case v. 137 Firms Filed July 6 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ogdensburg to Remove Asbestos From Shade Roller
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Several Schools in Pa. Set for Asbestos Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Wemelco Way Facility Costs $833,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cemazar, Posco Cases Filed June 25 in St. Clair
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Sullom Voe Worker Files Suit on Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leigh Worker Dies After Receiving Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Queensbury, N.Y. Site to Cost $125T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Hazard Coming Out of Hazelwood Power Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Basement of Bogota Firehouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Board Ruling in Raby Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Plaintiff's Bid in Meridieth Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Issued Rulings in Cherokee Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Tatera Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monroe School Board OKs $100,000 for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mistrial on McLean County Case Declared July 16

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genesee Local Files Asbestos Action v. Employer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saugus Property Owner Sued for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McLean, Va. Sewer Line w/ Hazard to be Removed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Talks on Remediation Inquiry at BoRit Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BBC Probe Focuses on Canadian Asbestos Industry

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Martha B. Day School to Cost $35,752
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrison Avenue Closed During Asbestos Cleanup

                            *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Wash. Woman Sues for Baggage Fee Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Discepolo at KOMO News reports that Danielle Covarrubias of
Tacoma, Wash., has filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit
against American Airlines for not only losing her luggage -- but
refusing to reimburse her for the baggage fee.

It happened back in May of this year when Danielle made a routine
flight from Seattle to Grand Rapids, Mich.

Danielle's luggage was lost by American Airlines -- and with it
more than $800 worth of clothing and personal items.

When she asked the airline if there was anything she could do,
airline personnel told her nothing. And when she demanded they at
least refund her baggage fee immediately -- she was denied.

According to court documents filed in her lawsuit, American
Airlines damages, loses or delays more than 2,400 pieces of
luggage a day.

Now Danielle is saying "enough is enough."

And she has plenty of moral support among travelers at Sea-Tac
Airport.

"If they lost my luggage I would ask the same exact thing," said
Kaylin Turner of Atlanta while traveling through the area. "How
much money do we spend every day on flights? Air fares are going
up. We spend so much money on flights -- I mean that's
unconscionable."

Others agreed.

"Especially because you do have to pay extra fees now, I think
it's their responsibility -- that they at the very least should
reimburse those fees," said Zac Smith of Tacoma.

"Because they're charging people to take your bags on the plane,
I think they have a responsibility to make sure you get your bags
back," added Rebecca Brown of Seattle.

American Airlines was the first major carrier to implement
baggages fees back in June 2008.

And a majority of the people who talked to KOMO News at Sea-Tac
on Tuesday said they wished all airlines would just include the
cost of the baggage fee with the original ticket price.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado at Bloomberg News reports that American Express
Co. won dismissal of Local No. 30 International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Pension Fund v. American Express, Case No. 09-
cv-03016 (S.D.N.Y.), a proposed class-action shareholder lawsuit
claiming the company misled investors about its underwriting
guidelines and delinquent-cardholder payments.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in New York granted American
Express's request to throw out the 2009 suit. The investors
failed to establish that defendants including Chief Executive
Officer Kenneth I. Chenault and Chief Financial Officer Daniel T.
Henry knew of any fraud or acted with reckless disregard, Pauley
wrote.

"The complaint's allegations, taken collectively, reveal a
company attempting to increase its share of the credit card
market during significant financial turmoil," the judge said,
calling the case "a classic example of fraud by hindsight."

The plaintiffs alleged that American Express officials touted the
New York-based company's credit-risk management and later made
misleading statements about its underwriting guidelines, the
credit quality of its portfolio and the level of loss reserves.

"AMEX pursued its expansionary strategy at the wrong time,"
Pauley said. "That a business plan turned out to be ill-timed
and, in hindsight, ill-advised, does not transmogrify it into a
securities fraud."

"We're delighted with the ruling," said Joanna Lambert, a
spokeswoman for American Express.

Beth Kaswan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs declined to comment.


AUSTRALIA: Grumbling About Insulation Industry Assistance Package
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob McKay at SupplyChainReview.com.au reports that unless a wider
settlement is offered, the Australian Federal Government's Home
Insulation Program fiasco is heading inexorably to the courts,
with transport and logistics companies joining freight forwarders
and insulation firms in class actions to recover costs over the
cancelled project.

Many firms acting in good faith have been left holding insulation
stock that they do not own but are unable to shift, thereby
racking up container demurrage and dwell-time charges or having
productive space left unusable after importers walked away from
their goods.

The moves come despite the announcement in May of an Insulation
Industry Assistance Package (IIAP) that allows eligible
businesses to seek a once off cash payment of 15 percent of the
dollar value of their ceiling insulation stock holding as at
April 30 subject to eligibility.

Hunt & Hunt, which has 10 clients, and Swaab Attorneys,
representing insulation firms, are amongst law firms leading the
charge.

Hunt & Hunt notes that, while the package will assist installers,
manufacturers, distributors and importers of insulation products
with payments of up to $500,000, recent reports suggest that the
financial cap will mean that numerous large scale industries will
still be significantly disadvantaged.

"The Federal Government, in limiting the range of industries that
can access the IIAP, appears to have failed to recognise the
impact that the failure of the Home Insulation Program has had on
the 'legitimate operators' in the supply chain," partner Andrew
Hudson says.

Affected parties such as customs brokers, forwarders and
warehouse owners have been deemed ineligible to apply for the
IIAP.

The position of these parties had already been adversely affected
by the recent announcement by the Federal Government that it was
not going to resume the HIP in June as it had previously
announced.

This further reduced the market value of any insulation they
held.


BANK OF AMERICA: Tex. Suit Alleges Systematic Servicing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Chiu at Housing Predictor reports that a massive class
action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America by the
Texas Housing Justice League, representing 15 mortgage holders
charging the nation's biggest bank with "a systematic home loan
servicing scheme."

The lawsuit by the Texas Housing Justice League (THJL), a
nonprofit may eventually involve thousands of Texas mortgage
holders, who charge they have suffered abuse and financial damage
at the hands of BofA employees handling their mortgages. Only
three of the homeowners have been foreclosed as a result of
problems.


The suit was filed in U.S. federal court in Victoria, Texas a
small community just 30 miles north of the Gulf of Mexico, about
a two hour drive south of Corpus Christi.

The lawsuit alleges that BofA mortgage holders have suffered
hours of telephone run around, misleading and inconsistent
information, lost correspondence, verbal abuse, and extensive
delays in efforts to get home mortgages modified. "The facts in
this case reveal the harsh reality that underlies the loan
servicer's press statements about loan modifications and
forbearance agreements following the collapse of the U.S. housing
market," the suit states.

"This is not an isolated case," said Attorney Molly Ann Rogers,
who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "It is the normal
way the bank handles business."

The plaintiffs' attorneys say Bank of America breached mortgage
contracts, were negligent in representations made to borrowers
and in violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act. Many of the
plaintiffs were told they were eligible for loan modifications or
other work out assistance by the bank, only to spend months being
shuffled through BofA's "Home Retention" department and other
departments only to receive foreclosure notices on their homes.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking financial damages, and
attorneys fees but the suit does not specify an amount being
requested. BofA is expected to issue a response to the lawsuit in
September.

"Instead of providing plaintiffs with basic information about the
servicing of their loans and providing timely screenings for
workout assistance, however, 'Defendant BAC' (BofA's servicing
company) misrepresented material information to the plaintiffs
about their loans, and forced them into a scheme of operation so
dysfunctional that the constant barrage of misinformation,
misdirection, and deliberate inactivity amounted to abuse and
harassment," the suit charges.

Victims of the abuse describe feeling "harassed," "like a yo-yo,"
and "blocked at every turn." When borrowers called BofA the
information they received over the telephone often conflicted
with written statements or earlier phone conversations.

In many of the calls, BofA representatives spun plaintiffs in a
long series of telephone transfers from one department to
another. Plaintiffs spent hundreds of hours on the telephone,
explaining their problems to a different representative each time
they called. Requests to speak with managers were met with
resistance or disconnected phone lines.

Some of the plaintiffs named in the suit sought face-to-face
meetings with Bank of America representatives in branch offices
only to be referred by local bank employees to the same
departments at long distance call centers.

Donna Batts of Austin, Texas, was served with foreclosure papers
on her home after working out a deal with the bank to modify her
mortgage. Batts's 6-year-old son must be administered breathing
treatments by his mother three times a day for asthma and other
health problems, and any move to another location could
jeopardize the youngster's health.

The suit seeks an injunction against BofA loan servicers to
refrain from practices, policies and plans that result in the
banks series of problems to deal with homeowners at risk of
foreclosure. "Misrepresentations that jeopardize a borrower's
home are unconscionable and the damage is irreparable. Defendant
BAC's misrepresentations to borrowers are systemic in nature and
widespread in practice," the suit states.


BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Hearing on A$300 Mil. Stadium Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
AAP reports that a hearing to approve a conditional settlement
for a A$300 million class action relating to Brookfield
Multiplex's construction of Wembley Stadium in the UK was held in
Melbourne, Australia, this week, in the Federal Court before
Justice Ray Finkelstein.

The class action commenced in December 2006 and alleged that
Multiplex breached the continuous disclosure provisions of the
Australian Securities Exchange between August 2004 and May 2005.

The disclosures relate to the construction of Wembley Stadium,
northwest of London, Brookfield Multiplex head of marketing and
communications Kerrie Muskens confirmed on Tuesday.

"Without admission of liability, the Multiplex Group has settled
claims made against it by persons represented by lawyers, Maurice
Blackburn," the legal firm said in a statement.

Wembley Stadium was rebuilt after closing in 2000 but
construction took a year longer than expected.


DIRECTV INC: 11th Cir. Directs Dismissal of Cancellation Fee Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 09-14107 (11th Cir. July 19,
2010), the appellate tribunal says that a class action lawsuit
challenging fees DirecTV charged its subscribers for cancelling
their subscriptions prior to the subscriptions' expiration should
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the
plaintiffs' subscriber agreements contain arbitration and class
action waiver provisions.  A copy of the opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100719068


FIRST TRANSIT: Bus Company Charged with Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Hill at the Oakland Tribune reports that an Oakland,
Calif., woman is the lead plaintiff in a federal class action
lawsuit against the Ohio-based First Transit bus company, one of
several service providers for East Bay Paratransit, claiming the
company's hiring policy barring applicants with felony
convictions is discriminatory against blacks and Latinos and
violates civil rights and fair employment laws.

The complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S District Court in San
Francisco on behalf of 44-year-old Adrienne Hudson, is backed by
the nation's largest transit unions. It asserts that, because
blacks and Latinos have a higher incarceration rate nationally,
employment-selection policies based on criminal background checks
-- such as First Transit's -- have "a disparate impact on
African-American and Latino job applicants and employees."

"First Transit has a blanket ban for anyone who has ever had a
felony conviction," said Kalman Resnick, a Chicago attorney
representing Hudson. "This kind of a ban, which doesn't take into
consideration the length of time since the offense, or whether
the offense is related to the job at hand -- such as vehicular
manslaughter for a job as a bus driver -- but rather bans anyone
who has ever spent a day in jail on a conviction for anything,
not only affects that individual, but has societal implications.
This can continually depress a class of people who could get
better pay and work their way out of poverty."

