CAR_Public/100730.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 149

                             Headlines

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Defends Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Disputes Charges Over Lost Baggage
APPLE INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over OverHeating iPad
BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces "Fessahaye" Suit in Delaware
CA INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages

CASH AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification in Payday Loans Suit
CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Lawsuit in Pa.
CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending
COLLINS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
CROYDON DAY: More Hepatitis C Cases Linked to Class Action

HALLIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Files Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court
HEWITT ASSOCIATES: Accused of Selling Company for Inadequate Price
HEWITT ASSOCIATES: Second Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
HIDALGO COUNTY: Sued Over Excessive Ticketing of Truant Students

HONEYCUTT TEAR: Accused of Failing to Pay for Overtime
HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut
HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 1,700 Riding Lawn Tractors
IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Price-Fixing" Suits

IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia
KNIGHT-BARRY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Mortgage Fees
LOWER MERION: Lawyer Seeks Payment of $418,000 Legal Fees
MADRISSA GROUP: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wages
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces Second Amended Complaint in New York

MCGRAW-HILL COS: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Suits Dismissal Pending
MILLERCOORS: Calif. Suit Complains About Mail-in Rebate Program
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Stipulation Approval in Tenn. Suit Pending
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Copper Tube Action in California Dismissed
PACIFIC RIM: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order

PANASONIC CONSUMER: Sued for False Representations About Viera TVs
REDLANDS COMMUNITY: Former Employees Win Class Action Lawsuit
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissed as Defendant in Suit Over Art Sale
ROYAL ITEMS: Suit Says Officers Moving Assets to Another Firm
STANDARD & POOR'S: Australian Councils Launch Class Action

THERATECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Shareholder to Launch Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Prius Headlights
WASHINGTON: Teachers Union to File Class Action Over Firings
WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Arbitrator Rejects Class Action Case Attempt

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $53MM at June 30 for Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.6-Bil Net Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Subject to Coverage Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Records $28M Asbestos Provisions at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $7.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Subject to Lawsuits in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $168MM Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.543BB at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $49MM June 30 Litigation Charges
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $816M NARCO Receivable at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $200M NARCO Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 21,359 Unresolved Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.706B at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Records $855Mil Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brief in AMSF Action v. Halliburton Due Aug. 18

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 65,352 Claims Ongoing Against Crane at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Action Subject to Appellate Proceedings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeal in Baccus Lawsuit Ongoing in Pa.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Brewer Case Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Woodard v. Crane Ongoing

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Trial Moves in Nelson, Bell Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $52MM for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $672MM Long-Term Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has $2.5MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Issues Split Ruling in Marchand Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Huber Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Men Indicted in Harbour Club Cleanup Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Accurate Building's Lawsuit Referred to Mo. AG

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 470 Open Suits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Has $3.8M A&E Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Facing 7,900 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Records $43M Payments at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Face Injury Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Ongoing Against Mine Safety
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Cites $4.5M Litigation Expense at July 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashfield Joiner Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumbria Steel Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stellison Penalized for Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Read Family Seeks Witnesses in Claim for Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strawbridge Dismisses Lawsuits by 7 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace, Oldon to Pay for Cleanup at Wemelco Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taiwan to Ban Asbestos Use Within 10 Years
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Fairfield Hills to Cost $6T Extra

                            *********

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Defends Amended Complaint Over $15 Checked Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
AirTran Holdings, Inc., defends an amended complaint alleging that
the company conspired with Delta Air Lines, Inc., in imposing
$15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air and AirTran in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that AirTran conspired
with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of
checked luggage.  The initial complaint sought treble damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United
States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on
domestic flights beginning Dec. 5, 2008.

Subsequent to the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other
nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class
actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia;
Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.  All of the cases were
consolidated before a single judge in Atlanta.

An amended complaint filed in February 2010 in the consolidated
action broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and
AirTran also cut capacity on competitive routes and raised prices.
The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad
range of alleged anticompetitive activities and attorneys fees.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

AirTran Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.airtran.com/-- conducts all
of its flight operations through its wholly owned subsidiary,
AirTran Airways, Inc..  The company operates scheduled airline
service throughout the United States and to selected international
locations.  Approximately half of its flights originate or
terminate at its hub in Atlanta, Georgia and it serves a number of
markets with non-stop service from its focus cities of Baltimore,
Maryland, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Orlando, Florida.  As of Feb.
1, 2010, the company operated 86 Boeing B717-200 aircraft (B717)
and 52 Boeing B737-700 aircraft (B737) offering approximately 700
scheduled flights per day to 63 locations in the United States,
including San Juan, Puerto Rico, and to Orangestad, Aruba, Cancun,
Mexico, and Nassau, The Bahamas.  During the year ended Dec. 31,
2009, the company initiated service to seven domestic locations
and initiated
service to three international destinations.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Disputes Charges Over Lost Baggage
-----------------------------------------------------
Scott Mayerowitz and Ray Sanchez at ABC News report that American
Airlines disputes the charges leveled against it in a $5 million
class action lawsuit over a lost bag, but the woman who filed the
suit is not backing down.

Danielle Covarrubias flew the airline last May from Seattle to
Grand Rapids, Mich., and paid $25 to check her bag. She made it to
her destination on time, but her bag did not. She claimed she sued
the airlines when officials refused to refund the baggage fee.

American told ABC News that it disputes some of Ms. Covarrubias'
details.  The bag did arrive, just a day later, American said. And
Ms. Covarrubias never contacted the airline about the delayed bag
or to seek a refund, airline officials claim.

"We at American Airlines have not been able to find any record of
Ms. Covarrubias ever contacting or speaking to us about her
delayed bag, a possible claim, or the subject of checked bag
charges," spokesman Tim Smith said in an e-mail to ABC News. "Any
of our customers who choose to file a baggage claim with American
Airlines are always welcome to include a request for a checked bag
fee refund as part of that claim. That is the proper procedure for
any customer to seek a refund on a checked bag charge."

David Ongaro, a lawyer for Ms. Covarrubias, said the airline's
statement is "not true."  As for the arrival of the bag, Mr.
Ongaro said it doesn't matter that it showed up the next day.

"There's a contact that's entered into when the parties pay that
baggage fee and the contract is that you are going to deliver that
bag with the passenger at the location," Mr. Ongaro said. "If the
bag isn't delivered, then there's a breach of that contract."

"It would be the same thing if I said to you: Oh, you're having a
party Saturday. I'll come by and mow your lawn for $100. You give
me the $100 and I show up Tuesday to mow your lawn. It's not what
you bargained for and I shouldn't get to keep the $100," the
lawyer said.


APPLE INC: Faces New Lawsuit Over OverHeating iPad
--------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gamet, writing for The Mac Observer, reports that Apple was
hit with a new lawsuit on July 23 that alleges the iPad overheats
too quickly and stops working in sunlight and hot weather
conditions. The case was filed in Federal Court in Oakland,
California, and is seeking class action status, according to
Bloomberg.

The suit claims Apple's iPad "overheats so quickly under common
weather conditions," and fails to "live up to the reasonable
consumer's expectations created by Apple."

Apple's iPad is a multimedia tablet device with a 9.7-inch multi-
touch display. The tablet runs the same operating system as the
iPhone and iPod touch, and is capable of running most of the same
apps, too. It includes built-in Wi-Fi networking support,
Bluetooth support, can play videos and music, includes an ebook
reader app, and more.

Along with class action status, the lawsuit is asking for
unspecified damages. Apple has not commented on the pending case.


BIOSPHERE MEDICAL: Faces "Fessahaye" Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
BioSphere Medical, Inc., faces the suit Fessahaye v. Faleschini,
et al., C.A. No. 5553-CC, filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, according to the company's June 23, 2010, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 10, 2010, certain of the members of the Board of Directors
of the company were named as defendants in a putative class action
complaint.

The action, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of the
company's stockholders, alleges that certain of the company's
directors purportedly breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the company's proposed merger with Medical
Systems, Inc., by failing to maximize shareholder value and obtain
the best financial and other terms.  The complaint includes a
request for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief,
including to enjoin the Company from consummating the merger with
Merit, in addition to fees and costs.

On July 19, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the
company as a defendant and further alleging that the company's
preliminary proxy statement fails to provide material information
and provides materially misleading information relating to the
proposed merger transaction.

BioSphere Medical, Inc. seeks to pioneer and commercialize
minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic applications based
on proprietary bioengineered microsphere technology.  The
company's core technologies, patented bioengineered polymers and
manufacturing methods, are used to produce microscopic spherical
materials with unique beneficial properties for a variety of
medical applications.  BioSphere Medical's principal focus is the
use of its products for the treatment of symptomatic uterine
fibroids using a procedure called uterine fibroid embolization, or
UFE.  The company's products continue to gain acceptance in this
rapidly emerging procedure, as well as in a number of other new
and established medical treatments.


CA INC: Accused of Not Paying Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------
Daniel Lee Kurth, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. CA, Inc., Case No. 2010-00389738 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Orange Cty. July 16, 2010), accuses the IT management software and
service company of failing to pay wages at overtime rate, failing
to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay all wages upon
termination of employment, failing to furnish itemized statements
of wages, unlawful business acts and practices in violation of the
Bus. and Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.  As a result of these
violations, Mr. Kurth seeks penalties pursuant to Labor Code
section 2699.

Mr. Kurth brings this action on behalf of all current and former
employees of CA, Inc., who are or were employed by CA as Software
Engineers, or similar titles, who were, are, or continue to be
improperly misclassified as exempt from overtime pay under
California law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9193
          E-mail: jgaray@computerovertime.com

               and

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, LP
          15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 386-0444
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com


CASH AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification in Payday Loans Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc.'s appeal on the ruling granting
class certification in suit alleging the company made illegal
payday loans in Georgia remains pending, according to the
company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Aug. 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal payday
loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia
Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Community State Bank for some time made loans to Georgia residents
through Cash America's Georgia operating locations.

The complaint in the lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true
lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and
that CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de
facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory
damages.

A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's
affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash
America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was
upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on Sept. 24, 2007, the
Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

The case has been returned to the State Court of Cobb County,
Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the
trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel
arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings.

The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to
compel arbitration was rendered moot after the Court struck Cash
America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration.

The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and
remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia.

On Nov. 2, 2009, the State Court granted class certification, and
on Nov. 18, 2009, Cash America filed its notice of appeal of the
class certification order.  The appellate court has informed the
parties that the matter will be decided by submission without oral
argument, and the appellate court has not rendered its decision.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/--
provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CASH AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Alfeche" Lawsuit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc., continues to defend a purported
class-action lawsuit filed by Peter Alfeche.

On March 5, 2009, Mr. Alfeche filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc., Cash
America Net of Nevada, LLC, Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC
and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online
payday lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not in
accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law or
the licensing requirements of the CDCA.

The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of
CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and
arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages.

CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision
located in the agreements governing the lending activities, and a
hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009.

On July 16, 2009, CashNetUSA filed a motion to stay the litigation
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's review of Stolt- Nielsen, S.A. v.
AnimalFeeds, Int'l Corp., which addresses the treatment of class
action waivers in arbitration provisions under the Federal
Arbitration Act.

A hearing on the motions was held on Oct. 14, 2009, and the Court
has not rendered its decision.

The Alfeche litigation is still at an early stage.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/--
provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


CASH AMERICA: "Clerk" Suit Over Pa. Lending Activities Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Cash America
International, Inc., filed by Yulon Clerk is still pending.

On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, against Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC and several
other unrelated third-party lenders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants'
lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's
online payday lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal and
in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan
Interest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Laws.

The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecified
damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages.

The defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit
now resides.

The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding
in the Alfeche litigation.

On Aug. 26, 2009, the Court severed the claims against the other
defendants originally named in the litigation.  CashNet Nevada
filed a motion with the federal court to enforce the arbitration
provision located in the agreements governing the lending
activities on May 4, 2009, and the Court has not yet ruled on this
motion.

The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage.

No further updates were reported in the company's July 23, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Cash America International, Inc. -- http://www.cashamerica.com/--
provides pawn loans, short-term cash advances, check cashing
services and other specialty financial services to individuals.
It also sells merchandise in its pawnshops, primarily personal
property that has been forfeited in connection with its pawn
lending operations.


COLLINS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Can File 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida gave plaintiffs in West Palm Beach
Police Pension Fund v. Collins Capital Low Volatility Performance
Fund Ii, Ltd., Case No. 09-cv-80846 (July 26, 2010) until August
15 to a Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund brought a four-count
Amended Class Action Complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment and declaratory relief against
Collins Capital Low Volatility Performance Fund II, Ltd., Collins
Capital Low Volatility Performance Fund II, LP and Collins Capital
Investments, LLC.  Plaintiff brought the case as a class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who were shareholders in the
Fund between June 1, 2007, and December 11, 2008.  The Amended
Complaint states that, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, a substantial
portion of its investment in the Fund was turned over to Bernard
L. Madoff through Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. The
transfer was facilitated by the Fund's investment in the Rye
Select Broad Market Prime Fund, LP. Due to the Fund's alleged
failure to conduct proper due diligence of its investments in the
Feeder Fund, Plaintiff's investments were lost to Madoff's Ponzi
scheme.  Plaintiff's losses also resulted from the gross
negligence of "several entities" that facilitated Plaintiff's
investments in the Fund.

In moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint, Defendants argue that
all claims against Collins Investments must be dismissed because
Plaintiff lacks standing to assert derivative claims, all state
claims are barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards
Act and Plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims against any
Defendant.

Upon review, the Court agrees that the Amended Complaint lacks the
necessary clarity and, by making allegations against Defendants
collectively, lacks the required pleading precision.
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  Plaintiff is given leave to amend the Amended
Complaint.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available for free at:

    http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100726a91


CROYDON DAY: More Hepatitis C Cases Linked to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy McDonald at ABC News reports that health officials say
there is strong evidence to suggest the number of women who have
contracted hepatitis C from a doctor in a day surgery in
Melbourne's north-east has risen to 35.

And a lawyer bringing a class action over the outbreak says she is
puzzled authorities are not more worried about other clinics where
Dr. James Peters worked.

Victoria's chief health officer, Dr. John Carnie, says it is
highly likely the women who tested positive for hepatitis C
contracted it from Dr. Peters.

"In total, we have now had 58 women who have been found to be
positive for hepatitis C, and of these, 35 have hepatitis C virus
that appears to be genetically linked to the cluster," he said.
"That is, they appear to be very closely linked to the virus of
the doctor who has been implicated as part of this outbreak."

The link between the Croydon Day Surgery and the cluster was first
revealed in April, when there were only 12 cases.

Dr. Peters was suspended from practicing in February and Victoria
Police and the Medical Practitioners Board are investigating
whether or not the infections were intentional.

The outbreak is also the subject of a class action suit.

Slater and Gordon medical law expert Paula Shelton, Esq., is
representing those involved and says a lot more people may be
affected.

"From the numbers we initially had, the numbers of people who've
been tested and the number of people who were affected, certainly
suggested that we would have a lot more," she said.

"I guess from the point of view of the legal action, it just
becomes more and more improbable that there's an innocent
explanation for these infections."

She says the health department needs to explain why it has
concerns about the Croydon Day Clinic but apparently has no
concerns about the other clinics where Dr Peters worked.

"This was a doctor who worked at a number of clinics as indeed
many anesthetists do, and yet only the patients of this clinic
have been identified as being at risk," she said.

"Now there has to be a reason for that, and my clients ask me
every day what that is and I don't have anything to tell them."

Helen McNeil, the head of Hepatitis C Victoria, says she has no
concerns about infection control procedures in Victoria more
broadly.

"That's incredibly awful for these women who have been infected,
but there's certainly no indication that there's more widespread
problems," she said.

"This is an extremely isolated event with one particular health
practitioner."

Others say the case shows there are problems and that the
Government needs to rethink the way it regulates the medical
system.

"It never ceases to amaze me, the mistakes and things that go on,
like this, but nothing happens," said Lorraine Long from the
Medical Error Action Group.

"The malpractitioners are allowed to continue practicing and if
they don't they'll just move interstate and get registration
through that medical board and continue on.

"They don't learn from their mistakes and there's no severe
government control that will rein them in. And that's the
failure."

Contact:

     Paula Shelton, Esq.
     SLATER & GORDON
     485 La Trobe Street
     Melbourne, VIC 3000
     Australia
     Telephone: (03) 9602-6888
     Facsimile: (03) 9600-0290


HALLIBURTON CO: Remains a Defendant in "Deepwater Horizon" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company remains a defendant in more than 270 class-
action complaints arising out of the incident involving Deepwater
Horizon, according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The semisubmersible drilling rig, Deepwater Horizon, sank on
April 22, 2010 after an explosion and fire onboard the rig that
began on April 20.  The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean
Ltd. and had been drilling the Macondo/MC252 exploration well in
Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico for the lease
operator, BP Exploration & Production, Inc., an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. Crude oil flowing from the well site
has spread across thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico
and has reached the United States Gulf Coast.  Efforts to contain
the flow of hydrocarbons from the well are being led by the United
States government and by BP p.l.c., BP Exploration, and their
affiliates.  In addition, there were eleven fatalities and a
number of injuries as a result of the Macondo Well incident.  The
cause of the explosion, fire, and resulting oil spill is being
investigated by numerous industry participants, governmental
agencies, and Congressional committees.

The company performed a variety of services on the Macondo well,
including cementing, mud logging, directional drilling,
measurement-while-drilling, and rig data acquisition services.
The company had completed the cementing of the final production
casing string in accordance with BP Exploration's requirements
approximately 20 hours prior to the Macondo Well incident.

Currently, the company has been named along with other
unaffiliated defendants in more than 270 class-action complaints
involving pollution damage claims and in 15 suits involving
multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death and other personal
injuries arising out of the Macondo Well incident.

The pollution damage complaints generally allege, among other
things, negligence and gross negligence, property damages, and
potential economic losses as a result of environmental pollution
and generally seek awards of unspecified economic, compensatory,
and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.  The wrongful
death and other personal injury complaints generally allege
negligence and gross negligence and seek awards of compensatory
damages, including unspecified economic damages and punitive
damages.

The company has retained counsel and are investigating and
evaluating the claims, the theories of recovery, damages asserted,
and our respective defenses to all of these claims.  The company
says that additional lawsuits may be filed against the company.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a
variety of services and products to customers in the energy
industry related to the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas.  The company serves oil and natural gas
companies throughout the world and operates under two segments:
the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.  It conducts business worldwide in
approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its
divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North
America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.


HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Files Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund has filed a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court after the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling denying class certification
in a consolidated suit against Halliburton Company, according to
the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the SEC initiated an investigation in connection with
the company's change in accounting for revenue on long-term
construction projects and related disclosures.

In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions
were filed against the company.  Several of those lawsuits also
named as defendants several of the company's present or former
officers and directors.  The class action cases were later
consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action complaint,
styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was
filed and served upon the company in April 2003.  As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now styled
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton
Company, et al.  The company settled with the SEC in the second
quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company failed
to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the company file its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct
deficiencies in its earlier complaint.  In April 2006, AMSF filed
its fourth amended consolidated complaint.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that had been
re-pled.

A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March 2007
the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all individual
defendants other than the company's Chief Executive Officer.  The
court ordered that the case proceed against Halliburton and its
CEO.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the company's response was filed in November 2007.  The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.

AMSF then filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
requesting permission to appeal the district court's order denying
class certification.

The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.  Both parties filed
briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December of
2009.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
denying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court.  The brief in opposition to the petition for
writ of certiorari is due on Aug. 18, 2010.

Halliburton Company -- http://www.halliburton.com/-- provides a
variety of services and products to customers in the energy
industry related to the exploration, development, and production
of oil and natural gas.  The company serves oil and natural gas
companies throughout the world and operates under two segments:
the Completion and Production segment, and the Drilling and
Evaluation segment.  It conducts business worldwide in
approximately 70 countries. The business operations of its
divisions are organized in four primary geographic regions: North
America, Latin America, Europe/Africa/CIS, and Middle East/Asia.


HEWITT ASSOCIATES: Accused of Selling Company for Inadequate Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
IBEW Local 164 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. Hewitt Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-31612 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. July 23, 2010), accuses
Hewitt's Board of Directors of breaching their fiduciary duties to
the Company's public shareholders, in connection with their
decision to consider the proposed acquisition of Hewitt by Aon
Corporation, a transaction which IBEW says is "a result of a
flawed process and a grossly inadequate offer price".

IBEW Local relates that the proposed transaction not only denies
the Company's shareholders adequate consideration, but also grants
benefits to the individual defendants not equally shared by the
Company's public shareholders.

On July 12, 2010, 2010, Hewitt announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby Aon would acquire each
outstanding share of Hewitt in exchange for $25.61 in cash plus
0.6362 shares of Aon stock, in a transaction that valued Hewitt at
$50 per share (roughly $4.9 billion), based on each company's
closing price on July 9, 2010.

IBEW Local says the offer price is inadequate, undervalues Hewitt,
and falls below analysts' expectations for the Company.  Hewitt
stockholders will also miss out on the Company's good fortunes as
they will be relegated to a minor stake in the new entity.  IBEW
explains that while Hewitt will be providing nearly 49% of the
revenue for the combined entity, Hewitt shareholders will get only
about 19% of the shares of the new entity moving forward.

IBEW Local 164 Pension Fund is a stockholder of Hewitt, a global
human resources consulting and outsourcing company.  Aon is an
insurance services holding company that provides risk and
insurance and brokerage services and consulting services.

Tne Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Martin E. Restituyo, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600

               - and -

          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300


HEWITT ASSOCIATES: Second Shareholder Suit Filed in Cook County
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean M. Calamore, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Hewitt Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
2010-CH-31613 (Ill. Super. Ct., Cook Cty. July 23, 2010), accuses
the director defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public shareholders, arising out of their decision to
consider the proposed acquisition of Hewitt by Aon Corporation.

On July 12, 2010, 2010, Hewitt announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby Aon would acquire each
outstanding share of Hewitt in exchange for $25.61 in cash plus
0.6362 shares of Aon stock, in a transaction that valued Hewitt at
$50 per share (roughly $4.9 billion), based on each company's
closing price on July 9, 2010.

Jean M. Calamore is a stockholder of Hewitt, a global human
resources consulting and outsourcing company.  Aon is an insurance
services holding company that provides risk and insurance and
brokerage services and consulting services.

Ms. Calamore says that the offer price of $50 per share is
inadequate, undervalues Hewitt, and falls below analysts'
expectations for the Company.

Hewitt stockholders will also miss out on the Company's good
fortunes as they will be relegated to a minor stake in the new
entity.  IBEW explains that while Hewitt will be providing nearly
49% of the revenue for the combined entity, Hewitt shareholders
will get only about 19% of the shares of the new entity moving
forward.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Martin E. Restituyo, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600

               and

          Bruce G. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE G. MURPHY
          265 Llwyds Lane
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231-4202

Coverage of IBEW Local 164 Pension Fund v. Hewitt Associates,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-31612 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.),
appears in today's edition of the Class Action Reporter.


HIDALGO COUNTY: Sued Over Excessive Ticketing of Truant Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Chapa, a reporter for ValleyCentral.com, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union has filed a class action lawsuit
against all nine justices of the peace regarding the way they
handle truancy cases in Hidalgo County.

The lawsuit against the JPs, Sheriff Lupe Trevino and Hidalgo
County was filed in McAllen federal court late Monday afternoon.

Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that Hidalgo
County violates the constitutional rights of truant teenagers by
jailing them for their inability to pay fines from missing school,
the class action claims.  "Since January 2009, approximately 150
teens served time in Hidalgo County jail that may be attributed to
unpaid fines for failure to attend school or other school-related
misdemeanor offenses that are not supposed to be punishable by
jail time," the lawsuit states.

The policy purportedly applies to teens aged 17 and older, but the
class claims many teens are ticketed "long before they turn 17,
the age when adult criminal responsibility attaches in Texas."

Lead plaintiffs Francisco De Luna and Elizabeth Luna, both 18, say
they spent 18 days in the Hidalgo County Adult Detention Facility
for truancy tickets they received when they were only 13 and 14
years old.

Hidalgo County's sheriff and its magistrates create a "school-to-
prison pipeline" by routing truant students through the juvenile
justice system, a "significant predictor of involvement with the
adult criminal justice system," the class claims.

"Rather than increasing the likelihood that such students will
complete school and graduate, excessive ticketing for failure to
attend school, and aggressive enforcement of such tickets by
courts, often drives students to drop out," the class says.

"Texas law permits and encourages the assessment of multiple fines
of up to $500 per ticket against students for failure to attend
school," the students add.  "[B]etween 2005 and 2009, the number
of truancy or failure to attend school charges filed by Texas
schools increased 40 percent, from about 85,000 to 12,000.

"Excessive ticketing for school-related conduct can quickly amount
to thousands of dollars in fines and places an onerous burden on
low-income families," the lawsuit states.

The median per capita income in Hidalgo County is $9,899, and 45.1
percent of children ages 18 and under live in poverty, according
to the complaint.

The county's magistrates violate students' due-process rights by
not considering their inability to pay before sending them to
jail, the class claims.

The magistrates also fail to offer indigent students the options
of paying their fines in installments or discharging their debt
through community service, the class says.

Defendants include the county, Sheriff Guadalupe Trevino, and
county magistrates and justices of the peace Mary Palacios,
Gilberto Saenz, Jesus Morales, Bobby Contreras, Rosa Trevino, Luis
Garza, Ismael Ochoa, Charlie Espinoza and "Speedy" Jackson.

