CAR_Public/100827.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 169

                             Headlines

3M CO: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Issue in "Whitaker"
3M CO: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Minnesota
3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
3M CO: Suit Over Perfluorochemicals in Morgan County Stayed
3M CO: Continues to Defend Age-Discrimination Charges in EEOC

ADAMS GOLF: Consolidated Securities Class Action Fully Resolved
AMERICAN RICE: Sued for Deceptively Advertising Olive Oil Brands
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Court Sets Certification Hearing for Jan. 27
ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York
ATRICURE INC: Defends Securities Violation Suit in Ohio

ATRICURE INC: Hearing on $2.75 Million Settlement Set for Oct. 7
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Lawsuit Against Cycleway Collapses
AVAYA INC: Court Sets Final Settlement Hearing for September
BC FERRIES: Judge Okays Settlement in Queen of the North Sinking
CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in NY Suit

CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces Class Suit Over "Defensive Measures"
CELADON TRUCKING: Judge Certifies Lawsuit as Class Action
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Class Certification Denied in CERC Unit Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Pursue Dismissal of Nevada Suit
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Stockholder Class Actions Still Pending

CENTURY ALUMINUM: USWA Appeal on Injunction Motion Denial Pending
CHAR-BROIL LLC: Recalls 18,450 Char-Broil Vertical Gas Smokers
CITIGROUP INC: Sued in Fla. Over Credit Card Payment Protection
CVB FINANCIAL: Kahn Swick & Foti File Securities Fraud Class Suit
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Will Vigorously Defend Against Class Suit

FIRST DATA: Court Dismisses ATM Suit as to "Single-Brand" Theory
FMC CORP: Direct Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending in California
FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Indirect Purchasers' Suits
FMC CORP: Appeal on Ontario Court's Certification Ruling Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: Canada Dealers' Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending

GOOGLE INC: Third WiFi Sniffing Lawsuit Filed in N.D. Calif.
HARTFORD LIFE: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
HEALTHTRONICS INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for November 8
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settles Class Action Securities Lawsuits
IKANOS COMMS: IPO Suit Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Amend Complaint

INTEGRATED DEVICE: Continues to Defend SRAM Antitrust Suit
LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $23 Million
MAINE & MARITIMES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 23
MAMALITTLEHELPER LLC: Recalls 500 Infant and Toddler Hammocks
MAMALITTLEHELPER LLC: Recalls 6 Hammock Metal Stands

MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Bateman Appeal for Certification Still Pending
MEDIACOM LLC: Awaits Final Judgment on Jury Verdict in "Ogg" Suit
MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Continues to Defend "Knight" Suit in NY
MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Faces 3 Class Action Lawsuits in Delaware
META FINANCIAL: Continues Defense in Certified Class Suit

NEBRASKA: Denied Medical Care to Unborn Children, Suit Claims
NEUROMETRIX INC: Oral Argument on Dismissal Appeal Set for Sept.
NEW CENTURY: Nov. 8 Fairness Hearing on $124 Mil. Settlement
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss NY Suit
PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Georgia Suit Remains Ongoing

PIEDMONT OFFICE: Trial Date in Wells REIT Securities Suit Pending
PROFESSIONAL NAT'L: Sued for Retaining Recording Fees for Own Use
REDBOX INC: Blockbuster Seeks to Quash Discovery Subpoena
SANFORD BROWN: Case Management Held Wednesday on Class Action
SILVER POINT: NJ Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint

TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK: Superior Court Affirms Judgment
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Dining Dollars
UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Claims Pending
WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: 11,000 Beaba Express Steam Bottle Warmers


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Applica Consumer Facing Three Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Harbinger Faces Exposure Suits in Miss., La.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $14.4Mil Gross Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Facing Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 488 Claims Ongoing v. Constellation Energy, BGE

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 290 Cases Still Ongoing v. Park-Ohio at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 84,000 Claims Ongoing v. Ashland Inc. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Still Faces 20T Open Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 7,343 Open Claims at July 23

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,907 Open Claims at July 23
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Named in Mt. Vernon Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 39 Exposure Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Records $2.8MM Liability Reserve at July 4

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Party to Injury Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Greswolde Penalized GBP1T for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: Eastern Regional Fined GBP4T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS ALERT: Acetech Construction Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS ALERT: Rick Denoncourt Fined $10.2T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Unit Reserves $954MM for Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' June 30 A&E Liability at $2.3MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Estimates $769.8Mil Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $165.8MM Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites 15,281 Abex Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Party to Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10MM-$20MM for A&E Coverage
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $138M Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburg Facing 8,155 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden's Lawsuit v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Continuing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Facing 868 Claims in W.Va. at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending Against Roper Ind.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Reserves $277,000 at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potters Bar Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sebelius, Baucus Criticized on Mont. Healthcare
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everett Facing Potential Action by Firefighters

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robertson Suit v. Asbestos Workers Fund Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $189,000 Awarded to Fund Ohio Cleanup Projects
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 50,000 Claims Ongoing v. Crown Cork at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases Ongoing Against Crown Cork in Tex. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Ongoing Against Crown Cork in Pa. Courts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Has $222MM for Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Has $2.98B Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records 4,996 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 32,727 Cases Ongoing v. General Cable at July 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Review Denied in Harvey's Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Upholds Dismissal of Claremont Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling in Marcel v. Continental
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Croxley Green Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Baddow Farmer's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Darlington Man's Kin Seeks Help in Payout Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Oversees Ambler Superfund Site Maintenance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roosevelt Elementary in Ohio Set for Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Westover Elementary to Cost $30,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sterling Awarded $1MM for Northwestern Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 100 Steam Main Rupture Actions Ongoing v. ConEd

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd, Units Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Still Has $11.3M A&E Reserve at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Party to 180 Md. Actions at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Cites $2.8MM June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quincy Group's Case Filed Aug. 13 in Ill. Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Chicago City Worker Charged for Bribery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cass Co. Courthouse Cleanup to Cost Over $100T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La Crosse Masonic Temple Slated for Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Upholds $7.5M Award in Anderson Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carson City Awarded $400T in Brownfield Grants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Unit Awarded $262M in Insurance Claim

                             *********

3M CO: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Issue in "Whitaker"
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to await the ruling from the District Court of
Ramsey County, Minnesota, on the class certification issue in a
purported class action alleging employment discrimination.

One current and one former employee of the company filed a
purported class action -- "Whitaker" lawsuit -- in the District
Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in December 2004, seeking to
represent a class of all current and certain former salaried
employees employed by the company in Minnesota below a certain
salary grade who were age 46 or older at any time during the
applicable period to be determined by the Court.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under
the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages
(limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.

This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs
were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed
following an individual settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.

On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a
salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any time
on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on their
last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of
their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

On April 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued its decision,
reversing the District Court's class certification decision.

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not
required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for
certification of a class under Minnesota law and had deferred
resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the class
certification requirements.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings in line with the evidentiary standards defined
in its opinion.

The company believes that the Court of Appeals correctly
determined the proper legal standards to apply to motions to
certify a class action, but the company also believes that
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in this case should be
denied as a matter of law.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2009, the company filed in the Minnesota
Supreme Court a Petition for Partial Review of the Decision of the
Court of Appeals.

On July 22, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the Petition.

The trial court had scheduled a hearing on May 5 and 6, 2010 to
take testimony on the class certification issue.

The trial court had scheduled a hearing on May 5 and 6, 2010, to
take testimony on the class certification issue pursuant to the
order of the Court of Appeals, sometime after which the court will
issue its decision on whether the case should proceed as a class
action.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend a purported class action/collective
action in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The company was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division (the "Garcia lawsuit").

Five former and one current employee of the company are seeking to
represent all current and former salaried employees employed by
the company in the United States during the liability period,
which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present.

In addition to the six named plaintiffs, 91 other current or
former employees have signed "opt-in" forms, seeking to join the
action.

The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons and those
claims encompassed within the proposed class and claims in the
Whitaker lawsuit.

The same counsel, joined by additional California counsel for the
Garcia lawsuit, represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated employees
suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis
of age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

In regard to these claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in the United
States in a salaried position below the level of director, or
salary grade 18, during the liability period."

Because federal law protects persons age 40 and older from age
discrimination, with respect to their claim of disparate impact
only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative definition of
similarly situated persons that would begin at age 40.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 6,000 current and
former employees who may potentially opt into the collective
action.

On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims.

Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims were
invalid in various respects.

This subset of release-signing plaintiffs seeks a declaration that
the waivers of age discrimination claims are invalid, other
injunctive, but non-monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 2,000 current and
former employees who would comprise this declaratory judgment
class action.

On July 2, 2009, the company filed its Answer to the Garcia
lawsuit complaint and filed a motion, which was granted, to
transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

The case has since transferred and is in early discovery.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage
from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the company's motion to dismiss
the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis
that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit
(filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking
unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged
damage to their property from emissions of perfluorooctanyl
compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing
facility that formerly manufactured those compounds) granted the
Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case
on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in
the action described above filed in the same court in 2002.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: Suit Over Perfluorochemicals in Morgan County Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit involving perfluorochemicals
pending in Morgan County, Alabama, remains stayed, according to 3M
Co.'s Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur wastewater treatment plant of
wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the
state that allegedly contain perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and other perfluorochemicals.