First Transit, a subsidiary of First Group America in Cincinnati,
contracts to provide bus service in cities around the U.S. and
Canada. Company spokesman Timothy Stokes provided this prepared
statement: "While we cannot comment on litigation we have not
seen, we take very seriously the safety and security of the
passengers we transport each day."

The suit states that Hudson, who is black, was hired at First
Transit's Oakland office in 2009. She trained for three weeks and
was driving a bus for only two days when she was fired after her
background check came through, revealing a 2002 felony conviction
for welfare fraud, which was later reduced to a misdemeanor and
eventually dismissed in 2007.

"She had been upfront about her background during the interview
process, and the HR person told her it would not be a problem,"
Resnick said. "Studies have shown that after seven years with a
clean record, an individual is no more likely to offend than a
person who never was arrested or convicted. A ban like this is
saying, we're not only going to punish you, but keep punishing
you over and over again by denying you the ability to be
gainfully employed in your community."

The suit seeks monetary damages and an elimination of such hiring
practices.

Officials with the Amalgamated Transit Union, the nation's
largest union of mass transit workers, say the policy violates
the 1964 Civil Rights Act which states employers can't base
hiring on a past felony conviction if it would disproportionately
impact minority groups.

In Hudson's case, "This is a person who was convicted many years
ago for an offense that is completely unrelated to driving a
bus," said Oscar Owens, ATU secretary-treasurer. "She did
everything she was asked to do. She served her sentence, she
completed her probation, and her conviction was expunged. Seven
years later, she's got a good-paying job, she's supporting her
family, and you're going to kick her out on the street and bar
her from employment? We can't let employers get away with that
kind of discriminatory behavior."


FLAG TELECOM: Fairness Hearing on $24.4 Mil. Deal Set for Oct. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed $24.4 million
cash Settlement in In re Flag Telecom Holdings, Ltd., Securities
Litigation, Master File NO. 02-cv-3400 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, J.),
on behalf of purchasers of FLAG Telecom Holdings Limited ("FLAG")
common stock from March 6, 2000, through February 13, 2002,
inclusive, who still held some or all of those shares after
February 12, 2002 (the "Class Shares") and on behalf of
purchasers of FLAG common stock pursuant to or traceable to
FLAG's initial public offering (IPO) between February 11, 2000
and May 10, 2000, inclusive, who still held some or all of those
shares after February 12, 2002 (the "IPO Class Shares").

As more fully described in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action
and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys Fees and Settlement
Fairness Hearing (the "Settlement Notice"), $23.8 million of the
proposed Settlement will be allocable to Class Members who
purchased FLAG common stock from February 11, 2000 through
February 13, 2002 and who still held some or all of those shares
on February 13, 2002.  $600,000 of the proposed Settlement is
allocable to Class Members who purchased FLAG IPO Class Shares
between February 11, 2000 and May 10, 2000, inclusive, and still
held some or all of those shares on February 13, 2002.

The lawsuit alleged that Defendants knowingly or recklessly made
materially false and misleading statements and
misrepresentations, which resulted in the artificial inflation of
the price of FLAG common stock during the Class Period and that
plaintiffs and the Class suffered injury in that they purchased
FLAG common stock at these artificially inflated prices and were
damaged if they continued to own those shares on February 13,
2002 when the price of FLAG common stock fell as the market
learned the alleged truth.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that in the IPO Prospectus and
throughout the Class Period, the market for FLAG securities was
misled about the revenue from and nature of FLAG's presales
relating to the FA-1 system and sales, as well as demand for
FLAG's telecommunications bandwidth and the value of FLAG's
assets, all of which Plaintiffs allege misled investors about
FLAG's profitability, asset values, and demand for bandwidth.  
The lawsuit contended that the IPO Prospectus was misleading
because, among other things, some of the $750 million in presales
relating to FA-1 were "at cost," and many were mere financing
facilities rather than true presales, and therefore these
presales were not true indicators of profit or demand.  The
lawsuit also contended that certain Defendants (i) artificially
and fraudulently inflated FLAG's reported revenues and EBITDA
during fiscal years 2000 and 2001 by causing FLAG to enter into
reciprocal "swap" sales with its competitors, which did not need
the capacity, and then immediately booking the revenue while
amortizing the cost over time; (ii) failed to record an
impairment to FLAG's long-lived assets in a timely fashion; and
(iii) made false and misleading statements about demand between
April 24, 2001 and November 6, 2001.  

Defendants contend that the evidence shows that Plaintiffs'
allegations are untrue and without any factual support and that
Defendants made no false, misleading or omissive statements.

The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for October 29, 2010,
at 2:00 p.m. to consider final approval of the proposed
Settlement.  If the Court approves the Settlement, then at or
after the Fairness Hearing, the Court will also consider whether
to approve the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement
proceeds among Class Members, and a request by Lead Counsel for
an award of fees and expenses.

Additional information is available at:

      http://www.flagtelecomsecuritiessettlement.com/

which is hosted by A.B. Data, Ltd., in its capacity as the Claims
Administrator.  

Lead counsel to the Plaintiffs is:

          Brad N. Friedman, Esq.
          George A. Bauer, III, Esq.
          Matthew A. Kupillas, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: 212-594-5300
          E-mail: bfriedman@milberg.com
                  gbauer@milberg.com
                  mkupillas@milberg.com

Individual defendants are represented by:

          Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq.
          Daniel H.R. Laguardia, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: 212-848-4000
          E-mail: jfortinsky@shearman.com
                  Daniel.laguardia@shearman.com

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., is represented by:

          Douglas W. Henkin, Esq.
          C. Neil Gray, Esq.
          MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP
          1 Chase Manhattan Plaza
          New York, NY 10005-1413
          Telephone: 212-530-5000
          E-mail: dhenkin@milbank.com
          cngray@milbank.com


GEO GROUP: Inks $3 Mil. Settlement in Prisoner Strip Search Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Albuquerque Journal reports that lawyers in a class action
lawsuit involving strip searches of pretrial detainees at six
jails, including one in Santa Rosa, N.M., have announced a
proposed settlement with prison operator GEO Group Inc.

A Pennsylvania law firm, Chimicles & Tikellis, negotiated a $2.99
million settlement, excluding legal fees -- up to $400 for all
eligible class members -- after a federal judge refused to
dismiss the case.

The settlement covers GEO-run correctional facilities in Texas,
Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Mexico.

The settlement for the Guadalupe County Correctional Facility in
Santa Rosa covers the period from Jan. 30, 2005, to Jan. 30,
2008.

Class members may be eligible if they entered the GEO-operated
facility after being charged with minor crimes that did not
involve drugs, weapons or violence, if they have no past criminal
history or charges, and did not behave in a way at intake that
would give officers grounds for such a search.

The lawsuit alleging constitutional violations was filed in 2006
against GEO, a Florida corporation, over strip searches allegedly
conducted regardless of whether there was reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to believe the person had weapons or contraband.
The class representatives included a woman in a pretrial
diversion program for a DUI arrest who was taken to a room with
other female weekend inmates and strip-searched in front of the
inmates, and a man who mistakenly failed to appear for a
scheduled court date resulting from a domestic dispute and was
strip-searched.

The settlement does not include individuals who were convicted at
the time that they were admitted to the facility.

The GEO settlement is one of a half-dozen class actions against
county jails in New Mexico based on a blanket policy to strip-
search individuals.

A 2006 class action complaint was filed against Management and
Training Corp., which managed the Santa Fe County jail, on behalf
of an estimated 13,000 inmates. Similar lawsuits were filed
against Cornell Companies, for individuals detained at the Dona
Ana County jail, and the Valencia County jail.

Bob Rothstein, whose Santa Fe-based firm filed five of the strip-
search lawsuits, said thousands of individuals were paid claims
in the settlement of the cases.

He said a memo surfaced after the first one was filed in Santa
Fe. It was from the New Mexico Association of Counties, warning
counties to review their strip-search policies to prevent the
kind of litigation Santa Fe was then facing.

"They didn't," he said.


GUAM: Families Complain About Land Swap Law Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Ancestral Lands
Commission and GovGuam on behalf of the Land Trust beneficiaries
who were left out of Public Law 158, the Tiyan land swap bill.

That law has been the subject of controversy since it was signed
into law last week by Acting Governor Mike Cruz because it only
compensates 72 families who formally owned land in Tiyan and
leaves out the vast majority of families who are members of the
Ancestral Land Trust.

Public Law 158 awards to those 72 families a 582 acre plot in
Finegayan which the lawsuit refers to as the FAA site; and a 395
plot straddling the back road to Andersen, called the Marbo Lot.

The lawsuit states that the new law "is unfair . . . especially
since the FAA Lot and the Marbo Lot constitute a substantial
portion of the total assets held by the Dispossessed Ancestral
Landowners Trust."

A copy of the Complaint in Gange, et al. v. Government of Guam,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00018 (D. Guam), is available at:

     http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/images/pdf/galclawsuit.pdf

In the suit filed in District Court Tuesday, plaintiffs'
attorney:

          Curtis C. Van de Veld, Esq.
          THE VANDEVELD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          Restored Historic Dungca House, 2nd Floor
          123 Hernan Cortes Avenue
          Hagatna, GU 96910
          Telephone: 671-472-4396
          E-mail: curtisguamlawyer@hotmail.com
                  curtis@vandeveldlawguam.com

argues that the new law "is an illegal taking and condemnation of
the FAA and the Marbo Lot from the Class without just
compensation, all in violation of the Organic Act of Guam and
other laws of the United States."

The suit seeks to have Public Law 158 declared unconstitutional,
inorganic, illegal and unenforceable."


INDIANA: State Accused of Cutting Aid to Food Stamp Users
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Wilson at The Associated Press reports that for at least
a decade, potentially thousands of Indiana's neediest adults have
seen some of their state aid payments slashed simply because they
receive food stamps - a practice that advocates and legal experts
say is a clear violation of federal law.

The policy has affected people with developmental disabilities
who need financial help to live independently and who receive
additional assistance to buy groceries. The issue apparently went
unnoticed for years until this month, when the father of a
severely autistic Indianapolis man challenged it in court.

"I've never heard of a state being confused about this before.
The law is unambiguous," said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp
policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in
Washington.

Under the current system, when the federal government raises food
stamp amounts, Indiana officials reduce grocery allowances so a
person's total food benefits do not exceed $200 a month.

But since 1964, federal law has barred states from counting food
stamps as income or using them to reduce any other public
benefits.

"It's clear as could be," said Dennis Frick, an attorney with
Indiana Legal Services' Senior Law Project. "I think they got
caught."

Both the Department of Agriculture, which administers food
stamps, and federal Medicaid officials say they are reviewing the
issue. Gov. Mitch Daniels said "it's worth having a look" at the
practice in light of the lawsuit filed by the autistic man and
his father.

Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for the Indiana Family and Social
Services Administration, said agency attorneys do not believe
federal law was broken when officials balanced food stamp
payments against a state-run supplemental aid program.

Barlow said Indiana has counted food stamps as a "benefit," not
as income, as opponents contend, since at least 2000.

"Receiving a benefit reduces their need," Barlow said. "If your
need has been reduced, then you should reduce the supplemental
program."

