CAR_Public/100820.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 164

                             Headlines

ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Says
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Dismissed as Defendant in Suit vs. Tronox
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Faces Securities Suit in New York
BANCO POPULAR: Court Dismisses Suit Over Accounting Violations
BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma

CHINA SHENGHUO: To Pay $200,000 to Settle Beni Varghese Class Suit
CITIBANK NA: Removes "Glaubman" Card Debt Complaint to N.D. Calif.
CONMED CORP: Court Decertifies Class in Suit by Ex-Sales Reps
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Class Action Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: FGCO Defends Suits over Air Emissions

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appellate Court Upholds Decertification Ruling
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Ohio Still Pending
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Inks Pact to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
HEALTH GRADES: Sued for Selling Itself for Unfair Consideration
HICKORY SPRINGS: Sued Over Polyurethane Foam Price-Fixing

INDIANA: Accused of Violating National Voter Registration Act
INSURANCE BROKERAGE: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Antitrust Claims
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Sued for Refusing to Pay Stock Awards
IRONSTONE BANK: Settles ATM Fee Lawsuit for $50,000
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALA: Workers Get Under $100 as Tax Refund

LEVEL 3 COMMS: Wants Amended Suit in Colorado Dismissed
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits
LOWE'S COS: Critics Say Drywall Settlement Won't Protect Consumers
MERIDIAN RESOURCE: Settlement Pact Gets Preliminary Approval

MOZZA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Unlawful Wage Practices
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Suit in NY Pending
PANTRY INC: Request to Appeal Denial of Dismissal Motion Pending
PANTRY INC: "Chism" and "Gee" Suits in Alabama Dismissed

PANTRY INC: Defends "Amason" Suit Over FACTA Violations
PMI GROUP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $31.25-Mil.
POWERTEC: Recalls 1,000 Leverage Gyms
SCICLONE PHARMA: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: No Timetable for Decision in Mistrial Bid

STEWART INFO: Motion to Dismiss Suits in Three States Pending
TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Certification Denial Remains Pending
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Tesamorelin Suit to Challenge Quebec Law
THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Gubernatorial Candidate Dragged in Suit

VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Four Suits in Calif. Over Biovail Merger
VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Three Delaware Suits Over Biovail Merger
WASHINGTON STATE: Accused of Violating Mental Health Parity Act

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $14.4MM Gross Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M & F Worldwide Still Subject to Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Facing 1,186 Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 4 Hilco Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Party to 1 Exposure Claim at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 430 Damage Claims Still Pending v. W. R. Grace
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Subject to Personal Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Excess Coverage at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $50.5MM Libby Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Named in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Pursues Coverage Case in New Jersey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $1.081B Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 24,120 Pending Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Cites $8.7MM Recoverables at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Cites $1.3MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Remains Party to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Involved in "Premises" Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare June 30 Liability at $3.84MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Records $8.8Mil Expenses at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Affiliates Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 16,790 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing Against Sunoco Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Subject to Occupational Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corporation Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Actions v. Parker Drilling Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Corp. Still Party to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. IDEX Corp., 6 Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cinch Dismissed as Engelbrecht Claim Defendant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Open v. Precision Castparts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Action v. 20 Firms Filed Aug. 9 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Theriot Action v. Texaco, Chevron Filed Aug. 12
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 21 Cases Filed During June 14-20 in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Cases Filed During June 21-25 in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Evesham Railway Worker's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor's Bid in Urian Action Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Appeal Court OKs Dismissal of Bright Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Various Motions in Martin Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates Ruling in Allison Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Summary Judgment Upheld in Cantrell

                            *********

ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Allis-Chalmers Energy is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Seawell
Ltd., for $4.25 or 1.15 Seawell shares for each Allis-Chalmers
share, an $890 million deal, shareholders say in Harris County
Court, Houston.

A copy of the Complaint in Palmer v. Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2010-50942 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/17/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
          EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
          Phoenix Tower
          3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2920
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: 713-337-5580

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM, LLP
          2501 North Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-583-2233

Based in Houston, Texas, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. (NYSE: ALY) --
http://www.alchenergy.com/-- provides services and equipment to
oil and natural gas exploration and production companies,
domestically primarily in Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, and internationally,
primarily in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.  Allis-Chalmers
provides directional drilling services, casing and tubing
services, underbalanced drilling, production and workover services
with coiled tubing units, rental of drill pipe and blow-out
prevention equipment, and international drilling and workover
services.

                           *     *     *

As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on August 17, 2010,
Moody's Investors Service changed Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.'s
rating outlook to developing from stable on its B3 Corporate
Family Rating, B3 Probability of Default Rating, and Caa1 senior
unsecured note ratings.  This action follows the announcement that
Seawell, which is not rated by Moody's, has entered into an
agreement to acquire ALY for $890 million, including the
assumption of ALY's debt.

Moody's said the developing outlook reflects the current lack of
clarity regarding the transaction's permanent financing structure
and future growth strategies and financial policies of the
combined company.  In resolving the developing outlook, Moody's
will consider the combined company's funding and growth
strategies, and where in the corporate structure ALY's senior
unsecured notes will reside.  Seawell is not expected to assume or
guarantee ALY's unsecured notes.  Moody's will also consider the
level of financial disclosure available in order to maintain a
rating on ALY following the closing of the acquisition.

As reported by the TCR on April 6, 2010, Standard & Poor's Ratings
Services revised its outlook on Allis-Chalmers to stable from
negative.  At the same time, S&P affirmed the 'B-' corporate
credit rating.  S&P also affirmed the 'B-' issue-level ratings on
the company's $255 million 9% senior notes due 2014 and the $250
million 8.5% senior notes due 2017.  The recovery ratings remain
unchanged at '4', reflecting S&P's expectation of average (30% to
50%) recovery in the event of default.

"The change in outlook is due to S&P's expectations that
conditions in the oilfield services sector have improved, albeit
tenuous, and that Allis-Chalmers' financial performance will
likely strengthen over the course of 2010," said Standard & Poor's
credit analyst Patrick Lee.  Also, the company faces a decreased
threat of violating its financial covenants as a result of
amendments to its credit facility.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Dismissed as Defendant in Suit vs. Tronox
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation has been dismissed as a defendant
in a consolidated class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

A consolidated class action complaint has been filed on behalf of
purported purchasers of Tronox Inc.'s equity and debt securities
between Nov. 21, 2005 and Jan. 12, 2009, against Anadarko, Kerr-
McGee, several former Kerr-McGee officers and directors, several
former Tronox officers and directors and Ernst & Young LLP.

The complaint alleges causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, Tronox's environmental-
remediation and tort claim liabilities.  The plaintiffs allege
that these purported misstatements and omissions are contained in
certain of Tronox's public filings, including in connection with
Tronox's initial public offering.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, including interest
thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs.

Anadarko, Kerr-McGee and other defendants moved to dismiss the
class action complaint and in June 2010, the Court issued an
opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint against
Anadarko, but granted the plaintiffs leave to re-plead their
claims.

The court further granted in part and denied in part the motions
to dismiss by Kerr-McGee and certain of its former officers and
directors, but permitted plaintiffs leave to re-plead certain of
the dismissed claims.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed on July 30, 2010.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is
an independent oil and gas exploration and production company,
with 2.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as
of Dec. 31, 2009.  The company operates in three operating
segments: Oil and gas exploration and production, Midstream and
Marketing.  Oil and gas exploration and production segment
explores for and produces natural gas, crude oil, condensate and
natural gas liquids (NGLs).  Midstream segment provides gathering,
processing, treating and transportation services to Anadarko and
third-party oil and gas producers.  The company owns and operates
natural-gas gathering, processing, treating and transportation
systems in the United States.  Marketing segment sells much of
Anadarko's production, as well as hydrocarbons purchased from
third parties.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Anadarko
divested certain oil and gas properties, primarily in Qatar,
onshore United States and other international properties.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Faces Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation faces a class action complaint
alleging misstatements and omissions regarding, among other
things, the company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon
events, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

In June 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purported purchasers of the company's stock between June 12, 2009,
and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of its officers.
The complaint alleges causes of action arising pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and
omissions regarding, among other things, the company's liability
related to the Deepwater Horizon events.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs.

The proceeding is at a very early stage.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is
an independent oil and gas exploration and production company,
with 2.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as
of Dec. 31, 2009.  The company operates in three operating
segments: Oil and gas exploration and production, Midstream and
Marketing.  Oil and gas exploration and production segment
explores for and produces natural gas, crude oil, condensate and
natural gas liquids (NGLs).  Midstream segment provides gathering,
processing, treating and transportation services to Anadarko and
third-party oil and gas producers.  The company owns and operates
natural-gas gathering, processing, treating and transportation
systems in the United States.  Marketing segment sells much of
Anadarko's production, as well as hydrocarbons purchased from
third parties.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, Anadarko
divested certain oil and gas properties, primarily in Qatar,
onshore United States and other international properties.


BANCO POPULAR: Court Dismisses Suit Over Accounting Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Gustavo A. Gelpi of the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico on August 2, 2010, dismissed as
untimely claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933 against Shearman & Sterling's clients, UBS Financial
Services Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and Popular
Securities Inc., in a litigation arising from alleged accounting
violations in financial statements filed by Popular, Inc.
(commonly known as Banco Popular). The case is Hoff v. Popular,
Inc., No. 09-1428 (D.P.R. Aug. 2, 2010).

The firm's clients were the underwriters in a preferred stock
offering by Popular in May 2008.  Plaintiffs alleged that the
company's financial statements for FY 2007 and certain quarters of
2008 were materially misstated because applicable GAAP rules
required Popular to take a valuation allowance against certain
deferred tax assets accumulating from the company's operating
losses that was not taken.

Shearman & Sterling said in a statement its motion to dismiss
argued that the claims against UBS, Popular Securities and
Citigroup were untimely because the one-year statute of
limitations began to run in May 2008, when the offering documents
were filed.  The court agreed, dismissing both the Section 11 and
Section 12(a)(2) claims.

The litigation team working on the motion to dismiss consisted of
partner Herb Washer (New York-Litigation), associates Daniel Lewis
(New York-Litigation) and Mallory Tosch (New York-Litigation), and
New York-based legal assistants Jill Aberbach and Karen Prosky.


BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOSC, Inc., continues to be a defendant in a putative class action
as a result of underwriting SemGroup Energy Partners, LP's Initial
Public Offering.

BOSC is BOK Financial's subsidiary.

BOSC has been joined as a defendant in a putative class action
brought on behalf of unit holders of SemGroup Energy Partners, LP
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 against all of the underwriters of
issuances of partnership units in the Initial Public Offering in
July 2007 and in a Secondary Offering in January 2008.

BOSC underwrote $6.25 million of units in the Initial Public
Offering.  BOSC was not an underwriter in the Secondary Offering.

No new developments were reported in BOK Financial Corp.'s
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

BOK Financial Corp. -- http://www.bokf.com/-- is a regional
financial services company that provides commercial and consumer
banking, investment and trust services, mortgage origination and
servicing, and an electronic funds transfer network.  Holdings
include Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Bank of Arizona, N.A., Bank of
Arkansas, N.A., Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Bank of Texas, N.A.,
Colorado State Bank & Trust, N.A., Bank of Kansas City, N.A.,
BOSC, Inc., Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc., the
TransFund electronic funds network, and Southwest Trust Company,
N.A. Shares of BOK Financial are traded on the NASDAQ under the
symbol BOKF.


CHINA SHENGHUO: To Pay $200,000 to Settle Beni Varghese Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (NYSE Amex Equities:
KUN) said Monday it has reached an agreement in principle to
settle a class action lawsuit.

In 2008, putative class action lawsuits were asserted against the
Company and certain other parties in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On February 12,
2009, an amended complaint was served on the Company and the other
defendants consolidating the putative class actions and bearing
the caption Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,
Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08-cv-7422.

On July 21, 2010, in a mediation conducted by Retired Judge
Nicolas H. Politan, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle with counsel for plaintiffs in this litigation and the
Company's former independent registered public accounting firm,
Hansen, Barnett & Maxwell, P.C., in which the parties agreed to
settle all claims by the putative class members in exchange for
the payment of $200,000 by the Company and $600,000 by HB&M's
professional liability insurer.  The settlement, including its
provisions regarding the notification of class members and
administration of any claims, will be entered into in a written
stipulation and agreement of settlement, to be executed by counsel
for the parties, and then must be submitted to the Court for
approval. The settlement is expected to result in the dismissal of
the class action litigation.

According to Gui Hua Lan, Chief Executive Officer of China
Shenghuo, "We are pleased that this agreement in principle has
been reached. While the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations and would have prevailed had the
matter been fully litigated, we believe that it is in the best
interests of our stockholders to put this litigation behind us.
Clearly, it would have cost the Company significant time and
financial resources had the lawsuit continued. By resolving this
matter on the terms reached, and assuming the settlement is
approved by the Court, the Company and the investment community
can now focus their attention entirely on the business and growth
prospects of the Company."

Based in Kunming, China, and founded in 1995, China Shenghuo
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. (NYSE Amex Equities: KUN) --
http://www.shenghuo.com.cn/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical
company that focuses on the research, development, manufacture and
marketing of Sanchi-based medicinal and pharmaceutical,
nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.  Through its
subsidiary, Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (Group) Co., Ltd., it
owns 30 SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration) approved
medicines, including the flagship product Xuesaitong Soft
Capsules, which is currently been listed in the State Insurance
Catalogue.  At present, China Shenghuo incorporates a sales
network of agencies and representatives throughout China, which
markets Sanchi-based traditional Chinese medicine to hospitals and
drug stores as prescription and OTC drugs primarily for the
treatment of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peptic ulcer
disease.  The Company also exports medicinal products to Asian
countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and
Thailand and to European countries such as the United Kingdom,
Tajikistan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.


CITIBANK NA: Removes "Glaubman" Card Debt Complaint to N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Glaubman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Citibank, N.A., et al., Case No. RG10525387 (Calif.
Super. Ct. Alameda Cty.), was filed on July 14, 2010.

Mr. Glaubman accuses Citibank, its collection agency Alliance One,
Inc., and its attorneys, Hunt & Henriques, Attorneys at Law, of
engaging in unauthorized communications (after they were notified
to stop), attempting to collect unauthorized amounts, failing to
provide adequate notice and verification of debt, and engaging in
a pattern of abusive, harassing telephone calls to collect his
credit card debts, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,
Sec. 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions
Code.

On the basis that the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1331, on August 13, 2010, defendants Alliance One and Hunt &
Henriques removed the lawsuit to that Court, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-03572 to the proceeding.  Defendant
Citibank has consented to this removal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114

Defendants Alliance One, Inc. and Hunt & Enriques, Attorneys at
Law, are represented by:

          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq.
          SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3010
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4816
          Telephone: (415) 283-1000
          E-mail: tnarita@snllp.com
                  jtopor@snllp.com


CONMED CORP: Court Decertifies Class in Suit by Ex-Sales Reps
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Northern District of New York
decertified the class in a suit against CONMED Corporation,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On April 7, 2006, CONMED received a copy of a complaint on behalf
of a purported class of former CONMED Linvatec sales
representatives.  The complaint alleges that the former sales
representatives were entitled to, but did not receive, severance
in 2003 when CONMED Linvatec restructured its distribution
channels.