The named defendants in the case include 3M, Dyneon LLC, Daikin
America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and
Biological Processors of America.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama, Inc. who, within the past six years,
have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
dumped onto their property by the defendants.

The defendants challenged venue in Franklin County, arguing that
the plaintiff had no connections to that county and asking that it
be transferred to Morgan County, where the other cases are filed.
The trial court found venue was proper in a different, adjoining
county.

Following a successful appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, the
case has been transferred to Morgan County.

The case is now subject to a motion to abate further activity
pending the outcome in the first case filed there.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Defend Age-Discrimination Charges in EEOC
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend various age-discrimination charges in
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Six former employees and one current employee, all but one of whom
are plaintiffs in the Garcia lawsuit, have also filed age
discrimination charges against the company with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and various pertinent state
agencies.  Of these, three former employees filed charges in 2005
in Minnesota, Texas, and California.  These filings include
allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former
employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid
for various reasons and assert age discrimination claims on behalf
of certain current and former salaried employees in states other
than Minnesota and New Jersey.

In 2006, a current employee filed an age discrimination charge
against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the pertinent state agency in Missouri, asserting
claims on behalf of a class of all current and certain former
salaried employees who worked in Missouri and other states other
than Minnesota and New Jersey.  In 2007, a former employee filed
an age discrimination charge against the company with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state
agency in California, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all
current and certain former salaried employees who worked in
California.  In January 2009, two former employees filed age
discrimination charges against the company with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency
in Minnesota.

The filings include allegations that the release of claims signed
by certain former employees in the purported class defined in the
charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age
discrimination claims on behalf of certain current and former
salaried employees in states other than Minnesota.  The same law
firm represents the plaintiffs in the Whitaker lawsuit as well as
the claimants in each of these EEOC proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and
electro and communications.


ADAMS GOLF: Consolidated Securities Class Action Fully Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware approved on
June 17, 2010, a final class action settlement regarding a
consolidated securities class action filed against Adams Golf,
Inc., according to the company's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

The Class action was filed in June 1999.

The Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims
against all defendants in the litigation.

The settlement provided for a total payment to the class of $16.5
million in cash and a payment of the first $1.25 million, after
attorney's fees and costs, actually received by the Company in
connection with its litigation against its former insurance broker
Thilman & Filipini, LLC and former insurance carrier, Zurich
American Insurance Company.  Of the $16.5 million cash settlement
amount, $5 million was paid by the Company, which it accrued as a
liability during the quarter ended September 30, 2009, and was
paid to the settlement fund in March 2010.

As part of the settlement, the underwriters for the IPO released
the Company from any indemnification obligation.

On July 19, 2010, the appeals period for the final order of
dismissal expired and the litigation was fully and finally
resolved.

Adams Golf, Inc. -- http://www.adamsgolf.com/-- incorporated in
1987, designs, assembles, markets and distributes golf clubs for
all skill levels, including Speedline drivers and hybrid fairway
woods, Idea Tech a4 and a4 OS I-woods and irons, Idea a3 and a3
OS I-woods and irons, Idea Pro Gold I-woods and irons and Insight
Tech a4 and a4 OS drivers and hybrid-fairway woods, RPM family
drivers and fairway woods and irons, the Ovation family of
drivers, fairway woods and irons, Tom Watson signature wedges.
In addition, under Women's Golf Unlimited the company distributes
the Lady Fairway and Square 2 brands.


AMERICAN RICE: Sued for Deceptively Advertising Olive Oil Brands
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Giant food
companies prey upon Americans' unsophisticated palates by selling
olive oil as "Extra Virgin" though it often is "rancid or
adulterated," according to a class action in Broward County Court.
The class claims the makers of Pompeian and Filippo Berio brand
olive oil "market and sell for a substantial premium their
products as being 'extra virgin olive oil' when the products
clearly do not meet or warrant this grade."

Lead plaintiff Joseph Nachio sued American Rice, Pompeian Inc. and
the Salov North American Corp. Nachio says the International Olive
Counsel (sic), the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of
California, the United States' largest producer, all have
"specific standards for the 'extra virgin olive oil' grade."

The IOC defines extra virgin as "olive oil which has a free
acidity of not more than 0.8 grams per 100 grams," and also uses
"both chemical and sensory standards to determine quality."

The class claims the defendants' olive oil brands failed to meet
the "extra virgin" when tested by the University of California at
Davis, but the companies continue to "dupe consumers in Florida by
falsely advertising that the products meet the grade."

The class claims the defendants "do not respect the American olive
oil taste pallet (sic) as a whole and bank on the fact that
Americans cannot discern between rancid or adulterated olive oil
and true extra virgin olive oil."

It claims that "given the time-sensitive and fragile logistic
processes involved in mass production true extra virgin olive oil,
the defendants cannot produce nearly the quantities they claim to
sell into the United States.  Indeed the defendants do not even
bother sending Americans true grade 'extra virgin olive oil.'  The
defendants use the precious little true extra virgin olive oil for
sale to consumers in countries that have a longer history of
consuming extra virgin olive oil and a taste pallet (sic) that
commands only this true high quality product. . . .

"To further this advertizing (sic) deception, the defendants
manipulate the chemistry of their olive oil and synthetically
attempts to reach chemical balances that approximate what real
'extra virgin olive oil' might look light (sic) under a
microscope.  But the defendants cannot fake all the indicators of
what true extra virgin olive oil really is, including the sensory
test, which is exactly what the Davis stuffy revealed."
American Rice is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Spanish company
"Groupo (sic) SOS," according to the complaint.  Its Bertolli
brand is "the strongest selling olive oil in the world."

Pompeian, based in Baltimore, is "a jointly held entity with
Spanish and Moroccan owners."

Salov, of New York and New Jersey, promotes, distributes and sells
Filippi Berio oil.  It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Salov
S.P.A. and sells 20% of the world's extra virgin olive oil,
according to the complaint.

The class seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, and a
"corrective advertising campaign."

A copy of the Complaint in Nachio v. American Rice Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1033154 (Fla. Cir. C., Broward Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/24/Virgin.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien Esq.
          Mark Dearman Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Gerson, Esq.
          THE GERSON LAW FIRM
          8551 West Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: 954-915-8888
          E-mail: sgerson@gersonlawfirm.com


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Court Sets Certification Hearing for Jan. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California scheduled a class certification hearing for January 27,
2011, with respect to a complaint filed in a purported securities
class action lawsuit against ARCA biopharma, Inc., the Company
said in an August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On February 9, 2007, Nuvelo, Inc., now known as ARCA biopharma,
Inc., and certain of Nuvelo's former and then current officers and
directors were named as defendants in a purported securities class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to the clinical trial
results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo announced on December 11,
2006, and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of Nuvelo's common
stock during the period between January 5, 2006 and December 8,
2006.  Specifically, the suit alleges that Nuvelo misled investors
regarding the efficacy of alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of
success.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and injunctive
relief.  Three additional lawsuits were filed in the Southern
District of New York on February 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March
6, 2007, respectively.  On April 10, 2007, three separate motions
to consolidate the cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and appoint lead
plaintiff's counsel were filed.

On April 18, 2007, Nuvelo filed a motion to transfer the four
cases to the Northern District of California.  The Court granted
Nuvelo's motion to transfer the cases to the Northern District of
California in July 2007.  Plaintiffs have filed motions for
consolidation, lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on
November 9, 2007.  Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs
consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to Nuvelo's motion to dismiss on February 4, 2008.  On
June 12, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On December 4, 2008, the Court issued an order dismissing
plaintiff's complaint, and granting leave to amend.

On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging similar claims.  On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 15, 2009, the
Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  On August 17,
2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion.  ARCA filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint on October
1, 2009.  The parties exchanged initial disclosures on October 13,
2009, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Plaintiffs' class certification motion is due on November 15, 2010
and a hearing on the motion is scheduled for January 27, 2011.
Further, the court has set a fact discovery deadline for March 31,
2011 and a case management conference for April 14, 2011.

Based on plaintiff's amended complaint, ARCA believes that any
attorneys' fees, loss or settlement payment with respect to the
suit will be paid by its insurance provider.  However, it is
possible that ARCA could be forced to incur material expenses in
the litigation and, in the event of an adverse outcome, ARCA's
business could be harmed, the company says.

ARCA biopharma, Inc. -- http://www.nuvelo.com/-- formerly known
as Nuvelo, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for acute
cardiovascular disease, cancer and other debilitating medical
conditions.


ATRICURE INC: Continues to Defend "Levine" Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend a purported securities class
action captioned Levine v. AtriCure, Inc., Case No. 06 CV 14324,
according to the company's August 10, 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 current and former officers were
named as defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock during the period from the company's
initial public offering in August 2005 through Feb. 16, 2006.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  This motion was denied in September
2007, and a motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied
in January 2009.

Although the Company admitted no wrongdoing, as of December 31,
2009, the Company recorded a liability of $2,000,000, which
represented an estimate of the potential defense and settlement
costs, of which the Company expects to recover all of that loss
through an insurance claim.  As such, the Company has recorded a
$2,000,000 asset within other current assets, which represents the
amount considered probable of recovery from the insurance claim.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue.  The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system.  AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias.  In 2008, the company
received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.