The state's philosophy is to use federal dollars first so that
the state can stretch its own money, Barlow said.

"We stand behind our practice because we have a finite set of
resources, and we have to make sure those resources are going to
the most needy," he said.

But legal experts say courts have consistently upheld the law
that says other assistance cannot be reduced because someone is
receiving food stamps.

Welfare officials in other states said they were surprised
Indiana would even try to count food stamps against other
benefits.

"Frankly, we're shocked that anyone does," said Brad Deen, a
spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services.

Indiana's practice may have gone unnoticed by federal officials
because the state's policy did not directly affect food stamp
payments.

"When the law is misapplied, it usually is inside the food stamp
program, not outside," said Ellen Vollinger, legal director for
the Food Research and Action Center in Washington.

The practice is just the latest indictment of how Indiana handles
services for its most vulnerable residents.

The federal government levied a $1.2 million penalty last month
against the state's social service agency for miscalculating food
stamp benefits.

The state also drew criticism from the Department of Agriculture
in recent years for not processing food stamps in a timely manner
as part of a project to privatize some welfare payment
processing. That plan caused countless complaints that ultimately
led the state in October to scrap a $1.3 billion contract with
IBM in favor of a public-private hybrid system.

In another troubled project, the state tried to reduce payments
made to foster parents by shifting many special-needs children
into lower-paying categories - a move that outraged advocates.
In the most recent case, the American Civil Liberties Union filed
a lawsuit on behalf of Michael Dick, 26, who cannot speak and
functions at the level of a 6-year-old.

Dick is enrolled in state programs that provide money to help the
developmentally disabled live on their own, including buying
groceries.

"You can't use food stamps when you're calculating an entitlement
program, but this is a state-run supplemental program," Barlow
said.

Michael Dick's father, Steven, said it's time for the state to
follow the federal rules.

Steven Dick, an attorney, said his son's only income is a monthly
$674 Social Security disability check. Michael lives in a small
rented home with another disabled man and pays $350 a month in
rent, not including utilities.

He said his son requires a 24-hour caretaker to help him bathe,
dress or go anywhere.

"He's a happy child, but he functions as though he's a child," he
said.

When his food stamp benefits were raised to as much as $99 a
month, Michael Dick's grocery allowance was reduced from $139 to
as low as $101.

Steven Dick said he and his son appealed the decision and lost,
then decided to sue. The lawsuit was filed July 9 in Marion
County Superior Court.

The $200 cap set by the state is arbitrary and has not been
adjusted in at least six years, the lawsuit said.

"And $200 a month a decade ago bought a hell of a lot more
groceries than it does today," Steven Dick said.

The number of people affected by the policy is not clear.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status for people enrolled in
Indiana's Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program and
estimates thousands of people could be affected. The website of
the state's social services agency says about 6,700 people were
enrolled in that program as of May.

But Barlow said only about 440 people in that program receive the
additional assistance involved, and not all of those get a food
allowance.

Regardless of the number, Dick said, the state policy hurts those
who often lack recourse.

"The problem this class of people face is they're in a position
of either take it or do without as far as the state is concerned,
and 90 percent of them don't have the wherewithal to fight the
system," Steven Dick said. "They have no way of fighting for what
should be a right for them."


IOWA TELECOM: Windstream Deal Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF SHARES OF COMMON
    STOCK OF IOWA TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC. AT ANY
    TIME DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON AND INCLUDING THE
    CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON NOVEMBER 23, 2009 THROUGH AND
    INCLUDING JUNE 1, 2010 (THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE
    MERGER), INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
    SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST, PREDECESSORS, REPRESENTATIVES,
    TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, HEIRS, ASSIGNS OR
    TRANSFEREES, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE, AND ANY PERSON OR
    ENTITY ACTING FOR OR ON BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER ANY
    OF THEM, AND EACH OF THEM, AND EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS AND
    ANY PERSON, FIRM, TRUST, CORPORATION, OR OTHER ENTITY
    RELATED TO OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY OF THEM OR THEIR
    SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST.

IF YOU WERE A COMMON STOCKHOLDER OF IOWA TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES, INC. ("IOWA TELECOM" OR THE "COMPANY") ON ANY DAY
BETWEEN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS AT THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
ON NOVEMBER 23, 2009, AND JUNE 1, 2010, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER OF IOWA TELECOM WITH WINDSTREAM
CORP. ("WINDSTREAM") (THE "MERGER"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING
THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS OR ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND FROM PURSUING THE SETTLED CLAIMS.

IF YOU HELD SHARES OF IOWA TELECOM COMMON STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT
OF OTHERS, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS DOCUMENT TO SUCH
BENEFICIAL OWNERS.

The District Court in Jasper County, Iowa, authorized this Notice
in Smigel v. Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. LACV116111.  This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE

     -- This notice is intended to inform you of a proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action (the
"Class Action") and to inform you of a hearing to be held before
the Iowa District Court for Jasper County on September 23, 2010
at 9:30 a.m.  The Purpose of the hearing is to determine a)
whether the Court should certify the Class Action as a class
action, without opt-out rights, pursuant to Iowa Rules of
Civil Procedure 1.262, 1.263(1)(b), 1.263(1)(c), and 1.263(1)(d),
b) whether the court should approve the Proposed Settlement of
the Class Action, c) whether the Court should enter final
judgment dismissing the class claims asserted in the Class Action
on the merits and with prejudice as against the named plaintiff
and the Class;

     -- The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of Iowa
Telecom in connection with the merger between Iowa Telecom and
Windstream. Iowa Telecom, Alan L. Wells, Kenneth R. Cole,
Norman C. Frost, Brian G. Hart, H. Lynn Horak, Craig A. Lang,
Kendrick E. Packer and Windstream are the Defendants.

     -- The settlement provided for the disclosure of additional
information by Iowa Telecom regarding the Merger in the Revised
S-4 that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on or about February 18, 2010. Plaintiffs believe
disclosure of such information was necessary in order for Iowa
Telecom shareholders to make an informed vote on the proposed
merger. Defendants agree that the prosecution of the litigation
and parallel litigation in federal court were substantial
contributing factors in the decision to allow Plaintiffs' Counsel
the opportunity to review and comment upon the Revised S-4 in
draft form and agree that the comments of Plaintiffs' Counsel
were incorporated in substantial part in the Revised S-4. The
Settlement also provides for payment of Plaintiffs' Counsel's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Additional information is available at:

     http://www.windstream.com/iowa/notice/

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard J. Sapp, Esq.
          Thomas H. Walton, Esq.
          NYEMASTER, GOODE, WEST, HANSELL & O'BRIEN, P.C.
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          
               - and -  

          Mark McCormick, Esq.
          Michael R. Reck, Esq.
          William B. Ortman, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Knowles, Esq.
          BELIN McCORMICK, P.C.
          666 Walnut Street, Suite 2000
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3989

The Notice Administrator is:

          Kurtzman Carson Consultants
          Attn: Joe McDavitt
          250 Royall Street
          Canton, MA 02021


ISRAELI BANKS: Supreme Ct. to Near NIS 7 Bil. Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Globes reports that the Israeli Supreme Court will hear a NIS 7
billion class action suits filed against Israel's five largest
banks for allegedly illegally coordinating interest rates. An
expanded panel of judges will hear the case.

The Supreme Court accepted an appeal filed by Bank Hapoalim
(TASE: POLI), Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and Israel Discount Bank
(TASE: DSCT) against a district court decision to allow a class-
action suit against the banks for alleged restraint of trade in
the matter of interest rates.

Six weeks ago, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein filed a brief,
which said that the district court decision could not stand,
because identical interest rates were insufficient for proving,
even ostensibly, the presence of restraint of trade. Two weeks
ago, Supreme Court Judge Asher Grunis set a June 27 date for a
hearing before three judges.

The Supreme Court this week decided that an expanded panel of
judges will hear the case. Supreme Court President Judge Dorit
Beinisch will decide the panel, an indication of the importance
that the court attaches to the case.

Three class action suits were filed against the banks. The third
suit was filed in April 2009, a day after Antitrust Authority
ruled that the banks were coordinating interest rates in
restraint of trade.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Class Plaintiffs Want to Tap Insurance Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News columnist Bill Rochelle reports that plaintiffs in
a class-action lawsuit against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. want
the bankruptcy judge to modify the so-called automatic stay so
they can continue a suit aimed at collecting damages from a $100
million insurance policy that Lehman had for the years 1999 to
2002.

The suit, Fogarazzo v. Lehman Brothers, alleges that Lehman and
other investment banks shaded research reports to garner
investment banking business. The defendants in an enforcement
action by the Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to pay
$1.4 billion. Lehman's share was $80 million, the plaintiffs
said.

Later, the suit against Lehman was certified as a class action.

The hearing on the motion for permission to sue the insurance
company is scheduled for Aug. 18.

Lehman filed a revised Chapter 11 plan in April.

The Lehman holding company filed under Chapter 11 in New York on
Sept. 15, 2008, and sold office buildings and its North American
investment banking business to London-based Barclays Plc one week
later. The Lehman brokerage operations went into liquidation on
Sept. 19, 2008, in the same court. The brokerage is in the
control of a trustee appointed under the Securities Investor
Protection Act.

The Lehman holding company Chapter 11 case is In re Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc., 08-13555, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern
District New York (Manhattan). The liquidation proceeding under
the Securities Investor Protection Act for the brokerage
operation is Securities Investors Protection Corp. v. Lehman
Brothers Inc., 08-01420, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District
New York (Manhattan).


NYMAGIC INC: Accused of Selling Company Too Cheaply to ProSight
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross and Harriet S. Gross, individually and others
similarly situated v. Nymagic, Inc., et al., Case No. 650979/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 16, 2010), accuses the Board
of Directors of NYMAGIC of breaching its fiduciary duties arising
out of the proposed acquisition of NYMAGIC by ProSight Specialty
Insurance Holdings, Inc., a specialty property and casualty
insurance, in an all-cash transaction value at roughly
$230 million.  Plaintiffs state that NYMAGIC shareholders owning
roughly 40% of the Company's fully diluted common shares have
executed Voting Agreements pursuant to which they have agreed to
vote in favor of the proposed transaction.  

The action seeks to prevent the close of the proposed
transaction, which is set to close by the fourth quarter of 2010.  

Plaintiffs Bernard Gross and Harriet Gross are owners of NYMAGIC
common stock.  Nymagic, Inc. is a holding company, which through
its subsidiaries, owns and operates insurance companies, risk
bearing entities and insurance underwriters and managers.

On Thursday, July 15, 2010, NYMAGIC announced that it had agreed
to be acquired by ProSight, pursuant to which NYMAGIC
stockholders will receive cash of $25.75 per common share in cash
upon completion of the merger.  

The Plaintiffs relate that the individual defendants, in agreeing
to the proposed transaction, placed their own interests above the
interests of the Company and its shareholders, given that the
value of NYMAGIC's stock far exceeds the consideration offered by
defendants (when considered in light of the Company's present and
future growth and profitability objectives).