The range of loss associated with this complaint ranges from $0 to
$3.0 million, not including any interest, fees or costs that might
be awarded if the five named plaintiffs were to prevail on their
own behalf as well as on behalf of the approximately 70 (or 90 as
alleged by the plaintiffs) other members of the purported class.
CONMED Linvatec did not generally pay severance during the 2003
restructuring because the former sales representatives were
offered sales positions with CONMED Linvatec's new manufacturer's
representatives.  Other than three of the five named plaintiffs in
the class action, nearly all of CONMED Linvatec's former sales
representatives accepted such positions.

The company's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, which
were heard at a hearing held on Jan. 5, 2007, were denied by a
Memorandum Decision and Order dated May 22, 2007.  The District
Court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
former CONMED Linvatec sales representatives whose employment with
CONMED Linvatec was involuntarily terminated in 2003 and who did
not receive severance benefits.

With discovery essentially completed, on July 21, 2008, the
company filed motions seeking summary judgment and to decertify
the class.  In addition, on July 21, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking summary judgment.

These motions were submitted for decision on Aug. 26, 2008.

By Memorandum and Decision and Order dated June 22, 2010, the
Court granted the company's motions to decertify the class and for
summary judgment.  The period for filing an appeal has expired
with the Plaintiffs not having filed any appeal, and the
litigation has now concluded.

CONMED Corporation -- http://www.conmed.com/-- is a medical
technology company with an emphasis on surgical devices and
equipment for minimally invasive procedures and patient
monitoring.  The Company's products serve the clinical areas of
arthroscopy, powered surgical instruments, electrosurgery, cardiac
monitoring disposables, endosurgery and endoscopic
technologies.  They are used by surgeons and physicians in a
variety of specialties including orthopedics, general surgery,
gynecology, neurosurgery and gastroenterology.  Headquartered in
Utica, New York, the company's 3,400 employees distribute its
products worldwide from several manufacturing locations.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., said a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Education
Management Corporation (NASDAQ: EDMC) during the period from
October 2, 2009 through and including August 3, 2010, including
purchasers in the Company's October 2, 2009 initial public
offering.

To join the EDMC class action, go to the Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call:

           Laurence Rosen, Esq.
           Phillip Kim, Esq.
           Telephone: 866-767-3653 (toll-free)
           E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                   pkim@rosenlegal.com

The Complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against EDMC, certain of its
officers and directors, and others in connection with the issuance
of materially false and misleading statements about EDMC's
business, operations and prospects. Particularly, the Complaint
alleges that defendants engaged in undisclosed and illicit
recruiting activities for Company's educational institutions,
which had the effect of rendering the Company's statements about
its business and prospects to be false and misleading. The
Complaint also states that the Company lacked appropriate internal
controls, contrary to the Company's representations to investors.

On August 3, 2010 the United States General Accounting Office
issued a report that concluded that for-profit educational
institutions like EDMC had engaged in an illegal and fraudulent
course of action designed to recruit students and over-charge the
government for the cost of such education. As a result of these
adverse disclosures, the price of EDMC stock dropped damaging
investors.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 11, 2010. If you wish to join the litigation or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact:

           Laurence Rosen, Esq.
           Phillip Kim, Esq.
           The Rosen Law Firm
           Telephone: 866-767-3653 (toll-free)
           E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                   pkim@rosenlegal.com

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need
JavaScript enabled to view it or pkim@rosenlegal.com  This e-mail
address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript
enabled to view it .

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: FGCO Defends Suits over Air Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation Corp., continues to defend a class action
complaint in connection with air emissions at its Bruce Mansfield
Plant, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

FGCO is a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp.

In 2007, PennFuture filed a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act,
alleging violations of air pollution laws at the Bruce Mansfield
Plant, including opacity limitations, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In July 2008, three additional complaints were filed against FGCO
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania also seeking damages based on Bruce Mansfield Plant
air emissions.  Two of these complaints also seek to enjoin the
Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating except in a "safe,
responsible, prudent and proper manner" one being a complaint
filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and the other being a
class action complaint seeking certification as a class action
with the eight named plaintiffs as the class representatives.

A settlement was reached with PennFuture.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Appellate Court Upholds Decertification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division has upheld the ruling decertifying the
class in a consolidated suit against Jersey Central Power & Light
Company, according to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's
territory.

Two class action lawsuits (subsequently consolidated into a single
proceeding) were filed in New Jersey Superior Court in July 1999
against JCP&L, GPU, Inc., and other GPU companies, seeking
compensatory and punitive damages due to the outages.  After
various motions, rulings and appeals, the Plaintiffs' claims for
consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
strict product liability, and punitive damages were dismissed,
leaving only the negligence and breach of contract causes of
actions.

Early in 2010, the Appellate Division heard oral argument on
plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's decision decertifying the
class, and on July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division upheld the
trial court's decision.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Ohio Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
remains pending in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio,
according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

On Feb. 16, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
FirstEnergy, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Ohio
Edison Company seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief,
as well as compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on
behalf of a class of customers related to the reduction of a
discount that had previously been in place for residential
customers with electric heating, electric water heating, or load
management systems.

The reduction in the discount was approved by the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio.

On March 18, 2010, the named-defendant companies filed a motion to
dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court of
common pleas.  The court has not yet ruled on that motion to
dismiss.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Inks Pact to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. has agreed to enter into a disclosure-based
settlement to resolve lawsuits filed in connection with its
planned merger with Allegheny Energy, Inc., according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

                      Merger Agreement

In Feb. 10, 2010, FirstEnergy entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, subsequently amended on June 4, 2010, with Element
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary and Allegheny Energy,
Inc.  Upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into
Allegheny Energy with Allegheny Energy continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy.

In connection with the proposed merger, purported shareholders of
Allegheny Energy have filed putative shareholder class action
and/or derivative lawsuits in Pennsylvania and Maryland state
courts, as well as in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, against Allegheny Energy and its
directors and certain officers, FirstEnergy and Merger Sub.

In summary, the lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Allegheny Energy directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger agreement, and that Allegheny Energy,
FirstEnergy and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaints seek, among other
things, jury trials, money damages and injunctive relief.

                       Settlement Agreement

While FirstEnergy believes the lawsuits are without merit and has
defended vigorously against the claims, in order to avoid the
costs associated with the litigation, the defendants have agreed
to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement of the lawsuits.
The defendants reached an agreement with counsel for all of the
plaintiffs concerning fee applications, but a formal stipulation
of settlement has not yet been filed with any court.

                         Maryland Action

Four putative class action and derivative lawsuits were filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.  One was
withdrawn.

The court consolidated the three cases under the caption Oakmont
Capital Management, LLC v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 24-C-10-1301,
and appointed Lewis M. Lynn as Lead Plaintiff.  Plaintiff Lynn
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 12, 2010.

On April 21, 2010, defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The court has stayed all discovery pending resolution of those
motions.

The court also has entered a stipulated order certifying a class
with no opt-out rights.  On May 27, 2010, the parties reported to
the court that they have agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based
settlement and requested that the court cancel the oral argument
on the motions to dismiss that had been scheduled for June 3,
2010.

On May 28, 2010, the court removed the hearing from its calendar.

                     Pennsylvania State Action

Three shareholder lawsuits were filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, raising putative class
action and derivative claims against the Allegheny Energy
directors and officers, FirstEnergy and Allegheny Energy.
The court has consolidated these actions under the caption, In re
Allegheny Energy, Inc. Shareholder Class and Derivative,
Litigation, Lead Case No. 1101 of 2010, and appointed lead
counsel.  On April 5, 2010, the Allegheny Energy defendants filed
a Motion to Stay the Proceedings.  Shortly thereafter, FirstEnergy
similarly filed a Motion to Stay.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Expedited Discovery.

The court scheduled a hearing on the motions for May 27, 2010.  On
May 21, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Shareholder
Derivative and Class Complaint.  On May 26, 2010, the parties
filed a Motion for a Continuance of the May 27 hearing, which the
court granted.

On June 1, 2010, the parties reported to the court that they have
agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement.

                    Pennsylvania Federal Action

A putative shareholder lawsuit styled as a class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania and is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System v. Evanson, et al., C.A. No. 10-319
NBF.

On June 1, 2010, the parties reported to the court that they have
agreed to the terms of a disclosure-based settlement.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


HEALTH GRADES: Sued for Selling Itself for Unfair Consideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tove Forgo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Health Grades, Inc., et al., Case No. 5716 (Del. Ch.
Ct. August 12, 2010), accuses the Board of Directors of Health
Grades of breaching their fiduciary duties to the public
shareholders of the Company, through their attempt to sell the
Company to Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Mountain Acquisition Corp., Mountain Merger Sub
Corp., and Mountain Acquisition Holdings, LLC (collectively,
"Vestar"), for an unfair and inadequate consideration, while
vesting themselves with benefits that are not shared equally by
Health Grades' public shareholders.  Under the terms of the merger
Agreement, Vestar will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
Health Grades for $8.20 per share.  The aggregate purchase price
for the equity of Health Grades is roughly $294 million.

Health Grades, and Vestar are included in the complaint for
aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty, without which, Ms. Forgo relates, the proposed
transaction would not have occurred.

Defendant Health Grades, a Delaware corporation, provides
proprietary, objective ratings of hospitals, nursing homes, and
home health agencies; and advisory services in the United States.

Ms. Forgo says that the proposed transaction is structured in
three steps: (a) a first-step tender offer, (b) a top-up option
through which Vestar can acquire a sufficient number of additional
Health Grades shares (that when added to the shares purchased in
the tender offer will give Vestar more than 90% of outstanding
shares of the Company's common stock that would be entitled to
vote on the merger), and (c) a short-form merger to cash out any
Health Grades stockholders who do not tender.  The tender offer
commenced on August 10, 2010, and is set to expire at 9:00 a.m.
New York Time on September 10, 2010, unless otherwise extended.

Certain of the individual defendants and certain of the Company's
executives have already agreed to enter into tender and support
agreements representing, in the aggregate, approximately 21% of
the Company's outstanding shares.

Ms. Forgo states that the top-up option is invalid under the
Delaware General Corporation Law and Delaware Law because the
Company's Board did not determine and value the consideration
Health Grades was to receive in exchange for the issuance of
shares upon the exercise of the top-up option.  The merger
agreement allows for Vestar to pay for the top-up shares in cash
or by delivering a promissory note.  According to Ms. Forgo, there
is no mention in the merger agreement or any public document
available at this time indicating that Vestar will have the
financial resources necessary to fund the top-up option through
cash or borrowing.  Given this, it is likely that Vestar will use
the promissory note to pay for the top-up shares, not cash.

Ms. Forgo adds that permitting the exercise of the top-up option
and the issuance of the top-up shares in exchange for the
promissory note would impair the stockholders' appraisal rights
under Sec. 262 of the Delaware Corporation Law.

Furthermore, Ms. Forgo says that the individual defendants have
also agreed to a "No Solicitation" provision in the merger
agreement.  The merger agreement also contains a provision for the
payment of a "Termination Fee" of $9.55 million payable if, among
other things, the individual defendants cause the Company to
terminate the merger agreement pursuant to the lawful exercise of
their fiduciary duties.  These acts combined with other defensive
measures the Company has in place, Ms. Forgo explains, effectively
preclude any other bidders that might be interested in paying more
than Vestar for the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Patricia C. Weiser, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Avenue, Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19807
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677

               - and -

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19807
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516


HICKORY SPRINGS: Sued Over Polyurethane Foam Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that 10 companies are accused of
fixing prices for polyurethane foam for the past decade, in an
antitrust class action in Statesville, N.C., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Piazza's Carpet & Tile Shop, Inc. v.
Hickory Springs, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00111 (W.D.N.C.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/17/Antitrust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market St.
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: 828-258-2991
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          Melissa B. Willett, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: 202-237-2727
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Megan E. Jones, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St., NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: 202-540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
          111 West Second St.
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Telephone: 716-664-2967
          E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net


INDIANA: Accused of Violating National Voter Registration Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a man claims in a federal
class action that the State of Indiana disenfranchised him because
he was convicted and jailed for a misdemeanor.

A copy of the Complaint in Snyder v. King, et al., Case No. 10-cv-
01019 (S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/17/Elex.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William R. Goth, Esq.
          FILLENWARTH DENNERLINE GROTH & TOWE LLP
          429 E. Vermont St., Suite 200
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: 317-353-9363
          E-mail: wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com


INSURANCE BROKERAGE: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Antitrust Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports a federal appeals court has restored part of a
nationwide class-action lawsuit accusing dozens of insurers and
brokers of conspiring to rig the insurance market.  The ruling is
a partial victory for policyholders, including employee benefit
plan sponsors, that had accused the insurance industry of scheming
to drive up prices.  However, only portions of the case will be
allowed to move forward.

In a 200-page opinion, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia reinstated antitrust and racketeering claims over
alleged bid rigging centered on Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc.  It
also reinstated racketeering claims against some brokerages, as
well as some claims under New Jersey law.

The three-judge panel upheld the rest of a September 2007 decision
by U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown in Trenton, New Jersey,
dismissing the lawsuit, which originally involved several alleged
conspiracies and more than 20 defendants.

The lawsuit involved allegations brokers colluded with their
insurer partners to steer clients to particular insurers in
exchange for payments or kickbacks.

It followed an October 2004 civil lawsuit by then-New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accusing Marsh of rigging the
market.

The original defendants in the part of the class-action case
centered on Marsh included 13 insurers such as American
International Group Inc, Chubb Corp, Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc, Liberty Mutual Group and Travelers Cos Inc, court
records show.

In that part of the case, the plaintiffs "plausibly suggest an
unlawful horizontal conspiracy not to compete" for business, Judge
Anthony Scirica wrote in the Third Circuit ruling.

"This agreement to divide the market, if proven, would be a naked
restraint of trade subject to per se condemnation," he added.

Marsh agreed in February 2009 to pay $69 million to settle its
part of the class-action case. It agreed in January 2005 to pay
$850 million to settle Spitzer's charges,

"The court is permitting, with certain modest caveats, a smaller
case to go forward," said Ellen Meriwether, a partner at Cafferty
Faucher LLP in Philadelphia representing the plaintiffs. "I'm
pleased to have a modest victory."

Seth Waxman, a partner at WilmerHale in Washington D.C. and former
U.S. solicitor general who argued the case for the defendants, did
not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The case is In re: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, U.S.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 07-4046.


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Sued for Refusing to Pay Stock Awards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses
International Rectifier of failing to pay employees promised stock
awards after an SEC investigation of its accounting, and payment
of a $90 million securities class action settlement, in San Diego
Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hu, et al. v. International Rectifier
Corporation, et al., Case No. 37-2010-00096892 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/17/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Daniel D. Bodell, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-450-7072


IRONSTONE BANK: Settles ATM Fee Lawsuit for $50,000
---------------------------------------------------
    NOTICE OF IRONSTONE BANK ATM CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

       Zintel v. IronStone Bank, Case No. SAC09-0867

IF YOU USED THE IRONSTONE BANK ATM REFERENCED IN THE NEXT
PARAGRAPH BETWEEN JULY 29, 2008 AND JULY 28, 2009, AND WERE
CHARGED A FEE FOR THE USE OF THAT ATM, YOU MAY BE A CLASS MEMBER.
THIS SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT HTTP://WWW.MORECLASSINFO.COM/ OR
CONTACT CLASS COUNSEL MIKE HARRISON AT 661-257-2854.