ATRICURE INC: Defends Securities Violation Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
AtriCure, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit entitled In re AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation,
according to the company's August 10, 2010 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On Dec. 12, 2008, the company and certain of its current
executive officers were named in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division.  The plaintiffs allege violations of
Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified damages
against AtriCure, Inc., and certain of its current executive
officers.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that
failed to disclose that the company improperly promoted certain
products to physicians and caused the filing of false claims for
reimbursement.  The class period alleged ran from May 10, 2007
through Oct. 31, 2008.

In July 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss and, in
September 2009, the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in
opposition to the motion to dismiss to which the company
responded on Nov. 9, 2009.

On March 29, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss and, in particular, dismissed the
claim that the company caused the filing of false claims for
reimbursement.

Although the Company admitted no wrongdoing, as of June 30, 2010,
the Company recorded a liability of $2,750,000, which represented
an estimate of the potential defense and/or settlement costs, of
which the Company expects to recover all of that loss through an
insurance claim.  As such, the Company has recorded a $2,750,000
asset within other current assets, which represents the amount
considered probable of recovery from the insurance claim.

The AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation has been preliminarily
certified for settlement purposes as a class action and a
settlement for $2,750,000 has been proposed.  A hearing will be
held before the Honorable Michael R. Barrett in the United States
District Court for Southern District of Ohio, Room 239, 100 East
Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio  45202, at 1:30 p.m., on October 7,
2010 to determine whether the proposed settlement and plan of
allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; and consider the application of Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

AtriCure, Inc. -- http://www.atricure.com/-- is a medical device
company that develops, manufactures and sells cardiac surgical
ablation systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in
cardiac, or heart, tissue.  The company's primary product line,
which accounts for a majority of its revenues, is the AtriCure
Isolator system.  AtriCure's Isolator system consists primarily
of a compact power generator known as an ablation and sensing
unit (ASU), a switchbox unit (ASB), which allows physicians to
toggle between multiple products and multiple configurations of
its Isolator clamps, including its Isolator Synergy clamps.
AtriCure also sells a multifunctional bipolar pen, or
multifunctional pen, which is often used by physicians in
combination with its Isolator system to ablate cardiac tissue and
for temporary pacing, sensing, stimulating and recording during
the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias.  In 2008, the company
received FDA approval for its EXCLUDE clinical trial.


ATRICURE INC: Hearing on $2.75 Million Settlement Set for Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being released by Strauss & Troy
regarding the AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation proposed
settlement.

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SHARES OF ATRICURE INC.
("ATRICURE") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN MAY 10, 2007
AND OCTOBER 31, 2008, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS").

The AtriCure, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified for settlement purposes as a class action
and a settlement for $2,750,000 has been proposed.  A hearing will
be held before the Honorable Michael R. Barrett in the United
States District Court for Southern District of Ohio, Room 239, 100
East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio  45202, at 1:30 p.m., on
October 7, 2010 to determine whether the proposed settlement and
plan of allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; and consider the application of
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the
full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness
Hearing and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re AtriCure
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.,
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, Ohio  43017-4249, 1-
800-231-1815, www.gardencitygroup.com

The Notice contains details about this Action and the proposed
settlement, including what you must do to exclude yourself from
the settlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or file a
Proof of Claim.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a
proper Proof of Claim, you will not share in the Settlement but
you nevertheless will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment of
the Court.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Claims
Administrator.  Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of
Notice and Proof of Claim, may be made to one of Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel: Richard S. Wayne, Esq., STRAUSS & TROY, The Federal
Reserve Building, 150 E. Fourth Street, Cincinnati Ohio  45202,
(513) 621-2120.

By Order of The Court


AUSTRALIA: Class Action Lawsuit Against Cycleway Collapses
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Munro at The Sydney Morning Herald reports the purported
class action lawsuit against the City of Sydney's Bourke Street
cycleway has collapsed, with the lawyer involved admitting he acts
for one company, not the claimed 102.

John Mahony of Mahony Dominic Lawyers sent a letter of demand to
the council on July 30 and claimed to act for 102 businesses
adversely affected by the cycleway.

The list includes the Australian Museum, Virgin Atlantic, Fitness
Australia Ltd, Amanda Simons, Schenker, Westpac and Fairfax Media,
the publisher of the Herald. These companies were not aware Mr
Mahony had used their names. They have written to him demanding to
be removed from the list.

The chief executive of the City of Sydney, Monica Barone, said
"the alarm bells began ringing" when she saw in the letter names
of companies that had supported the cycleway.

Frank Howarth, the director of the Australian Museum, said Mr.
Mahony or his firm had never approached the museum.

"We've written to the lawyers asking for a 'please explain' and
for our name to be removed from any association with this
purported class action," he said.

In a letter to the council on August 19, Mr. Mahony conceded he is
acting only for a business in Alexandria, F. Hannan (Properties)
Pty Limited.  He said his company had not contacted most of the
names on the list but maintained he had "good reason to believe"
everyone named had agreed to be represented.  "On reflection we
would not want to sue in the name of many businesses," he said.

The council will complain to the NSW Law Society about his
conduct.


AVAYA INC: Court Sets Final Settlement Hearing for September
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has issued
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement resolving
purported class actions against Avaya, Inc., and certain of its
officers, according to company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

In April and May of 2005, purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Avaya and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.  The actions purport to be filed on
behalf of purchasers of Avaya common stock during the period from
October 5, 2004 (the date of the Company's signing of the
agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany GmbH) through April 19, 2005,
when the Company's common stock was traded on the New York Stock
Exchange.  The complaints, which are substantially similar to one
another, allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by Avaya relating to the cost of the integration
of Tenovis Germany GmbH, which was acquired in December 2004, the
disruption caused by changes in the delivery of the Company's
products to the market and reductions in the demand for Avaya
products in the U.S., and that based on the foregoing Avaya had no
basis to project its stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.  The
complaints seek compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in October 2005.  Pursuant to a scheduling
order issued by the District Court, defendants filed their motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in December 2005.  In
September 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case in its entirety and with prejudice, which was
appealed by the plaintiffs.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in April
2009, affirming in part and reversing in part, the District
Court's decision.  Although the appeals court's decision dismissed
most of plaintiffs' claims, a portion of the complaint alleging
that one of the defendants in March 2005 made a misleading
statement about price competition has been remanded to the
District Court for further proceeding.  The court thus limited the
class period to the time of March 3, 2005 to
April 19, 2005.  The parties have entered into a memorandum of
understanding and proposed settlement agreement to resolve this
matter.

The court has issued preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and a hearing related to possible objections and final
approval of the settlement is scheduled for September 2010.

Final approval by the court would dispose of this matter.

Avaya, Inc. -- http://www.avaya.com/-- is a supplier of
communications systems and software for enterprise customers.


BC FERRIES: Judge Okays Settlement in Queen of the North Sinking
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports a class-action settlement for
passengers who escaped the sinking Queen of the North ferry may
not be for as much as some had hoped, but it is fair and will help
them move on from that frightening night four years ago, a B.C.
Supreme Court judge ruled Monday.

Judge Brian Joyce approved a settlement that will see $141,000
split among 45 passengers who were on the ship when it struck an
island south of Prince Rupert in March 2006.

Individual payments range from $500 to as high as $35,000.

Judge Joyce acknowledged many of the passengers aren't happy with
the amounts they are receiving, but he said the deal will spare
them from further litigation while helping them put the sinking
behind them.

"The survivors of the sinking of the Queen of the North need to
have this matter finally brought to an end so that they can move
forward," Judge Joyce said in a written decision.

                      Some Settled Separately

Two people died when the Queen of the North struck Gil Island off
the northern B.C. coast, forcing passengers to scramble off the
ship in the dark into lifeboats that took them to the isolated
First Nations community of Hartley Bay. A total of 99 passengers
and crew survived.

The class-action lawsuit was launched in the weeks that followed,
initially targeted BC Ferries and three of the ship's officers,
but the crewmembers were dropped from the case last year.

BC Ferries had already admitted liability, leaving the amounts of
the payments as the only outstanding issue.

One of the reasons some of the payments are limited to a few
hundred dollars is a ruling Judge Joyce made last year,
restricting claims for psychological damages to those who could
prove a "recognizable psychiatric illness."

Nearly 20 of the passengers were unable to prove such a condition,
and the settlement leaves that group with $500 each.

"I do not doubt that most, if not all, of the passengers on board
the Queen of the North that fateful night experienced a
frightening event that caused emotional upset of one sort or
another," wrote Judge Joyce.

"But the law, as a matter of policy, limits what is recoverable
loss and this settlement must be viewed in light of the law that
applies to this sort of injury."

There were eight minors among the passengers, and the province's
Public Guardian and Trustee argued their payments would be too
small, but Judge Joyce said those objections weren't enough to
block the entire settlement.

Last year, several "mini trials" were held to serve as examples
for negotiating the individual payments. After those trials, three
passengers were awarded amounts ranging from $500 for a minor back
injury to $14,000 for a fisherman who says he's now afraid of the
water. Their payments are included in the final settlement.

Another passenger received $50,000 for a knee injury after
reaching her own settlement with BC Ferries, and that amount is
not included in the class-action settlement.

                          Charge Laid

A couple from Australia have been taken out of the class-action
case because of difficulties in assessing their claims, and their
cases will be proceed on their own.