NYMAGIC and ProSight are included in this action for aiding and
abetting the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.
Plaintiffs relate that as a result of the NYMAGIC'S and
ProSight's substantial assistance, the Company's shareholders
have been prevented from obtaining maximum benefit for their
shares and will not be able to cast an informed vote on the
proposed transaction.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Carolina C. Torres, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Claim Against Arthur Andersen
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hildes, individually and as Trustee for the David and
Kathleen Hildes 1999 Charitable Remainder Unitrust dated June 25,
1999, sued Arthur Andersen; Thomas Watrous, Sr.; Douglas S.
Powanda; and John Doe as Executor of the Estate of David A.
Farley, Case No. Case No. 08-cv-0008-BEN (S.D. Calif.), after
opting out of a securities class action lawsuit against Peregrine
Systems, Inc.  Arthur Andersen moved to dismiss three claims
against it buried in that lawsuit, and the trial court agreed.  
The District Court also granted the Plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint against the outside directors and directs the
plaintiff to do so by August 9, 2010.  A copy of the July 19
ruling is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100719915


ROYAL BANK OF CANADA: Green Light for Earl Jones Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Leavitt at the West Island Chronicle reports that when
Ginny Nelles' father died, Earl Jones decided to attend the
funeral of his old Canada Trust boss. After all, he was the
godfather to his boss's son and a longtime family friend. He took
the opportunity to approach Ginny, her brother and her mum, to
give his condolences and to offer his financial expertise. The
Nelles' welcomed his advice with open arms.

Fast forward to 2009, and the Nelles had lost more than a million
dollars. Ginny sat in a courtroom shocked that the judge had
sentenced Jones to only 11 years in prison after cheating victims
out of $50 million over three decades. Being in court again on
July 14, just over a year after Jones was sentenced, was nerve
wracking but when the judge granted a $40 million class-action
lawsuit to the victims of Earl Jones against the Royal Bank of
Canada (RBC), Nelles was ecstatic.

"Being in court on Wednesday when the judge granted us the motion
for authorization in the class action, it really felt like a
victory," she said. "It was uplifting and empowering."
Jones used an account he held with RBC to transfer large amounts
of money without any questions asked from the bank. He dealt with
his money out of a Beaconsfield branch of RBC. The class-action
suit against the bank asks for $40 million in compensation to the
victims due to negligence.

RBC did not object to the motion from victims to authorize a
lawsuit. Manager of communications at RBC, Claude Lussier, stated
the bank was confident in its defence.

"We have a robust defence that we will be presenting during the
proceedings," he said.

Joey Davis, a member of the Earl Jones Organizing Committee whose
mother lost over $200,000 to Jones, was surprised by RBC's lack
of opposition.

"I would have thought that the bank would have opposed (the
lawsuit) at every step but they didn't and I take that as a good
sign," he said, disagreeing that the bank has a good defence. "We
have evidence in our case of a series of cheques that were
deposited in the account that were hundreds of thousands of
dollars that were forged signatures and doubly endorsed. So when
that comes up as evidence, we'll see what the bank says."


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Race Discrimination Class Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Moore at Southern California Public Radio station 89.3 KPCC
reports that a group of African-Americans has filed a class
action lawsuit against Southern California Edison. It accuses the
company of routine racial discrimination since the 1970s.

Ten named plaintiffs spoke to reporters on the steps of the L.A.
County Courthouse this morning after they filed the suit. Some
have worked at Edison for more than 30 years; they say the
company has consistently passed them over for promotions.

Charles Mathews is one of the group's attorneys.  He maintains
that Edison has also failed to honor two consent decrees the
company entered into with a federal district court after class
action discrimination lawsuits in 1974 and 1994.

"The promises that are in the consent decree calling on Edison to
make good faith efforts to increase the employee population and
improve the opportunities for African-Americans to be promoted,
to achieve higher status and goals . . . not only have they not
been met, but they have in fact have been reduced substantially.
They have a culture of discrimination against African-Americans
at Edison that's reprehensible."

Mathews says the number of African-American employees has
diminished by almost 40 percent since Edison last faced this kind
of lawsuit 16 years ago.

Plaintiffs in the suit include present Edison employees and
African-Americans who applied and were denied jobs.

An Edison representative said that company policy prevents it
from commenting on pending litigation.


SPOKEO: Sued in C.D. Calif. for Credit Reporting Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed this week takes Spokeo.com to task
for allegedly publishing false and misleading personal
information about millions of people without appropriate notice
or consent.
The lawsuit alleges that Spokeo aggregates data from many online
and offline sources -- some known and many unknown -- and
publishes the data online, in violation of the federal Fair
Credit and Reporting Act. Spokeo allows Internet users to search
for anyone by name, email address, or phone number. According to
the complaint, Spokeo provides searchers with in-depth consumer
reports, including that person's address, marital status, age,
occupation, wealth level, and a credit/economic health estimate.

The suit further alleges that Spokeo makes much of this
information available for free, but reserves the most detailed
and personal information for paid subscribers.

While Spokeo markets itself as a people-based search engine, the
suit alleges that Spokeo is really a Web 2.0-style consumer
reporting agency, subject to the same rules and regulations as
traditional consumer reporting agencies. The suit further alleges
that Spokeo has marketed its paid subscriptions to employers, law
enforcement agencies, and persons performing background checks.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in the Central
District of California, is brought by Tom Robins of the greater
Washington, D.C. area. According to the suit, Spokeo publishes
largely inaccurate and false information about him and has
marketed this information to employers at a time when he is
seeking employment.

"Congress has created very specific laws governing the conduct of
consumer reporting agencies," explained Michael Aschenbrener of
Edelson McGuire LLC, the lead attorney for the class action. "In
a time when more and more personal information about individuals
is being shared online, it's more important now than ever to make
sure that information is accurate and disclosed in accordance
with the law."

The class action seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for
violating the FCRA.

Aschenbrener is joined on the lawsuit Benjamin Richman of Edelson
McGuire LLC.

Edelson McGuire LLC is a leading class action firm that focuses
on Internet, technology, privacy, banking, and consumer issues
with attorneys in Illinois, New York, California,


TAX-MASTERS: Texas Attorney General Brings Additional Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tolson at the Houston Chronicle reports that if taxes are
one of the two universal certainties, Houston accountant Patrick
Cox figured that creating a business to help people who had not
paid them would be pretty much a sure thing.

A steady stream of TV advertising combined with a nationwide
economic downturn translated into explosive growth for his
company, TaxMasters, which saw revenues grow from $6.5 million in
2007, its first year, to more than $36 million last year.

Cox publicly credits the success to a gaggle of happy customers,
claiming a 97 percent satisfaction rate. However, others allege
different reasons, including dubious sales tactics, deceptive
ads, excessive fees, unwillingness to pay refunds and not
spending money on resources to do the work promised.

Angry denunciations of TaxMasters are found across the Internet
on consumer sites and complaint boards. The Better Business
Bureau of Houston has given the company an "F" rating because of
the number of complaints lodged against it. At least one
competitor has seized on the extent of dissatisfaction to include
TaxMasters in a "Ripoff Report" page on its website.

                        AG files lawsuit

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is leading the charge against
TaxMasters with a lawsuit filed in May that was spawned by
hundreds of complaints and substantiated by an extensive internal
investigation.

His lawsuit calls for a permanent injunction to stop some of the
company's business practices and claims the company has
repeatedly violated the Texas Debt Collection Act and the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The suit also asks for financial
penalties and restitution of funds to certain complaining
clients.

Adding to TaxMasters' woes is a class-action lawsuit filed on
behalf of former clients earlier this month in Pennsylvania that
echoes many of the complaints of the AG's suit, while also
alleging violations of federal and Pennsylvania laws. It is
unclear how many have signed on to the lawsuit, and the attorneys
who filed it could not be reached for comment.

Both the class-action suit and AG action include allegations from
TaxMasters customers that the company would do no work on any IRS
issue until it was paid in full, even if that meant crucial IRS
deadlines were passed, and that their attempt to cancel the
agreements not only failed to net a refund, but also demands from
TaxMasters to be paid in full, even if it did no work and did not
have a signed contract.

Karen Sanchez, a 65-year-old resident of suburban Atlanta, swore
in an affidavit that she paid TaxMasters $4,083 of an agreed
$6,250 in 2009 but that it did nothing on her behalf to settle an
IRS debt. She claims TaxMasters employees told her the company
would take steps to protect her home, then learned from the IRS
that nothing had been done and that her right to appeal had
expired.

When she finally reached a TaxMasters supervisor, Sanchez claims
she was told nothing would be done for her until the company
received her final installment in April. Until then, Sanchez
alleges, she was told that she'd have to handle the matter
herself. Sanchez claims she was never told upfront that no
actions would be taken to help her until the fee was paid in
total or that the fee would not be refunded even if TaxMasters
ended up doing no work.

Neither Cox nor his attorney returned calls for comment. However,
the company issued a statement through its public relations firm.
"While faced with these charges raised by the attorney general of
Texas, TaxMasters and CEO Patrick Cox are working diligently with
the attorney general's office to provide all information
necessary to negate any wrongful charges and continue serving its
clients as the nation's largest tax representation company," the
company said.

Cox earlier addressed the issue of complaints on the TaxMasters
website, blaming them on jealous competitors.

"There's no two ways about it," Cox said. "We are incredibly
successful at what we do, and that puts a rather large target on
our back. While we do charge for the services we are hired to
perform, let me categorically state that TaxMasters is not a
scam. We are not a fraud. We do not cheat people. We never help
anyone cheat the IRS."

                    Lawsuit filed against rival

Cox also has tried a counterattack of sorts. TaxMasters filed a
lawsuit in April against one of its main rivals, JG Tax Group,
claiming its use of the BBB rating in its "Ripoff Report" was
"false, misleading and constitutes defamation." TaxMasters' suit
does not specify precisely how the statements were erroneous.
Since the filing, JG Tax Group has added a report about the Texas
AG lawsuit to its page about TaxMasters. That company's owner,
Jeffrey Galante, did not return a call for comment.


ZIMMER INC: Conn. Man Says Durom Cup Artificial Hip is Defective
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq. -- wfleishman@lchb.com or 212.355.9500
-- a partner in the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that William Kokoszka filed a
personal injury lawsuit against Zimmer Inc., the nation's largest
producer of orthopedic devices.  Following his 2006 hip
replacement, Kokoszka suffered constant and devastating pain for
over 18 months before having to undergo a second hip replacement
surgery due to an allegedly defective hip implant manufactured
and sold by Zimmer under the brand name Durom Cup.

The Durom Cup was first sold in the U.S. in 2006, and was
implanted in more than 12,000 patients over a two-year period.  
The complaint estimates that the failure rate of the Durom Cup so
far is between 20% and 30%.  The true failure rate will
ultimately be much higher as the device gradually fails over
time, and doctors and their patients come to realize that their
implants are failing.

"The quality of life physically and mentally, today and in the
future, for myself and my family has been permanently damaged by
the defective Zimmer Durom Cup I received in 2006," stated
William Kokoszka of Meriden, Connecticut.  "Zimmer should be
accountable for its negligence and disregard for the safety of
patients implanted with the Zimmer Durom Cup."