The students demand an order halting truancy bookings and a
declaration that the practice is illegal and unconstitutional.

A copy of the Complaint in De Luna, et al. v. Hidalgo County,
Texas, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00268 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/27/Hildago.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa Graybill, Esq.
          Gouri Bhat, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
          P.O. Box. 12905
          Austin, TX 78711
          Telephone: 512-478-7300

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Dana B. Levy, Esq.
          Clay A. Morton, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: 713-751-0400


HONEYCUTT TEAR: Accused of Failing to Pay for Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Vargas, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Honeycutt Tear Off, Case No.
2010-00390741 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. July 16, 2010),
accuses the construction company of failing to pay overtime wages,
failing to provide itemized wage statements, failing to pay all
wages dues at the time of termination, failing to provide rest
breaks and meal periods, failing to pay all wages due (employees
were made to work off the clock); and engaging in unfair practices
in violation of the California Business and Professions Code
section 17200 et. seq.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin A. Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD AND ASSOCIATES
          A Professional Law Corporation
          17822 E. 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669-2850


HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Remaining Claims in Allen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., continues to defend the remaining
claims in the matter Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement
Earnings Plan, according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million and the
maximum aggregate liability for the remaining three claims
(alleging that Honeywell impermissibly reduced the pension
benefits of certain employees of a predecessor entity when the
plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate benefits in
accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at $500 million.

Any amounts payable, including the settlement amount, have or will
be paid from the company's pension plan.  In October 2009, the
Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Honeywell
Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to the claim regarding the
calculation of benefits.

The company says it continues to expect to prevail on the
remaining claims in light of applicable law and our substantial
affirmative defenses, which have not yet been considered fully by
the Court.

Honeywell International -- http://www.honeywell.com/-- is a
Fortune 100 diversified technology and manufacturing leader,
serving customers worldwide with aerospace products and services;
control technologies for buildings, homes, and industry;
automotive products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.
Based in Morris Township, N.J., Honeywell's shares are traded on
the New York, London, and Chicago Stock Exchanges.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Defends Automotive Filter Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc., defends a consolidated suit
alleging that it engaged in a conspiracy with other filter
manufacturers to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S. customers
for after-market automotive filters, according to the company's
July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.

This suit is a purported class action on behalf of direct
purchasers of filters from the defendants.  Parallel purported
class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of
filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of
jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

The consolidated lawsuit is S&E Quick Lube Distributors Inc v.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 2008-cv-00475 (Conn.)
(Arterton, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kerry R. Callahan, Esq.
          UPDIKE, KELLY & SPELLACY, P.C.
          One State St., Po Box 231277
          Hartford, CT 06123-1277
          Telephone: 860-548-2600
          E-mail: krcallahan@uks.com


HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Recalls 1,700 Riding Lawn Tractors
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Husqvarna Professional Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,700 Husqvarna Riding Lawn
Tractors.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The fuel line on the rear-mounted fuel tank is too long and can
come in contact with moving parts while the tractor is in use,
posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received 53 reports of fuel line damage.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves gas-powered Husqvarna riding lawn tractors
designed for residential use.  The lawn tractor's model and serial
numbers are printed on an identification plate located underneath
the tractor seat.  Models and serials numbers included in the
recall are: GTH27V52LS lawn tractors with model numbers
96043009100 and 96043009900, with serial numbers 010810A00XXXX
through 05061000XXXX.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10748.html

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A. and sold through
Husqvarna authorized dealers nationwide from January 2010 to May
2010 for about $3,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled riding
tractors and contact Husqvarna to arrange a free repair.  For more
information or to schedule a free repair, contact Husqvarna toll-
free at (877) 257-6921 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Saturday.  Consumers can also visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.husqvarna.us/july2010Alert


IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Price-Fixing" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend a series of class action
lawsuits alleging the company, along with other defendants,
conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are sold,
according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2010.

Beginning in May 2009, a series of class action lawsuits has been
filed against the company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. and
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. alleging that the
defendants conspired to fix prices at which blood reagents are
sold, asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs,
and attorneys' fees.

All of these complaints make substantially the same allegations.
The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  There has been no discovery
and no determination has been made whether any of the plaintiffs'
claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class
action.

A list of the cases may be viewed for free at http://is.gd/dOvJ2

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- Immucor manufactures
and sells a complete line of reagents and systems used by
hospitals, reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and
identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of
blood prior to transfusion.  Immucor markets a complete family of
automated instrumentation for all of its market segments.


IMMUCOR INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., continues to defend the matter In re Immucor, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-2351-TWT, pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended May 31, 2010.

A private securities litigation was filed in the U.S. District
Court of North Georgia against the company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers asserts federal
securities fraud claims on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of the company's Common Stock between Oct. 19, 2005 and
June 25, 2009.

The case alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
failing to disclose that Immucor had violated the antitrust laws,
and challenges the sufficiency of the Company's disclosures about
the results of FDA inspections and the company's quality control
efforts.  There has been no discovery and no determination has
been made whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or
should be allowed to proceed as a class action.

Immucor, Inc. -- http://www.immucor.com/-- Immucor manufactures
and sells a complete line of reagents and systems used by
hospitals, reference laboratories and donor centers to detect and
identify certain properties of the cell and serum components of
blood prior to transfusion.  Immucor markets a complete family of
automated instrumentation for all of its market segments.


KNIGHT-BARRY: Sued for Improperly Collecting Mortgage Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Knight-Barry Title Inc., one
of Wisconsin's largest title companies, tacks on extra fees for
filing mortgage releases without performing the services, a class
action claims in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Gevaart, et ux. v. Knight-Barry Title,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-011972 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/27/Knight-Barry.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas P. Dehler, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          111 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1750
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414-226-9900
          E-mail: ddehler@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com


LOWER MERION: Lawyer Seeks Payment of $418,000 Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Nunnally, staff writer for The Philadelphia Inquirer,
reports that the Lower Merion webcam case is far from over, but
the plaintiffs' legal costs already exceed $400,000 -- and the
lawyers are asking to be paid now.

Mark S. Haltzman, lead attorney for student Blake Robbins, asked a
federal judge Monday to order the Lower Merion School District to
pay $418,850.60 while the case is pending.

The request comes on top of expenses -- estimated in June at
$780,000 -- Lower Merion has covered for outside lawyers and
computer experts since the lawsuit over privacy violations was
filed Feb. 16.

The court, Mr. Haltzman wrote, has already ordered the district to
end the monitoring of students' school-issued laptops' cameras, as
Mr. Robbins requested when the lawsuit was filed Feb. 16.

Since Mr. Robbins' side is now a "prevailing party," it is
entitled to have the district pay some of the outstanding bills,
Mr. Haltzman wrote. Under federal law, a successful civil-rights
plaintiff can recover attorneys' fees and other costs of going to
court from the losing side.

Mr. Haltzman said in an interview he had not planned to ask U.S.
District Judge Jan E. DuBois to order a payout in the middle of
the case. He said he expected fees would be paid out of a
settlement in a class-action suit that covered all Lower Merion
students monitored through their computers. But the school system
challenged the class-action status, setting in motion a
potentially long process to decide who is covered in the case.

"That could be a year down the road," Mr. Haltzman said, adding
that his was a small firm that "can't afford to carry" the case.

Henry E. Hockeimer Jr., Esq., who is representing the district,
said he could not yet say whether the district would contest Mr.
Haltzman's request.

"We'll respond to it at the appropriate time and in the
appropriate way," Mr. Hockeimer said.

In a breakdown of the costs provided to the court, lawyers' fees
account for $316,707, with $201,280 -- nearly half -- described as
the cost of Mr. Haltzman's time, at $425 an hour.

The next-largest charge is an $87,925 expense for a computer-
consulting company.

Mr. Robbins, 16 and a sophomore at Harriton High School when the
suit was filed, and his family claim their privacy rights were
violated when the district's technicians remotely turned on the
camera on his school-issued Apple MacBook as part of a security
policy designed to track computers.

The district has acknowledged that more than 58,000 photos and
screen shots were captured from students' computers while the
remote-monitoring policy was in place. More than half the images,
the district has said, resulted from technicians' forgetting to
turn off monitoring software after computers were recovered.

An internal investigation found that the remote-monitoring
software had been used to activate laptop webcams 76 times in two
years and that no evidence suggested students had been spied upon.

A proposal introduced at a district meeting July 19 would ban
laptop webcam monitoring.

Contact:

     Mark S. Haltzman, Esq.
     LAMM RUBENSTONE LLC
     3600 Horizon Boulevard, Suite 200
     Trevose, Pennsylvania


MADRISSA GROUP: Accused of Not Paying Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Scott Borgioli, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Madrissa Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 2010-00390238 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty. July 15, 2010), accuses the property
inspection company of failing to pay minimum wages, failing to pay
overtime wages, failing to provide meal periods, failing to
provide itemized wage statements, failing to reimburse business
related mileage expenses, and engaging in unlawful and unfair
business practices in violation of the Business and Professions
Code Section 17200.

Mr. Borgioli, who was hired to perform home inspection services by
Madrissa Group in February 2010, says that Madrissa Group
maintained a policy of paying inspectors at piece rates for
completed work orders, mainly resulting from the mis-
classification of employees as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          E-mail: ira@spiromoss.com
                  greg@spiromoss.com
                  scott@spiromoss.com

               - and -

          Samuel S. Deskin, Esq.
          DESKIN LAW FIRM
          16944 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 8
          Encino, CA 91316
          Telephone: (800) 709-8978


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Faces Second Amended Complaint in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., faces a second amended complaint
alleging violations of federal securities laws in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

A putative shareholder class-action lawsuit captioned Reese v.
Bahash, Case No. 1:2007-cv-01530, was filed on Aug. 28, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against
Robert Bahash, the chief financial officer of the company,
alleging claims under the federal securities laws and state tort
law concerning Standard & Poor's ratings, particularly its ratings
of subprime mortgage-backed securities.  Mr. Bahash was not served
with the complaint.

On Feb. 11, 2008, the District Court in the case entered an order
appointing a lead plaintiff and permitting plaintiffs to amend the
complaint on or before April 16, 2008.

On April 7, 2008, the District Court granted the application of
the lead plaintiff to extend the deadline for its amendment of the
complaint to May 7, 2008.

An amended complaint was filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The company and another individual was named as
additional defendants.

The Amended Complaint asserts, among other things, that the
defendants failed to warn investors that problems in the
structured finance market, particularly the sub-prime lending
market, would negatively affect the company's financial
performance.  Service of the Amended Complaint was thereafter
effectuated.

On June 18, 2008, in response to a Consent Motion filed on behalf
of the company and the individual defendants, the District Court
entered an order transferring the action to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Nov. 3, 2008, the District Court denied Lead Plaintiff's motion
to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act in order to obtain documents S&P submitted
to the SEC during the SEC's examination.

The Court granted a motion by plaintiffs permitting the plaintiffs
to amend the complaint on June 29, 2010 and the Second Amended
Complaint was filed on July 1, 2010.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is a
global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a range
of information products and services.  The company's markets
include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and marketing
information services.  In March 2007, Standard & Poor's, a
division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the sale of its
mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As part of the
transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund data from
Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through a range of
distribution channels, including printed books, magazines and
newsletters, online via Internet Websites and digital platforms,
through wireless and traditional on-air broadcasting, and through
a range of conferences and trade shows.  The company's books and
magazines are printed by third parties.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Appeal of Plaintiffs on Suits Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in two putative class actions on the
dismissal of their suits against The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, remains pending, according to the company's July 23, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Sept. 10, 2008, a putative shareholder class action titled
Patrick Gearren, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, its Board of Directors, its Pension
Investment Committee and the administrator of its pension plans.

The Complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties to participants in the company's ERISA plans by allowing
participants to continue to invest in Company stock as an
investment option under the plans during a period when plaintiffs
allege the company's stock price to have been artificially
inflated.

The Complaint also asserted that defendants breached fiduciary
duties under ERISA by making certain material misrepresentations
and non-disclosures concerning the ratings business in plan
communications and the Company's SEC filings.

A virtually identical complaint was filed on June 12, 2009, in an
action titled Sullivan v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 09-CV-5450, in the Southern District of New York.

On Feb. 10, 2010, both actions were dismissed in their entirety
for failure to state a claim under applicable law.

The McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. -- http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/-- is a
global information services provider serving the financial
services, education and business information markets with a range
of information products and services.  The company's markets
include energy, construction, aerospace and defense, and marketing
information services.  In March 2007, Standard & Poor's, a
division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, completed the sale of its
mutual fund data business to Morningstar, Inc.  As part of the
transaction, Standard & Poor's will license fund data from
Morningstar.  The company serves its customers through a range of
distribution channels, including printed books, magazines and
newsletters, online via Internet Websites and digital platforms,
through wireless and traditional on-air broadcasting, and through
a range of conferences and trade shows.  The company's books and
magazines are printed by third parties.