The families of the two passengers who died have already reached
settlements.

Gerald Foisy's two daughters settled their case last year for
$200,000 after their lawyer said legal costs were making it
impossible to proceed to trial. Shirley Rosette's family has also
settled, although the terms weren't made public.

A 2008 Transportation Safety Board report concluded that two
crewmembers on the bridge failed to make a crucial course
correction, allowing the ship to run aground.

The report said the navigating officer and a quartermaster had
recently ended a relationship and were engaged in a personal
conversation while the ship was on its collision course.

This past spring, navigating officer Karl Lilgert was charged with
criminal negligence causing death. He has pleaded not guilty.


CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canandaigua National Corp.'s principal operating subsidiary, The
Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company, reached a settlement
in an action seeking class action status alleging violations of
the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, according to the company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In October 2009, the Bank was served with a Summons and Complaint
filed in United States District Court for the Western District of
New York in an action seeking class action status alleging that
the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1693 et seq. and its implementing regulations 12 C.F.R
Section 205 et seq. by failing to post a notice on or at two of
its automatic teller machines advising consumers who transact an
electronic funds transfer of the fact that a fee may be imposed
for the transaction and the amount of the fee.

The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages on behalf of the class
and attorney's fees.  Damages are capped by statute at $500,000,
exclusive of costs and fees.

On May 7, 2010, the Bank reached a settlement agreement with
plaintiff's counsel resolving all claims against the Bank.
Approval of the settlement by the District Court is pending.
The company says all or a portion of the settlement may be covered
by insurance.

Canandaigua National Corporation -- http://www.cnbank.com/-- is
a bank holding company.  The company's principal operating
subsidiaries are The Canandaigua National Bank and Trust Company
(the Bank), Home Town Funding, Inc. and Genesee Valley Trust
Company (GVT).  The Bank provides a range of financial services
to its retail, commercial and municipal customers through a range
of deposit, lending, trust, investment, and insurance products.
These products are delivered through the Bank's network of
community banking offices, which include drive-up facilities and
automatic teller machines (ATM), other remote cash-dispensing
machines, its customer call center, and the Internet.  The Bank
is a majority owner in a real estate investment trust (REIT),
which invests in a portion of the Bank's amortizing residential
real estate loans, and a portion of the Bank's amortizing
commercial real estate loans.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Faces Class Suit Over "Defensive Measures"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Van Praet, writing for Financial Post, reports Quebec
corner store company Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. has won the
moral backing of a group of U.S. police officers in its battle to
take over Casey's General Stores.

The Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System has filed a lawsuit
against Casey's chief executive Robert Myers and the seven other
members of the company's board of directors, criticizing them for
failing to entertain talks with Couche-Tard and for implementing a
series of extreme "defensive measures" designed to thwart a
takeover. It is asking the court to order Casey's to nix the
measures and start a fair process to evaluate strategic
alternatives for the retailer.

The state government agency is led by president Roy Rogers, an
Oklahoma state trooper and Vietnam war veteran. The group is a
long-time Casey's investor with a current position of 7,000
shares. It administers retirement and medical benefits on behalf
of Oklahoma law enforcement personnel.

The agency takes aim at Casey's recent recapitalization plan,
among other things. Under the program, Casey's raised US$569-
million in a private placement with a group of insurance companies
earlier this month and is using the money to buy back up to a
quarter of its 50.97 million outstanding shares at a price of
between US$38 and $40 per share.

"This defensive measure wastes company resources and assets," the
police group states in its class action petition filed with the
Iowa District Court Aug. 9. It argues that the modified Dutch
auction reaches out to only 25% of Casey's shareholders, leaving
the remaining 75% out in the cold.

"The director defendants are using cash rightfully belonging to
Casey's and its shareholders for their own purposes, causing the
company to buy back stock that Couche-Tard might otherwise acquire
so that [they] can maintain control of Casey's," the complaint
states. "Had the board truly believed that Couche-Tard's revised
offer was 'undervalued,' [it] should have negotiated for a higher
price from Couche-Tard."

In a filing with securities regulators Monday, Casey's said its
board believes the claims are without merit and that it intends to
defend against them vigorously.

Three other investor groups have launched separate class action
suits against Casey's and its board members. Each has made similar
accusations, namely that Casey's directors have breached their
fiduciary duties to Casey's shareholders by refusing to negotiate
with Couche-Tard.

Laval, Que.-based Couche-Tard, which owns the Mac's and Circle K
chains in addition to its name-sake banner, tried repeatedly to
engage Casey's management in merger talks before launching an
unsolicited takeover offer of US$36 per share in April. It has
since bumped up the bid to US$36.75, taking its offer directly to
investors in a tender offer that expires Aug.30.

In a letter to Casey's shareholders filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission last week, Couche-Tard chief executive
Alain Bouchard levels some of the same criticisms at Casey's board
as those mentioned in the class action suits. "We believe that you
deserve a board of directors that is answerable to you and that
will act in your best interests," he wrote.

Couche-Tard has vowed to try to replace the Casey's board with its
own slate of directors at the company's annual meeting Sept.23.
Ankeny, Iowa-based Casey's runs about 1,500 stores in several
midwest states, including Kansas, Illinois and Nebraska.


CELADON TRUCKING: Judge Certifies Lawsuit as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports a lawsuit by former employees of a
now-closed Little Rock trucking company has been certified as
class action.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright certified the lawsuit
against Celadon Trucking Services Inc. of Indianapolis as a class
action in a ruling last week.

The former employees of Continental Express Inc. accuse Celadon of
violating the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.  The act requires employers give 60 days notice
before ordering a mass layoff or plant closing.

Celadon argues it wasn't required to notify workers because it did
not buy the company -- only equipment such as tractors, trailers
and other vehicles.

The workers claim Celadon purchased Continental on Dec. 4, 2008
and they were told their jobs would end Dec. 17, 2008.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Class Certification Denied in CERC Unit Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' request for class certification in two mismeasurement
lawsuits filed against Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. and
certain of its subsidiaries have been denied, according to the
company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Centerpoint Energy, Inc.'s indirect wholly owned subsidiary
Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of its
subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought
against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates
pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.

In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times),
the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who
allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years. The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July
2003 in response to an order from the judge denying certification
of the plaintiffs' alleged class.  In the amendment, the
plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants
(including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the
class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated
previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the British
thermal unit (Btu) content of the gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along
with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and
fees.

In September 2009, the district court in Stevens County, Kansas,
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification of their case
and, in March 2010, denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of that order.

No further developments were reported in the company's August 11
Form 10-Q filing.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- http://www.CenterPointEnergy.com/--
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Pursue Dismissal of Nevada Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., or its predecessor, Reliant Energy,
Incorporated, and certain of their former subsidiaries are named
as defendants in several lawsuits.  Under a master separation
agreement between CenterPoint Energy and RRI (formerly known as
Reliant Resources, Inc. and Reliant Energy, Inc.), CenterPoint
Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI
for any losses, including attorneys' fees and other costs, arising
out of these lawsuits.  Pursuant to the indemnification
obligation, RRI is defending CenterPoint Energy and its
subsidiaries to the extent named in these lawsuits.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs
in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.
CenterPoint Energy and Reliant Energy were named in approximately
30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2003 and 2009.
CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been released or
dismissed from all but two of such cases.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Centerpoint
Energy Resources Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in
federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin
natural gas prices in 2000-2002.  Additionally, CenterPoint Energy
was a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that
was dismissed in 2007, but in March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed
the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

CERC believes that neither CenterPoint Energy nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CERC does not expect the ultimate
outcome of these remaining matters to have a material impact on
its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows,
according to the company's August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- http://www.CenterPointEnergy.com/--
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Stockholder Class Actions Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
A third amended complaint filed by stockholders against Century
Aluminum Company remains pending, according to the company's
August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 27, 2010, four purported stockholder class actions
previously consolidated as In re: Century Aluminum Company
Securities Litigation were dismissed without prejudice by the
court for failure to state a claim.

Prior to consolidation, the class actions were referred to as
Petzschke v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., Abrams v. Century
Aluminum Co., et al., McClellan v. Century Aluminum Co., et al.,
and Hilyard v. Century Aluminum Co., et al.

On May 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which, like the previous complaints, alleged that Century Aluminum
improperly accounted for cash flows associated with the
termination of certain forward financial sales contracts, which
accounting allegedly resulted in artificial inflation of the
Company's stock price and investor losses.

On June 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
correcting one misstatement in the second amended complaint.
The plaintiffs are seeking rescission of Century Aluminum's
February 2009 common stock offering, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, costs and expenses and attorneys'
fees.

Century Aluminum says it intends to vigorously defend these
actions, but adds that as of August 9, 2010, it was not possible
to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions or to estimate a
range of possible damage awards.

Century Aluminum Company -- http://www.centuryaluminum.com/--
owns primary aluminum capacity in the United States and Iceland.
Century's corporate offices are located in Monterey, California.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: USWA Appeal on Injunction Motion Denial Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing,
Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO/CLC is appealing an order denying its motion seeking
preliminary injunction against Century Aluminum Company, according
to the Company's August 9, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc., amended its post
retirement medical benefit plan effective January 1, 2010, for
all current and former salaried employees, their dependents and
all bargaining unit employees who retired before June 1, 2006,
and their dependents.  The principal changes to the plan are upon
attainment of age 65, all CAWV provided retiree medical benefits
will cease for retirees and dependents.  In addition, bargaining
unit retirees under age 65 and dependents under age 65 are covered
by the salary retiree medical plan which requires out-of-pocket
payments for premiums, co-pays and deductibles by participants.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the USWA, the USWA's local union,
and four CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives,
seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify or terminate
retiree medical benefits.