In July 2008, two years after Kokoszka received his Durom Cup,
Zimmer issued a "temporary suspension" of sales of the Durom Cup
device because of the unacceptable failure rate.  "Rather than
functioning in the intended manner, the Durom Cup implant resists
bone growth and becomes loose or pops free from the hip," stated
attorney Fleishman.  "As a result, a large number of Zimmer hip
patients have experienced severe pain and have been forced, as
was Mr. Kokoszka, to undergo a painful and invasive revision
surgery to remove the failed Durom Cup and replace it with a
device that works."

            Allegations Concerning the Zimmer Durom Cup

A "metal-on-metal" implant, such as the Durom Cup, is not
cemented or screwed in place during implantation.  Instead, it is
designed to bond naturally to the patient's hip bone.
After the product was introduced in the United States, Zimmer
began receiving complaints from physicians that its Durom Cup was
failing. "Despite warnings from leading orthopedic surgeons,
Zimmer continued to aggressively market the Durom Cup in 2007 and
into 2008, blaming surgeons for the growing failure rate,"
explained Fleishman.

In July 2008, Zimmer announced that it was temporarily suspending
sales of the Durom Cup in the United States.  In its
announcement, Zimmer stated that the suspension was necessary
"while the Company updated labeling to provide more detailed
surgical technique instructions to surgeons and implements its
surgical training program in the U.S."

Zimmer denies any "evidence of a defect" with the Durom Cup and
has thus far refused to issue a recall notice in accordance with
procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration.
The lawsuit, entitled Kokoszka v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and
Zimmer, Inc., was filed Wednesday in federal court in Hartford,
Connecticut.

Legal Resources for Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Patients
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represents persons across
America injured by defective medical devices, including the
Zimmer Durom Cup.  For the last seven years, The National Law
Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the the top
plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit:

     http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/zimmer-durom-hip-recall.htm

or call us toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to
attorney Heather Foster. There is no charge or obligation for our
review of your case.


ZIMMER INC: Ariz. Woman Says Durom Cup Artificial Hip Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kent L. Klaudt, Esq. -- kklaudt@lchb.com 415.956.1000 -- a
partner in the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Renee Donnelly filed a
personal injury lawsuit against Zimmer Inc., the nation's largest
producer of orthopedic devices.  Following her 2008 hip
replacement, Donnelly suffered excruciating pain that hindered
her ability to perform basic physical motions for almost two
years before having to undergo a second hip replacement surgery
in February 2010, due to an allegedly defective hip implant
manufactured and sold by Zimmer under the brand name Durom Cup.

The Durom Cup was first sold in the U.S. in 2006, and was
implanted in more than 12,000 patients over a two-year period.
The complaint estimates that the failure rate of the Durom Cup so
far is between 20% and 30%. The true failure rate will ultimately
be much higher as the device gradually fails over time, and
doctors and their patients come to realize that their implants
are failing.

"At my age, I wanted to continue my active lifestyle, including
spending time with my family, working with my charities,
traveling with my husband, and being able to perform basic daily
activities," stated Renee Donnelly, age 74, of Paradise Valley,
Arizona. "However, once I was implanted with the defective Durom
Cup, my life became very limited."    

In July 2008, four months after Donnelly received her Durom Cup,
Zimmer issued a "temporary suspension" of sales of the Durom Cup
device because of the unacceptable failure rate.  "Rather than
functioning in the intended manner, the Durom Cup implant resists
bone growth and becomes loose or pops free from the hip," stated
attorney Klaudt.  "As a result, a large number of Zimmer hip
patients have experienced severe pain and have been forced, as
was Mrs. Donnelly, to undergo a painful and invasive revision
surgery to remove the failed Durom Cup and replace it with a
device that works."

           Allegations Concerning the Zimmer Durom Cup

A "metal-on-metal" implant, such as the Durom Cup, is not
cemented or screwed in place during implantation. Instead, it is
designed to bond naturally to the patient's hip bone.

After the product was introduced in the United States, Zimmer
began receiving complaints from physicians that its Durom Cup was
failing. "Despite warnings from leading orthopedic surgeons,
Zimmer continued to aggressively market the Durom Cup in 2007 and
into 2008, blaming surgeons for the growing failure rate,"
explained Klaudt.

In July 2008, Zimmer announced that it was temporarily suspending
sales of the Durom Cup in the United States.  In its
announcement, Zimmer stated that the suspension was necessary
"while the Company updated labeling to provide more detailed
surgical technique instructions to surgeons and implements its
surgical training program in the U.S."

Zimmer denies any "evidence of a defect" with the Durom Cup and
has thus far refused to issue a recall notice in accordance with
procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration.
The lawsuit, entitled Donnelly v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and
Zimmer, Inc., was filed Wednesday in federal court in Phoenix,
Arizona.

   Legal Resources for Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Patients

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represents persons across
America injured by defective medical devices, including the
Zimmer Durom Cup.  For the last seven years, The National Law
Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the the top
plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit:

     http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/zimmer-durom-hip-recall.htm

or call us toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to
attorney Heather Foster. There is no charge or obligation for our
review of your case.


ZIMMER INC: Ohio Woman Says Durom Cup Artificial Hip is Defective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq. -- wfleishman@lchb.com or 212.355.9500
-- a partner in the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced that Karen Hoggarth filed a
personal injury lawsuit against Zimmer Inc., the nation's largest
producer of orthopedic devices.

Hoggarth has suffered from devastating pain following her 2008
hip replacement surgery and will have to undergo a second
revision surgery due to an allegedly defective hip implant
manufactured and sold by Zimmer under the brand name Durom Cup.

The Durom Cup was first sold in the U.S. in 2006, and was
implanted in more than 12,000 patients over a two-year period.
The complaint estimates that the failure rate of the Durom Cup so
far is between 20% and 30%. The true failure rate will ultimately
be much higher as the device gradually fails over time, and
doctors and their patients come to realize that their implants
are failing.

"I used to lead a very fulfilling and active lifestyle, traveling
abroad, exercising regularly, volunteering, and working in my
garden.  Now, my life is so limited due to the pain that the
defective Durom Cup implant has caused me," stated Karen
Hoggarth, age 54, of  Westerville, Ohio. "I can't even walk up
the stairs without pain."

In July 2008, four months after Hoggarth received her Durom Cup,
Zimmer issued a "temporary suspension" of sales of the Durom Cup
device because of the unacceptable failure rate.  "Rather than
functioning in the intended manner, the Durom Cup implant resists
bone growth and becomes loose or pops free from the hip," stated
attorney Fleishman.  "As a result, a large number of Zimmer hip
patients have experienced severe pain and have been forced, as
will Ms. Hoggarth in the near future, to undergo a painful and
invasive revision surgery to remove the failed Durom Cup and
replace it with a device that works."

           Allegations Concerning the Zimmer Durom Cup

A "metal-on-metal" implant, such as the Durom Cup, is not
cemented or screwed in place during implantation. Instead, it is
designed to bond naturally to the patient's hip bone.

After the product was introduced in the United States, Zimmer
began receiving complaints from physicians that its Durom Cup was
failing. "Despite warnings from leading orthopedic surgeons,
Zimmer continued to aggressively market the Durom Cup in 2007 and
into 2008, blaming surgeons for the growing failure rate,"
explained Fleishman.

In July 2008, Zimmer announced that it was temporarily suspending
sales of the Durom Cup in the United States. In its announcement,
Zimmer stated that the suspension was necessary "while the
Company updated labeling to provide more detailed surgical
technique instructions to surgeons and implements its surgical
training program in the U.S."

Zimmer denies any "evidence of a defect" with the Durom Cup and
has thus far refused to issue a recall notice in accordance with
procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration.
The lawsuit, entitled Karen Hoggarth v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. and
Zimmer, Inc., was filed Wednesday in federal court in Columbus,
Ohio.

    Legal Resources for Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implant Patients

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP represents persons across
America injured by defective medical devices, including the
Zimmer Durom Cup.  For the last seven years, The National Law
Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs'
law firms in the nation.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/or call us  
toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney Heather
Foster. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your
case.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Still Involved in Occupational Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation continues to be involved in occupational claims
that arise from allegations of exposure to certain materials in
the workplace, such as asbestos, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 15 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

During second quarter 2009, the Company reduced its asbestos
reserves by US$18 million. This reserve reduction is related to
about 1,500 claims that were deemed to have no medical merit and,
therefore, have been determined to have no value.

Asbestos reserves were not adjusted during 2010 as a result of
the semi-annual review by the independent third party.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corporation provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service and
the transport of intermodal containers and trailers. Unit CSX
Transportation, Inc. provides a link to the transportation supply
chain through about 21,000 route mile rail network, which serves
population centers in 23 states east of the Mississippi River,
the District of Columbia and the Canadian provinces of Ontario
and Quebec.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Ind. Records $545Mil Settlement at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s current asbestos settlement amounted to
US$545 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$514 million
as of June 30, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
July 15, 2010.

The Company's asbestos settlement (under current liabilities) was
US$544 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010,
compared with US$484 million as of March 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, April 23, 2010)

Net asbestos settlement was US$3 million during the three months
ended June 30, 2010, the same as for the three months ended June
30, 2009.

Pittsburgh-based PPG Industries, Inc. produces coatings and
specialty products. The company serves customers in industrial,
transportation, consumer products, and construction markets and
aftermarkets. The Company operates in more than 60 countries
around the globe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Refining Records $400,000 for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Refining Company, during the nine months ended May 31,
2010, recorded US$400,000 for asbestos abatement, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on July 15, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Warren, Pa-based United Refining Company is a petroleum refiner
and marketer in its primary market area of Western New York and
Northwestern Pennsylvania. Operations are organized into two
business segments: wholesale and retail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Transfers Liabilities to National Indemnity
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation announced on July 15, 2010 that its
subsidiary, Continental Casualty Company, has agreed with
National Indemnity Company (NICO), under which the CNA companies'
legacy asbestos and environmental pollution liabilities will be
transferred to NICO, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed on July 16, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

NICO is a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary.

Under the terms of the transaction, effective Jan. 1, 2010 the
CNA companies will cede about US$1.6 billion of net asbestos and
environmental pollution liabilities to NICO under a retroactive
reinsurance agreement with an aggregate limit of US$4 billion.
The aggregate reinsurance limit will also cover credit risk on
existing third party reinsurance related to these liabilities.

The CNA companies will pay to NICO a reinsurance premium of US$2
billion and also transfer to NICO the right to collect billed
third party reinsurance receivables with a net book value of
about US$200 million.

To secure its obligations, NICO will deposit US$2.2 billion in a
collateral trust for the benefit of the CNA companies. In
addition, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has guaranteed the payment
obligations of NICO up to the full aggregate reinsurance limit as
well as certain of NICO's performance obligations under the trust
agreement.

NICO will assume responsibility for claims handling and
collection from third party reinsurers related to the CNA
companies' asbestos and environmental pollution claims.

"We believe this transaction is consistent with our focus on
financial stability and delivering improved levels of operating
consistency as we effectively eliminate a significant source of
uncertainty from these legacy liabilities," said Thomas F.
Motamed, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CNA Financial
Corporation.

Mr. Motamed added, "This transaction will allow us to sharpen our
focus even further on the execution of strategies to improve and
grow our on-going core businesses."