MILLERCOORS: Calif. Suit Complains About Mail-in Rebate Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that beer
giant MillerCoors maximized its profits on a $6 mail-in rebate on
cases of beer by making the rebate instructions "illegible for
most consumers," a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Stacy Wishner says she bought a case of Coors Light
based on the mail-in rebate, but found the instructions too
complicated and tiny to read.  She says MillerCoors and CVS
Pharmacy boldly advertise that consumers can save up to $6 on
Coors and Miller beer, but attach only a 2-by-3-inch rebate form
to each box, "even smaller than an average business card."

Even if the instructions could be easily read, the class claims,
the rebate process is so convoluted that those who attempt to
follow through will most likely have their rebates denied because
of a missing attachment or bit of information.

"The mail-in rebate program constitutes an unfair and unlawful
bait-and-switch tactic," the complaint states.

The whole process is "unnecessarily burdensome," the class claims.

MillerCoors is the second-largest brewing company in the United
States, producing about 500 million gallons of beer a year.  CVS,
which is under contract with the brewer, is one of the largest
retail pharmacy chains in the country.

Coors has been in hot water with consumers before for allegedly
issuing invalid sweepstake prize codes on its products.  In that
lawsuit, consumers said the brewer continued to promote the
contest even after it knew about the flaw.

Ms. Wishner and the class demand an injunction, punitive damages,
restitution and disgorgement for conversion, breach of contract,
breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, false advertising,
and violations of consumer and business laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Wishner v. MillerCoors, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-05295 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/27/Coors.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: 909-557-1250
          E-mail: rdm@wmtrial-law.com
                  jkk@mccunewright.com


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Stipulation Approval in Tenn. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice in a
consolidated class-action against Mueller Industries, Inc.,
brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of copper tubes used in,
among other things, the manufacturing of air-conditioning and
refrigeration units (ACR copper tubes), remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
according to the company's July 23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 26, 2010.

Two copper tube actions were commenced in June and August 2006 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and
were consolidated to become the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.

In general, the copper tube actions allege anticompetitive
activities with respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes
(copper plumbing tubes).  These suits are seeking monetary and
other relief.

The company and Mueller Europe are named in the Indirect-Purchaser
ACR Tube Action.  The company and Mueller Europe have been served,
but have not yet been required to respond to the claims.

On July 9, 2010, all parties to the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action filed with the court a Stipulation for Dismissal with
Prejudice and related motion pursuant to which the parties seek a
dismissal with prejudice of the Indirect-Purchaser ACR Tube
Action.   The Stipulation and Motion remain pending before the
court.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products.
The range of these products include copper tube and fittings;
brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brass
forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe,
fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricated
tubular products; and steel nipples.  The company also resells
imported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable iron
fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  Mueller's
operations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico,
Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates through two
segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Copper Tube Action in California Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has dismissed the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action against
Mueller Industries, Inc., according to the company's July 23,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2010.

The copper tube action, which the company calls as the Indirect-
Purchaser Copper Tube Action, was filed in July 2006, and is a
purported class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of
copper plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes in the U.S. and alleges
anticompetitive activities with respect to the sale of both copper
plumbing tubes and ACR copper tubes.  It seeks monetary and other
relief.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Co., Deno Holding
Company, and Deno Acquisition Eurl are named defendants in the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

The company, Mueller Europe, WTC Holding Company, and Deno Holding
Company have been served, but have not yet been required to
respond, in the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
the Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action.

On April 20, 2010, plaintiffs filed with the court overseeing the
Indirect-Purchaser Copper Tube Action a Stipulation for Dismissal
with Prejudice pursuant to the class-action settlement filed in
the Indirect Purchaser Plumbing Tube Action.

The California Stipulation sought a court order of dismissal and,
on April 29, 2010, the court dismissed the case in its entirety
with prejudice.

Mueller Industries, Inc. -- http://www.muellerindustries.com/--
manufactures copper, brass, plastic, aluminum, and other products.
The range of these products include copper tube and fittings;
brass and copper alloy rod, bar, and shapes; aluminum and brass
forgings; aluminum and copper impact extrusions; plastic pipe,
fittings and valves; refrigeration valves and fittings; fabricated
tubular products; and steel nipples.  The company also resells
imported brass and plastic plumbing valves, malleable iron
fittings, faucets and plumbing specialty products.  Mueller's
operations are located throughout the U.S., and in Canada, Mexico,
Great Britain, and China.  The company's operates through two
segments: the Plumbing and Refrigeration segment and the Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) segment.


PACIFIC RIM: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed the
judgment made by the trial court in the case Perez V. Pacific Rim
Transport, Inc., Case No. B212594 (July 26, 2010).

The case alleges violations of the Unfair Competition Law
predicated on alleged violations of the Insurance Code and Labor
Code.  The trial court resolved the causes of action implicating
the Labor Code by an order granting defendant's motion for summary
adjudication of issues; the court resolved the causes of action
involving the Insurance Code by an order granting a motion for
judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.  The current
appeal was taken from a final judgment incorporating both rulings

Pacific Rim Transport, Inc., operated a business that transported
clients' cargo into and out of the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach
and San Diego.  PRTI did not own any trucks. Instead, it entered
into written agreements with the "owner-operators" of trucks which
provided that an owner-operator would lease a truck to PRTI, and
that PRTI would pay the owner-operator for making deliveries of
cargo, using PRTI's ostensibly leased truck, to destinations
designated by PRTI. The lease agreements provided that the owner-
operator of a truck, as the lessor, would pay the costs of
maintaining and operating the leased truck, including the cost of
liability insurance.

In March 2003, Pedro Perez filed a class action complaint against
PRTI. Perez's original complaint alleged two causes of action. The
first alleged a violation of the UCL based on alleged violations
of Insurance Code sections 35, 1631, 1633, and 1733, or, in
colloquial terms, for "transacting insurance without a license."
The second, labeled "common count for damages," largely restated
Perez's claim that PRTI was transacting insurance without a
license.

In June 2007, the trial court certified a class of 587 owner-
operators described as: "All persons and entities in California
that provided trucking services, including the transport of cargo
and freight, for [PRTI] from March 28, 1999 through the present,
and who had money deducted from their earnings by [PRTI] to pay
for insurance coverage, obtained by [PRTI], for those persons and
entities."

Mr. Perez filed a first amended complaint adding two new causes of
action to his lawsuit. The added third cause of action alleged
Perez was an employee and that PRTI failed to indemnify him for
liability insurance, in violation of Labor Code sections 2802 and
2804. The added fourth cause of action alleged that PRTI had
violated the UCL based on the alleged violation of the Labor Code.

Mr. Perez contends the trial court's order granting PRTI's motion
for summary adjudication of issues of his third and fourth causes
of action -- which involved the issue of his status as an
independent contractor -- must be reversed because the evidence
presented in the context of PRTI's motion for SAI established that
he "was PRTI's employee."  The California Court of Appeals agrees
with Mr. Perez that the trial court should not have summarily
adjudged him an independent contractor.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

    http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100726014


PANASONIC CONSUMER: Sued for False Representations About Viera TVs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Novotny, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company, et al., Case
No. 2010-00389759 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. July 14, 2010),
accuses Panasonic of making knowingly false and misleading
representations about the quality of the 2008-2010 models of the
Panasonic Viera Plasma televisions.

Mr. Novotny alleges that over the course of using the television,
the contrast ratios decrease and the image quality deteriorates.
Mr. Novotny says that Panasonic has not offered to issue refunds
or provide replacement TVs to purchasers of the 2008-2010
Panasonic Viera Plasma TVs.  Mr. Novotny relates that by
misrepresenting the quality of the 2008-2010 Panasonic Viera TVs,
Panasonic also violated California consumer laws and engaged in
unfair business practices under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          M. Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          MOWER, CARREON & DESAI, LLP
          8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1450
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 474-3004
          E-mail: desai@mocalaw.com
                  decastro@mocalaw.com


REDLANDS COMMUNITY: Former Employees Win Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse B. Gill, staff writer for The Sun, reports that a group of
former Redlands Community Hospital employees won a class-action
lawsuit claiming they are owed millions in unpaid wages and
overtime.

The lawsuit, naming about 1,000 workers, alleged the hospital
lowered the base pay of employees working 12-hour shifts after a
1999 state law passed requiring overtime pay for employees working
more than eight hours in a single day.

Although the jury ruled in favor of the class-action suit, the
hospital won't have to pay nearly the original amount sought.

The lawsuit sought damages near $18 million.

"Obviously, Redlands Community Hospital is disappointed in the
jury's decision in the litigation about its wage and overtime
compliance," Kathi Sankey-Robinson, vice president of the
hospital's business development and marketing department, wrote
Monday in a statement. "The hospital, however, is pleased to have
received minimum damages of only $55,000 in overtime wages and
$38,000 in interest."

Santa Ana-based attorney Frank Coughlin, who is representing the
hospital employees, did not return phone messages for comment
Monday.

Hospital management believes pertinent evidence was left out of
its end of the case, Ms. Sankey-Robinson wrote.

The state Labor and Workforce Development Agency cleared the
hospital of any violations of the state overtime law in 2007. The
agency's letter to the hospital was omitted in the court case.

"We remain perplexed as to why the judge did not allow this
evidence -- the state's own report and approval of our wage and
overtime regulations -- as part of our case," Ms. Sankey-Robinson
wrote.

Hospital management discussed the 1999 legislation with its staff
after it passed, she wrote. Staff members had the choice of voting
to keep their 12-hour shifts or switching to eight-hour shifts and
opted to keep the 12-hour shifts.

"To accommodate the staff, the hospital adjusted the rate of pay
for those working 12-hour shifts to allow for the state-mandated
overtime," Ms. Sankey-Robinson wrote. "Redlands (Community
Hospital) thus complied with the law."

When the hospital lowered the base pay of employees, the suit
claimed the move meant employees ended up with the same pay as
before the law was passed.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissed as Defendant in Suit Over Art Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. has been dismissed as a defendant in
one suit being brought on a class action basis relating to artwork
sold at shipboard art auctions, according to the company's July
23, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

There are a total of five cases pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against Park West
Galleries, Inc., doing business as Park West Gallery, PWG Florida,
Inc., Fine Art Sales, Inc., Vista Fine Art LLC, doing business as
Park West At Sea, and other named and unnamed parties, including
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises Inc. and other
unaffiliated cruise line companies.

The actions are being brought on behalf of purchasers of artwork
at shipboard art auctions conducted by Park West on the named
cruise lines.  One of these actions is being brought on a class
action basis.  The substance of the claims in all five actions is
virtually the same.  The suits allege that the artwork Park West
sells is not what it represents to its customers and that Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Celebrity Cruises Inc. and other named
cruise lines are complicit in the activities of Park West,
including engaging in a conspiracy with Park West in violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and are
being enriched unjustly from the sale of the artwork.

The actions seek from the named defendants refund and restitution
of all monies acquired from the sale of artwork at shipboard
auctions, recovery for the amount of payments for the purchased
artwork, damages on the RICO claims in an indeterminate amount,
permitted statutory damages and unspecified equitable or
injunctive relief.  The suits also seek from certain non-Royal
Caribbean parties additional statutory, breach of contract and
breach of warranty damages in unspecified amounts.

In June 2010, the Court dismissed Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and
Celebrity Cruises Inc. from all five actions on the basis that the
claims against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises
Inc. were not timely filed and/or properly pled.

Plaintiffs have since filed motions seeking permission from the
Court to amend their complaints to address the noted deficiencies
and to rename Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Celebrity Cruises
Inc. as defendants in the actions.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com/--
is a global cruise vacation company that operates Royal Caribbean
International, Celebrity Cruises, Pullmantur, Azamara Club
Cruises, CDF Croisieres de France, and TUI Cruises through a 50%
joint venture.  The company has a combined total of 39 ships in
service and three under construction.  It also offers unique land-
tour vacations in Alaska, Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, Latin
America and New Zealand.


ROYAL ITEMS: Suit Says Officers Moving Assets to Another Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Abadi, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Royal Items Inc., et al., Case No. 651078/2010 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty. July 23, 2010), brings claims against
certain of Royal Items' shareholders and officers for breach of
fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, usurpation of
corporate opportunity.

Mr. Abadi says the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other means, diverting business opportunities
from Royal Items, wasting and misappropriating corporate assets by
purchasing goods that have no bearing on Royal Items' business,
ignoring the conflicts of interests in owning shares and/or
managing Royal Deluxe Accessories LLC (an entity formed by the
individual defendants and engaged in the same or similar business
as Royal Items), and transferring or preparing to transfer Royal
Items' assets to another corporation.