Later in November, the USWA and representatives of a retiree
class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum
Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and
various John Does with respect to the matter.  These actions,
entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and
Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper
and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have
been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent the Company from implementing the changes
while these lawsuits are pending.

On June 24, 2010, the court denied the USWA's motion.  The USWA
has appealed the decision and proceedings have been stayed pending
the outcome of the appeal.

Century Aluminum says it intends to vigorously pursue the
company's case in the actions, but as of August 9, 2010, it was
not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of the actions.

Century Aluminum Company -- http://www.centuryaluminum.com/--
owns primary aluminum capacity in the United States and Iceland.
Century's corporate offices are located in Monterey, California.


CHAR-BROIL LLC: Recalls 18,450 Char-Broil Vertical Gas Smokers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Char-Broil LLC, of Columbus, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 18,450 Char-Broil vertical gas smokers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

When the temperature setting is in "low," the smoker's
hose/valve/regulator (HVR) assembly does not allow sufficient gas
to flow, causing the flame to extinguish.  Gas continues to flow
and build up inside the smoker.  If the smoker is reignited the
build-up of propane gas can cause an explosion that bursts the
smoker's door open, posing an injury hazard.

The company has received five reports of doors bursting open and
hitting consumers.  Injuries reported include burns to face and
head, head concussion and cuts.

This recall involves the Char-Broil vertical gas smokers with
model number 07701413.  The model number is printed on a metal tag
located on the right rear leg of the smoker.  The smoker measures
21.5" x 19.5" x 45.5" and weighs 75 pounds.  A "G" inside a
triangle is printed on the regulator.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10325.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Walmart and various other retailers nationwide from March 2008
through June 2010 for about $140.

Consumers should stop using the recalled smokers and contact Char-
Broil for a free replacement hose/valve/regulator assembly and
installation instructions.  For additional information, contact
Char-Broil toll-free at (866) 671-7988 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.charbroil.com/


CITIGROUP INC: Sued in Fla. Over Credit Card Payment Protection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup sells "payment
protection" for its credit cards whose restrictions make it
"essentially worthless," according to a class action in Miami
Federal Court.

The case is Kardonick v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-
23023 (S.D. Fla.) (King, J.).


CVB FINANCIAL: Kahn Swick & Foti File Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr.'s law firm
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit against CVB Financial Corp. in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the Company between October 21,
2009 and August 9, 2010, inclusive. No class has yet been
certified in this action.

If you are an CVBF shareholder and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you, along with the
lead plaintiff position and its related responsibilities including
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just
resolution, you may, without obligation or cost to you, e-mail or
call KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
-- toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 200, after hours via cell phone
504-301-7900, or KSF Director of Client Relations, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. -- neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com -- toll free at 877-694-
9510, or via cell phone 330-860-4092. KSF attorneys have
significant experience in representing both institutional and
individual shareholders in securities fraud litigation nationwide.
KSF encourages both institutional and individual purchasers of
CVBF to contact the firm to discuss the lawsuit and how it might
affect you.

CVBF and certain of its Officers are charged with making a series
of materially false and misleading statements related to the
Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In particular, unknown to investors during the Class Period, CVBF
suffered from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that
negatively impacted its business and which would lead the Company
to report declining financial results. In particular, at all times
during the Class Period: (1) it was not true that the Company's
purported success was the result of its integration of
acquisitions or defendants' competent management when, in fact,
defendants had propped up the Company's results by manipulating
CVBF's accounting for costs and expenses by failing to properly
account for impaired loans; (2) defendants had materially
overstated the Company's profitability by engaging in possible
accounting violations related to the manner in which defendants
accounted for troubled loans -- which violations would ultimately
become the subject of an SEC investigation; (3) it was also not
true that CVBF contained adequate systems of internal operational
or financial controls, such that CVBF's reported financial
statements were true, accurate or reliable; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, it also was not true that the Company's financial
statements and reports were prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") rules; and, (5) as a result of the
adverse conditions which defendants failed to disclose, defendants
lacked any reasonable basis to claim that CVBF was operating
according to plan, or that CVBF could achieve guidance sponsored
and/or endorsed by defendants.

It was only on August 9, 2010, however, when defendants filed with
the SEC the Company's 2Q:10 Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2010, that investors learned the truth about the Company.
Defendants shocked the market by revealing that the Company was
the subject of an investigation by the SEC into possible
accounting violations related to the manner in which defendants
accounted for troubled loans. This belated disclosure had an
immediate adverse impact on the price of Company shares, which
slumped 22% on unusually heavy volume to close at $8.00 per share
the day following the news.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action
lawsuit, you must request this position by application to the
court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member. To learn more about KSF, you may visit
http://www.ksfcounsel.com/ KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm
focused on securities class action litigation with offices in New
York and Louisiana. KSF's lawyers have significant experience
litigating complex securities class actions and have recovered
tens of millions of dollars over the past two years for aggrieved
investors.

CONTACT:

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St.
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Telephone: 866-467-1400, ext. 100
     Cellphone: 504-301-7900
     E-mail: Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Will Vigorously Defend Against Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citybizlist Staff reports that in an SEC filing, Education
Management Corporation revealed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against the company related to its initial public
offering.

In October 2009, Education Management Corporation took in $387.3
million of net proceeds from an IPO of 23 million shares of common
stock priced at $18.00 per share.

The suit was filed August 11 in the Pennsylvania Western District
Court, Pittsburgh. Documents name officers and directors of the
company, along with lead underwriters J.P. Morgan Securities,
Inc., Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities, LLC, and Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.

Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et al. alleges that Education
Management Corporation engaged in false and misleading statements
regarding the company's 2009 initial public offering as well as in
subsequent press releases and filings with the SEC.

More specifically, the plaintiff says Education Management
Corporation allegedly used manipulative recruiting tactics to
overstate its growth prospects.

The company says the charges are without merit and they are
mounting a vigorous defense.

Douglas Gaer recently filed similar class action suits against
American Public Education Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc. Citybizlist
recently reported on a similar suit again Charles Town, W.Va-based
American Public Education, Inc.

The suits have come in the wake of a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report citing misleading practices among secondary
education providers. Neither Education Management Corporation nor
American Publication Inc. were named in the report.


FIRST DATA: Court Dismisses ATM Suit as to "Single-Brand" Theory
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation has been ordered to brief a summary
judgment regarding an alternative all ATM networks relevant market
theory claim by plaintiffs in an antitrust class action lawsuit,
according to the company's August 10, 2010,  Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

On July 2, 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM
fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  Plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the
nature of the case may require or as may seem just and proper to
the court.  Five similar suits were filed and served in July,
August and October 2004.

On August 3, 2007, Concord EFS, Inc., filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' per se claims, arguing
that there are pro-competitive justifications for the ATM
interchange.  On March 24, 2008, the Court entered an order
granting the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment,
finding that the claims raised in this case would need to be
addressed under a "Rule of Reason" analysis.  On February 2, 2009,
the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which was
dismissed by the Court on September 4, 2009.  On October 16, 2009,
the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.

On June 21, 2010, the Court granted dismissal of such complaint as
to the single-brand aftermarket derivative theory and ordered the
parties to brief a summary judgment regarding Plaintiffs'
alternative all ATM networks relevant market theory claim.

The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend them.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com/-- operates
electronic commerce, payment services and customer account
management businesses.  FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment
and Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment,
known as All Other and Corporate.


FMC CORP: Direct Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some putative direct purchaser class action complaints where FMC
Corporation is a defendant remain pending in California, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In February 2005 putative direct and indirect purchaser class
action complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide
producers (and certain of their foreign affiliates) in various
federal courts alleging violations of antitrust laws.  Federal law
provides that persons who have been injured by violations of
federal antitrust law may recover three times their actual damage
plus attorney fees.  Related cases were also filed in various
state courts.

All of the federal court cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia).

The District Court certified the direct purchaser class in January
2007.  On Dec. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals vacated the class
certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings
in the District Court.

Shortly thereafter, FMC reached an agreement to settle with the
direct purchaser class for $10 million, with a pro rata credit for
opt outs.  The $10 million figure was included as a component of
"Restructuring and other charges (income)" in the company's
consolidated statements of income for the year ended Dec. 31,
2008.

On July 14, 2009, the settlement received final approval by the
Court.  No appeal has been taken and the appeal period has
expired.

The Court has also approved a settlement with Arkema and finally
approved settlements with four of the six original defendant-
groups, who collectively paid approximately $90 million.
Seventeen companies (predominantly paper producers) have opted out
of certain of the settlements with other defendants.

Certain of the defendants in the class action have settled those
opt out claims for undisclosed amounts.  Ten companies -- again
predominantly paper producers -- have opted out of the settlements
with FMC and Arkema.  FMC has settled with two of the ten for an
amount within the opt out credit described.