The closing of this transaction is subject to the receipt of
required regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of other
closing conditions. The closing is expected to occur in the third
quarter of 2010 at which time the Company expects to recognize an
after-tax loss of about US$375 million.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation is a commercial insurance
underwriter and property and casualty company. Its insurance
products include standard commercial lines, specialty lines,
surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages. The
Company's services include risk management, information services,
underwriting, risk control and claims administration.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Court Junks Brock's Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, denied The Brock Group's motion for summary judgment in
a case styled Melissa Guerrero and Veronica Villareal, Plaintiffs
v. The Brock Group a/k/a Brock Maintenance a/k/a Brock Specialty
Group a/k/a Brock Incorporated, Defendant.

U.S. Magistrates Judge Nancy K. Johnson entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-CV-2913 on July 8, 2010.

Melissa Guerrero and Veronica Villarreal (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") initiated this action on Sept. 30, 2008, asserting
claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") against Brock.
Plaintiffs had since conceded their claims of sexual harassment
and IIED, and thus the only claim remaining before the court was
retaliation. Brock moved for summary judgment on this claim.

In early 2007, ConocoPhillips refinery in Borger, Tex., hired
Brock to perform work under three contracts: general maintenance,
asbestos, and turnaround. Dean Vinson was the site manager and
Brock's highest ranking employee at the refinery, where he
oversaw various work crews, including crews for paint, scaffold,
insulation, and asbestos.

On March 8, 2007, Ms. Guerrero was working as a member of the
scaffold crew when a co-worker, Daniel Gonzalez approached her
and gave her an unwelcome hug and kiss.

The next morning, Mr. Gonzalez approached her again and made
sexually explicit comments about her sexual orientation and
relationship with Ms. Guerrero's long-term girlfriend Ms.
Villarreal, who also worked on the scaffold crew but who was out
sick that day.

At lunchtime, Ms. Guerrero spoke with her immediate supervisor
Ignacio Barajas to report Mr. Gonzalez's conduct.

On March 12, 2007, Mr. Villarreal and Mr. Guerrero returned to
work. Ms. Villarreal's co-workers made various disparaging
comments toward her regarding the comments Mr. Gonzalez had made.
Ms. Villarreal also talked to her supervisor Ernesto Portillo
with respect to Mr. Gonzalez's comments when Mr. Gonzalez kept
staring at her when they next worked together, making Ms.
Villarreal feel uncomfortable and humiliated.

Plaintiffs and Mr. Vinson had several meetings until, on March
13, 2007, Mr. Vinson told them that the asbestos work was ending
and that Defendant was laying them off. Although Mr. Vinson
claimed that Plaintiffs told him they no longer wanted to work on
the scaffolding crews and wanted to be back on the asbestos crew,
Plaintiffs denied ever saying this.

Mr. Gonzalez was suspended following the incident but continued
to work on the scaffolding crew after Plaintiffs were laid off.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Liability Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled In re Asbestos
Products Liability Litigation (No. VI).

U.S. Magistrates Judge David R. Strawbridge entered judgment in
Civil Action No. MDL 875 and Misc. Action No. 09-MC-103 on July
8, 2010.

Before the Court was Plaintiffs' "Motion to Quash Subpoenas or,
alternatively, for Protective Order" and Defendant Union Carbide
Corporation's response. Plaintiff's Motion concerned two
subpoenas duces tecum issued by the Clerk of the Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in connection with MDL-875, one
of which was served upon Dr. Richard Tannen, M.D., on June 3,
2009, and the other upon Community Portable X-Ray, Inc., on June
12, 2009.

Plaintiffs asserted that the Court should quash or modify both
subpoenas. For the following reasons, the Court will grant in
part and deny in part Plaintiffs' Motions.

Dr. Tannen is a board-certified pulmonologist who resides in
Dallas. He provided a diagnosis of asbestosis for 17 of the 25
Plaintiffs that remained in these oil rig cases.

The subpoena served upon Dr. Tannen called for the production of
a vast quantity of materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motions in Martin Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, denied Plaintiffs' motion in a case involving asbestos
styled Edwin C. Martin, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs v. James P.
Holloran, et al., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered judgment in Case
No. 4:05CV01857 AGF on July 9, 2010.

This matter was before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to File a Second Amended Complaint, which adds two party
Defendants and several claims. A hearing on the motion was held
on the record on July 9, 2010.

This was a breach of contract action in which Plaintiffs (a law
firm and its principal) sought damages as a result of the alleged
failure of Defendants (another law firm and its principal,
hereinafter referred to as the "Holloran Defendants") to pay
Plaintiffs a portion certain legal fees collected by Defendants
in asbestos-related cases from the 1980s and 1990s. The action
was not filed by Plaintiffs until Oct. 11, 2005.

Pretrial proceedings were bifurcated, and after discovery and
motions were complete at the liability phase, an Amended Case
Management Order was entered on June 4, 2009, which set July 26,
2010, as the trial date in this case, and gave the parties to
July 1, 2009, to file motions to join additional parties or to
amend the pleadings.

Initial disclosures on the damages phase were also to be made by
July 1, 2009, and all discovery to be completed by Feb. 5, 2010.
At Plaintiffs' request, the discovery deadline with respect to
damages was subsequently extended to April 30, 2010, and then
further extended with regard to a specific aspect of damages, and
the trial date was recently continued to Sept. 13, 2010.

Extensive motions for summary judgment have been filed by
Defendants, and are scheduled for argument. The present motion
was filed by Plaintiffs on June 10, 2010.

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs proposed to add
Andrew O'Brien and/or the O'Brien Law Firm as defendants, and to
assert claims against O'Brien for tortious interference,
conversion, and civil conspiracy. It also added claims against
the Holloran Defendants for fraudulent concealment and civil
conspiracy.

The basis for the proposed amendments was Plaintiffs assertion
that they only recently learned that O'Brien removed relevant
asbestos cases from the Holloran Defendants' office in about
September 2000, when O'Brien left the Holloran Defendants and
started a separate law practice. Plaintiffs further asserted that
this was done with the Holloran Defendants' consent and
intentional concealment.

Accordingly, that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint was denied.

John E. Toma, Jr., Esq., Melissa M. Zensen, Esq., of Toma Zensen,
LLC in St. Louis, represented Plaintiffs.

Ronnie L. White, Esq., Thomas E. Schwartz, Esq., of Holloran
White, LLP in St. Louis, represented Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Court Issues Split Ruling in Haden's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos filed by Steven T. Haden.

District Judge Christine M. Arguello entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 10-cv-00515-BNB on July 9, 2010.

Steven T. Haden is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections and is currently incarcerated at the
Buena Vista Correctional Facility. He filed a pro se prisoner
complaint on March 5, 2010, and amended complaint on March 11,
2010, asserting that his rights under the U.S. Constitution had
been violated. He had been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.

On April 2, 2010, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland determined that
the amended complaint was deficient for failure to allege the
personal participation of all named Defendants. Accordingly,
Magistrate Judge Boland ordered Mr. Haden to file a second
amended prisoner complaint. Mr. Haden filed a second amended
prisoner complaint on May 3, 2010.

On May 13, 2010, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer determined
that the second amended complaint was deficient for failure to
comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Shaffer ordered Mr.
Haden to file a third and final amended complaint, which he filed
on June 7, 2010.

In the third amended complaint, Mr. Haden asserted four claims.
In his first claim, he asserted that Defendants Green, Dunbar,
Coleman, Brunnell, Bartruff, Connors, Smethers and Ortega
subjected him to dangerous and unsanitary living conditions.

Mr. Haden alleged that the dangerous and unsanitary living
conditions at Buena Vista Correctional Facility include poor air
circulation and ventilation, contamination by insects, rats and
mice, and exposure to asbestos, lead paint, mold and mildew.

Accordingly, it was ordered that Defendants Ari Zavaras, Chief of
Psychiatry, Chief Medical Officer and John Suthers were dismissed
as parties to this action for lack of personal participation.

It was further ordered that this case shall be drawn to a
district judge and to a magistrate judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Court Awards Payout to Gateshead Ex-Worker
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court in the United Kingdom awarded Robert Bullock, a former
laborer from Gateshead, England, an undisclosed four-figure sum
as compensation for workplace exposure to asbestos, the Evening
Chronicle reports.

The 68-year-old Mr. Bullock spent almost two decades exposed to
asbestos at work and went on to develop asbestosis. He worked for
Shield Bros as a steel fixer from 1970 until 1983. He then took
on a role as a laborer at North Tyneside Council from 1984 to
1993.

Mr. Bullock was left needing an inhaler after being diagnosed
with the deadly disease.

Mr. Bullock was promoted to general foreman at North Tyneside
Council in 1988 and, although he was responsible for safety, was
given no training on how to handle asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bennett Case v. 137 Firms Filed July 6 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Billy E. Bennett and Minnie Bennett,
his wife vs. 20th Century Glove Corporation, 84 Lumber Company
Ajax Magnethermic Corporation, et al was filed on July 6, 2010 in
Kanawha County Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.


The Bennetts claim the 137 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Bennett's asbestosis and mesothelioma. They seek compensatory
damages.

David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq., and Scott S.
Segal, Esq., represent the Bennetts.

Case No. 10-C-1216 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ogdensburg to Remove Asbestos From Shade Roller
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Ogdensburg, N.Y., was awarded a grant of about
US$700,000 to deal with asbestos removal and demolition of 10
former Shade Roller buildings located along the waterfront, North
Country Now reports.

In the 1960s, Ogdensburg experienced steady declines in economy,
jobs, and businesses at the once-thriving trade center and
transportation hub along the St. Lawrence River. This led to the
abandonment of part of the riverfront area, leaving many vacant
and underutilized buildings.

The City developed its Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan,
which aimed to create additional green space, eliminate blight in
the City's urban center, and enhance tourism and waterfront
industries.

As a Plan component, the city intends to demolish and remediate
the former Shade Roller manufacturing plant at the riverfront in
order to make it suitable for redevelopment.

The Restore II grant will help fund asbestos abatement and
building demolition of the ten buildings in the former Shade
Roller site. Total project cost is US$1,156,800.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Several Schools in Pa. Set for Asbestos Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
As part of an estimated US$22 million school renovation project,
certain elementary schools in Pennsylvania's North Salem,
Lancaster and Barron area are slated for asbestos abatement,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The classrooms have been cleared of chairs, books and tables. The
schools have been cleared in preparation for asbestos abatement,
reports The Eagle Tribune. The asbestos will be removed from the
schools' tile flooring.

Gilbane Inc., of Providence, R.I., will manage the renovation,
and award contracts for various elements of the project.

The schools' classroom materials have been stored in several
multipurpose rooms, until the asbestos abatement work concludes.

The project should be completed by the 2011-2012 school year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Wemelco Way Facility Costs $833,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos abatement at a facility in Wemelco Way, Easthampton,
Mass., will cost about US$833,000, and the facility's owners will
pay over US$72,000 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
WWLP.com reports.

The EPA says that the soil behind the facility is contaminated
with asbestos. It added that the two companies that own the
facility and the property will clean it up.