This Notice relates only to one (1) specific IronStone Bank ATM,
located at 29818 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite A, Rancho Santa
Margarita, California, and concerns a lawsuit about charging of
fees at this ATM.

Mr. Zintel sued IronStone Bank under a law called the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act on the grounds that the ATM did not have an
externally posted fee notice.  IronStone Bank denies Mr. Zintel's
claims but has agreed to a settlement of the case.

The settlement includes everyone who was charged a fee for using
the ATM to access a personal (not business) account between July
29, 2008 and July 28, 2009. These people are called "Class
Members," and the time period that is covered is called the "Class
Period."  Under the law, the maximum that a group of people may
recover in a case like this one is the lesser of 1% of IronStone
Bank's net worth or $500,000, plus any actual damages that the
class members suffered.

IronStone has stated that during the Class Period, there were
approximately 1322 transactions involving 823 different
cardholders who were charged ATM fees at the subject ATM(s) during
the Class Period.  IronStone Bank has agreed to establish a
Settlement Fund of $50,000 to settle the case.

Class Members may make a claim on the Settlement Fund to receive a
pro rata share, up to a maximum of $100, so the attorneys believe
that a settlement allowing Class Members to make a claim for up to
$100 is fair and reasonable.  The Settlement Fund will also be
used to pay the costs of notifying Class Members of the Settlement
and to process their claims, the lawyers who filed the lawsuit
their reasonable attorney fee, not to exceed $22,500, and Mr.
Zintel $1,500 for his services as the class representative.

On October 18, 2010 at 1:30, Judge James V. Selna will hold a
hearing to decide whether to finally approve this settlement.  YOU
DO NOT NEED TO ATTEND.  If the settlement is approved, all Class
Members will be bound by the resting judgment and court orders,
and eligible Class Members will be entitled to claim benefits
under the settlement.  All Class members have the right to obtain
counsel in order to object to this settlement agreement.  IF YOU
ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND FAIL TO OPT OUT OF THIS SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IT WILL BECOME BINDING UPON YOU. You have three choices:
(1) If you want to receive your pro rata share of the Settlement
Fund, up to a maximum of $100, you must submit a completed Claim
Form on-line (or mail, with postmark) by September 27, 2010, to
Class Counsel:

         Michael Harrison, Esq.
         25876 The Old Road, #304
         Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381

Failure to submit a Claim Form will mean you receive no money but
are still governed by a Release of your rights to sue IronStone
Bank for the ATM fee notice claims raised in this Lawsuit.  You
may submit or download a Claim Form at
http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or call Class Counsel at 661-257-2854
to request a Claim Form. (2) If you do not want to participate in
the Settlement and want to retain any right you may have to pursue
your claim separately, you must write a letter stating "EXCLUDE ME
FROM THE ZINTEL V. IRONSTONE BANK SETTLEMENT."  Include your name
and address and mail the letter to the Class Counsel Michael
Harrison at 25876 The Old Road, #304, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381.
Your letter must be postmarked by September 27, 2010 to be valid.
(3) If you think the Settlement is unfair, you may object to it by
writing a memo stating the specific reasons for your objection and
filing it with the Court at Southern Division, 411 West Fourth
Street, Room 1-053, Santa Ana, CA 92701-4516 on or before
September 27, 2010 and sending a copy to Class Counsel at 25876
The Old Road, #304, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 and to counsel for
IronStone Bank:

         Janis Law Group
         550 West C Street, Suite 2000
         San Diego, CA 92101

For more information, visit http://www.morecaseinfo.com/or
contact Class Counsel Mike Harrison at (661) 257-2854.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT FOR INFORMATION AS IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
ASSIST YOU


JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALA: Workers Get Under $100 as Tax Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBS 42 reports that the legal battle over the Jefferson County
Occupational tax is nearly finished.  Instead of fighting the
class-action lawsuit in court, both parties agreed to a
settlement.

The county commission voted unanimously Tuesday to accept the
terms dividing up more than $50 million in escrow funds.  Combined
with what Circuit Court Judge David Rains had previously ordered,
the county will receive more than $20 million to go back into the
general fund.

The class of taxpayers will receive more than $30 million.
However, attorney fees will have to be paid out of that sum.  The
attorneys for the class have petitioned for 35% of the sum, or
just over $13 million.  Before that amount is made final, Judge
Rains will consider it in a fairness hearing.

If it is approved, taxpayers will only receive about 60 cents for
every dollar paid in occupational tax.  Most taxpayers will
receive a refund less than $100.  Refund checks should be
distributed around the beginning of next year.

The Birmingham (Ala.) News reports that the lawyers who took the
case to court will get about $4.4 million each.

Dr. Jeffrey Weissman sued the county in December 2009 over a newly
approved occupational tax, WBRC reported.  His attorneys claimed
it is unconstitutional for the county to tax certain
professionals.  WBRC had said if the suit is successful,
architects, lawyers, accountants, doctors, engineers and others
who work in the county would be exempt from paying.  The 0.45% tax
became effective January 1, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
December 22, 2009)

WBRC said the lawsuit was filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court,
and Dr. Weissman is represented by:

          E. Clayton Lowe Jr., Esq.
          LOWE & GRAMMAS LLP
          1952 Urban Center Pkwy
          Birmingham, AL 35242-2594
          Telephone: (205) 380-2400

               - and -

          Wilson F. Green, Esq.
          BATTLE FLEENOR GREEN WINN & CLEMMER LLP
          2316 University Boulevard, Suite 200
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 397-8160


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Wants Amended Suit in Colorado Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
The motion of Level 3 Communications, Inc., to dismiss an amended
complaint is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado, according to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Feb. 2009, the company, certain of its current officers and a
former officer were named as defendants in purported class action
lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, which have been consolidated as In re Level 3
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil Case No.
09-cv-00200-PAB-CBS).

The Plaintiffs in each complaint allege, in general, that
throughout the purported class period specified in the complaint
that the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's integration activities, business and
operations.

The complaints seek damages based on purported violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 4, 2009, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the case,
and on June 29, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

On July 29, 2009, the company and the other defendants named in
the Complaint filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint with
prejudice.

While the motion to dismiss the Complaint was pending, the court
granted the lead plaintiff's motion to further amend the
Complaint.

Thereafter, the company and the other defendants named in the
Amended Complaint filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
with prejudice, which is pending before the court.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Defend Consolidated ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., defends a consolidated action styled
Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al., pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In March 2009, late April 2009 and early May 2009, the company,
the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k) Plan Committee and
certain current and former officers and directors of Level 3
Communications, Inc. were named as defendants in purported class
action lawsuits styled:

     -- Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.,
     -- Dagres v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al. and
     -- Fragale v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al.

These cases have been consolidated as Walter v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et al., (Civil Case No. 09cv00658). T

The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary and other duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act with respect to
investments in the company's common stock held in individual
participant accounts in the Level 3 Communications, Inc. 401(k)
Plan.

The complaint claims that those investments were imprudent for
reasons that are similar to those alleged in the securities
actions pending against the company.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Continues to Defend Right-of-Way Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., continues to defend purported class
actions over railroad right-of-ways, according to the company's
Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to three
purported class action lawsuits involving the companies' right to
install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways
adjacent to plaintiffs' land.

In July 2001, the company was named as a defendant in Koyle, et
al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al., a purported two state
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho.  In November of 2005, the court granted class certification
only for the state of Idaho.

In September 2001, a company subsidiary was named as a defendant
in Nelson, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al. a
purported class action covering the state of California, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District California.

In April 2002, the Company and two of its subsidiaries were named
as defendants in Bauer, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, et
al., a purported class action covering 22 states, filed in state
court in Madison County, Illinois.

In general, the companies obtained the rights to construct their
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have
installed their networks along the rights-of-way so granted.

Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the
owners of lands over which the companies' fiber optic cable
networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities, and others who
granted the companies the right to construct and maintain their
networks did not have the legal authority to do so.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive
damages.

The companies have also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories.

Level 3 Communications, Inc. -- http://www.level3.com/-- through
its operating subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the
communications business.  Level 3 is a facilities-based provider
of a range of integrated communications services.


LOWE'S COS: Critics Say Drywall Settlement Won't Protect Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhiannon Bowman, writing for Creative Loafing in Charlotte, N.C.,
relates critics claim Lowe's settlement of a class-action lawsuit
in Georgia over tainted drywall may make it difficult to pursue
other tainted drywall claims in the U.S., even though, in China,
people are dying because of similar products.  They say the
settlement is intended to insulate the companies from liability,
and it's definitely not intended to protect consumers.

The maximum payout under the settlement is $2,500 in cash and a
$2,000 gift certificate to Lowe's, but you'll only get that if
you've done a terrific job documenting your claim from the moment
you purchased the drywall.  Didn't keep good records? You may get
a $50 gift certificate.  Maybe.

There are also indications the lawyers involved are pressuring
their clients to drop their claims, in some cases even dropping
lawsuits without their client's permission.

This is important to note, especially in a time when the coal
industry claims adding coal ash waste -- which may or may not soon
be considered hazardous waste -- to products like concrete,
asphalt and, you guessed it, dry wall is perfectly safe.


MERIDIAN RESOURCE: Settlement Pact Gets Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The 190th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, gave
its preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in the
consolidated shareholder litigation, styled Leider, derivatively
on behalf of The Meridian Resource Corporation v. Ching, et al.,
Cause No. 2010-01279, according to The Meridian Resource
Corporation's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 22, 2009, TMR, Alta Mesa Holdings, LP, and Alta Mesa
Acquisition Sub, LLC, entered into a definitive agreement and plan
of merger which provides that AMH will acquire all of the issued
and outstanding shares of common stock of the company.

On Jan. 8, 2010, Plaintiff, a TMR stockholder, filed a derivative
petition on behalf of the company against Defendants in the Court
challenging the Merger and the Merger Agreement, including, but
not limited to, the terms of the Merger Agreement, and Plaintiff
alleged that the company's Directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection therewith.  Plaintiff also alleges that AMH
and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted in those breaches.

On Jan. 19, 2010, Jeremy Rausch, a TMR shareholder, filed a
purported class action petition against Defendants which, as
amended, challenges the Merger and Merger Agreement and
disclosures made by TMR about the Merger.

On March 1, 2010, the Court consolidated the Rausch Action with
the Leider Action and appointed Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as interim
lead counsel and The Briscoe Law Firm as liaison counsel for
Plaintiff.

Thereafter, counsel for the Parties discussed the possible
resolution of the Consolidated Litigation.  The Parties agreed
that TMR would make certain supplemental disclosures to be
contained in a Form 8-K, which was filed by the company with the
SEC on or about March 24, 2010.

On April 6, 2010, TMR adjourned the scheduled special meeting of
shareholders to consider the Merger, and following the
adjournment, TMR's Board of Directors approved an amendment to the
merger agreement whereby Alta Mesa agreed to increase its offer
price for the outstanding common stock of TMR to $0.33 per share
from $0.29 per share in cash.  The Merger Agreement was not
amended in any other respect.

On May 10, 2010, the shareholders of TMR voted in favor of the
Merger, and the Merger closed on May 11, 2010.

All Parties and their counsel concur that the Settlement described
is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of TMR and
its shareholders prior to the closing of the Merger.

The Court has given its preliminary approval to the Settlement,
and has scheduled a final settlement hearing on Oct. 18, 2010 at
9:00 a.m. to determine whether the dismissal of the Litigation
pursuant to the Settlement should be approved by the Court and a
final judgment entered, whether the fee award and the incentive
award should be approved by the Court, and such other matters as
may be necessary or proper in the circumstances.

The Meridian Resource Corporation -- http://www.tmrc.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas company engaged in the
exploration, exploitation, acquisition and development of oil and
natural gas in Louisiana, Texas, and the Gulf of Mexico.  Meridian
has access to an extensive inventory of seismic data and, among
independent producers, is a leader in using 3-D seismic and other
technologies to analyze prospects, define risk, target and
complete high-potential wells for exploration and development.
Meridian has a field office in Weeks Island, Louisiana.


MOZZA: Accused in Calif. Suit of Unlawful Wage Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Mario
Batali and his partner Joseph Bastianich illegally take 5% of
employees' tips at their Mozza restaurant chain, refuse to give
workers rest and meal breaks, and fail to pay wages promptly upon
termination, in Los Angeles Superior Court.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead-Based Paints
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., continues to defend various suits in
connection to the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paint
and lead-based paint.

The company's former operations included the manufacture of lead
pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  The company,
other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and
lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which
discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.  Certain of
these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties,
cities or their public housing authorities and school districts,
and certain others have been asserted as class actions.

These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories,
including public and private nuisance, negligent product design,
negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state
consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar
claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.

No additional details were disclosed in the company's Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

NL Industries, Inc. is engaged in the component products (security
products, furniture components and performance marine components),
chemicals (TiO2) and other businesses.


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Suit in NY Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
action relating to the sale of Auction Rate Securities remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

                          Grossman Action

On April 11, 2008, Oppenheimer (and a number of its affiliates)
was named as a defendant in a proposed class action complaint
captioned Bette M. Grossman v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Oppenheimer
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as
well as other provisions of the Federal securities laws) by making
material misstatements and omissions and engaging in deceptive
activities in the offer and sale of ARS.  Oppenheimer filed an
answer to the complaint denying the allegations.  On Feb. 20,
2009, this action was consolidated with the Vining action.

                           Vining Action

On May 12, 2008, Oppenheimer (and a number of its affiliates) was
named as a defendant in a proposed class action complaint
captioned David T. Vining v. Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Oppenheimer
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as
well as other provisions of the Federal securities laws) by making
material misstatements and omissions and engaging in deceptive
activities in the offer and sale of ARS.  Oppenheimer filed an
answer to the complaint denying the allegations. Oppenheimer
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims raised in the
lawsuit and intends to defend against these claims vigorously.

On February 20, 2009, the Grossman action was consolidated with
this action.

The action requests relief in the form of compensatory damages in
an amount to be proven at trial as well as costs and expenses.

On Sept. 10, 2009, Oppenheimer (and a number of its affiliates)
filed a motion to dismiss this consolidated action.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. -- http://www.opco.com/-- through its
operating subsidiaries, is a middle-market investment bank and
full service broker-dealer.  The company is engaged in a range of
activities, including retail securities brokerage, institutional
sales and trading, investment banking (both corporate and public
finance), research, market-making, and investment advisory and
asset management services.  The company owns, directly or through
subsidiaries, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Oppenheimer Asset
Management, Freedom Investments Inc., Oppenheimer Trust Company,
OPY Credit Corp. and Evanston Financial Inc.


PANTRY INC: Request to Appeal Denial of Dismissal Motion Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc.'s request to appeal the ruling denying the motion
to dismiss all cases on political question grounds to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is pending, according to
the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24,
2010.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.