The remaining eight opt outs have filed suit against FMC and, in
some cases, Foret.  These cases have been assigned to the same
judge as the class action, and the stay of these actions entered
by the District Court during the class certification appeal
remains in place.  FMC has moved to dismiss the opt out claims to
the extent they are based on foreign purchases.  That motion is
fully briefed and awaiting decision by the Court.

Another individual opt out case was dismissed following the
bankrupt opt out's decision to participate in the class
settlement.  Most of the state court cases have been dismissed,
although some remain in California.

FMC Corporation -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified
chemical company serving agricultural, industrial and consumer
markets globally for more than a century with innovative
solutions, applications and quality products.  The company employs
over 4,800 people throughout the world.  The company operates its
businesses in three segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty
Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals.


FMC CORP: Continues to Defend Indirect Purchasers' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend indirect purchaser class
action complaints alleging violations of antitrust laws, according
to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In February 2005 putative direct and indirect purchaser class
action complaints were filed against six U.S. hydrogen peroxide
producers -- and certain of their foreign affiliates -- in various
federal courts alleging violations of antitrust laws.  Federal law
provides that persons who have been injured by violations of
federal antitrust law may recover three times their actual damage
plus attorney fees.  Related cases were also filed in various
state courts.

All of the federal court cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia).

In the indirect purchaser class action, the Court has lifted the
stay to permit discovery related to class certification.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due in May 2010.
FMC intends to defend these cases.  Solvay has settled with the
indirect purchaser class for $2.1 million.

The settlement has not yet been preliminarily approved by the
Court.

One indirect purchaser filed a claim in federal court in Kansas
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and assigned to the same judge overseeing other hydrogen peroxide
litigation.  FMC has moved to dismiss this complaint on statute of
limitations grounds.  The motion is pending.

FMC Corporation -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified
chemical company serving agricultural, industrial and consumer
markets globally for more than a century with innovative
solutions, applications and quality products.  The company employs
over 4,800 people throughout the world.  The company operates its
businesses in three segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty
Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals.


FMC CORP: Appeal on Ontario Court's Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation's appeal on the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice's class certification ruling is pending.

Putative class actions against the six major hydrogen peroxide
producers have been filed in provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec
and British Columbia under the laws of Canada.  Four of the
defendants have settled these claims for a total of approximately
$20.5 million.

On Sept. 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified
a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide.
FMC has moved for leave to appeal the class certification decision
and intends to defend these cases.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

FMC Corporation -- http://www.fmc.com/-- is a diversified
chemical company serving agricultural, industrial and consumer
markets globally for more than a century with innovative
solutions, applications and quality products.  The company employs
over 4,800 people throughout the world.  The company operates its
businesses in three segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty
Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals.


GENERAL MOTORS: Canada Dealers' Class Action Lawsuit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports a class-action lawsuit by more than 200
GM Canada dealers who signed a wind-down agreement is ongoing,
said David Sterns, a lawyer with Sotos LLP, the firm representing
the dealers.

"We believe that our case is on very solid ground. We're happy
that GM has seen fit to resolve its dispute with the (other
dealers), but it's full steam ahead for the class action," Sterns
said.

"We're fully prepared to take this case to trial and to prove our
case on the merits, and if GM sees fit to try to come to a
reasonable resolution, then we would be all ears," he added.

The lawsuit, which is seeking $750 million in damages, claims GM
Canada broke franchise laws by failing to give the dealers
adequate information and putting "a tremendous amount of undue
pressure" on them.

The class-action also names law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell
LLP. The firm was hired in advance to represent the terminated
dealers, but failed to disclose that it was also representing
Ottawa during bailout discussions which ultimately resulted in GM
receiving $10.5 billion from the federal and Ontario governments.
As a condition of that funding, Ottawa told GM it would have to
scale back its dealership network.

GM announced last year that it would eliminate more than one-third
of its Canadian dealerships by October 2010 in an attempt to cut
costs and streamline its business. The company had more than 700
dealerships in Canada before the closures which were estimated to
employ about 33,000 people.

In a separate case, GM Canada spokesman Tony LaRocca confirmed
Tuesday that a deal has been reached with 21 dealerships that sued
the company last year after they were told they'd be closed as
part of GM's restructuring efforts. Of those, about a dozen will
remain open.  The terms of the agreement are confidential.


GOOGLE INC: Third WiFi Sniffing Lawsuit Filed in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
David Carney, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Google, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-03715 (N.D. Calif. August 20,
2010), accuses the global technology company of using its
Google Street View vehicles to intercept data from his unencrypted
wireless internet (WiFi) connection at his home, including
personal information sent over the internet, known as "payload
data"), in violation of the Wiretap Act and the California's
Unfair Competition Law.  Payload data can include part or all of
emails, passwords, browser history, videos, audio and documents
transmitted over WiFi networks.  Mr. Carney says Google kept its
WiFi sniffing a secret from its launch of Street View in May 2007,
only admitting this in May 14, 2010, after German data protection
authorities asked to audit the data Google had collected.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
          Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  as@girardgibbs.com
                  gam@girardgibbs.com
                  ds@girardgibbs.com

Coverage of Stokes v. Google, Inc. , Case No. 10-cv-02306 (N.D.
Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Wed., June 2,
2010; and coverage of Sedita v. Google, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-03286 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Tue., August 3, 2010.


HARTFORD LIFE: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement agreement resolving the
matter Spencer v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
for $54 million, according to Hartford Life Insurance Company's
Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against
the company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of persons
who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford property
& casualty insurance company that resulted in a settlement in
which some or all of the settlement amount was structured to
afford a schedule of future payments of specified amounts funded
by an annuity from a Hartford life insurance company (Structured
Settlements).

The operative complaint alleges that since 1997 the company has
systematically deprived the settling claimants of the value of
their damages recoveries by secretly deducting 15% of the annuity
premium of every Structured Settlement to cover brokers'
commissions, other fees and costs, taxes, and a profit for the
annuity provider, and asserts claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive or
other equitable relief.

The company vigorously denies that any claimant was misled or
otherwise received less than the amount specified in the
structured-settlement agreements.

In March 2009, the district court certified a class for the RICO
and fraud claims composed of all persons, other than those
represented by a plaintiffs' broker, who entered into a Structured
Settlement since 1997 and received certain written representations
about the cost or value of the settlement.

The district court declined to certify a class for the breach-of-
contract and unjust-enrichment claims.

The company's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the
class-certification ruling was denied in October 2009.

A trial on liability and the methodology for computing class-wide
damages is scheduled to commence in September 2010.

In April 2010, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle on a nationwide class basis, under which the company would
pay $54 million in exchange for a full release and dismissal of
the litigation.

The settlement received preliminary court approval in June 2010
and remains contingent upon final approval of the court.

Hartford Life Insurance Company is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., an
insurance and financial services company.  HLIC is among the
largest providers of insurance and investment products in the
United States.  The company also assumes fixed annuity products
and living and death benefit riders on variable annuities from The
Hartford's Japan operations and also cedes insurance risks to
affiliates and third party reinsurance companies.  At Dec. 31,
2009, total assets and total stockholder's equity were $221.3
billion and $6.2 billion, respectively.


HEALTHTRONICS INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for November 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., and Harwood Feffer
LLP provided Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
HealthTronics, Inc., Class Action and Fairness Hearing. The
following notice has been approved by the Court:

                                  | Cause No. D-1-GN-2010-001493
                                  |
IRVING M. PINKUS C/F GABRIEL P.   |
PINKUS UTMAN/IN, Individually     |
and On Behalf of All Others       |
Similarly Situated,               |
                                  |
           Plaintiff,             |
                                  |
vs.                               |
                                  | IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HEALTHTRONICS, INC.,              |
R. STEVEN HICKS,                  | TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DONNY R. JACKSON,                 |
TIMOTHY J. LINDGREN,              | 98th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KENNETH S. SHIFRIN,               |
ARGIL J. WHEELOCK,                |
JAMES S.B. WHITTENBURG,           |
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS              |
HOLDINGS INC., and                |
HT ACQUISITION CORP.,             |
                                  |
           Defendants.            |
                                  |
__________________________________|


                                  | Cause No. D-1-GN-2010-001527
                                  |
NITTIN NAMJOSHI, Individually     |
and on Behalf of All Others       |
Similarly Situated,               |
                                  |
           Plaintiff,             |
                                  |
vs.                               | IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
                                  |
HEALTHTRONICS, INC.,              | TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
JAMES S.B. WHITTENBURG,           |
ARGIL J. WHEELOCK,                | 201st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KENNETH S. SHIFRIN,               |
R. STEVEN HICKS,                  |
DONNY R. JACKSON,                 |
TIMOTHY J. LINDGREN, AND ENDO     |
PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS, INC.,   |
                                  |
           Defendants.            |
                                  |
__________________________________|


                                  | Cause No. D-1-GN-2010-001555
                                  |
ANTHONY CANCELLIERE,              |
Individually and on Behalf of     |
All Others Similarly Situated,    |
                                  |
           Plaintiff,             |
                                  |
vs.                               |
                                  |
                                  | IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HEALTHTRONICS, INC.,              |
R. STEVEN HICKS,                  | TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DONNY R. JACKSON,                 |
TIMOTHY J. LINDGREN,              | 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KENNETH S. SHIFRIN,               |
ARGIL J. WHEELOCK,                |
JAMES S.B. WHITTENBURG, ENDO      |
PHARMACEUTICALS HOLDINGS INC.,    |
and HT ACQUISITION CORP.,         |
                                  |
           Defendants.            |
                                  |
__________________________________|

             NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

If you were a shareholder of HealthTronics, Inc. ("HealthTronics")
or successor in interest or transferee of a HealthTronics
shareholder, immediate or remote, at any time during the period
from May 5, 2010 through and including July 1, 2010, other than
defendants, officers and directors of HealthTronics, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the
defendants have or had a controlling interest (the "Settlement
Class"), this settlement may affect you.