The EPA did not say when this project would be completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cemazar, Posco Cases Filed June 25 in St. Clair
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos lawsuits of Anna Cemazar and Linda Ahrens-Posco were
filed on June 25, 2010 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Ill.,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Cemazar of Michigan filed the 18th asbestos lawsuit for
2010, while Mrs. Ahrens-Posco filed the 19th lawsuit.

In her complaint, Mrs. Cemazar alleges 39 defendant companies
caused her deceased husband, David Cemazar, to develop lung
cancer after his exposure to asbestos-containing products
throughout his career.

Mr. Cemazar worked as a machinist helper at New York Central
Railroad, as a grinder/painter/helper at Webb Conveyor, as a
renovator with Detroit Sash, as a renovator with Waymar Sash, at
Strand Buildings and Butler Buildings, as an ironworker at Aaron
Ornamental Iron Works, as an ironworker at Charles Haas, as a
renovator with E.L. Abling, as a renovator at A&D Erectors, as a
laborer at Koch Corporation and as a home remodeler at his
residence, according to the complaint.

In her complaint, Mrs. Ahrens-Posco claims 104 defendant
companies caused her deceased father, William D. Ahrens, to
develop mesothelioma after his exposure to asbestos-containing
products throughout his career.

Mr. Ahrens worked as a press operator for Lincoln Bag Company, as
a plant manager and salesman for Lincoln Bag Company from, as an
insurance salesman for Prudential Insurance Company, as a laborer
for Bigelow-Liptak Corporation, as a painter and dry-waller at
various sites, as a printer for Imprinting Service Bureau and as
president of Ahrens International Printing Company, the suit
states.

In her 13-count complaint, Mrs. Cemazar seeks a judgment of more
than US$300,000, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000,
economic damages of more than US$200,000, unspecified punitive
and exemplary damages and punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to punish Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Sprinkmann Sons
of Illinois and Young Insulation Group of St. Louis for their
actions, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

In her 12-count complaint, Mrs. Ahrens-Posco seeks an unspecified
amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of St. Clair County
Circuit Court, compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Sprinkmann
Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation for their actions,
plus other relief the court deems just and costs.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville represent Mrs. Cemazar and Jeffrey J.
Lowe, Esq., of Carey, Danis and Lowe represents Mrs. Ahrens-
Posco.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Sullom Voe Worker Files Suit on Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit filed by Clive Leaney, a former works
supervisor during the construction of the Sullom Voe oil terminal
in Shetland, is ongoing, The Shetland News reports.

The 66-year-old Mr. Leaney, of St Neots, Cambridgeshire, England,
calls for help from colleagues after coming down with
mesothelioma.

Mr. Leaney was exposed to asbestos when he oversaw the building
of the power station and other parts of the terminal for two
years from 1978. He is now suing his employers at the time,
Foster Wheeler, for exposing him to asbestos and his lawyers are
looking for anyone else who was also exposed to the deadly
substance.

Mr. Leaney worked as a supervisor of time and progress, who kept
any eye on all the contractors to make sure they had the right
men on site and were doing the work they were supposed to be
doing.

Mr. Leaney never actually worked on any of the plant that went up
in Shetland's north mainland and imported vast quantities of oil
and gas from Britain's North Sea offshore industry, but he was on
site and did come into contact with asbestos. When he left
Shetland, he also left the Company, who supported him until he
found another job with British Aerospace.

Mr. Leaney left the industry altogether 15 years ago and moved
into teaching, and still teaches IT to young people with learning
difficulties in Cambridge, many from violent backgrounds who have
been kicked out of school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leigh Worker Dies After Receiving Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Manniex, a former demolition worker from Kent Street, Leigh,
England, won an undisclosed amount of asbestos compensation, only
to die weeks later, WIGANtoday.net reports.

Mr. Manniex received his compensation following a three-day trial
at the Royal Courts of Justice. On July 1, 2010, the 77-year-old
widower died from the mesothelioma he had contracted from
exposure to asbestos while demolishing prefabricated houses in
the late 1960s.

Mr. Manniex worked for the demolition company Mee and Cocker
(Leigh) Limited, which was based at Peacock Fold in Leigh. He
demolished prefabricated houses so that the aluminum used in
their construction could be reclaimed. He worked as part of a
gang that travelled all over the North West, West Midlands and
Wales.

Mr. Manniex's job involved the demolition of thousands of prefab
properties with roofs that were lined with asbestos. He would
also take out the kitchens and he recalled that the built in
ovens, something of a novelty at the time, were insulated with
asbestos sheeting.

Before his death, Mr. Manniex described the conditions, "We used
to push the asbestos panels out from the roofs and let them drop
to the floor."

At the trial, Stanley Mee, a former company director, admitted
that he did not know what materials were in the buildings being
demolished. He also said that no checks were made to ensure they
did not contain asbestos, or precautions taken to protect his
workers from asbestos. He then admitted that the prefab roofs may
have been underlined with asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Queensbury, N.Y. Site to Cost $125T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos from the site of the former Warren
County, N.Y., Department of Social Services building is estimated
at US$125,000, PostStar.com reports.

The discovery of asbestos on bricks on part of the building,
weeks after known asbestos had been removed and disposed of, had
created a quandary for supervisors as they look to keep costs
down for the US$350,000 demolition project.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation told county
officials it can be buried on-site, but if the county wanted to
build on the property in the future it might have to deal with
the material again. The more expensive alternative is to have it
taken off-site and disposed of in a landfill.

Queensbury at-Large Supervisor William VanNess said, "We'd render
that property useless. You couldn't sell it. I think it'd be
foolish to leave contamination on the property."

John Horgan, the project executive from general contractor Bovis
Lend Lease, told supervisors the initial estimate to remove and
dispose of the newfound asbestos was US$250,000. That has since
been lowered to US$125,000, and Mr. Horgan said he was optimistic
it could be negotiated to as low as US$30,000.

Some supervisors, including Lake George Supervisor Frank McCoy,
said they had trouble voting to go ahead with the removal not
knowing how much it will cost.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Hazard Coming Out of Hazelwood Power Station
----------------------------------------------------------------
Australia's Environment Protection Authority reported that it has
found no evidence that asbestos is coming out of the stacks at
Hazelwood Power Station, in Victoria, Australia, ABC News
reports.

The EPA has been probing claims by a former employee that
asbestos was present in the stacks. The EPA and Workcover
inspected the power station's records and concluded asbestos in
the boilers could not make its way to the smoke stacks.

The Gippsland manager for the EPA says no testing has been done
of emissions from the power station specifically for asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Basement of Bogota Firehouse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos is found in the basement pipes of the firehouse in
Bogota, N.J., NorthJersey.com reports.

In a January 2010 inspection, an official from the New Jersey
Department of Health and Senior Services noticed a possible case
of asbestos on the basement pipes of Bogota's firehouse. The
official notified the public safety inspector and subsequently,
the borough took action.

A follow-up inspection is scheduled for July 30, 2010 with
PEOSHA.

Borough Administrator Leonard Nicolosi said, "The building is
still in use. Right now, the Fire Department is controlling the
entrance to the basement and monitoring air quality."

No Bogota firefighters have reported any health problems yet, Mr.
Nicolosi said.

The borough has two options for resolving the asbestos problem:
it can either remove the asbestos completely or leave it in
place, encapsulating it and training employees on the appropriate
manner to deal with possible exposure.

Mr. Nicolosi said, "Encapsulation is the cheapest option. But
it's unlikely we'll use this because it would require annual
training for employees, which would be very cumbersome."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Board Ruling in Raby Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Sept.
8, 2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Betty March Raby's claim for entitlement to enhanced dependency
and indemnity compensation (DIC)

The case is styled Betty March Raby, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-4060 on July 13,
2010.

Mrs. Raby is the widow of veteran Julius Raby, who served
honorably in the U.S. Navy from September 1942 to October 1945.
Prior to his death, Mr. Raby was service connected for (1)
bilateral defective hearing, rated as 50 percent disabling from
May 1992 and 90 percent disabling from August 1997, and (2)
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, granulomatous lung
disease, and pleural plaques consistent with asbestosis secondary
to asbestos exposure, rated as 30 percent disabling from August
1997.

In July 1999, Mr. Raby was awarded entitlement to individual
unemployability, effective August 1997. He passed away in
February 2000.

In June 2000, the Roanoke, Va., regional office (RO) granted Mrs.
Raby's claim for DIC, noting that Mr. Raby's death was related to
a service-connected disability.

In an undated and partially illegible letter that appeared to
have been received by the RO on June 7, 2006, Mrs. Raby requested
"special monthly compensation," asserting that Mr. Raby was
"permanently [and] totally disabled for over 10 years."

However, a June 22, 2006, notice of the rating decision denied
entitlement to enhanced DIC because Mr. Raby was not rated as
totally disabled for eight years prior to his death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Plaintiff's Bid in Meridieth Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, denied
Kyle Meridieth's Brief in Support of Seeking Judicial Review in a
case involving asbestos styled Kyle Meridieth, Plaintiff v.
Elaine I. Chao and the U.S. Department of Labor, Defendants.

District Judge Thomas A. Varlan entered judgment in Case No.
3:07-CV-103 on March 29, 2010.

This civil action was before the Court on Mr. Meridieth's Brief
in Support of Seeking Judicial Review of the Department of
Labor's Determination of Plaintiff's Rights to Benefits Under the
Energy Employee's Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
(EEOICPA), in which Mr. Meridieth sought judicial review of the
Nov. 30, 2007 decision of the U.S. Department of Labor regarding
Mr. Meridieth's entitlement to benefits under Part E of the
EEOICPA.

Elaine I. Chao and the Labor Department (collectively,
"defendants") filed a brief in opposition and Mr. Meridieth filed
a reply.

On Aug. 29, 2005, Mr. Meridieth filed a claim for benefits under
Part E with the Department of Labor's Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs (OWCP), claiming the condition of "asbestos
related lung disease."

Timothy M. McLaughlin, Esq., of the Law Offices of Peter G.
Angelos in Knoxville, Tenn. Represented Plaintiff.

J. Gregory Bowman, U.S. Department of Justice (USAO Greene),
Office of US Attorney in Greeneville, Tenn., represented
Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Issued Rulings in Cherokee Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New
York, issued rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Cherokee
Owners Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant v. DNA Contracting, LLC, et
al., Defendants-Respondents.

Judges Gonzalez, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, and Roman entered
judgment on the case on June 1, 2010.

Plaintiff sued contractor, consultants and insurer for breach of
contract and for consultants' alleged engagement in unauthorized
practice of engineering in connection with asbestos abatement
work.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiff's motion to
vacate prior order of preclusion, denied plaintiff's claims for
summary judgment, and granted contract and insurer summary
judgment. Plaintiff appealed.

Holdings:  The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that:

-- Trial court improperly issued sanction order precluding
   plaintiff from introducing certain categories of evidence;

-- Monetary sanction was warranted due to repeated failure of
   plaintiff's counsel to calendar court appearances properly;

-- Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on
   plaintiff's breach of contract claim; but

-- Plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to
   judgment as matter of law on its claim that consultants
   engaged in unauthorized practice of engineering.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Tatera Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Supreme court reversed a ruling, which previously
ruled in favor of Walter Tatera, in an asbestos case filed
against FMC Corporation, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The Supreme Court says FMC was not negligent in Mr. Tatera's
death.