The company has been named as a defendant in seven cases:

     -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed on
        Feb. 16, 2007;

     -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum
        Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed
        on March 7, 2007;

     -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil
        Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL,
        filed on March 7, 2007);

     -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed on
        March 26, 2007;

     -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed on June 5,
        2007;

     -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum,
        Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed on
        July 13, 2007); and

     -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL,
        filed on Sept. 24, 2007.

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the
company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial
proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the
defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the
amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted
gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.

These cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the
defendants to install temperature adjusting equipment on their
retail motor fuel dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases,
including some of the cases in which we are named, plaintiffs also
have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek, among other relief, recovery
of excess taxes paid and punitive damages.

Both types of cases seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on Feb. 21, 2008.

A number of the defendants, including the company, subsequently
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in
the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that
plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable "political
questions."

The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political
question grounds on Dec. 3, 2009.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court to certify
an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, which defendants have
opposed, remain pending.

The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on political
question grounds on Dec. 3, 2009.

Defendants filed a request to appeal that decision to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in June 2010.  That request
remains pending.

In May 2010, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any
class for damages.  Defendants sought permission to appeal that
decision to the Tenth Circuit in June, and that request likewise
remains pending.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PANTRY INC: "Chism" and "Gee" Suits in Alabama Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Two suits filed against The Pantry, Inc., have been dismissed
following the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama's approval of a $3 million settlement agreement, according
to the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24,
2010.

On Sept. 29, 2009, Wimbreth Chism and Charlotte Minor, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly
situated, filed suit against The Pantry in the Circuit Court of
Tuscaloosa County, Alabama styled Wimbreth Chism et al. v. The
Pantry, Inc d/b/a Kangaroo Express, No. 63-CV-2009-900612.00.

On Nov. 19, 2009, Andrea Gee, on her own behalf and on behalf of
those similarly situated, filed suit against The Pantry in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
styled Gee, et al. v. The Pantry, Inc. a/k/a Kangaroo Express No
3109-CV-1140.

The plaintiffs in the Chism and Gee matters seek collective action
status and assert claims on behalf of present and former employees
for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally allege that
they are or were employed by The Pantry as store managers, but
were misclassified as exempt, and as such are or were entitled to
overtime compensation.  The suit seeks permission to give notice
of this action to all current and former employees who were
employed as store managers during the three years immediately
preceding the filing of this suit.  The plaintiffs also seek
damages, liquidated damages, costs, pre-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, and any injunctive and/or declaratory relief to
which they may be entitled.

On Oct. 28, 2009, the company removed the Chism matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western
Division, and on Nov. 18, 2009 filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On Jan. 12, 2010, the company filed a motion to transfer the Gee
matter to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama,
Western Division, and the motion was granted and subsequently
consolidated with the Chism matter, at least for discovery
purposes.

On April 5, 2010, the company reached a proposed settlement in
principle with class counsel to resolve both matters.

The proposed settlement established a settlement fund of $3
million, from which payments will be made to settlement class
members (plaintiffs currently in the case and those who choose to
opt-in pursuant to notice that will be issued), class counsel, and
the Claims Administrator.  No other payments will be made to class
members or class counsel.

On May 19, 2010 the Court approved the proposed settlement and
dismissed both the Chism and Gee cases.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PANTRY INC: Defends "Amason" Suit Over FACTA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., defends a suit alleging violations of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

On Oct. 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo
Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).

The plaintiff seeks class action status and alleges that The
Pantry included more information than is permitted on
electronically printed credit and debit card receipts in willful
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g).

The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages for each alleged
willful violation of the statute, as well as attorneys'
fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent injunction against
the alleged unlawful practice.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 24, 2010.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.thepantry.com/-- operates an
independently operated convenience store chain in the United
States.


PMI GROUP: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit for $31.25-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The PMI Group, Inc., has agreed to settle a consolidated
securities class action for $31.25 million, according to the
company's Aug. 3, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In March 2008, The PMI Group and certain of its executive officers
were named in a securities class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
captioned Lori Weinrib v. The PMI Group, Inc., L. Stephen Smith,
David H. Katkov and Donald P. Lofe, Jr..

Also in March 2008, The PMI Group and the same executive officers
were named in a second securities fraud class action complaint
also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California styled Kimberly D. Holt v. The PMI Group, Inc., L.
Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov and Donald P. Lofe, Jr.

On April 17, 2008, the court issued an order consolidating the two
actions for pretrial purposes.  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Sept. 4, 2008, naming as defendants The
PMI Group, Inc., L. Stephen Smith, David H. Katkov, Donald P.
Lofe, Jr. and Bradley M. Shuster.  On Oct. 14, 2008, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order granting the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated actions on the ground that the
plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded the element of scienter
(i.e., that the defendants acted either intentionally or with
deliberate recklessness).  On July 24, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
a first amended complaint in the consolidated actions.

On Sept. 2, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Nov. 2, 2009, the Court issued an order
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On July 13, 2010, lead plaintiff and defendants in the
consolidated securities class action captioned, In re The PMI
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, agreed to a proposed settlement
of the class action on behalf of all persons who purchased PMI
Group stock between Nov. 2, 2006 through March 3, 2008.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, defendant PMI Group,
through its insurers, will pay $31,250,000 (inclusive of
attorneys' fees, administration costs, and costs of any kind
associated with the resolution of the action), and all claims
asserted in the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  There
will be no contribution from any individual defendant.

The proposed settlement does not involve any admission of
wrongdoing or liability and PMI Group and the individual
defendants will receive a full and complete release of all claims
asserted against them in the litigation.  Defendants will have the
option to terminate the settlement if 4% or more of the class
members or shares opt out of the settlement class.
The settlement of the action is contingent upon Court approval.

Walnut Creek, Calif.-based The PMI Group, Inc., through its
subsidiary, PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. and its affiliated
companies, provides residential mortgage insurance in the United
States.


POWERTEC: Recalls 1,000 Leverage Gyms
-------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Powertec, of Carson, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about
1,000 Leverage Gyms.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Detachment of the exercise workbench from the gym system causes
instability, posing a risk of injury to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the Workbench Leverage Gym, 2010 version,
which has a lock and load removable bench section opening up the
lever area for power exercises such as squats, shrugs and rows.
The gym has black upholstery and either a black or yellow frame.
The Powertec logo with the Workbench series name is printed on the
removable bench.  The models affected by this recall are WB-LS10
and WB-LS10-B.  Workbench Levergyms(TM) with model numbers WB-LS10
and WB-LS10B sold after February 2010 are not affected by this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10753.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
fitness equipment dealers nationwide and online at
http://www.powertecfitness.com/from October 2009 through February
2010 for about $850.

Customers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Powertec to receive a free repair kit or to schedule a free repair
with an authorized dealer.  The firm has contacted all known
purchasers of this product.  For additional information, call
Powertec toll-free at (877) 525-5710 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, email the firm at
info@powertecfitness.com/ or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.powertecfitness.com/


SCICLONE PHARMA: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that SciClone
Pharmaceuticals executives lied about the company's work in China
and propped up its share price for a year before news of a federal
bribery investigation sent the stock into a freefall, shareholders
say in a federal class action.

The class claims that SciClone and its CEO Friedhelm Blobel and
CFO Gary S. Titus inflated the company's stock price through false
statements and reports on the release of liver cancer and anti-
nausea drugs in China and Vietnam.

In May 2009 the company announced a 42% increase in revenue over
the previous quarter, and for the next year Blobel and Titus
repeatedly lauded the company's financial health and success in
the Asian market, but the claims were "patently untrue," the
shareholders say.

SciClone's principal drugs were Zadaxin, for hepatitis B and C and
"certain cancers"; DC Bead, a "product candidate for the treatment
of advanced liver cancer in China"; and "ondansetron RapidFilm, an
oral thin film formulation of ondansetron to treat and prevent
nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and
surgery in China and Vietnam," the complaint states.

"As investors ultimately learned, however, the company's expansion
in the market in China as well as its representations concerning
its system of controls and procedures were patently untrue,"
according to the complaint.  "Throughout the class period,
defendants were instead engaged in illegal and improper sales and
marketing activities in China and abroad.  This ultimately caused
the company to become the focus of a joint investigation by the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice
for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

When news of the investigation broke on Aug. 10, SciClone shares
plummeted almost 40% in a single day, the complaint states.
Reuters reported that day that SciClone was the target of a
federal investigation into international bribery by pharmaceutical
and medical companies, according to the complaint.

"Over a period of approximately 12 months, defendants improperly
inflated the company's financial results by engaging in illegal
and improper sales activities in China and abroad," the class
claims.  "Ultimately, however, when defendants' prior
misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct came to be revealed and
was apparent to investors, shares of SciClone declined
precipitously".

The class seeks costs and damages for violations of federal
securities laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Lewis v. SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., Case No. 10-cv-03584 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/17/ChinaDrug.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          580 California St., Suite 1750
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-400-3000
          E-mail: rabadou@btkmc.com

               - and -

          Kim Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          500 Fifth Ave., Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: 212-696-3730
          E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

               - and -

          Lewis Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington St.
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: 504-455-1400
          E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: No Timetable for Decision in Mistrial Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thadeus Greenson at The Contra Costa Times-Standard reports that
the fate of the class action lawsuit brought against Skilled
Healthcare now rests with Humboldt County Superior Court Judge
Bruce Watson.  On Aug. 13, Judge Watson heard oral arguments on a
defense motion for a mistrial that alleged juror misconduct and
called for a retrial in the case.  After hearing arguments from
attorneys in the case, Judge Watson took the matter under
submission.

"My intention is to rule speedily on the motion for a mistrial,"
Judge Watson said, conceding that the definition of "speedily is
in the eye of the beholder."  After a seven-month trial, a jury
found on July 6 that Skilled Healthcare failed to maintain 3.2
nursing hours per patient, per day, as mandated by California
statute.  In its verdict, the jury voted to impose the maximum
amount of damages allowable, a total of nearly $677 million.

The lawsuit covers 2003 through 2009, and represents a class of
some 32,000 patients.  Skilled Healthcare is one of the largest
nursing home chains in the country, employing about 14,000 people
and operating 78 facilities -- including five in Humboldt County.

The jury in the case was released on July 15 when parties opted to
enter into mediation behind closed doors.  The investment world
has been keeping close tabs on the case, and the consensus is that
the nursing home company would need to reach a settlement in order
to avoid filing for bankruptcy.

Consequently, the company's stock prices plummeted after the jury
verdict, but have rebounded slightly since attorneys for Skilled
Healthcare filed a motion for a mistrial Aug. 6.

In the motion, attorneys allege that a juror, April Garwin, came
into the case with a bias against Skilled Healthcare.  She worked
in the Humboldt County Coroner's Office and once dealt with the
remains of man who passed away at Granada Healthcare and
Rehabilitation Center, one of the facilities named in the suit.
Further, the motion alleges that Ms. Garwin knows the daughter of
the deceased man, Pamlyn Millsap, who is a part of the class-
action suit, and lied about it on her jury questionnaire, which
explicitly asked jurors if they knew any parties in the case.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, vehemently deny that Ms.
Garwin had any bias, and accused the defense of having "sunk to a
new low" by impugning the good name of a juror who gave up six
months of her life to serve on the jury and asking a judge to set
aside the verdict based on "hearsay, speculation and outright
fabrication of the facts."

Defense attorneys point to a signed declaration by former Humboldt
County Coroner Frank Jager, who said Ms. Garwin attended a lunch
with him and Millsap during which Millsap reportedly talked of her
father and criticized the care he received at Granada.

Laura Sitar, one of the attorneys representing Skilled Healthcare
in the case, told the court on Aug. 13 that Ms. Garwin's bias
cropped up at various points during the trial. First, Sitar
alleged that Ms. Garwin wrote "Bulls---" in her notebook as a
defense witness was testifying, showing the note to another juror.
Then, Ms. Sitar said Ms. Garwin referred to Skilled Healthcare
during jury deliberations as "f------ bastards" and "liars."
Finally, Ms. Sitar alleged that other jurors overheard Ms. Garwin
"bragging" after the verdict about how Skilled Healthcare didn't
want her on the jury, but had failed to "ask the right questions"
that would have prevented her from serving.

Looking at the entirety of Ms. Garwin's actions, Ms. Sitar said
there is only one conclusion.

"Together, they are absolutely jury misconduct," she said, adding
that Ms. Garwin brought a bias with her to the jury box every day
and into deliberations at the end of the trial, depriving her
client of the right to have the trial heard before 12 neutral
jurors.

One of the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case, Christopher Healey,
said last Friday there is plenty of evidence that the defense's
allegations are false, and bordering on reckless.

Mr. Healey told the court that both Ms. Garwin and Ms. Millsap
have signed declarations stating that they don't know each other
and have never met. He said the court also has the declaration of
Deputy Coroner Charles Van Buskirk stating that Ms. Garwin did not
attend the lunch meeting in question.  Mr. Healey argued that Ms.
Garwin, in her jury questionnaire, disclosed the fact that she
worked at the coroner's office as a forensic consultant, and that
the defense had an ample opportunity to question Ms. Garwin
further before seating her on the jury, but did not.

Further, Mr. Healey argued that Ms. Garwin showed no bias on the
jury, claiming that she filled 10 notebooks with notes during the
trial. He also said he has nine declarations from other jurors who
attended the post-verdict meeting in which Ms. Garwin was
allegedly bragging, and that none recall her making the statements
alleged by the defense.

As to the allegations of Ms. Garwin's writing "bulls---" in her
notebook and referring to Skilled Healthcare with expletives
during deliberations, Mr. Healey said he doesn't see the issue
there.

"Jurors are human beings, and they show emotion sometimes," he
said. "That's no reason to throw out a verdict."

Judge Watson took the matter under submission and, other than
saying he plans on issuing a ruling "speedily," offered no
timetable for a decision.

In an unrelated matter, plaintiffs' attorneys argued Aug. 13 in
favor of the court issuing an injunction in the case requiring
Skilled Healthcare to comply with California statute and maintain
minimum staffing requirements.  Arguing for the people of
California, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos told
the court that Skilled Healthcare has an "incredible history of
noncompliance" with the law, adding that the company has a track
record of violations and ensuing plans of correction that are
never followed.

Mr. Gallegos said Skilled Healthcare goes back to violating
staffing requirement laws whenever regulators turn their backs.

On behalf of Skilled Healthcare, attorney Darryl Ross told the
court that the injunction being sought is overly broad, arguing it
would apply not just to Skilled Healthcare, but to every other
nursing home in the state. Further, Mr. Ross argued that the
injunction would place questions of which employees count toward
staffing requirements and how budget restrictions impact those
requirements in the hands of the court, which Mr. Ross contended
was impractical and, possibly, unlawful.

If the court were to step into the role of being a regulator body,
Mr. Ross said it would have to look at each of the 22 facilities
in the suit individually, as each would be entitled to its own
process and analysis.

"It's just not practical, your honor," Mr. Ross said. "It's not
manageable."

The defense further argued that if the court decides oversight is
needed, it should delegate the crafting of an injunction to a
neutral third party.  Mr. Gallegos argued that the case simply
isn't that complicated.

"This injunction only requires one thing . . . comply with the
law," he said.

All parties are due back in court Aug. 31, when the court is
expected to hear oral arguments on other motions in the case. At
that time, Judge Watson is also expected to address the issue of
punitive damages.