The individual defendants further breached their fiduciary duties
by putting their own interests ahead of the shareholders, failing
to maximize shareholder value, acting in bad faith, and willfully
causing Royal Items to violate state and federal statutes.

Mr. Abadi owns 20% of the shares of common stock of Royal Items, a
corporation engaged in the importation and selling of costume
jewelry, women's and children's hair accessories, brushes, combs,
mirrors, teen and children's cosmetics and novelty items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Goldsmith, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C.
          One Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 643-7000


STANDARD & POOR'S: Australian Councils Launch Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Clancy Yeates at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that local
Australian councils are launching a legal fight against Standard &
Poor's rating agency that stamped the highest possible credit
rating on complex securities that unraveled during the global
financial crisis.

Standard & Poor's is facing the $16 million class action from 12
councils that lost millions after buying assets it rated as AAA,
which were sold through the investment bank ABN Amro.

The claim, to be lodged in the Federal Court this week, will
allege investors were misled because of flaws in S&P's ratings
method.

It is the first Australian class action to target a rating agency
for its role in spreading complex structured debt products, which
have left dozens of councils and charities out of pocket.

It follows similar claims against big rating agencies in the
United States, where S&P and Moody's have unsuccessfully argued
they were protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution
-- freedom of speech.

Spearheaded by the law firm Piper Alderman and funded by IMF
(Australia), the claim will allege two other rating agencies
refused to rate the product -- known as Rembrandt -- that S&P
deemed worthy of AAA status.

A partner at Piper Alderman, Amanda Banton, Esq., said the class
action would also allege negligence and misleading and deceptive
conduct on the part of S&P.

Ms. Banton said there were flaws in the rating method, and the
final product did not have the characteristics of an AAA-rated
security.  "It's really an example of ratings gone mad," Ms.
Banton said. "This particular product should never have been rated
AAA. It's apparent that a number of other ratings agencies in fact
refused to rate it."

According to S&P, an AAA rating means the product or issuer in
question has an "extremely strong capacity to meet financial
commitments."

But as credit market conditions deteriorated in the financial
crisis, the councils lost close to 90› in the dollar from the
Rembrandt notes, a type of product known as constant proportion
debt obligations.

The claim comes after the councils also sued Local Government
Financial Services, which invests council staff superannuation.

LGFS, which bought $45 million of the assets in 2006 and 2007, has
filed a cross claim against the rating agency and ABN Amro.

A spokeswoman for S&P would not discuss the claim. "We cannot
comment on legal matters," she said. A spokeswoman for ABN Amro,
now known as RBS, said the bank would "vigorously defend" claims
from the councils and LGFS.

In response to many products' collapse, regulators around the
world have tried to make rating agencies more accountable for
their actions.

The big three -- S&P, Moody's and Fitch -- no longer rate retail
products in Australia after the corporate regulator made them
liable for ratings published in prospectus documents. New US laws
have also made agencies liable for the ratings they publish.

Contact:

     Amanda Banton, Esq.
     PIPER ALDERMAN
     Governor Macquarie Tower, Level 23
     1 Farrer Place
     Sydney NSW 2000
     Telephone: +61 2 9253 9929
     Facsimile: +61 2 9253 9900
     Email: abanton@piperalderman.com.au


THERATECHNOLOGIES: Ex-Shareholder to Launch Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Theratechnologies said Monday that it has received from 121851
Canada Inc., formerly a shareholder of the Company, a motion of
authorization to institute a class action against the Company and
certain of its executive officers. This motion was filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, district of Montreal. This person
intends to initiate a class action to represent the class of
persons who were shareholders at May 21, 2010 and who sold their
common shares of the Company on May 25 or 26, 2010. This person
alleges that Theratechnologies did not comply with its continuous
disclosure obligations as a reporting issuer by failing to
disclose a material change.

Theratechnologies is of the view that the allegations contained in
the motion are frivolous and entirely without merit and intends to
take all appropriate actions to vigorously defend its position.

Theratechnologies is a Canadian biopharmaceutical company.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Prius Headlights
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge in Los Angeles refused on Monday to throw out
a class action against Toyota Motor Corp. over defective
headlights on their Prius vehicles.

The case alleges that Toyota failed to inform consumers that the
headlights on recent-model Priuses can sporadically turn on and
off, creating a safety hazard.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real concluded that the plaintiffs
sufficiently allege that the defect could pose an "unreasonable
safety risk" to consumers.

The claims are unrelated to separate allegations involving sudden
unintended acceleration; Toyota recalled more than 8 million
vehicles and faces more than 200 lawsuits in multidistrict
litigation involving those alleged defects.

"Lots of people feel this is a safety hazard," said Melissa
Harnett, a partner at Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten in
Los Angeles, one of the plaintiffs lawyers in the headlight case,
following arguments on Monday. "We think it's just as much of a
safety defect [as the acceleration problem] because the law
requires operating headlights."

The suit, which was filed in May 2009, is one of three class
actions pending against Toyota over defective Prius headlights. A
second action, filed on Feb. 16, has been joined with the first. A
third case, filed in August 2009, is pending in Los Angeles
County, Calif., Superior Court.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of consumers
who purchased the optional high-intensity discharge, or HID,
headlight system for their 2006 through 2010 Priuses. The standard
Prius is equipped with halogen headlights.

Although Toyota has not acknowledged the headlight failures, more
than 1,000 consumers have filed complaints with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, according to the amended
complaint, which was filed in December 2009. The agency opened a
preliminary investigation but declined to order a recall,
according to the amended complaint.

The suit alleges that dealerships, upon learning of the problem,
either have done nothing or replaced the headlight systems with
"equally defective parts" at costs of up to $1,800.

Meanwhile, they claim, the headlights present a considerable
safety risk to consumers.

"These intermittent headlight failures are repeated and
unpredictable, resulting in a great deal of confusion and concern
for Prius owners," plaintiffs attorneys wrote in their amended
complaint. "Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, expect and
assume that a vehicle's headlights are safe and will not suddenly
and repeatedly shut off during use."

The suit seeks restitution for a nationwide class under
California's Unfair Competition Law and its Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

In a motion to dismiss, Toyota's lawyers argued that most of the
alleged defects occurred at least one year after the plaintiffs
purchased their vehicles -- often after the warranty period
expired.

"Although not expressly alleged, Plaintiffs apparently believe
that their HID headlights should operate for some undisclosed
period of time beyond Toyota's express warranty covering
Plaintiffs' Prius vehicles," Toyota's lawyers wrote in their
dismissal motion. "Toyota brings this Motion to Dismiss because
headlights are clearly maintenance parts on a vehicle that have a
finite life and will likely fail at some point during the useful
life of the vehicles; and thus, Plaintiffs' claims are fatally
flawed."

Toyota's lawyers questioned the risks posed by headlight failures.

"Headlight failure, while posing a potential safety risk if such
failure involves both headlights simultaneously at night, does not
present an unreasonably dangerous condition because headlight
failure is a known and inevitable risk that every vehicle operator
accepts when operating any vehicle with any type of headlight at
night," they wrote. (Italics in the original.)

A lawyer for Toyota, Michael Mallow, a partner in the Los Angeles
office of Loeb & Loeb, declined to comment.

One of the Plaintiffs' lawyers may be reached at:

     Melissa Harnett, Esq.
     WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN LLP
     5567 Reseda Boulevard, Suite 330
     P.O. Box 7033
     Tarzana, California 91357
     Telephone: (818) 705-6800
                (323) 872-0995
     Facsimile: (818) 996-8266
                (818) 345-0162

Defendant's lawyer:

     Michael Mallow, Esq.,
     LOEB & LOEB LLP
     10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
     Los Angeles, California 90067
     Telephone: 310-282-2287
     Facsimile: 310-919-3883
     Email: mmallow@loeb.com


WASHINGTON: Teachers Union to File Class Action Over Firings
------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Fabel, Washington Examiner staff writer, reports that the
Washington Teachers Union will file a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of its 241 teachers fired last week for poor performance in
the classroom, union President George Parker said Monday.

"The story is not the firings so much as the document upon which
the firings are based," Mr. Parker said. "It is a flawed
document."

He derided the "euphoric" reaction of observers and news reports
nationwide, saying he's "never seen a superintendent receive less
scrutiny than Chancellor [Michelle] Rhee."

"There's this sense that since [other superintendents] haven't
been able to do something like this, she must be right," he said.
"They assume that if she's firing people, they must be poor
teachers."

The document in question is the D.C. Public Schools' teacher and
staff evaluation tool, called Impact, which rates teachers from
"highly effective" to "ineffective."  An "ineffective" score left
185 of the system's 4,300 teachers without a job in the fall --
about 10 times the average number of firings in similarly sized
districts. Another 56 teachers were let go for licensure problems.

Fired teachers can file grievances if the process of their
evaluation was flawed -- for example, if they received only four
observations instead of the required five. They cannot file
grievances based on the outcome of the evaluations.

Ms. Rhee said her team intentionally did not fire teachers whose
process they knew to be flubbed -- leaving the union with little
room for remedy.

The class-action suit would address what Mr. Parker sees as the
unfair pieces of the evaluation tool, developed by Ms. Rhee's
central office team without union input. It will be filed as soon
as D.C. Public Schools releases to the union a list of the fired
teachers, he said.

Mr. Parker is especially miffed that 5 percent of a teacher's
overall score is based on the performance of his or her school.

"A teacher's evaluation should be based on what he or she can
control," he said.

He also condemned the speedy implementation of Impact, saying one
year was not adequate for teachers and evaluators to fully
understand the expectations. Mr. Parker pointed to a survey
completed in the winter of about 1,000 union teachers who
overwhelmingly disapproved of Impact. About 80 percent of those
who returned surveys scored "effective" or "highly effective," Mr.
Parker said.

"They would've had every reason to say this was a great document,
and they didn't."

Jason Kamras, 2005 National Teacher of the Year and the DCPS
official responsible for Impact's implementation, argued that the
program offers one of the most comprehensive and high-quality
evaluations in the country, and was developed with the input of
nearly 1,000 teachers and principals. "It becomes the engine of
change for the school system," he said.


WESTWOOD COLLEGE: Arbitrator Rejects Class Action Case Attempt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Relying on April's much anticipated United States Supreme Court
class arbitration ruling, Stolt-Neilsen SA v. Animalfeeds
International, an Arbitrator with the American Arbitration
Association has rejected an attempt to create a class action case
against Denver-based Westwood College, today announced Peter
Homer, Founding Member of Miami-based Law Firm HomerBonner, who
represents Westwood College.

"We were able to successfully argue that the Supreme Court's
ruling prevented a class action firm from getting around binding
arbitration agreements that were clearly presented to students at
the college."

The July 16th ruling by Arbitrator William H. Baker involving
Westwood College is the first in the nation to rely on the high
court's ground-breaking decision.

Attorneys from the Miami, Florida law firm HomerBonner
successfully argued that arbitration agreements signed by students
of Westwood College upon admission precluded a class action
arbitration.

In April's precedent-setting high court decision, a class action
case was brought against international shipping firm Stolt-Nielsen
by customer Animalfeeds. As part of their contract, both companies
signed an arbitration agreement to cover legal disputes. The
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stolt-Nielsen in a closely watched
anti-trust case that is starting to have broad effects on
arbitration. It held that imposing class arbitration on parties
that haven't agreed to class arbitration conflicts with the
Federal Arbitration Act, countering the overwhelming majority of
arbitral decisions that have concluded just the opposite.

"We were able to successfully argue that the Supreme Court's
ruling prevented a class action firm from getting around binding
arbitration agreements that were clearly presented to students at
the college," said Mr. Homer. "This has never been a case about
student issues or the quality of education. For Westwood College,
those issues are easy to defend and have never been in question.
Let's be clear, this was an attempt by a class action firm to reap
large fees through class arbitration."

"Westwood has always been and will continue to be open to
resolving any legitimate issue that a current or former student
may have," said Westwood's Chief Legal Counsel Bill Ojile. "And,
in the rare instance in which the College is unable to reach a
mutually satisfactory resolution with a student, we are willing to
resolve the matter expeditiously by individual arbitration."

In March 2010, Westwood filed a defamation case against the
plaintiffs' firm who sought the class action status, James, Hoyer,
Newcomer, Smiljanich & Yanchunis, for what it believes were public
tactics via social and traditional media designed intentionally to
mislead current and prospective students. Westwood will continue
to pursue that case.

                    About Homer Bonner

HomerBonner -- http://www.HomerBonner.com/-- is a boutique law
firm in Miami, Florida founded in 1986, focusing on complex
litigation and commercial transactions. Among its numerous areas
of practice, HomerBonner's education law practice is one of the
most extensive in the country. The firm represents a variety of
colleges and universities, including public and private two-year
and four-year institutions of higher education, from small liberal
arts colleges to large universities.