A Texas state court authorized this notice. This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

The proposed settlement will resolve the claims asserted in these
actions, and all claims which could have been asserted in
connection with the transaction that is the subject of these
actions -- the merger of HealthTronics (the "Merger").

As a result of the proposed settlement, HealthTronics disclosed
additional important information in Amendment No. 2 to the
Schedule 14D-9 in connection with HealthTronics shareholders' vote
on the Merger.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your legal rights
will be affected. Please read this notice carefully.

I. PURPOSE OF THE SETTLEMENT NOTICE

This Notice is given pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42
and an Order of the Court dated August 18, 2010. The purpose of
this Settlement Notice is to inform you of the proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the above captioned actions (the "Actions").
Plaintiffs Irving M. Pinkus, Nittin Namjoshi, and Anthony
Cancellliere (collectively "Plaintiffs"), and defendants
HealthTronics, Inc. ('HealthTronics" or the "Company"), R. Steven
Hicks, Donny R. Jackson, Timothy J. Lindgren, Kenneth S. Shifrin,
Argil J. Wheelock, James S. B. Whittenburg, Endo Pharmaceuticals
Holdings Inc. ("Endo Pharmaceuticals"), and HT Acquisition Corp.
(collectively "Defendants") have entered into the Settlement,
subject to Court approval, on the terms and conditions summarized
in this Settlement Notice. A hearing (the "Final Hearing") will be
held on November 8, 2010 at 2:00 P.M. at the Heman Marion Sweatt
Travis County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe, 5th Floor, Austin, Texas
78701 for purposes of considering : (1) whether the Settlement
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class ( as defined
herein); (2) whether a final judgment should be entered dismissing
the Actions with prejudice, and effectuating the releases
described below; (3) whether, for purposes of the Settlement, the
Settlement Class should be finally certified; (4) whether
Plaintiffs' Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and
expenses; and (5) such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.

The Settling Parties believe that the terms of the Settlement are
fair, reasonable and adequate. The Settling Parties have concluded
that further litigation of the Actions could be protracted and
expensive and have taken into account the uncertainty and risks
inherent in any litigation, especially in complex shareholder
litigation like the Actions. The Settling Parties therefore
believe it is desirable that the Actions should be fully and
finally settled in the manner described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release (the
"Stipulation").

The Settlement Notice describes the rights you may have under the
Settlement and what steps you may, but are not required, to take
in relation to the Settlement.

If the Court approves the Settlement, the Actions will be fully,
finally, and forever resolved on the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation and summarized in this Settlement Notice.

THE FOLLOWING RECITATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FINDINGS OF THE
COURT. IT IS BASED ON STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND SHOULD NOT BE
UNDERSTOOD AS AN EXPRESSION OF ANY OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE
MERITS OF ANY OF THE CLAIMS OR DEFENSES RAISED BY ANY OF THE
PARTIES

II. BACKGROUND OF THE ACTIONS

HealthTronics is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of
business in Austin, Texas.

On or about May 5, 2010, HealthTronics announced that it entered
into a merger agreement with Endo Pharmaceuticals whereby Endo
Pharmaceuticals would commence an all cash tender offer (the
"Offer") to acquire all of the outstanding shares of HealthTronics
common stock for $4.85 per share, or approximately $223 million,
and following completion of the Offer, HT Acquisition Corp. would
merge into HealthTronics with HealthTronics continuing as the
surviving corporation, and at the effective time of the Merger
each share of HealthTronics common stock outstanding immediately
prior to such effective time (other than shares held by
HealthTronics as treasury stock or owned by Endo Pharmaceuticals
or HT Acquisition Corp., which would be cancelled and retired and
cease to exist, and shares owned by HealthTronics shareholders who
perfect dissenters rights under state law) will be converted into
cash equal to $4.85 per share (the Offer and Merger, collectively
the "Transaction").

On May 11, 2010, plaintiff Pinkus filed an action purporting to
represent a class consisting of all public shareholders of
HealthTronics (the "Class"), asserting that Defendants breached
fiduciary duties or aided and abetted in breaching fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the Class by, among other things,
agreeing to the Transaction at an allegedly inadequate price.

On May 12, 2010, plaintiff Namjoshi filed an action purporting to
represent the Class, asserting that Defendants breached fiduciary
duties or aided and abetted in breaching fiduciary duties
allegedly owed to the Class by, among other things, agreeing to
the Transaction at an allegedly inadequate price.

On May 14, 2010, plaintiff Cancelliere filed an action purporting
to represent the Class, asserting that Defendants breached
fiduciary duties or aided and abetted in breaching fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the Class by, among other things,
agreeing to the Transaction at an allegedly inadequate price.

On or about May 19, 2010, the Company filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission its Schedule 14D-9 statement and Endo
Pharmaceuticals filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
its Schedule TO-T statement concerning the Transaction.

On May 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class Action
Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Injunctive Relief (the
"Petition") purporting to represent the Class, asserting that
Defendants breached fiduciary duties or aided and abetted in
breaching fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the Class by, among
other things, agreeing to the Transaction at an allegedly
inadequate price, as well as making materially misleading and
incomplete statements concerning the Merger in the Schedule 14D-9.

On May 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery
requesting that the Court issue an Order on or before June 28,
2010 directing Defendants to respond to the discovery requests set
forth in Plaintiffs' First Request for the Production of Documents
and Things to All Defendants and Deposition Notices.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants engaged in good faith
discussions concerning the possibility of settlement.

In the course of the Parties' discussions, on or about June 3,
2010, after careful review of the merger agreement, the Schedule
14D-9 statement and Schedule TO-T statement in connection with the
prosecution and resolution of these Actions, Plaintiffs' counsel
expressed the view that additional particularized disclosures
should be made in HealthTronics' Schedule 14D-9 statement so that
shareholders can be capable of making a more informed decision on
whether to tender their shares in the Offer. Thus, they proposed
certain changes to the disclosures contained in HealthTronics'
Schedule 14D-9 statement, filed May 19, 2010, and mailed on or
about May 19, 2010, to all shareholders of record (as amended, the
"Schedule 14D-9").

The Company agreed to make certain of those proposed changes.

Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the Actions and
damages arising therefrom were meritorious, but recognize that
there was a substantial risk of an adverse outcome. Defendants
have denied and continue to deny any and all fault, wrongdoing,
and liability for the claims and damages asserted in the Actions
and believe that their defenses to these claims were meritorious,
but recognized and wished to avoid the burden and expense
associated with further litigation and the uncertainties
associated with trial.

In consideration of the additional particularized disclosures
suggested by Plaintiffs' counsel and made by Defendants' counsel
to the Schedule 14D-9, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
putative class, and Defendants agreed to settle the Actions.
Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants have engaged in extensive,
arm's-length, and good faith discussions regarding the possibility
of settling the Actions, and on June 10, 2010, reached an
agreement in principle concerning the proposed settlement of the
Actions.

The Parties believe that the proposed settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.

On June 17, 2010, the Parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") setting forth the terms of the proposed
settlement.

On June 23, 2010, the Parties filed a Notice of Settlement and
Unopposed Joint Motion for Stay, Consolidation, and Appointment of
Co-Lead Class Counsel.

On July 1, 2010, HealthTronics shareholders voted in favor of the
Merger, which Merger was consummated at the close of business on
that date,

After the MOU was signed, but before the Stipulation of Settlement
was negotiated and executed, Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed
documents and conducted the depositions of Defendant James S. B.
Whittenburg, President and Chief Executive Officer of
HealthTronics, and Richard A. Rusk, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company. These documents and depositions confirmed the fairness
and reasonableness of the Settlement.

On August 18, 2010, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
for, among other things, the scheduling of the Final Hearing, and
the provisional certification of the Settlement Class (as defined
below).

III. CLASS ACTION DETERMINATION

For purposes of the settlement only, the Court has preliminarily
certified a class of all stockholders of HealthTronics during the
period from and including May 5, 2010 through and including July
1, 2010 (the "Class Period"), including any and all of their
immediate or remote successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs,
assigns or transferees, and any person or entity acting for or on
behalf of, or claiming under any of them, and each of them (the
"Settlement Class"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are the
Defendants, officers and directors of the Company, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the
Defendants have or had a controlling interest. At the Final
Hearing, the Court will consider, among other things, whether the
Settlement Class should be finally certified.