In the meantime, Wall Street will be keeping an eye out for Judge
Watson's ruling. Investors have watched Skilled Healthcare stock
fluctuate wildly in recent months as a result of the court case.
The jury verdict sent the company's stock price plummeting to a
low of $1.43 a share, down from a high of $9.36 earlier in the
year.  On Aug. 13, as attorneys argued over the mistrial motion,
the stock's price swung from a low of $3.21 to a high of $3.48,
eventually finishing the day at $3.35.


STEWART INFO: Motion to Dismiss Suits in Three States Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corp. is awaiting decisions on
motions to dismiss antitrust class-action lawsuits in Delaware,
New Jersey and West Virginia, according to the company's Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates
for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized
and licensed rate service organization.

Other complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S. District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.

All of the complaints make similar allegations, except that
certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act statutes and various state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified
amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

Seventy-eight such complaints have been filed, each of which names
the company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a
defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned
states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of April 15, 2010, the company have obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware (where plaintiffs then
filed an amended complaint for injunctive relief only), Florida,
Massachusetts, New Jersey (where plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint for injunctive relief only), New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania (where plaintiffs may pursue injunctive relief
only), Texas and Washington.

The company is awaiting decisions on motions to dismiss in
Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia (where all proceedings
have been stayed and the docket closed) and have moved for summary
judgment on the claims for injunctive relief in Pennsylvania.

The dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the
United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively, and the plaintiffs are seeking a review of those
decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The company has also moved to dismiss the remaining RESPA claims
which are pending in New York.

Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com/--
is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction
management company.  The company provides title insurance and
related information services required for settlement by the real
estate and mortgage industries throughout the United States and
international markets.  Stewart also provides post-closing lender
services, automated county clerk land records, property ownership
mapping, geographic information systems, property information
reports, flood certificates, document preparation, background
checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges.  The company's
international division delivers products and services protecting
and promoting private land ownership worldwide.  Stewart's primary
international operations are in Canada, the United Kingdom,
Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Appeal on Certification Denial Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the denial of class certification
in class action lawsuits against Tenet Healthcare Corporation
remains pending.

In September 2004, the court granted the company's petition to
coordinate two pending proposed class action lawsuits:

     (1) McDonough, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation; and

     (2) Tien, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, in Los
         Angeles Superior Court.

The McDonough case was originally filed in June 2003 in San Diego
Superior Court, and the Tien case was originally filed in May 2004
in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Plaintiffs in both cases allege
that the company's hospitals violated certain provisions of the
California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders with respect to meal breaks, rest periods
and the payment of one hour's compensation for meal breaks or rest
periods not taken.  The complaint in the Tien case also alleges
that we have improperly "rounded off" time entries on timekeeping
records and that our pay stubs do not include all information
required by California law.  Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking
back pay, statutory penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed motions,
which the company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of
virtually all nonexempt employees of the company's California
subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one subclass)
based on the specific claims at issue.

The court issued an initial ruling on the plaintiffs' motions in
June 2008.

In that ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for class
certification on the claim that employees missed rest periods.
However, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for class
certification on the claims that employees' pay stubs did not
contain all information required by California law and hourly
employees did not receive appropriate wages due at the time of
their termination.  The court also certified a subclass of 12-hour
shift employees who received missed meal penalties at a reduced
rate, but stated that this subclass should be handled in
connection with the Pagaduan v. Fountain Valley Regional Medical
Center action that was pending in the same court, which case the
company subsequently settled in May 2009.

Lastly, the court conditionally certified a class of all current
or former hourly employees who were allegedly not provided meal
periods, for the purpose of determining certain limited
preliminary factual issues.

The company filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's
class certification ruling and, in November 2008, the court
issued a reconsidered ruling denying class certification with
respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims, except the subclass
involving 12-hour shift employees.  In December 2008, the
plaintiffs dismissed the claims of that subclass, which left only
the claims of the individual plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the
court's decision in February 2009.  The company continues to
believe the court's November 2008 ruling was correct and are
defending that ruling on appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 3, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
an investor-owned health care services company, which principally
operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care
businesses.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated 50
general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a combined
total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural communities in 12
states.  Of those general hospitals, 45 were owned by Tenet's
subsidiaries and five were owned by third parties and leased by
Tenet's subsidiaries.  Its subsidiaries also operated various
related health care facilities, including a long-term acute care
hospital, outpatient surgery centers, diagnostic imaging centers,
occupational and rural health care clinics, and a number of
medical office buildings.  In January 2009, it closed Irvine
Regional Hospital and Medical Center.  On March 31, 2009, Tenet
completed the sale of USC University Hospital and USC Kenneth
Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Katrina-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend class action
suits over alleged injuries in company-owned hospitals during and
after Hurricane Katrina.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region in August 2005,
the company-owned five hospitals and a number of imaging centers
in the New Orleans area.

Three lawsuits were filed as purported class actions in late 2005
by and on behalf of patients, their family members and others who
were present and allegedly injured at two of those hospitals --
Memorial Medical Center and Lindy Boggs Medical Center (each of
which the company has since divested) -- during the storm and its
aftermath.

The plaintiffs allege that the hospitals were negligent in failing
to properly prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate
patients ahead of the storm, and failing to have a properly
configured emergency generator system, among other allegations of
general negligence.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages in various
and unspecified amounts for the alleged wrongful death of some
patients, aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries to
patients who survived and were successfully evacuated, and the
inability of patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for
several days under conditions of extreme heat.

In September 2008, class certification was granted in two of the
suits:

     (1) Preston, et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc., et al. and

     (2) Husband et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc., et al.

In her order, the judge certified a class of all persons at
Memorial between Aug. 29 and Sept. 2, 2005, excluding employees,
who sustained injuries or died, as well as family members who
themselves sustained injury as a result of such injuries or
deaths to any person at Memorial, excluding employees, during that
time.

The company's appeals of the class certification ruling were
exhausted in December 2009 when the Supreme Court of Louisiana
denied the company's writ of certiorari.

The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans will administer
the class proceedings.  The class certification hearing in the
remaining case -- Dunn, et al. v. Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C.
(formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical Center), et al., which was
also filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans
-- has been scheduled for October 2010.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation -- http://www.tenethealth.com/-- is
an investor-owned health care services company, which principally
operates general hospitals and related ancillary health care
businesses.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, Tenet's subsidiaries operated 50
general hospitals and a critical access hospital, with a combined
total of 13,601 beds, serving urban and rural communities in 12
states.  Of those general hospitals, 45 were owned by Tenet's
subsidiaries and five were owned by third parties and leased by
Tenet's subsidiaries.  Its subsidiaries also operated various
related health care facilities, including a long-term acute care
hospital, outpatient surgery centers, diagnostic imaging centers,
occupational and rural health care clinics, and a number of
medical office buildings.  In January 2009, it closed Irvine
Regional Hospital and Medical Center.  On March 31, 2009, Tenet
completed the sale of USC University Hospital and USC Kenneth
Norris Jr. Cancer Hospital.


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Tesamorelin Suit to Challenge Quebec Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, relates that a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed against a drug company in Quebec will
be one to watch, warns law firm Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP.

In a bulletin issued Monday, the law firm says the case against
Montreal-based Theratechnologies Inc. could be a test of Quebec's
almost three-year-old legislation, which allows for "secondary
market liability."  This is the right of shareholders who bought
their stock on the open market to sue companies for failing to
make timely or accurate disclosures of information.

The plaintiff is a former shareholder who accuses the company of
failing to quickly disclose concerns raised by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration about the company's main product, a drug for
HIV patients called tesamorelin.

In the lawsuit, filed late last month, the plaintiff alleges that
Theratechnologies waited until after it held a meeting with the
FDA to resolve the issue before it disclosed the matter to
shareholders, Blakes says.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Blakes says the case, if it goes ahead, has "possible precedential
value regarding disclosure practices and liability" under Quebec's
securities legislation.

Ontario adopted similar "secondary market liability" legislation
in 2005. Although the predicted U.S.-style rash of shareholder
lawsuits did not materialize, there has still been a steady flow
of shareholder class actions.


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Gubernatorial Candidate Dragged in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Wickenheiser, staff writer for The Portland Press Herald,
reports that gubernatorial candidate Eliot Cutler is named in at
least one class-action lawsuit connected with the bankruptcy of a
mortgage giant that he oversaw as a member of its board of
directors.

Mr. Cutler's campaign sent out a media advisory last week, saying
an upcoming ad campaign would criticize him for his involvement in
Thornburg Mortgage Inc.  Mr. Cutler said polling done in Maine
sought voters' response to the fact that he served on the board of
Thornburg, which was the second-largest independent mortgage
company, after Nationwide.

The New Mexico-based firm specialized in "jumbo loans" --
generally more than $400,000 -- to "super-prime" borrowers with
strong credit.  It was caught in the credit crunch and its
business collapsed.  The firm went bankrupt last year and it is
liquidating its assets.

Mr. Cutler, who is running as an independent, said the polling was
done by Democratic candidate Elizabeth "Libby" Mitchell's
campaign, or by a group supporting her. Last week's advisory was
issued to put out information about Thornburg and the market
conditions that contributed to its collapse.

In the advisory, Mr. Cutler's campaign said that "While the
(Thornburg Mortgage Inc.) bankruptcy prompted several lawsuits,
all Securities Act and other claims against Eliot and the other
independent directors that have been adjudicated to date have been
dismissed by the U.S. District Court in New Mexico, where the
cases have been consolidated."

Adjudicated means the cases have been heard and ruled on by a
judge.

The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram has obtained court
documents from a class-action case that is still active.  Roney
Jr. v. Thornburg et al. was filed in October 2008 in U.S. District
Court in New Mexico.  The last action in the case came in March;
it dealt with the withdrawal of an attorney.

The lawsuit names a list of defendants, including Thornburg, a
firm that invested in the company, executives and members of the
board of directors, including Mr. Cutler.  The "class" of
plaintiffs is preferred shareholders of Thornburg.  The suit
alleges that the company and its directors didn't act in the best
interests of Thornburg's shareholders and investors, at times
misleading them about the direction of the firm.

Mr. Cutler's campaign manager, Edward "Ted" O'Meara, said last
week's advisory said all cases that have been adjudicated have
been dismissed.  Mr. O'Meara said the Roney case is the only
active case of which Mr. Cutler is aware.  He said Mr. Cutler
"took comfort" in the fact that the other cases have been
dismissed.

"I don't think it's something he's terribly concerned about," Mr.
O'Meara said. "It's just got to work its way through the system."

                     About Thornburg Mortgage

Based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Thornburg Mortgage Inc. (NYSE: TMA)
-- http://www.thornburgmortgage.com/-- was a single-family
residential mortgage lender focused principally on prime and
super-prime borrowers seeking jumbo and super-jumbo adjustable
rate mortgages.  It originated, acquired, and retained investments
in adjustable and variable rate mortgage assets.  Its ARM assets
comprised of purchased ARM assets and ARM loans, including
traditional ARM assets and hybrid ARM assets.

Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., and its four affiliates filed for
Chapter 11 on May 1, 2009 (Bankr. D. Md. Lead Case No. 09-17787).
Thornburg has changed its name to TMST, Inc.

Judge Duncan W. Keir is handling the case.  David E. Rice, Esq.,
at Venable LLP, in Baltimore, Maryland, has been tapped as
counsel.  Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is employed as
special counsel.  Jim Murray, and David Hilty, at Houlihan Lokey
Howard & Zukin Capital, Inc., have been tapped as investment
banker and financial advisor.  Protiviti Inc. has also been
engaged for financial advisory services.  KPMG LLP is the tax
consultant.  Epiq Systems, Inc., is claims and noticing agent.
Thornburg listed total assets of $24.4 billion and total debts of
$24.7 billion, as of January 31, 2009.

On October 28, 2009, the Court approved the appointment of Joel I.
Sher as the Chapter 11 Trustee for the Company, TMST Acquisition
Subsidiary, Inc., TMST Home Loans, Inc. and TMST Hedging
Strategies, Inc.


VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Four Suits in Calif. Over Biovail Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International faces four purported class
action complaints in California in connection with its planned
merger with Biovail Corp., according to the company's Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 20, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp. and Beach Merger
Corp. (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Valeant with Valeant continuing as the
surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger,
Biovail will change its name to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.

On June 22, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Deckter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 30-2010-383335-CU-BT-CXC, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and eight of its directors.

On July 1, 2010, a stockholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Pronko v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 30-2010-386784-CU-SL-CXC, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and its directors.

On July 13, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Martino v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 30-2010-
389330-CU-SL-CXC, on behalf of herself and all other stockholders
of the company against the company and its directors.

On July 14, 2010, a stockholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint in Superior Court for Orange County,
California captioned Haro v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 30-2010-
389773-CU-BT-CXC, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders
of the company against the company, certain officers and directors
of the company, Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Biovail, and Beach Merger Corp., a newly formed
wholly owned subsidiary of BAC.

The complaints variously allege that the individual defendants,
aided and abetted by the company, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub,
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence to stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger of the company with Biovail.

Among other things, the complaints allege that the merger
agreement fixes a price per share that is inadequate and unfair,
and effectively caps the value of the company's stock and
precludes competitive bidding through measures such as a
termination fee, a requirement that any prior or ongoing
discussions with other potential suitors be discontinued, non-
solicitation and notification covenants, and granting Biovail the
right to match any unsolicited proposal.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants are
using the proposed merger to aggrandize their own financial
position at the expense of the company's stockholders and have
ignored purported conflicts of interests.  The complaints seek
various forms of relief, including rescissory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the merger to the extent already implemented and
requiring the defendants to effect a transaction which is in the
best interests of the company's stockholders.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International -- http://www.valeant.com/-
- is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical products
primarily in the areas of neurology and dermatology.


VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Three Delaware Suits Over Biovail Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International faces three purported class
action complaints in Delaware in connection with its planned
merger with Biovail Corp., according to the company's Aug. 3,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On June 20, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp. and Beach Merger
Corp. (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Valeant with Valeant continuing as the
surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger,
Biovail will change its name to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.

On July 16, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Porto v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., Case No. 5644, on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the company against the company, the company's
directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

On July 21, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Marion v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 5658, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and its directors.

On July 22, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Soukup v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 5664, on behalf of himself and all
other stockholders of the company against the company, the
company's directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

The complaints variously allege that the individual defendants,
aided and abetted by the Company, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub,
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence to stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger of the company with Biovail.  Among other things,
the complaints allege that the merger agreement fixes a price per
share that is inadequate and unfair, and effectively caps the
value of the company's stock and precludes competitive bidding
through measures such as a termination fee, a requirement that any
prior or ongoing discussions with other potential suitors be
discontinued, non-solicitation and notification covenants, and
granting Biovail the right to match any unsolicited proposal.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants are
using the proposed merger to aggrandize their own financial
position at the expense of the Company's stockholders and have
ignored purported conflicts of interests.