                  About Westwood College

Westwood College -- http://www.Westwood.edu/-- is an institution
of higher learning with 17 campuses across the country, as well as
a large online school. Westwood offers a unique hands-on, career-
focused curriculum providing three-year bachelor's degrees in in-
demand fields. More than 20,000 Westwood graduates have
transformed their lives by obtaining the skills, tools, experience
and connections necessary to achieve meaningful careers. Westwood
College is accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career
Schools and Colleges (ACCSC) and the Accrediting Council for
Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), depending on the campus.
Westwood is also a candidate for regional accreditation from the
Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Generation Reserves $53MM at June 30 for Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved about US$53 million at June 30, 2010 and US$49
million at Dec. 31, 2009 in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on July 22, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Generation had reserved US$49 million at March 31, 2010 in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. (Class Action Reporter,
April 30, 2010)

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
other Company units, Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy
Company.

As of June 30, 2010, about US$15 million of the US$53 million
related to 171 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining US$38 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050.

During the three months ended June 30, 2010, Generation increased
its reserve by about US$4 million, primarily due to an increase in
forecasted claims.

Chicago-based Exelon Corporation distributes electricity to 5.4
million customers in northern Illinois (including Chicago) and
southeastern Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia) through
subsidiaries Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $2.6-Bil Net Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos-related reserves were
US$2.593 billion as of June 30, 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 22, 2010.

During the first quarter of 2010, the Company's asbestos-related
reserves were US$2.684 million.

Net asbestos losses and expenses paid were US$165 million in the
first six months of 2010, compared with US$123 million in the same
period of 2009.

The increase in paid losses in 2010 reflected the final payment of
a previously reserved settlement.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance
for auto, home and business. A component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average, the Company has more than 30,000 employees and
generated revenues of about US$25 billion in 2009. The Company is
based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Subject to Coverage Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s subsidiary, Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. (TPC), continues to be involved in asbestos-related
insurance lawsuits that are pending in various courts.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
TPC and other insurers (not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc.
(SPC)) in state court in West Virginia. These and other cases
subsequently filed in West Virginia were consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, W.Va.

The plaintiffs allege that the insurer defendants engaged in
unfair trade practices in violation of state statutes by
inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. Similar
lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos
claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These
suits are collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii
Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products. Lawsuits seeking similar
relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of
purported common law duties to third parties, have also been
asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims
asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common
Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations. Additional
common law claims were filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions. This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to US$412 million by TPC. In May 2004, the parties
reached a settlement resolving substantially all pending and
similar future Common Law Claims against TPC. This settlement
requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC, subject to a
number of significant contingencies. Among the contingencies for
each of these settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by
the bankruptcy court (1986 Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the
pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common
Law Claims pending against TPC (Clarifying Order).

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order. On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties
to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en
banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment,
which were denied.

TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second
Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions were
granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding
that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and
Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against
TPC. Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the bankruptcy court
had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.

However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On Oct. 21, 2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying
Order requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of
the order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.
On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.

On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing
En Banc with the Second Circuit, requesting further review of its
March 22, 2010 opinion, which was denied on May 25, 2010. TPC
presently intends to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
U.S. States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
March 22, 2010 opinion.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims. All such cases that
are still pending and in which SPC has been served are currently
on the inactive docket in Texas state court.

SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct actions in Ohio
state court. Those actions have all been dismissed following
favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate courts.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance
for auto, home and business. A component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average, the Company has more than 30,000 employees and
generated revenues of about US$25 billion in 2009. The Company is
based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Records $28M Asbestos Provisions at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd recorded asbestos provisions of US$28 million as of
June 30, 2010, compared with US$53 million as of Dec. 31, 2009,
according to a Company report, on Form 6-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2010.

The Company recorded asbestos payments of US$25 million during the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010.

The Company's Combustion Engineering Inc. subsidiary (CE) was a
co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits claiming damage for
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos. A smaller
number of claims were also brought against the Company's former
Lummus subsidiary as well as against other entities of the
Company.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The CE
plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization
(collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and
Aug. 31, 2006, respectively.

Under the Plans, separate personal injury trusts were created and
funded to settle future asbestos-related claims against CE and
Lummus and on the respective Plan effective dates, channeling
injunctions were issued under Section 524(g) of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code under which all present and future asbestos-
related personal injury claims filed against the Company and its
affiliates and certain other entities that relate to the
operations of CE and Lummus are channeled to the CE Asbestos PI
Trust or the Lummus Asbestos PI Trust, respectively.

Included in the asbestos provisions at June 30, 2010, is a payment
of US$25 million to the CE Asbestos PI Trust, payable in 2011, if
the Company attains an "Earnings before interest and taxes" margin
of 9.5 percent in 2010.

If the Company is found by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the
Bankruptcy Court) to have defaulted on its asbestos payment
obligations, the CE Asbestos PI Trust may petition the Bankruptcy
Court to terminate the CE channeling injunction and the
protections afforded by that injunction to the Company and other
entities of the Company, as well as certain other entities,
including Alstom SA.

Zurich, Switzerland-based ABB Ltd engineers power and automation
technologies for utility, industrial, and commercial customers.
Power products include transmission, distribution components, and
turnkey substation systems. Automation technologies monitor and
control equipment and processes in industrial plants and
utilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $7.8MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related
costs of US$7.8 million during the three months ended June 30,
2010, compared with US$23.4 million during the three months ended
June 30, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs were
US$20.4 million during the six months ended June 30, 2010,
compared with US$71.7 million during the six months ended
June 30, 2009.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to
resolve its asbestos-related liabilities.

On Sept. 19, 2008, the Company filed a Joint Plan of
Reorganization and several associated documents, including a
disclosure statement, with the Bankruptcy Court.

Confirmation hearings on the Plan concluded in January 2010.
Confirmation and consummation of the Plan are now subject to the
findings of the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for the
District of Delaware and the satisfaction of other conditions set
forth in the Plan, many of which are outside the Company's
control.

Long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500 million as of both
June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Long-term asbestos-related
contingencies were US$1.7 billion as of both June 30, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009.

Columbia, Md.-based W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other
products to petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of
plastics; silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a
wide range of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for
food and beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives
and building materials for commercial and residential
construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco, Units Still Subject to Lawsuits in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc, together with certain current and former subsidiaries,
continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits in Mississippi courts.

During 2004, the Company and certain current and former
subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with numerous other
third-party companies as co-defendants, in three multi-party
lawsuits filed in Mississippi.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or death, primarily
under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities during the
period 1965 through 1986.

In compliance with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the
individual claimants in the original multi-party lawsuits whose
claims were not dismissed were ordered to file either new or
amended single plaintiff complaints naming the specific
defendant(s) against whom they intended to pursue claims.

As a result, out of more than 600 initial multi-party claims, the
Company has been named as a defendant by 65 individual plaintiffs.
Of these claims, 62 claims or lawsuits are pending in Mississippi
state courts and three are pending in the U.S. District Court as a
result of their removal from state court.

To date, written discovery and plaintiff depositions have taken
place in eight cases involving the Company. While several cases
have been selected for trial during 2010 and 2011, none of the
cases pending against the Company in Mississippi state court are
included within those selected cases. Discovery is still ongoing.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi, the Company has
two other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against it in
litigation in other jurisdictions.

London-based Ensco plc is an offshore drilling contractor that
owns a fleet of 45 offshore rigs, including 40 jack-ups, one barge
rig, and four ultra-deepwater semisubmersible (capable of drilling
in up to 8,500 feet of water). The Company conducts most of its
drilling business in the Asia/Pacific region (which includes Asia,
the Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $168MM Asbestos Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos liability was US$168 million
for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$208
million for the six months ended June 30, 2009, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on July 23, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's asbestos-related liability was US$169 million for
the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$210
million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2010)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$13 million for the
six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$12 million for
the six months ended June 30, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos. Additionally, the Company has received claims for
asbestos exposure that have not been litigated.

The claims and lawsuits allege occupational illness resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products. In most cases, the
claimants do not have credible medical evidence of physical
impairment resulting from the alleged exposures.

Additionally, most claims filed against the Company do not specify
an amount of alleged damages.

Omaha, Nebr.-based Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific
Railroad is a rail freight carrier. Union Pacific Railroad
transports coal, chemicals, industrial products, and other bulk
freight over a system of more than 32,000 route miles in 23 states
in the western two-thirds of the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Liabilities at $1.543BB at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$1.543 billion as of June 30, 2010, compared
with US$1.040 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 23, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$1.049
billion as of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, April 30,
2010)

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$854 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with
US$941 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $49MM June 30 Litigation Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded asbestos-related litigation
charges, net of insurance, of US$49 million during the three
months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$37 million during the
three months ended June 30, 2009, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 23, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company recorded asbestos-related litigation charges of US$87
million during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with
US$73 million during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company is a defendant
in personal injury actions related to asbestos. The Company did
not mine or produce asbestos, nor did it make or sell insulation
products or other construction materials that have been identified
as the primary cause of asbestos related disease in the vast
majority of claimants.

Products containing asbestos previously manufactured by the
Company or by previously owned subsidiaries primarily fall into
two general categories: refractory products and friction products.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $816M NARCO Receivable at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements
reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future NARCO-related asbestos claims of
US$816 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$831 million as of Dec.
31, 2009.

The Company owned North American Refractories Company from 1979 to
1986. NARCO produced refractory products (high temperature bricks
and cement) that were sold largely to the steel industry in the
East and Midwest. Less than 2% of NARCO's products contained
asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other
claims.  On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO. In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos
claims against the Company. The stay has remained in effect
continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing. The Company also agreed to
pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a
plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company (which
amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent
company US$40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO
indebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan
of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and
Honeywell.  In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of
the Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is fully briefed, oral
argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter was submitted
for decision. In connection with the settlement of an insurance
coverage litigation matter, the insurer appellants will withdraw
their appeal regarding the NARCO Plan.

The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however,
until the resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings of
a NARCO affiliate; in June 2010, the Third Circuit directed that
this appeal be reheard en banc.

The Company expects that the stay enjoining litigation against
NARCO and the Company will remain in effect until the effective
date of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims of US$1.127 billion as of June 30, 2010
and US$1.128 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The estimated liability for pending claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with about 260,000 current claimants, and an estimate
of the unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for
bankruptcy protection.

Substantially all settlement payments with respect to current
claims have been made. About US$100 million of payments due under
these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO
trust.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $200M NARCO Receivable at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. says that about US$200 million of
unsettled asbestos coverage under certain policies is included in
its North American Refractories Company (NARCO)-related insurance
receivable at June 30, 2010.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers Casualty and Insurance
Company filed a lawsuit against the Company and other insurance
carriers in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York,
disputing obligations for NARCO-related asbestos claims under high
excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance
carriers. In July 2010, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement resolving all asbestos coverage issues with certain
plaintiffs.

The Company said it believes it is entitled to the coverage at
issue and expects to prevail in this matter. In the third quarter
of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical choice of law issue
concerning the appropriate method of allocating NARCO-related
asbestos liabilities to triggered policies.

The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling was upheld by
the intermediate appellate court in the second quarter of 2009.
Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the
highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.

A related New Jersey action brought by the Company has been
dismissed, but all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been
preserved in the New York action.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 21,359 Unresolved Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction material business
faced 21,359 unresolved asbestos claims during the six months
ended June 30, 2010, compared with 19,940 unresolved claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Bendix faced 20,900 unresolved asbestos claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, April 30,
2010)

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
1,215 Bendix claims filed and 204 Bendix claims resolved and
reactivated. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company
recorded 2,697 Bendix claims filed and 34,708 Bendix claims
resolved and reactivated.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through June 30, 2010, the Company has resolved about
154,000 Bendix related asbestos claims. The Company had 129 trials
resulting in favorable verdicts and 17 trials resulting in adverse
verdicts. Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal,
five verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claims
were settled and the remaining five have been or will be appealed.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$579 million at June 30, 2010 and
US$566 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$154 million at June
30, 2010 and US$172 million at Dec. 31, 2009 are reflected as
receivables in its consolidated balance sheet.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NARCO, Bendix Liabilities at $1.706B at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total asbestos liabilities
of US$1.706 billion as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$1.694
billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$1.706 billion as of June 30, 2010, about US$579 million
related to the Company's Bendix friction material business and
US$1.127 billion related to the Company's former unit, North
American Refractories Company (NARCO).

The Company's insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities were US$970 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with
US$1.003 billion as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Of the US$970 million as of June 30, 2010, about US$154 million
related to Bendix and US$816 million related to NARCO.