Mr. Tatera, a former Hales Corners machine shop worker, died of
cancer in 2004. His estate sued FMC, a Milwaukee brake
manufacturer, alleging disks the Company sent to Mr. Tatera's
shop contained asbestos and caused his cancer.

A Milwaukee judge found the Company was not liable or negligent
in Mr. Tatera's death. A state appeals court in 2009, however,
ruled FMC could be sued for negligence.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling in a 4-3 decision. The
court says FMC's conduct did not amount to affirmative
negligence.

Jill Rakauski, Esq., an attorney for Tatera's estate, says she is
disappointed and believes the estate should be allowed to make a
claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monroe School Board OKs $100,000 for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Valley Elementary School, which is located in Monroe,
N.Y., will undergo a US$100,000 asbestos abatement project,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The asbestos removal was approved by the Monroe-Woodbury School
Board as part of the district's US$12,150,000 renovation project.

The asbestos abatement will make the district's buildings safer
for students and staff members.

New York State is expected to provide 58 percent of the overall
cost. By reducing energy costs, school officials estimate the
project will pay for itself.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mistrial on McLean County Case Declared July 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski of McLean County, Ill.,
substituting for McLean County Circuit Judge Michael Prall during
deliberations, announced a mistrial on July 16, 2010, regarding
an asbestos conspiracy among various corporations, The
Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

A single juror rejected a theory that lawyers for Larry Dunham
and Norman Shoopman laid out for six weeks before Judge Prall.
After three days of deliberation, jurors declared they could not
and would not reach a unanimous decision.

Mr. Dunham and Mr. Shoopman claimed Pneumo Abex, Honeywell,
Owens-Illinois, John Crane Inc. and other companies conspired for
decades to conceal the hazards of asbestos.

Pneumo Abex stood trial as successor to American Brake and Block,
and Honeywell stood as successor to Bendix.

The mistrial breaks a string of successes for local conspiracy
lawyers James Wylder, Esq., and Lisa Corwin, Esq., and their star
witness, Barry Castleman.

Earlier in 2010, jurors awarded almost US$4 million each against
Pneumo Abex and Honeywell, plus US$10 million in punitive damages
against Honeywell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genesee Local Files Asbestos Action v. Employer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Barker II, of North Branch, Genesee County, Mich., sued his
former employer, claiming that the Genesee County Community
Action Resource Department knowingly uprooted asbestos from many
downtown Flint homes, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness
Center reports.

Mr. Barker claims the department placed workers and unsuspecting
homeowners at risk for asbestos exposure.

Mr. Barker said he believes he was fired due to his repeated
attempts to alert GCCARD superiors of the asbestos. Steve Walker,
GCCARD executive director, however, has noted that Mr. Barker's
story is not true.

Mr. Walker said the department has not disturbed asbestos, and
that Mr. Barker was fired due to poor work performance.

Mr. Barker believes the percentage of asbestos in the vermiculite
removed from the homes' attics exceeds the one percent threshold,
yet Mr. Walker has argued against such claim.

Mr. Walker said GCCARD stops work when asbestos could be heavily
present. He also noted that workers use protective clothing while
on the job. He added, "If you follow that protocol, it is not a
problem. We do (follow protocol) very carefully."

The suit has been filed in Genesee County Circuit Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saugus Property Owner Sued for Disposal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Martha Coakley's Office filed a lawsuit in
Suffolk Superior Court against Helen M. McCarthy, of Boxford, and
her son James F. McCarthy, of Laconia, N.H., alleging that they
illegally altered and filled protected wetlands and dumped solid
waste throughout a large parcel of land in Saugus, according to a
Massachusetts Attorney General press release dated July 15, 2010.   

The McCarthys have for at least a decade maintained an illegal
dumping ground and permitted ongoing wetlands violations at
Pennsylvania Avenue, a property that borders Saugus, Wakefield
and Lynnfield, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed yesterday, seeks a permanent injunction
requiring the McCarthys to restore and remediate the site. The
lawsuit is also asking the court to impose penalties on the
defendants for violating state laws designed to protect the
environment.

AG Coakley said, "Massachusetts solid waste and wetlands
protection laws require individuals to obtain permits and to meet
specific protective requirements prior to disposing of solid
waste or disturbing wetlands. By using their property as an
illegal dumping ground for asbestos and other solid waste, we
allege that the McCarthys have not only put at risk the health of
workers at the property, but have destroyed sensitive wetland
habitats."

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner
Laurie Burt said, "Wetland resources, such as those altered in
this case, serve the valuable function of preventing flooding.
Further, the use of solid waste to fill wetlands, as in this
instance, compounded the problem, and showed a blatant disregard
for the regulations designed to protect public health and the
environment."

The lawsuit against the McCarthys alleges that while operating
several businesses at and leasing the site to other businesses
for various commercial uses, James F. McCarthy dumped or buried,
or allowed others to dump and bury solid waste, including
demolition debris, roofing materials, scrap metal and crushed
trailers, throughout the property. In doing so, James F. McCarthy
allegedly caused or allowed the illegal filling and alteration of
the property's wetlands and the unsecured storage of asbestos-
containing material.

The complaint further alleges that Helen M. McCarthy, who owns
the property, permitted the illegal dumping and wetland
alterations to continue. Helen M. McCarthy also allegedly failed
to comply with a 2007 MassDEP administrative consent order
requiring her to remove the solid waste and to restore the
wetlands.

Assistant Attorney General Tracy Triplett of Attorney General
Coakley's Environmental Protection Division is handling the case
with the assistance of MassDEP attorney Jennifer Davis of the
Office of General Counsel, environmental investigator Stephen
Spencer of the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force, and
wetlands analyst Heidi Davis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McLean, Va. Sewer Line w/ Hazard to be Removed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post says that a sewer line, which contains
asbestos, will be removed from Tyson's Corner in McLean, Va.,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

The work will also close two lanes on the East side of Jones
Branch Drive. While abatement work is underway, traffic will be
shifted to the West side.

The traffic shift will allow construction workers to replace an
850-foot asbestos sewer pipe. Workers will use anti-contamination
clothing and respirators in order to prevent exposure to
asbestos.

Construction workers will remove and seal 20-foot sections of the
pipe. The pipes must be sealed in order to prevent any of the
asbestos from becoming airborne. The sections will be removed
during daylight hours only.

A new asbestos-free pipe will be installed once the old piping is
out. The work is scheduled to begin in early 2011, and conclude
by 2013.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Talks on Remediation Inquiry at BoRit Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's representatives, a
July 14, 2010 meeting, discussed with the Community Advisory
Group regarding data from the first stage of the remedial
investigation at the BoRit asbestos site, Montgomery Media
reports.

The site, located in Ambler Borough, Upper Dublin and Whitpain
townships between Butler Avenue, North Maple Street and the
Wissahickon Creek, was placed on the EPA's Superfund National
Priorities List last spring.

The EPA has begun a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at
the site, a three- to five-year process to analyze site
conditions and assess potential remedial actions before the EPA
selects a final plan for addressing on-site contaminants.

The first phase of the remedial investigation occurred from
November 2009 to January 2010. Crews collected soil borings,
surface soil samples and sediment samples, along with using
piezometers to collect groundwater samples.

All samples were tested for the presence of asbestos, volatile
organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, metals and
other potentially harmful materials.

Crews observed different types of waste across the site's three
parcels: the former Whitpain Park, the reservoir and the asbestos
waste piles.

Ninety-eight, 75 and 92 percent of borings had visible asbestos
containing material at the park, the reservoir and the piles,
respectively. The layer of asbestos averaged 13, three and 17
feet at the park, along the reservoir berm and at the piles,
respectively. The asbestos reached a peak of 40 feet at the
piles.

In addition to work in the three parcels, crews took samples from
along the three on-site creeks - the Rose Valley, the Tannery Run
and the Wissahickon - and in the surrounding floodplain. Some
sampling also occurred on the opposite side on the Wissahickon
near the Mercer Hill neighborhood.

Once the samples were sent to the lab, they were compared to
human health screening levels. According to the EPA's website,
for asbestos, the screening level is 0.01 fibers per cubic
centimeter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BBC Probe Focuses on Canadian Asbestos Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The British Broadcasting Corporation, on July 21, 2010, aired an
in-depth series on Canada's asbestos industry as part of a joint
investigation, the Winnipeg Free Press reports.

The multimedia investigation scrutinizes Canada's prominent role
in the global asbestos industry, which is blamed for 90,000
deaths annually around the world.

According to the BBC series titled "Dangers in the Dust,"
prepared in collaboration with the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists, "In 2009, Canada sent nearly 153,000
tons of chrysotile - or white asbestos - abroad."

The report added, "More than half went to India; the rest went to
Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and the United
Arab Emirates. At home, it is a different story: Canada used only
6,000 tons in 2006, the last year for which data is available."

The report says an international marketing campaign has triggered
more demand in developing countries for the cheap building
material.

Industry supporters contend the type of asbestos mined in Canada
poses no risk to humans if handled carefully. The World Health
Organization blames asbestos-related diseases for 90,000 deaths
annually around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup of Martha B. Day School to Cost $35,752
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos cleanup at the Martha B. Day (MBD) School in
Bloomingdale, N.J., will cost a total of US$35,752, of which
US$23,431 is for cleanup on the upper floor and US$12,320 is for
cleanup on the lower level, NorthJersey.com reports.

The bid was awarded to Two Brother Contracting of Clifton, N.J.,
last July 12, 2010.

School district business administrator George Hagl says he
expects the project to get underway in two weeks and take two
weeks to complete. He said the tiles at MBD are encapsulated
under carpeting, which is 15 years old. The carpeting and tile
will be removed and when the carpeting is removed, tiles will
most likely come up with the carpeting, he added.

An environmental engineer will supervise the project, according
to Mr. Hagl. Air sampling will be conducted and once the
environmental engineer gives the green light, a contractor will
be brought in to install new floor tile.

About four years, Mr. Hagl said, some asbestos abatement was
completed at the Samuel R. Donald School after a sewer main
backed up and flooded some space in the lower level of SRD and
lifted asbestos floor tile. That portion of the building was
evacuated and an asbestos abatement project was undertaken.

The district also had linoleum tested for asbestos at SRD. Though
the linoleum did not contain asbestos, it was replaced.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrison Avenue Closed During Asbestos Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to fire officials, a block of Harrison Avenue in Boston
is closed after a "glitch" in the asbestos cleanup process, the
Boston Herald reports.

Fire department spokesman Steve MacDonald said crews working at
the site of the steam pipe explosion made a major misstep by
bringing in a U-Haul truck to carry away debris, including
asbestos dust.

A fire inspector shut the operation down, citing the need for
more appropriate transport for the asbestos. "Something a little
more secure and for that purpose," Mr. MacDonald said.

Mr. MacDonald added that traffic will be closed along the stretch
in one direction or the other as the clean up of the steam pipe
explosion continues. The surface cleaning consists of washing
building exteriors and sidewalks on the site and then sweeping
and double-bagging the debris. It is being stored in secure
containers in a nearby parking lot.

One block of the roadway is closed to traffic from Traveler
Street to William Mullins Way.

                            *********

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  * * *