On July 27, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Porto and Marion actions
filed amended complaints that include the additional allegations
that the defendants failed to disclose adequate information to
ensure an informed stockholder vote and disclosed materially
misleading information.  The complaints and amended complaints
seek various forms of relief, including rescissory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the merger to the extent already implemented and
requiring the defendants to effect a transaction which is in the
best interests of the company's stockholders.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International -- http://www.valeant.com/
-- is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical products
primarily in the areas of neurology and dermatology.


WASHINGTON STATE: Accused of Violating Mental Health Parity Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the
Washington State Health Care Authority, the Public Employees
Benefits Board, Aetna Life Insurance Co., and UMR Inc. violate the
Mental Health Parity Act, in King County Court, Seattle.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $14.4MM Gross Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Corporation subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC
(AIHL), had reserves for unpaid asbestos and environmental losses
and loss adjustment expenses that include US$14.4 million of gross
reserves and US$14.3 million of net reserves at June 30, 2010.

AIHL's reserves for unpaid losses and LAE include US$18 million of
gross reserves and US$17.9 million net reserves at March 31, 2010.
(Class Action Reporter, May 21, 2010)

AIHL had US$18.9 million of gross reserves and US$18.8 million of
net reserves at Dec. 31, 2009.

These reserves were for various liability coverages related to
asbestos and environmental impairment claims that arose from
reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of CATA between 1969 and 1976.
This subsidiary exited such business in 1976.

CATA released US$3.5 million of such net reserves at June 30, 2010
based on a reserve study that was completed in the 2010 second
quarter.

New York-based Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the property
and casualty and surety insurance business through its wholly
owned subsidiary Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M & F Worldwide Still Subject to Asbestos Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp. is subject to contingent claims that include
various environmental and asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims are generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex LLC.

The Company has not since 1995 paid and does not expect to pay on
its own behalf material amounts related to these matters.

In 1988, a predecessor of Pepsi Cola Metropolitan Bottling
Company, Inc. (Original Indemnitor) sold to Pneumo Abex various
operating businesses, all of which Pneumo Abex re-sold by 1996.
Prior to the 1988 sale, those businesses had manufactured certain
asbestos-containing friction products.

Pneumo Abex has been named, typically along with 10 to as many as
100 or more other companies, as a defendant in various personal
injury lawsuits claiming damages relating to exposure to asbestos.

Under indemnification agreements, the Original Indemnitor has
ultimate responsibility for all the remaining asbestos-related
claims asserted against Pneumo Abex through August 1998 and for
certain asbestos-related claims asserted thereafter.

In connection with the sale by Pneumo Abex in December 1994 of its
Friction Products Division, a subsidiary (Friction Buyer) of
Cooper Industries, Inc. -- now Cooper Industries, LLC, the
"Friction Guarantor" -- assumed all liability for substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

Following the Friction Products sale, Pneumo Abex treated the
Division as a discontinued operation and stopped including the
Division's assets and liabilities in its financial statements.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc., the Company and two of
its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement.  Under the
Transfer Agreement, Pneumo Abex transferred to MCGI substantially
all of its assets and liabilities other than the assets and
liabilities relating to its former Abex NWL Aerospace Division and
certain contingent liabilities and the related assets, including
its historical insurance and indemnification arrangements.

The Transfer Agreement also requires MCGI, which currently is an
indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake certain
administrative and funding obligations with respect to certain
categories of asbestos-related claims and other liabilities,
including environmental claims that Pneumo Abex did not transfer.

Pneumo Abex's former subsidiary maintained product liability
insurance covering substantially all of the period during which it
manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products. The
subsidiary and its successors have pursued litigation against the
insurers providing this coverage in order to confirm its
availability and obtain its benefits.

As a result of settlements in that litigation, other coverage
agreements with other carriers, payments by the Original
Indemnitor and funding payments under the Transfer Agreement, all
of Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for asbestos-related claims
are managed and paid by others.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company has not incurred and does not
expect to incur material amounts related to asbestos-related
claims not subject to the arrangements.

New York-based M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding company that
conducts its operations through its indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings and Mafco Worldwide. The
Company's businesses are organized along four business segments:
Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and Licorice
Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central Hudson Facing 1,186 Lawsuits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
CH Energy Group, Inc. says that, as of June 30, 2010, of the 3,319
asbestos cases brought against subsidiary Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation, about 1,186 remain pending, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2010, of the 3,319 asbestos cases brought against
Central Hudson, about 1,189 remain pending. (Class Action
Reporter, May 28, 2010)

Of the cases no longer pending against Central Hudson, 1,981 have
been dismissed or discontinued without payment by Central Hudson,
and Central Hudson has settled 152 cases.

Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based CH Energy Group, Inc.'s subsidiary,
Central Hudson Gas & Electric, provides electricity to about
300,000 electric and 74,000 natural gas customers in eight
counties of New York State's Mid-Hudson River Valley, and delivers
natural gas and electricity in a 2,600-square-mile service
territory that extends from New York City to Albany.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of the
Company's products many years ago.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by its former
Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair
services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company,
which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow
control business. Historically, the Company has been dismissed
from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-
insured retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-
Bradley subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance carriers
to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future coverage
of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley. Nationwide administers the Kemper
buyout funds and has entered into a cost share agreement to pay
the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for
Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper buy-out funds are
depleted.

In connection with the sale of its Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, the Company
agreed to indemnify the purchaser, Baldor Electric Company, for
costs and damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental
and asbestos matters of these businesses, including certain
damages pertaining to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, arising
before Jan. 31, 2007, for which the maximum exposure would be
capped at the amount received for the sale.

Milwaukee-based Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial
automation company. Its Control Products & Solutions unit makes
industrial automation products like motor starters and contactors,
relays, timers, signaling devices, and variable-speed drives.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 4 Hilco Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of June 30, 2010, there
existed four plaintiffs in asbestos lawsuits relating to alleged
sales of asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by
Hilco, Inc.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of June 30, 2010, two filed actions
in 2010 and two filed actions in 2009.  There are 207 other
plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 16 other
plaintiffs that have settled as of June 30, 2010 for a total of
US$3,361,500.

There has been no judgment against Hilco.

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts
and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing
and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New
York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania,
Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Party to 1 Exposure Claim at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and
settled asbestos-related actions, there existed one plaintiff that
names subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc. as of June 30, 2010.

Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs. Of these, one filed an
action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in
2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one
filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

About 33 plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500.

No money was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Hawthorne, N.J.-based Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes
heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts
and accessories, climate control systems, appliances, and plumbing
and electrical fixtures and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New
York, Massachusetts and portions of eastern Pennsylvania,
Connecticut and Vermont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 430 Damage Claims Still Pending v. W. R. Grace
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2010, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
asbestos-related Property Damage Claims subject to a March 31,
2003 bar date remain outstanding.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 395 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of US$147
million.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases -- which involved
thousands of buildings -- filed prior to the April 2, 2001
bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts; judgments after trial were entered
in favor of the Company in nine cases; judgments after trial were
entered in favor of the plaintiffs in eight cases for a total of
US$86.1 million; 207 property damage cases were settled for a
total of US$696.8 million; and 16 cases remain outstanding
(including the one on appeal).

Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to Zonolite Attice
Insulation and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-
containing products -- two of which also are alleged to involve
ZAI.

About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March 31,
2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation. As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases
have been stayed.

In October 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions
filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and
factual issues regarding the ZAI claims.  In December 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order holding that,
although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and can release
asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of
harm from ZAI.

The ZAI claimants sought an interlocutory appeal of the opinion
and order with the District Court, but that request was denied. In
the event the Joint Plan is not confirmed, the ZAI claimants have
reserved their right to appeal such opinion and order if and when
it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
established a bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approved a
related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAI PD
Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later than Oct.
31, 2008.

About 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the Oct. 31,
2008 claims bar date and, as of June 30, 2010 an additional 1,300
U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.

On Dec. 13, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in the
Grace Canada, Inc. proceeding pending under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act, approved the Amended Settlement that
would settle all Canadian ZAI PD Claims on the terms of the Joint
Plan.

On Oct. 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established Aug. 31, 2009
as the bar date for Canadian ZAI PD Claims.  About 13,100 Canadian
ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the bar date and, as of June 30,
2010, an additional 1,000 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed.

Under the Amended Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claims filed
before Dec. 31, 2009 would be eligible to seek compensation from
the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.

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: Grace Still Subject to Personal Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. continues to be subject to asbestos personal
injury claims that allege adverse health effects from exposure to
asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured by the Company.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720
Personal Injury Claims were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts (primarily on the basis that the
Company products were not involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits
involving about 163,698 PI Claims were disposed of (through
settlements and judgments) for a total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against the
Company.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial for
estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but was
suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

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: Grace Records $970MM Excess Coverage at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. says that, as of June 30, 2010, there remains
about US$970 million of excess asbestos-related coverage from 54
presently solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.
For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurance
coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements, which are not
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with various
excess insurance carriers. These settlements involve amounts paid
and to be paid to the Company. The unpaid maximum aggregate amount
available under these settlement agreements is about US$487
million.

Excluding settlement agreements that are dependent upon the
effectiveness of the Joint Plan, the Company has no agreements in
place with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of excess
coverage.

In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers. Non-
paying carriers are those that, although technically solvent, are
not currently meeting their obligations to pay claims.  The
Company has filed and continues to file claims in the insolvency
proceedings of these carriers.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements, which are
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with
underwriters of a portion of the Company's excess insurance
coverage.

Under these agreements, the insurers have agreed, subject to
certain conditions, to pay to the Personal Injury Trust (directly
or through an escrow arrangement) an aggregate of about US$232
million in respect of claims for which the Company was provided
coverage under the affected policies.

Certain other insurers have agreed, subject to certain conditions,
to reimburse the PI Trust on terms that are substantially similar
to the existing settlement agreements.

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: Grace Records $50.5MM Libby Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby,
Mont., including the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing
sites outside of Libby, was US$50.5 million at June 30, 2010 and
US$51.6 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's total estimated liability for asbestos remediation
related to its former vermiculite operations in Libby, including
the cost of remediation at vermiculite processing sites outside of
Libby, was US$51.5 million at March 31, 2010. (Class Action
Reporter, May 28, 2010)

During 2009, the Company learned that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency may reinvestigate about 100 former or currently
operating plants at which vermiculite concentrate from the Grace-
owned Libby vermiculite mine was expanded.  Of these expansion
plants, seven are currently owned by the Company.

The estimated obligation as of June 30, 2010, does not include any
costs in respect of this reinvestigation or any additional EPA
claims, which costs if any, are not currently estimable.

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: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. continues to be subject to a number of lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court
and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from our product categories.  Most of these claims have
been dismissed and the Company's current docket of active and
inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.

A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries. The balance of the claims is related to alleged
exposure to asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control
products.

A small percentage of these claimants allege that they were
automobile mechanics and a significant number appear to involve
workers in other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against the Company.

Many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number
of each in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of
industries.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based Tenneco Inc. produces automotive emission
control and ride control products and systems. The Company serves
both original equipment vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) and the
repair and replacement markets, or aftermarket, worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Units Named in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of Ingersoll-Rand plc are named
as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts.

In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies
have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those
claims has been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand Company (IR-
New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold
by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad
brake shoes.

Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized
asbestos-containing components such as gaskets and packings
purchased from third-party suppliers.

Dublin-based Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and
protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial
properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Pursues Coverage Case in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in
litigation against certain carriers whose policies it believes
provide coverage for asbestos claims.

The insurance carriers named in this suit have challenged Trane's
right to recovery. Trane filed the action in April 1999 in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various
primary and lower layer excess insurance carriers, seeking
coverage for environmental claims (the NJ Litigation).

The NJ Litigation was later expanded to also seek coverage for
asbestos-related liabilities from 21 primary and lower layer
excess carriers and underwriting syndicates. The environmental
claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation have been
resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later resolution.

On Sept. 19, 2005, the court granted Trane's motion to add claims
for insurance coverage for asbestos-related liabilities against 16
additional insurers and 117 new insurance policies to the NJ
Litigation. The court also required the parties to submit all
contested matters to mediation.

Trane engaged in its first mediation session with the NJ
Litigation defendants on Jan. 18, 2006 and has engaged in active
discussions since that time.

Trane has now settled with the majority of the insurers in the NJ
Litigation, collectively accounting for about 95 percent of its
recorded asbestos-related liability insurance receivable as of
Jan. 31, 2010.

Dublin-based Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and
protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial
properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Has $1.081B Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's liability for asbestos-related matters
totaled US$1.081 billion at June 30, 2010, compared with US$1.113
billion at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's liability for asbestos-related matters totaled
US$1.097 billion at March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter,
May 28, 2010)

The Company's asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$373.1 million at June 30, 2010, compared
with US$424.2 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries totaled US$3.8 million
during the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$1.8
million during the three months ended June 30, 2009.

The costs associated with the settlement and defense of asbestos-
related claims after insurance recoveries totaled US$11.4 million
during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$4
million during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

Dublin-based Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company
that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the
quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and
protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial
properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 24,120 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are 24,120 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against the Company as of June 30, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

There were 26,055 pending asbestos personal injury claims filed
against the Company as of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter,
May 21, 2010)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from
exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.

In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among
others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of
numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York.  Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million
or US$25 million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

Of the pending cases as of June 30, 2010, 23,620 were pending in
the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State.
The other claims, totaling 500, are filed in various counties in a
number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts
(including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser
amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not
state any amount claimed.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 20,484 cases.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company has been listed as a defendant in
765 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

Camp Hill, Pa.-based Harsco Corporation's metals segment offers
metal reclamation, slag processing, scrap management, and other
services for steel and nonferrous metals producers. This segment's
units act as an on-site service partner at about 170 locations in
35 countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Cites $8.7MM Recoverables at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s ceded asbestos paid and unpaid
recoverables were US$8.7 million at June 30, 2010 and US$8.9
million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 5, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Of those amounts at June 30, 2010, about US$4.3 million was due
from Resolute Management Services Limited.

The Company generally experiences significant collection delays
for a large portion of reinsurance recoverable amounts for
asbestos losses given that certain reinsurers are in run-off or
otherwise no longer active in the reinsurance business.

Those circumstances are considered in the Company's ongoing
assessment of such reinsurance recoverables.

Rye Brook, N.Y.-based The Navigators Group, Inc. is an
international insurance company focusing on specialty products for
niches within the overall property/casualty insurance market. Its
largest product line and most long-standing area of specialization
is ocean marine insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. continues to be involved in various legal
proceedings that relate to asbestos and other environmental
matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

New Orleans-based Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels
and equipment to the global offshore energy industry through the
operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Cites $1.3MM Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The amount included in accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities on Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s condensed consolidated
balance sheets was about US$1.3 million as of June 30, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations
as required by current accounting guidance.

The amount of asset retirement obligations relates primarily to
estimated asbestos removal costs at the end of the economic life
of properties that were built before 1984.

San Francisco-based Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns, acquires,
develops, redevelops and manages technology-related real estate.
As of June 30, 2010, the Company's portfolio consisted of 87
properties, excluding one property held as an investment in an
unconsolidated joint venture, of which 73 are located throughout
North America and 14 are located in Europe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Remains Party to Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been
named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated into
or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products.