Morris Township, N.J.-based Honeywell International Inc. serves
customers worldwide with aerospace products and services; control
technologies for buildings, homes, and industry; automotive
products; turbochargers; and specialty materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Records $855Mil Reserve at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was US$855
million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$828 million as of
June 30, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos litigation reserve was US$899
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$796 million as of
March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was US$463
million as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$464 million as of
June 30, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$478
million as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$440 million as of
March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical
products, services and solutions. The Company operates through
five commercial units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients,
Ashland Hercules Water Technologies, Ashland Performance
Materials, Ashland Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland
Distribution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brief in AMSF Action v. Halliburton Due Aug. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company says that a brief in opposition to the
petition for writ of certiorari, which was filed by the
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, is due on Aug. 18, 2010.

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an
investigation in connection with its change in accounting for
revenue on long-term construction projects and related
disclosures. In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class
actions were filed against the Company. Several of those lawsuits
also named as defendants several of the Company's present or
former officers and directors.

The class action cases were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al.
v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the
Company in April 2003.  As a result of a substitution of lead
plaintiffs, the case is now styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al. The Company
settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that the Company failed
to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in
August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct
deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, AMSF filed
its fourth amended consolidated complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion
in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the
claims against all individual defendants other than the Company's
Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case
proceed against the CEO and the Company.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007. The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification. AMSF then filed a
motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting
permission to appeal the district court's order denying class
certification. The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.

Both parties filed briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral
argument in December 2009. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order denying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Houston-based Halliburton Company, an oilfield service company,
serves the upstream oil and gas industry with services ranging
from locating hydrocarbons to producing oil and gas. The Company
operates in two segments: Drilling and Evaluation and Completion
and Production.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 65,352 Claims Ongoing Against Crane at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 65,352 pending asbestos-related claims during the
three months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 71,420 claims
during the three months ended June 30, 2009.

During the three months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
824 new claims, 242 settlements, and 2,709 dismissals. During the
three months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded 1,356 new
claims, 379 settlements, and 4,823 dismissals.

The Company was a defendant in 67,479 asbestos exposure claims as
of March 31, 2010, compared with 75,266 claims as of March 31,
2009. (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2010)

As of June 30, 2010, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 65,352 pending claims as of June 30, 2010, about 23,200
claims were pending in New York, about 14,200 claims were pending
in Mississippi, about 10,000 claims were pending in Texas and
about 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters.

The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54 million, was made on
July 14, 2008, about two years after the adverse verdict, in the
Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

The second payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June
2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los
Angeles on April 21, 2009.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Action Subject to Appellate Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that the Patrick O'Neil asbestos-related claim is
currently the subject of further appellate proceedings before the
Supreme Court of California.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of
which, the O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on appeal.

The Supreme Court accepted review of the matter by order dated
Dec. 23, 2009.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeal in Baccus Lawsuit Ongoing in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal over the James Baccus asbestos claim is ongoing
before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia, with compensatory damages of
US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million.

The Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan.
5, 2009.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Brewer Case Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is pursuing an appeal in the Chief Brewer asbestos-
related lawsuit, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2010.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles. The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Woodard v. Crane Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that plaintiffs' appeal over a ruling that favored
the Company, in the Dennis Woodard asbestos claim, is ongoing.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5 percent)
of plaintiffs' damages of US$16.93 million. However, based on
California court rules on allocation and damages, judgment was
entered against the Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, plus
costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009 the court
advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment was
entered in favor of the Company.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Post-Trial Moves in Nelson, Bell Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Post-trial motions were filed by both Crane Co. and plaintiffs in
the James Nelson and Larry Bell asbestos-related lawsuits.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pa., state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

Judgment will be entered after the post-trial motions are
resolved.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $52MM for Settlement, Defense
---------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related gross settlement and defense costs incurred
(before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co.
totaled US$52 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and
US$59.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2009.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company totaled US$27.5
million for the three months ended March 31, 2010, compared with
US$22.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class
Action Reporter, April 23, 2010)

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month
periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 totaled a US$27.5 million net
payment and a US$12.5 million net payment, (reflecting the receipt
of US$14.5 million for full policy buyout from Highlands Insurance
Company), respectively.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2010, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) about 66,000 claims, not including MARDOC
claims.

The related settlement cost incurred by the Company and its
insurance carriers is about US$254 million, for an average
settlement cost per resolved claim of US$3,845. The average
settlement cost per claim resolved was US$4,781 during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009 and US$4,186 during the year ended Dec. 31,
2008.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Has $672MM Long-Term Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability was US$672,848,000 as of
June 30, 2010, compared with US$720,713,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$696,768,000 as
of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2010)

The Company's current asbestos liability was US$100.3 million as
of both June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was
US$192,625,000 as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$213,004,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was US$35.3
million as of both June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Stamford, Conn.-based Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered
industrial products. The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Subject to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., for over 30 years, has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2010.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC). The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50
percent shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

As of the April 16, 2000 order that stayed and enjoined asbestos
claims against it, the Company was one of many defendants in
numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims
served on it.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

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: Olin Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries are still defendants in
various legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 26, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Clayton, Mo.-based Olin Corporation is a manufacturer. Its Chlor
Alkali Products segment produces chlorine and caustic soda, sodium
hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and
potassium hydroxide. Its Winchester segment produces and
distributes sporting ammunition, reloading components, small
caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial
cartridges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has $2.5MM Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at June 30, 2010, had accrued
about US$2.5 million for asbestos liability and related expenses,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on July 27, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At March 31, 2010, the Company had accrued about US$2.1 million
for asbestos-related liability and related expenses. (Class Action
Reporter, April 30, 2010)

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work the Company may have performed at
various locations. The Company has never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products.

Through June 30, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 4,900
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,300 claims were pending
and 3,600 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through June 30, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an integrated engineering,
procurement and construction provider and major process technology
licensor. The Company provides conceptual design, technology,
engineering, procurement, fabrication, construction, commissioning
and associated maintenance services to customers in the energy and
natural resource industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Issues Split Ruling in Marchand Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Collen Comer Marchand,
et al. v. Asbestos, et al., Defendants.

Judge Charles R. Jones, James F. McKay III, and Terri F. Love
entered judgment in Case No. 2010-C-0650 on July 21, 2010.

Mr. Dudley Marchand was employed at Pendleton Shipyards from about
1943 to 1945. While employed at Pendelton, Mr. Marchand was
allegedly exposed to asbestos. This asbestos exposure resulted in
his contraction of mesothelioma and subsequent death.

On Aug. 12, 2009, Collen Marchand (Mr. Marchand's wife, Mrs.
Marchand), Bonnie A. Marchand, Patricia Marchand Picou, Dudley L.
Marchand, III, Wayne M. Marchand, Rebecca Marchand Kennedy,
Charmain Marchand Bizette, and Brett L. Marchand (Mr. Marchand's
children, collectively the Marchands) sued multiple defendants
including Pendleton's executive officers and Continental Insurance
Company as the successor by merger to Fidelity and Casualty
Company of New York (Fidelity), in its capacity as the general
liability carrier of Pendleton.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Marchands amended their original petition
for damages, and on Feb. 1, 2010, Continental filed a peremptory
exception of no right of action based on corporate dissolution. On
April 15, 2010, the Marchands filed an opposition to Continental's
peremptory exception of no right of action.

After a hearing was held, the district court rendered a judgment
that sustained the peremptory exception of no right of action on
behalf of Continental, based on corporate dissolution. The
district court also sustained the peremptory exception of no right
of action regarding the wrongful death claims and granted
plaintiffs 30 days to amend their petition.

The district court withdrew the peremptory exception of no right
of direct action regarding the alleged executive officers of
Pendleton Shipyards Company, Inc. after Continental advised the
court that the exception had been withdrawn. This writ application
followed.

The Marchands' writ application was granted in part and the
district court judgment granting Continental's exception of no
right of action was vacated. In all other respects, this writ
application was denied.

Gerolyn P. Roussel, Esq., Perry J. Roussel, Jr., Esq., Jonathan B.
Clement, Esq., Lauren R. Clement, Esq., of Roussel & Clement in
LaPlace, La., represented the Marchands.

Gary M. Zwain, Esq., Nicole M. Boyer, Esq., Duplass Zwain
Bourgeois, Esq., of Pfister & Weinstock in Metairie, La.,
represented Continental Insurance Company f/k/a Fidelity &
Casualty Company of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Split Ruling in Huber Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in an asbestos case in which Ronald L. Huber is one
of the plaintiffs.

The case is styled Ronald L. Huber; William J. Airgood; Anthony
DeFabbo; John Dinio; Ernest Gishnock; John Bidlencsik; Hilma
Mullins and William Deem, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Robert G. Taylor, II; Robert G.
Taylor, P.C.; R.G. Taylor II, P.C.; Estate of Robert A. Pritchard;
Pritchard Law Firm, PLLC; Joseph B. Cox, Jr.; Joseph B. Cox, Jr.
Ltd; and Cox and Cox, LLP, Defendants.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 002-304 on July 20, 2010.

This 2002 action involved claims related to Defendants'
representation of the eight above-named Plaintiffs, and of others
similarly situated, in consolidated individual personal injury
actions for exposure to asbestos, in the State Court of
Mississippi (the "Mississippi Asbestos Exposure Consolidated
Litigation" or "Mississippi AECL").

At present, the Named Plaintiffs surviving claims were, that in
representing them in the Mississippi AECL, Defendants:

-- Breached their fiduciary duties of candor/disclosure and
   loyalty under Texas law by (i) covertly allocating settlement
   funds disproportionately/inequitably in favor of other
   asbestos litigation clients in other states (to maximize the
   Defendants' revenue from the cases) and (ii) imposing and
   receiving excessive expenses; but

-- Caused them no actual harm as they failed to show they would
   have achieved a better outcome in the underlying actions but
   for counsel's conduct.

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed on March 15, 2010
and they failed to comply with the Court's direction. Presently
pending was Defendants' Joint Motion to Strike and Dismiss
Allegations and Claims.

Defendant's Joint Motion to Strike and Dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part. Allegations regarding Plaintiffs' entitlement
to disgorgement of all fees and a constructive trust were
stricken, as were allegations of actual injury/harm and
entitlement to an accounting of individual settlement allocations;
Defendants' Motion was denied in all other respects.

The case will proceed to consideration of class certification and
summary judgment. Defendants' Answer to the Third Amended
Complaint shall be filed no later than Aug. 3, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.Y. Men Indicted in Harbour Club Cleanup Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three men from New York were indicted over the illegal removal of
asbestos from the Harbour Club Apartments in Belleville, Mich.,
ClickOnDetroit.com reports.

The 47-year-old Peter DeFillippo (a/k/a Charlie DeVito), 30-year-
old David Olsen, and 65-year-old Joseph Terranova face charges of
conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and making false
statements to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Officials said the men lied to the MDEQ about the illegal removal
of asbestos in June 2008 from the Harbour Club. After a fire
destroyed an apartment building in January 2008, a survey revealed
that more than 30,000 square feet of asbestos containing materials
was present in the damaged building.

Authorities said Mr. DeFillippo, owner of Excel Demo. Inc., which
is a general contracting firm from New York, told Mr. Olsen to
remove the asbestos.

In order to avoid paying for the asbestos to be properly abated,
Mr. Olsen used temporary laborers to remove the asbestos, without
the presence of a certified professional, and without using proper
techniques according to work practice standards, according to an
indictment.

Mr. Terranova supervised capital projects for GFI Management
Services, Inc., the property management company for Harbour Club.
According to the indictment, he was also aware of the asbestos-
containing materials in the building and the fact that Mr.
DeFilippo and Mr. Olsen planned to remove the materials in
violation of the law.

The men were arrested in the Eastern District of New York and
Pennsylvania on a four-count indictment. They are scheduled to
appear in the Eastern District of Michigan on Aug. 5, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Accurate Building's Lawsuit Referred to Mo. AG
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission referred Accurate Building Inspectors'
asbestos-related case to the Missouri Attorney General's Office in
order to pursue legal action for violations of Missouri's Air
Conservation Law and Regulations, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Missouri Air Conservation Commission voted to refer the case
to the AG's office in order to attain compliance from the Company.
The commission also seeks a civil penalty for the violations.

Accurate Building Inspectors of Springfield, Mo., failed to
register with the department as a certified asbestos contractor,
The Rolla Daily News reports. The Company also failed to provide
notification of the asbestos work, before beginning the project.

The Air Pollution Control Program documented that the Company used
improper work practices while removing the asbestos, which may
have posed a health risk to workers and nearby residents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 470 Open Suits Ongoing v. U.S. Steel at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of June 30, 2010, was a
defendant in about 470 active asbestos cases involving about 3,025
plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 450
active asbestos cases involving about 3,010 plaintiffs. (Class
Action Reporter, April 30, 2010)

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active
cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs.

About 2,560, or about 85%, of these claims are currently pending
in jurisdictions that permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.

These asbestos cases allege various respiratory and other diseases
based on alleged exposure to asbestos. The Company is currently a
defendant in cases in which a total of about 200 plaintiffs allege
that they are suffering from mesothelioma.