Milwaukee-based Badger Meter, Inc. manufactures and markets
products incorporating liquid flow measurement and control
technologies developed both internally and with other technology
companies. Its products are used in various applications,
including water, oil and chemicals. The Company's product lines
fall into two categories: water applications and specialty
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Involved in "Premises" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation is named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims
against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries
occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, the Company
tenders it to the prior owner. None of the complaints in these
cases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owner
accepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases
and payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In its 16-year
experience with tendering these cases, the Company has not made
any payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 21
cases tendered, 14 cases resolved, and 1,145 unresolved cases.
During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
six cases tendered, 11 cases resolved, and 1,135 unresolved cases.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases. As of June 30, 2010, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$16 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$16 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
one case filed, two cases resolved, and 38 unresolved cases.
During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
one case filed, two cases resolved, and 42 unresolved cases.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$200,000 during
the six months ended June 30, 2010. As of June 30, 2010, the
Company had an accrual of US$225,000 relating to these cases.

Salt Lake City-based Huntsman Corporation manufactures
differentiated organic chemical products and inorganic chemical
products. Its products are used in applications including those in
the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare June 30 Liability at $3.84MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s long-term asbestos abatement
liability amounted to US$3,849,000 as of June 30, 2010, compared
with US$5,486,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos abatement liability amounted to
US$5,558,000 as of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 14,
2010)

Foothill Ranch, Calif.-based Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. is a
holding company that owns subsidiaries that operate long-term care
facilities and provide a wide range of post-acute care services,
with a strategic emphasis on sub-acute specialty medical care. As
of June 30, 2010, the Company operated facilities in California,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Ind. Records $8.8Mil Expenses at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc. recorded asbestos-related expenses of
US$8.8 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2010, compared
with US$14.3 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2009,
according to Company press release dated Aug. 5, 2010.

The Company recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$14.5 million
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$13.6
million for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action
Reporter, May 14, 2010)

The Company recorded asbestos-related expenses of US$23.3 million
during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$27.9
million during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

Charlotte, N.C.-based EnPro Industries, Inc. produces sealing
products, metal polymer and filament wound bearings, components
and service for reciprocating compressors, diesel and dual-fuel
engines and other engineered products for use in critical
applications by industries worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Affiliates Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions
across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),
and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the
Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

Wilmerding, Pa.-based Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec) provides equipment and services for the
global rail industry. In 2009, the Company had sales of about
US$1.4 billion and net income of about US$115.1 million.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 16,790 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at June 30, 2010, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,790 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of four
claims from those previously reported.

At March 31, 2010, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by about 16,794
plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 397 claims from those
previously reported. (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2010)

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 38,932 of those
claims were dismissed, 16 were tried to defense verdicts, six were
tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being or will be
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 567 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

On May 6, 2010, a jury returned a verdict in one such case in
Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pa., in favor of the
plaintiff against the Company, awarding US$825,000 in compensatory
damages. The Company plans to appeal this verdict after the final
judgment is entered.

On April 9, 2010 a jury returned verdicts in favor of the Company
in two other similar cases in the same jurisdiction and a directed
verdict in favor of the Company was granted in a third case.

On May 10, 2010, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company
in another similar case.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary
business is the design and manufacture of arc welding and cutting
products, manufacturing a broad line of arc welding equipment,
consumable welding products and other welding and cutting
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing Against Sunoco Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal proceedings are pending or may be brought against Sunoco,
Inc. arising out of its current and past operations, including
matters related to allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances (like asbestos or benzene) and general
environmental claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were discussed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco, Inc. is a petroleum refiner and
marketer and chemicals manufacturer with interests in logistics
and cokemaking.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Norfolk Southern Subject to Occupational Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive
motion) that are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.

Many of these claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades, according to the Company's latest quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Norfolk, Va.-based Norfolk Southern Corporation's Norfolk Southern
Railway Company unit is engaged in the rail transportation of raw
materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in
the Southeast, East, and Midwest and, via interchange with rail
carriers, to and from the rest of the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Int'l. Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. is still a co-defendant in numerous
personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to exposure
to asbestos and other substances.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy year
in question.

South Milwaukee, Wis.-based Bucyrus International, Inc. designs
and manufactures mining equipment for the extraction of coal,
copper, oil sands, iron ore and other minerals in major mining
centers throughout the world. The Company also provides the
aftermarket replacement parts and service for this equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC continues to be party to
personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have
been exposed to asbestos.

The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF by 1985.

It is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to
be filed through the year 2050.  The Company recorded an amount
for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a
relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees
hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF specific data that was the basis for the study.

The Company projects that about 55%, 75% and 90% of the future
unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15
and 25 years, respectively.

Fort Worth, Tex.-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is a
holding company that conducts no operating activities and owns no
significant assets other than through its interests in its
subsidiaries. Through its subsidiaries, the Company is engaged
primarily in the freight rail transportation business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corporation Subject to Liability Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation is subject to claims and litigation related
to product liability claims, including claims related to the
Company's current products and asbestos-related claims concerning
premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and
predecessors.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Middlebury, Conn.-based Chemtura Corporation delivers innovative,
application-focused specialty chemical and consumer product
offerings. The Company operates in various end-use industries,
including automotive, transportation, construction, packaging,
agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-durable
goods, electronics, and pool and spa chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Still Subject to A&E Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited anticipates that it will continue to be
subject to litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary
course of business, including litigation generally related to the
scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental
claims.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Hamilton, Bermuda-based Enstar Group Limited acquires and manages
insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and portfolios of
insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and to provide
management, consulting and other services to the insurance and
reinsurance industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Actions v. Parker Drilling Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company has been named since August 2004 in
several asbestos-related complaints that have been filed in the
Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi by several hundred
persons that allege that they were employed by some of the named
defendants between 1965 and 1986.

The complaints name as defendants numerous other companies that
are not affiliated with the Company, including companies that
allegedly manufactured drilling related products containing
asbestos that are the subject of the complaints.

The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries and other
drilling contractors used asbestos-containing products in offshore
drilling operations, land-based drilling operations and in
drilling structures, drilling rigs, vessels and other equipment
and assert claims based on negligence and strict liability and
claims under the Jones Act and that the plaintiffs are entitled to
monetary damages.

Based on the report of the special master, these complaints have
been severed and venue of the claims transferred to the county in
which the plaintiff resides or the county in which the cause of
action allegedly accrued.

Subsequent to the filing of amended complaints, the Company has
joined with other co-defendants in filing motions to compel
discovery to determine what plaintiffs have an employment
relationship with which defendant, including whether or not any
plaintiffs have an employment relationship with subsidiaries of
the Company.

Out of 668 amended single-plaintiff complaints filed to date,
about 16 plaintiffs have identified the Company or one of its
affiliates as a defendant. One of the 16 plaintiffs' cases was
transferred to the federal multi-district litigation and was
administratively dismissed.

Of the remaining 652 cases, discovery is proceeding in groups of
60 and none of the 15 plaintiff complaints naming the Company are
included in the first 60 (Group I). Selection of Discovery Group
II was completed on April 21, 2008, and the Company was named in
one suit in which the plaintiff claims that during 1973 he earned
US$587.40 while working for a former subsidiary of a company
Parker Drilling acquired in 1996.

No trial date has been set for this plaintiff.

Houston-based Parker Drilling Company provides contract drilling
and drilling-related services. At June 30, 2010, its rig fleet was
comprised of 43 rigs which operate in North and South America,
North Africa, Central Asia and Asia Pacific regions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Corp. Still Party to Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation continues to be party to litigation that
arises in the normal course of its business operations, including
product warranty and liability claims, contract disputes and
environmental, asbestos, employment and other litigation matters.

The Company's products are used in industrial, commercial and
residential applications that subject the Company to claims that
the use of its products is alleged to have resulted in injury or
other damage.

Beloit, Wis.-based Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures
commercial, industrial, and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) electric motors, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. IDEX Corp., 6 Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts.

One case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company's
business unit.

Lake Forest, Ill.-based IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions
company specializing in fluid and metering technologies, health
and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire, safety
and other diversified products built to its customers'
specifications. The Company consists of four segments: Fluid &
Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies, Dispensing
Equipment and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cinch Dismissed as Engelbrecht Claim Defendant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bel Fuse Inc. says that subsidiary Cinch was dismissed as a party
to an asbestos case (Engelbrecht v. Motorola, et al.) through a
limited judgment of dismissal, which was filed by the Douglas
County Circuit Court on July 19, 2010.

Cinch was a defendant in the Engelbrecht lawsuit, which was
brought in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County
of Douglas on Jan. 10, 2010.

With respect to this action, the plaintiff claimed that Cinch was
engaged in the manufacture and sale of asbestos-containing radio
components which allegedly caused him to sustain personal injuries
due to his exposure to asbestos.

Cinch filed an answer to the Complaint, denying any legal
liability or fault for the damages alleged in the Complaint, and
affirmatively pleaded that the plaintiff's alleged damages, if
any, were caused by persons for whom Cinch is not responsible.

Jersey City, N.J.-based Bel Fuse Inc. designs, manufactures and
markets magnetics, modules (including power conversion and
integrated modules), circuit protection devices and interconnect
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Open v. Precision Castparts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other industrial companies in recent years, Precision
Castparts Corp. is a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to chemicals and substances in the
workplace, including asbestos.

To date, the Company has been dismissed from a number of these
suits and has settled a number of others.

Portland, Ore.-based Precision Castparts Corp. manufactures
complex metal components and products, provides high-quality
investment castings, forgings and fasteners/fastener systems for
critical aerospace and industrial gas turbine (IGT) applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atkins Action v. 20 Firms Filed Aug. 9 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Atkins on Aug. 9, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit
against 20 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Mr. Atkins claims he developed an asbestos-related disease
different from the other non-malignant asbestos-related disease
for which he previously sued.

Mr. Atkins alleges the disease was caused from asbestos fibers
that he inhaled while working as a sheet metal worker and
supervisor from 1947 until 1979, according to the complaint.

The defendants are Ameraflex Rubber & Gasket Co. Inc., American
Optical, Bechtel, CBS Corp., Cleaver-Brooks Inc., Crain Co.,
ExxonMobil, Fluor Enterprises, Fluor Maintenance Services, Foster
Wheeler Constructors, Foster Wheeler Corp., Foster Wheeler Energy
Corp., General Electric Company, General Refractories, Georgia
Pacific, Honeywell International Inc., Lockheed Martin
Corporation, Owens-Illinois Inc., Riley Power Inc. and Union
Carbide Corporation.

Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law Firm in
Beaumont, Tex., will be representing Mr. Atkins.

Case No. D187-518 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Theriot Action v. Texaco, Chevron Filed Aug. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Theriot, on behalf of her late husband Wilbert Theriot, on
Aug. 12, 2010, filed an asbestos lawsuit against Texaco and
Chevron USA in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Court papers show that "throughout the course of his work life,"
Mr. Theriot was employed by Texaco working at its Jefferson County
facilities, during which he was allegedly exposed to asbestos. The
suit does not give dates of employment.

The suit says, "As a result of such exposure, Theriot developed an
asbestos-related disease, pulmonary asbestosis and lung cancer,
from which he died a painful and terrible death on Sept. 5, 2008."

Mrs. Theriot seeks seeking exemplary damages. Provost Umphrey
attorney Keith Hyde, Esq., represents her.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned to Case
No. A187-541.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 21 Cases Filed During June 14-20 in Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 14, 2010 through June 20, 2010, a total of
21 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-649) Thomas E. Bagsby of Illinois, a machinist
   and maintenance worker at the Venice, Ill., Powerhouse,
   claims lung cancer. Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron,
   Esq., Christina J. Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark,
   Esq., and Gerald J. FitzGerald, Esq., of the O'Brien Law Firm
   in St. Louis will represent Mr. Bagsby.

-- (Case No. 10-L-639) Glendon Bane of Washington, a merchant
   marine and electrician, claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Bane.

-- (Case No. 10-L-620) Donald Bauer of Texas, a maintenance
   worker, lineboy gassing airplanes and welder/fabricator,
   claims mesothelioma. G. Michael Stewart, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Bauer.

-- (Case No. 10-L-627) Joseph Davis Jr. of Louisiana, a
   carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Davis.

-- (Case No. 10-L-642) Rosita Dvorscak of Indiana, a laborer and
   janitor, claims mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Anglides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Ms. Dvorscak.

-- (Case No. 10-L-621) Nekeidra Ellis of Georgia claims her
   deceased grandmother, Ellen Carpenter, developed lung cancer
   after her work as a carpenter. Robert Phillips, Esq., and
   Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Ms.
   Ellis.

-- (Case No. 10-L-648) Juanita Evans of Illinois claims her
   deceased husband, Dwight Evans, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a cook and baker in the U.S. Navy, as a
   bricklayer out of Belleville Local 2 and as an owner of
   Carlyle Masonry. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq.,
   of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Evans.

-- (Case No. 10-L-630) Claudine B. Hope of South Carolina claims
   her deceased husband, William L. Hope, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as an insulator at North Brothers, as a branch
   manager at North Brothers and as an area vice president.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent Mrs. Hope.

-- (Case No. 10-L-647) Rebecca Guerrero Jaramillio of Arizona
   claims the deceased Phillip B. Jaramillio developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a member of the U.S. Army, as
   farmer and laborer in Arizona, as a garbage truck driver in
   Arizona and as a maintenance man and construction worker in
   Arizona. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint,
   Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Ms.
   Jaramillio.

-- (Case No. 10-L-643) Ellen Kosch of Wisconsin claims her
   deceased husband, Richard Kosch, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a boiler tender, custodian, meter reader and
   maintenance and grounds supervisor. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., and
   Sean M. Keane, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Kosch.

-- (Case No. 10-L-623) Robert T. and Judith Mooney of Illinois
   claim Mr. Mooney developed pleural plaques after his work as
   a burner torch helper, radial drill, mill, assembler and
   engine tester, utilities helper and utilities operator at
   Caterpillar. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Mooneys.

-- (Case No. 10-L-625) Lornalee Rapinchuk of Illinois, a clerk,
   production line worker and home health assistant, claims
   mesothelioma. W. Brent Copple, Esq., and Myles L. Epperson,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Rapinchuk.

-- (Case No. 10-L-631) Douglas L. and Gwenetta E. Robinson of
   Illinois claim Mr. Robinson developed pleural plaques after
   his work as a laborer at Scott Air Force Base, as a hand
   router, as a machinist at Mitchell Manufacturing, as a dump
   truck driver for Paramount Hauling and as a wire drawer for
   Laclede Steel Company. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert
   Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland
   in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Robinsons.

-- (Case No. 10-L-626) Linda Roland-Henderson of Ohio claims her
   deceased husband, Louie Henderson Sr., developed lung cancer
   after his work as a laborer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry
   J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Roland-
   Henderson.

-- (Case No. 10-L-640) Martha Sanchez of Arizona claims her
   deceased husband, Frank Sanchez, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a forklift driver, laborer and builder. Richard
   L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville
   and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Sanchez.

-- (Case No. 10-L-646) William and Carol Schober of Iowa claim
   Mr. Schober developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   laborer and punch press operator, motorsports owner and
   operator and physical therapist throughout Illinois, Iowa and
   Florida. Timothy F. Thompson Jr., Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent the Schobers.

-- (Case No. 10-L-624) Lillard Steele of Ohio, a laborer, claims
   lung cancer. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder,
   Esq., of SimmonsCooper in East Alton, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Steele.

-- (Case No. 10-L-629) Shirley Stultz of Indiana claims her
   deceased husband, Ronald Stultz, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a machine operator, mechanic, laborer and welder.
   John P. Wagner, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris,
   Angelides and Barnerd will represent Mrs. Stultz.

-- (Case No. 10-L-638) Bernard Thurman of Oregon, an
   electrician, claims mesothelioma. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Thurman.

-- (Case No. 10-L-622) Larry Urish of Illinois, a chemical
   operator, maintenance pipefitter, welder and oiler, claims
   lung cancer. Christopher R. Guinn, Esq., and John P. Wagner,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Urish.

-- (Case No. 10-L-628) Gary Vogel of Kentucky claims the
   deceased John Vogel developed mesothelioma after his work at
   Sidney Kline, at Clark Electric, as a member of the U.S.
   Navy, as a member of the Naval Ordinance, at Beam and
   Colville Realtors and at Al Vogel Constructing. Richard L.
   Saville Jr., Esq., Ethan A. Flint, Esq., and D. Todd Mathews,
   Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Vogel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 17 Cases Filed During June 21-25 in Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of June 21, 2010 through June 25, 2010, a total of
17 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-665) Norvel and Dorothy Arnold of Texas claim
   Mr. Arnold developed mesothelioma after his work as a laborer
   on his family's farm, as a laborer in the U.S. Army, as a
   laborer at a boatyard, as a laborer at an airbase, as a
   laborer at HJ Heinz Cannery, as a laborer at a dairy, as an
   equipment operator at a grain elevator and as an equipment
   operator for the county. The Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Arnolds.

-- (Case No. 10-L-671) Tony Crimi of California, a seaman 1st
   class and a seaman 2nd class in the U.S. Navy, a laborer,
   press operator, and carpenter, claims lung cancer. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Crimi.

-- (Case No. 10-L-668) Richard C. Dwight of South Carolina, a
   member of the U.S. Air Force, a laborer at DuPont and a
   seller and servicer of filters and filter systems for
   Carolina Filters, claims mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller,
   Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller,
   Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Dwight.

-- (Case No. 10-L-660) Reginald Guy of Illinois claims the
   deceased Minnie Guy developed mesothelioma after her work at
   Entergy Services. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A.
   Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Guy.

-- (Case No. 10-L-673) Lonnie G. Hanshew of Texas, an
   electrician apprentice, a laborer at the LTV plant, a high
   voltage electrician, an employee at Montgomery Ward and Co.,
   a member of the Sweetwater, Tex.,, Fire Department, a
   furniture delivery driver and set-up worker, a sheet metal
   mechanic for Garner Mechanical, a laborer for Abilene Sheet
   Metal, a worker for Lockheed Martin, a worker for Ski Hi
   Enterprises and Raytheon, a worker for Ski Hi Enterprises, a
   worker for Rock City Mechanical and a worker for Abilene
   Sheet Metal, claims mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq.,
   and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli
   and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Hanshew.

-- (Case No. 10-L-658) James F. and Mary Joan Hensley of
   Missouri claim Mr. Hensley developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a home remodeler, home rebuilder, roofer, tiler,
   drywaller and electrician; as a shadetree mechanic; as a
   demolition man; as a laborer at a processing plant; as a
   laborer for Pipeline Inc.; as an interior designer and as a
   worker for Beckman Construction Company from 1970 until his
   retirement. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
   Hensleys.

-- (Case No. 10-L-664) Milford Hill of Mississippi, a laborer at
   Katy Railroad, a laborer in the U.S. Air Force, a laborer at
   Cessna Corporation and a laborer at Federal Express, claims
   lung cancer. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
   Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Hill.

-- (Case No. 10-L-672) Shirley Howard of Illinois claims her
   deceased husband, Manule C. Howard, developed lung cancer
   after his work as a sheet metal worker for McDonnell Douglas,
   at a paint booth, at General Steel and as a self-employed
   carpenter. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mrs. Howard.

-- (Case No. 10-L-662) Leo Huzieff of California claims his
   deceased wife, Carole Huzieff, developed mesothelioma after
   her work as a home maker. Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J.
   Browder, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Huzieff.

-- (Case No. 10-L-657) Janice and Kent Owens of Florida claim
   Mrs. Owens developed mesothelioma after her work as an
   assembly line worker and operator at NCR Corporation. Randy
   L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Owens
   couple.

-- (Case No. 10-L-669) William G. and Ramona Penberthy of
   Missouri claim Mr. Penberthy developed lung cancer after his
   work as a member of the U.S. Army, as a machinist for St.
   Joseph Lead Mine and as a machinist for Meramac Mine.
   Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of
   Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Penberthys.

-- (Case No. 10-L-654) Francis J. Scheffler of Pennsylvania, a
   boatswain's mate in the U.S. Navy, a truck driver for Motor
   Freight Express and a custodian and maintenance supervisor
   for Swatara Junior High School, claims malignant
   mesothelioma. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mr. Scheffler.

-- (Case No. 10-L-656) Cleveland Shaw of Illinois, a heat
   treater, trackman, press tender and laborer, claims lung
   cancer. W. Brent Copple, Esq., and Myles L. Epperson, Esq.,
   of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Shaw.

-- (Case No. 10-L-674) Robert and Brenda Rush of South Carolina
   claim Mr. Rush developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   shipfitter for Charleston Naval Shipyard and as a worker for
   BEA Systems. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Rushes.

-- (Case No. 10-L-653) Frances Torres of Texas claims the
   deceased Pedro Torres developed mesothelioma after his work
   as a member of the U.S. Army and as a mechanic. Richard L.
   Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and
   Flint in Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Torres.

-- (Case No. 10-L-655) James Werner of Florida, a fireman,
   communications electrician and science teacher, claims
   mesothelioma. Brian J. Cooke, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris and Angelides in East Alton, Ill., will represent
   Mr. Werner.

-- (Case No. 10-L-663) Joe West of Texas claims his deceased
   wife, Phyllis West, developed mesothelioma after her work as
   a clerk and telephone operator. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., and Sean
   M. Keane, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and
   Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. West.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Evesham Railway Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Joseph Bennett, an 86-year old
former railway worker from Evesham, England, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Evesham Journal reports.

The inquest in Gloucester heard that Mr. Bennett was probably
exposed during his work maintaining huts, signals and other
equipment during more than 25 years in his employment.

Mr. Bennett's daughter, Angela Harmer, told the inquest that her
father joined the railways in the Swansea area in 1946 before he
was called up for war service.  From 1946 to 1961, he worked as a
milkman before rejoining the railways.  Mrs. Harmer said she
remembered him returning from work with his overalls covered with
dust and her mother telling him to get out of the house.  Mrs.
Harmer said he was quite fit until about eight months before his
death when he went into a sudden decline. He had no exercise
tolerance and lost weight.

Mr. Bennett was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and was
admitted to Gloucestershire Royal Hospital on Nov. 21, 2009. His
condition deteriorated and he died on Dec. 15, 2009.  A post
mortem examination carried out by Professor Neil Shepherd found
Mr. Bennett died due to broncho-pneumonia and supporative pleurisy
caused by malignant mesothelioma.

Gloucestershire coroner Alan Crickmore said Mr. Bennett may have
come into contact with asbestos in a social context as the
material was used in garages, as corrugated roofing, in cat litter
and on ironing boards before its danger to health was realized.

Mr. Crickmore recorded a verdict that Mr. Bennett died of the
industrial disease malignant mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor's Bid in Urian Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, denied Ford
Motor Company's Motion for Reargument of Decision in an asbestos
lawsuit filed by Barry Urian.

The case is styled Barry Urian, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company,
et al., Defendants.

Judge Johnston entered judgment in Civil Action No. 06C-09-246 ASB
on July 30, 2010.

Mr. Urian worked as a gas station attendant at the Crist Texaco
Service Station in Pennsylvania from 1952 to 1962. From 1962 to
1963, he worked at the Ennis Service Station in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Urian brought suit claiming injury as a result of asbestos
exposure due to maintenance he performed on vehicles manufactured
by Ford Motor Company in the course of his employment at both
service stations, and as a result of his non-occupational
maintenance of a Ford Coupe.

Ford filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not a
manufacturer of any after-market brake products. Ford argued that
Mr. Urian could not establish a product nexus that could
demonstrate a causal relationship between his injuries and any of
Ford's products.

The Court granted Ford's motion with regard to the lack of product
nexus, but found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Ford's
duty to warn.

Ford's Motion for Reargument of Decision Denying Ford's Motion for
Summary Judgment was denied.

Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq., of Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., in
Wilmington, Del., represented Barry Urian.

Christian J. Singewald, Esq., of White and Williams LLP, in
Wilmington, Del., represented Ford Motor Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Appeal Court OKs Dismissal of Bright Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco, upheld a trial court's order,
which dismissed a case involving asbestos filed by James W.
Bright.

The case is styled James W. Bright, Appellant v. Nathaniel
Quarterman, Appellee.

Juges Rex D. Davis, Reyna, and Gray entered judgment in Case No.
10-08-00140-CV on Aug. 4, 2010.

In January 2008, Mr. Bright, a state prison inmate, sued Nathaniel
Quarterman, then-director of the TDCJ's Institutional Division,
seeking injunctive relief in the form of removing inmates from 24
Texas prisons because they may contain lead-based paint and
asbestos.

Mr. Bright filed a declaration of inability to pay costs. Mr.
Quarterman moved to dismiss Mr. Bright's suit, asserting that Mr.
Bright lacked standing and that Mr. Bright failed to comply with
Chapter 14's procedural requirements.

The trial court dismissed the suit as frivolous under Chapter 14
of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Mr. Bright
appealed.

The Appeals Court affirm the trial court's dismissal order.


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

District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered judgment in Case No.
4:05CV01857 AGF on Aug. 4, 2010.

This case involves Plaintiffs' claim for breach of an alleged
written fee-splitting agreement (Associate Counsel Agreement)
between Plaintiffs, Edwin C. Martin, Jr., as an individual and a
California professional corporation law firm and James P.
Holloran, Jr., an individual and professional corporation law
firm.

Plaintiffs sought damages as a result of Defendants' alleged
failure to pay Plaintiffs one-third of the legal fees collected by
Defendants in asbestos-related personal injury cases filed in the
late 1980s to the mid-1990s on behalf of individuals who had gone
through "asbestos screenings" designed by Plaintiffs.

On Dec. 3, 2004, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants in
Missouri state court for an accounting, and then voluntarily
dismissed that action on Sept. 21, 2005.  Plaintiffs filed the
present action in this Court on Oct. 11, 2005.

By Memorandum and Order dated March 27, 2008, this Court held that
a jury question was presented on whether a written Associate
Counsel Agreement, in the form of an exemplar Associate Counsel
Agreement that is in the record, was executed between the parties.

It was ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
multiple grounds was denied. It was further ordered that
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum
and Order dated March 27, 2008 was denied.  It was further ordered
that Plaintiffs' motion for modification of the Court Memorandum
and Order dated April 9, 2010 was denied.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court Vacates Ruling in Allison Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, vacated a Sept. 1,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Ian T.
Allison's claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) based on
the need for regular aid and attendance.

The case is styled Ian T. Allison, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Lance entered judgment in Case No. 09-4706 on Aug. 3, 2010.

Mr. Allison served in the U.S. Maritime Service from April 1943 to
August 1945. In November 2002, he requested service connection for
asbestosis, which the VA regional office (RO) granted in August
2003 with a 100 percent disability rating.

In September 2007, Mr. Allison requested entitlement to SMC based
on the need for regular aid and attendance. In its decision, the
Board considered the following evidence.

In August 2007, at a VA examination for housebound status or
permanent need for regular aid and attendance, the examiner
checked boxes indicating that Mr. Allison was unable to walk
around, to dress and undress, or to button his clothing, and that
he did not have grip strength. His balance was "very poor" due to
leg weakness, which affected his ability to perform self-care, and
he suffered limitation of motion and propulsion.

The examiner noted that Mr. Allison also suffered from diabetic
neuropathy, but failed to identify which condition was responsible
for which limitation.

In May 2008 and June 2008, Mr. Allison was hospitalized briefly
for a respiratory infection after returning from a convention in
Seattle. The discharge note indicated that Mr. Allison's
asbestosis required treatment with home oxygen and discussed his
other disabilities, but did not expressly address what limitations
Mr. Allison suffers and which disabilities cause which
limitations.

On Sept. 1, 2009, the Board issued the decision here on appeal.
The Board found that "the evidence indicates that although [the
appellant] requires aid and assistance, this is due to his
nonservice-connected disorders." Accordingly, the Board denied Mr.
Allison's claim.

The Board's Sept. 1, 2009, decision was vacated and the matter was
remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Summary Judgment Upheld in Cantrell
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
which granted summary judgment in favor of BorgWarner Corporation
in an asbestos case filed by Alice and Bernard Cantrell.

The case is styled Alice Cantrell, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. Adience, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Sean C. Gallagher, Mary J. Boyle, and Larry A. Jones
entered judgment in Case No. 93944 on Aug. 5, 2010.

The Cantrells filed a complaint against BorgWarner and several
other entities. The complaint asserted numerous claims arising
from Mrs. Cantrell's alleged exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing materials during her employment with the General Motors
Company, Chevrolet plant in Parma, Ohio (the GM plant), from 1977
through 1979. She alleged this exposure caused her to develop
malignant pleural mesothelioma. She was made aware of this
condition on or about Jan. 30, 2006.

Mrs. Cantrell claimed that BorgWarner was the manufacturer of
asbestos-containing clutch plates supplied to the GM plant. She
worked in the transmission department of the GM plant from the
spring of 1978 until the fall of 1979, for a period of 16 or 17
months. She spent most of that time working in the transmission
assembly room.

Mr. Cantrell worked for the GM plant from 1953 until 1992. He
worked in the transmission division from 1953 until 1977, and then
transferred to the prop-shaft division. He was able to identify
BorgWarner as a manufacturer of clutch plates that were supplied
to the GM plant because he saw the name "BorgWarner" on bills of
lading in the 1950s and 1960s.

BorgWarner and another supplier, Delco-Remy, were identified as
suppliers of asbestos-containing, automatic transmission clutch
plates in internal documents from General Motors in early 1977.
These documents related to a "Hygiene Survey" that involved air
sampling for asbestos dust. Importantly, Mrs. Cantrell did not
begin working in the transmission division until the following
year.

BorgWarner filed a motion for summary judgment. Mrs. Cantrell
opposed the motion.

Following a hearing, the trial court granted BorgWarner's motion
and provided there was no just cause for delay. Mrs. Cantrell
timely filed this appeal.

Robert P. Sweeney, Esq., of Robert E. Sweeney Co., LPA, in
Cleveland, Ohio, represented the Cantrells.

Bruce P. Mandel, Esq., Max W. Thomas, Esq., Robert E. Zulandt,
III, Esq., of Ulmer & Berne LLP, in Cleveland, Ohio, represented
BorgWarner Corporation.

                           *********

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, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan 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  * * *