During the period ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 145
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 130 new claims. Amounts
paid to resolve claims were US$5 million.

During the period ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 200
claims dismissed, settled and resolved and 190 new claims. Amounts
paid to resolve claims were US$7 million.

Pittsburgh-based United States Steel Corporation produces and
sells steel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular
products, in North America and Central Europe. Operations in North
America also include transportation services (railroad and barge
operations), real estate operations and engineering consulting
services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Has $3.8M A&E Liabilities at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. recorded long-term asbestos- and
environmental-related liabilities of US$3.8 million as of June 30,
2010, compared with US$3.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded US$6.4 million as of June 30, 2010 (US$7.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2009) for A&E matters (recorded in
"Accounts payable and other" in the balance sheets).

The amounts were primarily to address remediation of contaminated
sites, asbestos containing materials, management of hazardous
waste material disposal, outstanding air quality measures for
certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas assets and
penalties it has been or expected to be assessed.

Houston-based Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. owns the 1,900-mile
United States portion of the world's longest liquid petroleum
pipeline. When combined with the Canadian segment (owned and
operated by Enbridge Inc.), the pipeline system spans about 3,500
miles across North America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Facing 7,900 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. faced 7,900 asbestos-related claims during
the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 8,000 claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company has been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a
number of lawsuits filed in the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury from asbestos.

The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the
Company owns or formerly owned or from products that the Company
formerly manufactured for specialized applications.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
100 claims closed. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company recorded 200 claims closed and 100 claims opened.

Woodland Park, N.J.-based Cytec Industries Inc. is a global
specialty chemical and materials company and sells its products to
markets for aerospace composites, structural adhesives, automotive
and industrial coatings, chemical intermediates, electronics,
inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Records $43M Payments at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments during the
second quarter of 2010 were US$43 million, down from US$49 million
during the second quarter of 2009, according to a Company report,
on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 28, 2010.

New lawsuits and claims filed during the first half of 2010 were
about 29 percent lower than the same period last year. The number
of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims was about 6,400 as
of June 30, 2010, down from about 6,900 at the end of 2009.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$175 million as of
both June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009. Long-term asbestos-related
liabilities were US$233 million as of June 30, 2010 and US$310.10
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Perrysburg, Ohio-based Owens-Illinois, Inc. manufactures consumer-
preferred, 100-percent recyclable glass containers. The Company
employs more than 22,000 people with 78 plants in 22 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Face Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a number of
pending lawsuits (which include, in many cases, multiple
claimants) that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the
past.

While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally
declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this
trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not
increase.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were primarily encapsulated and used as components of process
equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos-containing fibers occurred during
the use of this equipment.

Irving, Tex.-based Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and
aftermarket service provider of comprehensive flow control
systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Lawsuits Ongoing Against Mine Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various lawsuits and claims (including asbestos-related actions)
arising in the normal course of business are still pending against
Mine Safety Appliances Company.

These lawsuits are primarily product liability claims. The Company
is presently named as a defendant in about 2,500 lawsuits,
primarily involving respiratory protection products allegedly
manufactured and sold by the Company.

Collectively, these lawsuits represent a total of about 11,800
plaintiffs. About 90% of these lawsuits involve plaintiffs
alleging they suffer from silicosis, with the remainder alleging
they suffer from other or combined injuries, including asbestosis.

These lawsuits typically allege that these conditions resulted in
part from respirators that were negligently designed or
manufactured by the Company. Consistent with the experience of
other companies involved in silica and asbestos-related
litigation, in recent years there has been an increase in the
number of asserted claims that could potentially involve the
Company.

Pittsburgh-based Mine Safety Appliances Company Mine Safety
Appliances Company develops, manufactures and supplies products
that protect people's health and safety. Its comprehensive line of
safety products is used by workers around the world in the fire
service, homeland security, construction, and other industries, as
well as the military.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Cites $4.5M Litigation Expense at July 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expenses were
US$4,543,000 during the three months ended July 2, 2010, compared
with US$4,027,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2009,
according to a Company press release dated July 28, 2010.

The Company recorded asbestos coverage litigation expenses of
US$3,881,000 during the three months ended April 2, 2010, compared
with US$2,966,000 during the three months April 3, 2009, according
to a Company press release dated April 30, 2010. (Class Action
Reporter, May 7, 2010)

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$542,000 during the
three months ended July 2, 2010, compared with US$1,482,000 during
the three months ended July 3, 2009.

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$8,424,000 during the
six months ended July 2, 2010, compared with US$6,993, during the
six months ended July 3, 2009.

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,977,000 during the
six months ended July 2, 2010, compared with US$3,127,000 during
the six months ended July 3, 2009.

Richmond, Va.-based Colfax Corporation, through its global
operating subsidiaries, manufactures positive displacement
industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation,
commercial marine, global defense and general industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashfield Joiner Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of John Alan Simpson, a former
joiner from Kirkby-in-Ashfield, England, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, the Nottingham Post reports.

Mr. Simpson died at the age of 78 on June 17, 2010.

Coroner Dr. Nigel Chapman concluded that Mr. Simpson died of an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cumbria Steel Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest ruled that the death of Peter William Taylor, a retired
gas fitter and steel worker from Great Broughton, Cumbria,
England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, News & Star
reports.

Mr. Taylor died on Feb. 13, 2010 at the age of 68 from
mesothelioma. He was diagnosed with the disease in 2009.

Prior to his death, and after being diagnosed, Mr. Taylor made a
full statement about his work history, which was read out during
the hearing.

In it, Mr. Taylor said he was involved with the demolition of
blast furnaces at Workington steelworks in the 1970s. He described
being lowered into the furnaces and using a hammer and pick to
break up the bricks and cement.

After leaving the steelworks, Mr. Taylor worked as a gas fitter
for Northern Gas, now British Gas, where he spent most of his
career. He said a large part of his job was to dig trenches and
lay new plastic gas pipes to replace the old ones, which were made
from asbestos.

Mr. Taylor, who was married to Sarah Eleanor and had a daughter
Susanna, left British Gas in 1994. He was born in Workington and
initially worked down the pit in Siddick. He also served overseas
with the Paras. He retired in 1997 following a brain hemorrhage.

North and west Cumbria's coroner, David Roberts, said, "I'm
entirely satisfied that Mr. Taylor was exposed to asbestos during
his working life. My verdict is that he died of industrial
disease, namely mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stellison Penalized for Safety Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------
The Colchester Magistrates Court fined electrical retailer
Stellison Ltd GBP13,000 plus costs for exposing its staff to
asbestos, the Daily Gazette reports.

Stellison admitted to breaching the Health and Safety At Work Act
by failing to protect the health, safety and welfare of their
employees.

Colchester Council brought the charges after visiting Stellison's
premises in Harwich Road, Colchester, on Nov. 18, 2009. An
inspector found staff had been exposed to asbestos fibers while
working in the storeroom. He noticed fibrous material where
Asbestos Insulation Board (AIB), known as Asbestolux, had been
removed.

Stellison was served with a Prohibition Notice to prevent access
to the affected area until it was decontaminated, and an
Improvement Notice requiring them to come up with a management
plan.

The Council said Stellison failed to ensure damaged asbestos
containing materials were removed until March 2007, despite having
an Asbestos survey nearly two years earlier.

The contractor appointed to remove it was not licensed by the
Asbestos Licensing Unit of the Health and Safety Executive to
remove this type of asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Read Family Seeks Witnesses in Claim for Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solicitors and the family of William Read, of Darwen, England, are
seeking witnesses after Mr. Read died of asbestos-related lung
cancer, the Lancashire Telegraph reports.

Mr. Read, who died in March 2009, found that he had lung cancer in
2008. From 1956 to 1971, he worked for building and maintenance
company S. Sharples (Darwen) Limited, where he was employed as a
general laborer and was exposed to asbestos. The Company no longer
exists.

Mr. Read, who died at the age of 84, instructed John Pickering and
Partners LLP to bring a claim for compensation for his contraction
of an asbestos related cancer. The case is against the former
Company's insurers.

Mr. Read's family is now seeking witnesses who worked with him at
S. Sharples (Darwen) Limited, who can support their claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strawbridge Dismisses Lawsuits by 7 Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge David Strawbridge dismissed lawsuits filed
by seven plaintiffs and sanctioned their law firm in the ongoing
multidistrict asbestos litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to a Forman Perry
Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP press release dated July 27, 2010.

As part of the dismissals, Judge Strawbridge ordered plaintiffs'
attorneys with the Franklin, Cardwell & Jones law firm of Houston
to pay more than US$34,000 to the Jackson, Miss.-based defense
firm of Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP.

The payment is based on Forman Perry's cost and fees to establish
case discovery protocols for screening records of the plaintiffs'
diagnosing physician, Dr. Jay T. Segarra of Gulfport, Miss.

Dr. Segarra's practices and methods, including the questionable
accuracy of his diagnoses, are the subject of recurring challenges
by defense attorneys in MDL 875.

Marcy B. Croft of Forman Perry said, "The court continues to make
progress in separating the valid and invalid claims in MDL 875.
It's clear that opposing counsel recognized that these claims
would not withstand scrutiny and not meet the standards of
accountability and reliability established by the court."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace, Oldon to Pay for Cleanup at Wemelco Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. and Oldon Limited Partnership agreed to pay for
asbestos cleanup at the 2.3-acre site and contiguous building on
Wemelco Way in Easthampton, Mass., Mesothelioma reports.

Grace used the Wemelco Way site to manufacture Zonolite brand
attic insulation and fireproofing compounds from the asbestos-
contaminated vermiculite shipped from its mine in Libby, Mont.

Oldon Limited Partnership leased the land and building to Grace
from 1963 to 1992. The acreage is located in a mixed-use zone that
combines housing, manufacturing, retail sales and even
agricultural production. Both the now-abandoned building and the
soil behind it contain asbestos, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency investigations.

Grace and Oldon will jointly pay about US$833,000 to clean up the
asbestos in the building, in identified soils behind the building
and adjacent to it, and along a railroad right-of-way purchased by
the city to create a recreational biking trail to Southhampton.

Both companies have also agreed to refund the EPA US$72,537, which
the EPA paid for basic asbestos remediation prior to the
agreement.

Regarding the Easthampton site, EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt
Spalding praised both Grace and Oldon for doing the "right thing",
and for setting an example of corporate environmental
responsibility.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taiwan to Ban Asbestos Use Within 10 Years
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taiwan's Environmental Protection Administration, on July 26,
2010, declared its plan to phase out the use of asbestos within
the next 10 years, Focus Taiwan reports.

Lin Chien-hui, director of the EPA's Department of Environmental
Sanitation and Toxic Substance Management, said that in
consideration of the time needed to deal with the ban, it will be
carried out in two stages.

Asbestos will no longer be used as a sealing material in
construction starting in July 1, 2015.

Starting July 1, 2020, it will be banned for use in tiles, lining
and extruded cement panels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abatement at Fairfield Hills to Cost $6T Extra
---------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos from a Fairfield Hills, Conn., duplex will
end up costing the town US$6,000 more than expected, according to
officials who voted to use funds from the Fairfield Hills
Authority's miscellaneous account to make up the difference,
NewtownPatch reports.

Discovery of the additional cost comes as workers finish asbestos
removal at the Stratford Falls building, the former library and
executive dining hall of the former state mental health
institution, and duplex no. 58, officials said.

The Fairfield Hills campus contains five duplexes, all of which
were formerly used as staff residences.

"The Stratford building has been completed and has been turned
back to the town," Economic and Community Development Director Liz
Stocker told the Fairfield Hills Authority during its July 21,
2010 meeting at the C.H. Booth Library. "Duplex no. 58 will be
completed and the same thing should occur where we would take back
the premises."

Officials said that with those two projects out of the way, the
cleanup of duplex no. 59 is presenting more of a challenge. Most
of the funds used for asbestos cleanup were covered under federal
stimulus money, but the town has had to cover part of the cost.

Workers have to remove part of the concrete in order to fully
remove the asbestos from the piping, Ms. Stocker said. The added
step had been unanticipated and while the contractor was willing
to do the work without charging the town extra for duplex no. 58,
a change order that will add US$2,700 in costs will have to be
attached to the work for duplex no. 59, Ms. Stocker said.

Duplex no. 59 also has a collapsed porch that will cost an
additional US$8,500 to remove and asbestos in some of the ceramic
wall tiles and mastic not found in duplex no. 58, which adds
another US$4, 200, for a total project cost of US$33,218, not
including consultant fees, Ms. Stocker said.

Initially, authority members talked about leaving the tiles
intact, which would allow for the bulk of asbestos removal to be
done without increasing the cost by much.

That would leave the situation for the buyer or whoever would
inhabit the duplex in the future to sort out, officials said.

                           *********

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  * * *