Inquiries or comments about the Settlement should be directed in
writing to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     919 North Market St., Ste 980
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: 302-295-5310
     Facsimile: 302-654-7530

          - and -

     Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
     HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
     488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: 212-935-7400

          - and -

     Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Telephone: 484-588-5516

IV. REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT

The principal reason for the settlement is the benefit to
HealthTronics shareholders from HealthTronics agreement to
disclose additional information in Amendment No. 2 to the Schedule
14D-9 it issued in connection with the Merger. This benefit must
be compared to the risk that no benefit might have been achieved
after contested trial and likely appeals, possibly years into the
future.

Plaintiffs and their counsel have conducted a thorough
investigation relating to the allegations of wrongdoing in the
Actions, which they believe provides an adequate and satisfactory
basis for entering into the Settlement described herein. In
connection with this investigation, Plaintiffs and their counsel
reviewed documents produced by HealthTronics, and conducted the
depositions under oath of James S.B. Whittenberg, HealthTronics
President and Chief Executive Officer and Richard A. Rusk, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'
Counsel believe that the Settlement provides a fair, reasonable
and adequate settlement based upon the claims asserted in the
Actions. They further recognize and acknowledge the expense and
length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Actions
through trial and appeal. Based upon their evaluation, Plaintiffs
and Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined that the Settlement set
forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in
the best interests of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all fault,
wrongdoing, and liability for the claims and damages asserted in
the Actions and believe their defenses to these claims are
meritorious, but recognize and wish to avoid the burden and
expense associated with further litigation and the uncertainties
associated with trial.

V. RELEASES

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the Actions shall be
dismissed with prejudice and the Plaintiffs, all members of the
Settlement Class and Defendants shall be deemed to have fully,
finally, and forever released and discharged all claims that have
been or could have been alleged in the Actions, whether such
claims are known or unknown, as described in the Stipulation. All
claims of the Settlement Class that were asserted in the Actions
will be released as provided under the Settlement, and the members
of the Settlement Class will be forever barred from seeking other
or further relief on such claims.

VI. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

Plaintiffs intend to apply to the Court for an award of no more
than $292,500 for attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Fee and
Expense Award"), which Plaintiffs believe is fair and reasonable
in light of all pertinent factors, including among other things,
the benefits achieved, the time and effort spent, out of pocket
expenses incurred by Plaintiffs' Counsel, the nature and
difficulty of the case and Plaintiffs' Counsel's skill and
experience. The Fee and Expense Award would compensate Plaintiffs'
Counsel for the benefits achieved in the Actions and the risks
they undertook to represent the Plaintiffs on a fully contingent
basis.

VII. EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

Members of the Settlement Class who wish to be excluded from the
Settlement Class must submit a request for exclusion postmarked at
least fifteen (15) days before the Final Hearing. Any person who
does not submit a valid and timely request for exclusion shall be
a Settlement Class Member. All requests for exclusion must include
information sufficient to establish proof of ownership of shares
of HealthTronics on May 5, 2010 through and including July 1,
2010.

Any Member of the Settlement Class who has not requested exclusion
may appear, with or without counsel, and object to the proposed
Settlement of the Actions; as set forth below.

VIII. YOUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD

Prior to deciding whether or not to approve the Settlement, the
Court will hold a Final Hearing, which the Court may adjourn
without further notice other than announcement at such Final
Hearing or subsequent hearing. The Court may approve the
Settlement with or without modifications agreed to by the Parties
to the Actions, and with or without further notice to the members
of the Settlement Class.

Any member of the Settlement Class who has not requested exclusion
from the Settlement Class, and complies with the procedures set
forth below for making an appearance (personally or through
counsel), may be heard to the extent allowed by the Court
regarding (i) the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement, (ii) the certification of the Settlement Class, (iii)
the adequacy of the representation of the Settlement Class, (iv)
the Fee and Expense Award (as described above), or (v) any other
matters that come before the Court at the Final Hearing to be held
on November 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM at Heman Marion Sweatt Travis
County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe, Austin, TX 78701.

You are not required to respond, appear, or retain your own
counsel, but if you choose to do so it will be at your own
expense. A member of the Settlement Class wishing to assert an
objection to the Settlement or Plaintiffs' application for
attorneys' fees and expenses should no later than ten (15) days
prior to the Fairness Hearing:

1. File with the Clerk of the District Court of Travis County,
Texas in the above-captioned proceedings (which filing may be done
by mail, if postmarked on or before fifteen (15) days before the
Final Hearing) notice of such Settlement Class member's intention
to appear, showing proof of ownership of HealthTronics common
stock during the Class Period, including the number of shares of
HealthTronics common stock held and the date(s) of purchase, and
providing a statement that indicates the basis for such
appearance, the nature of the objection, the identities of any
witnesses that such member of the Settlement Class plans to call
at the Fairness Hearing, and any documentation in support of any
objection; and

2. Simultaneously serve copies of such notice, proof, statement,
and documentation, together with copies of and other papers or
briefs such member of the Settlement Class files with the Court,
in person or by first class U.S. mail, postmarked on or before
fifteen (15) days before the Final Hearing, upon the following
attorneys:

     Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     919 North Market St., Ste 980
     Wilmington, DE 19801

          - and -

     Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
     HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
     488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022

          - and -

     Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087

          - and -

     Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
     Michael J. Biles, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
     300 West Sixth, Suite 2050
     Austin, TX 78701

          - and -

     Charles W. Schwartz, Esq.
     SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
     1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800
     Houston, TX 77002

Any member of the Settlement Class who fails to object in the
manner described above will be deemed to have waived the right to
object or otherwise request to be heard (including the right to
appeal) and will be forever barred from raising such an objection
or request to be heard in this or any other action or proceeding.

IX. THE ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

If the Court approves the Settlement, as provided for in the
Stipulation, the Settling Parties will ask the Court to enter the
Order and Final Judgment, which will, among other things: (1)
finally certify the Settlement Class; (2) approve the Settlement
and adjudge the terms of the Settlement to be fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class; (3)
effectuate the releases described herein; (4) adjudge that
Plaintiffs, and each member of the Settlement Class are forever
barred and enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or
continuing to prosecute any action or other proceeding in any
court of law or equity, arbitration tribunal, administrative
forum, or other forum of any kind, directly, representatively,
derivatively, or in any other capacity, asserting any of the
claims released by the Settlement; (5) authorize and direct the
performance of the Settlement in accordance with its terms and
conditions and reserve jurisdiction to supervise the consummation
of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation; and (6) dismiss
the Actions with prejudice on the merits.

X. SCOPE OF THIS SETTLEMENT NOTICE

This Settlement Notice does not purport to be a comprehensive
description of the Actions, the terms of the Settlement as set
forth in the Stipulation, or the scheduled Fairness Hearing. For
more complete information concerning the Actions and the
Settlement, you may inspect the pleadings, the Stipulation, and
the other papers and documents filed with the Court during regular
office hours at the office of the Clerk of the District Court of
Travis County, Texas, Travis County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe
St., 3rd Floor, Austin, TX 78701.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settles Class Action Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
John George, staff writer for the Philadelphia Business Journal,
reports Hemispherx Biopharma agreed Tuesday to settle all of the
pending securities class actions against the biotechnology company
that had been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The proposed settlement requires formal court approval.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  Hemispherx (AMEX:HEB)
of Philadelphia said the settlement will be paid from the
company's insurance coverage and will not result in the payment of
any funds by the company. The company said the settlement
"expressly is not an admission of any culpability by Hemispherx or
its officers."

The series of lawsuits, according to documents Hemispherx filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, alleged the company
and certain officers misrepresented the status of Hemispherx's new
drug application for Ampligen, an experimental treatment for
chronic fatigue syndrome the company has worked on for more than
three decades.

Last November, the FDA rejected the company's new drug application
for Ampligen and recommended the company conduct additional
studies to demonstrate effectiveness. Hemispherx has stated it is
continuing to work with the FDA to address the issues raised by
the agency.


IKANOS COMMS: IPO Suit Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action related to the
September 2005 initial public offering of Ikanos Communications
have filed a request for leave to amend their complaint, the
company said in its August 9, 2010 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In November 2006, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors and two former
executive officers, as well as the lead underwriters for its
initial and secondary public offerings. The lawsuits were
consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007.
The amended complaint sought unspecified damages for certain
alleged material misrepresentations and omissions made by the
Company in connection with both its initial public offering in
September 2005 and its follow-on offering in March 2006.

On June 25, 2007, Ikanos filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on March 10, 2008, the Court dismissed the case
with prejudice. On March 25, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, and on June 12, 2008, the District Court denied
the motion for reconsideration. On October 15, 2008, plaintiffs
appealed the District Court's dismissal of the amended complaint
and denial of its motion for reconsideration to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 17, 2009,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal of
the amended complaint, but vacated its judgment on the motion for
reconsideration and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On May 13, 2010, the District Court granted plaintiffs leave to
file a motion to amend the pleadings. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to amend the complaint on June 11, 2010. The Company
filed an opposition to the motion on July 11, 2010, and plaintiffs
filed a reply in support of the motion on August 10, 2010. Oral
argument on the motion for leave to amend has not yet been
scheduled.

                   About Ikanos Communications

Ikanos Communications Inc. -- http://www.ikanos.com/-- engages
in the development and provision of programmable semiconductors
that enable fiber-fast broadband services over telephone
companies' existing copper lines.  The company offers very-high-
bit-rate digital subscriber lines that are designed to address
different segments of the broadband semiconductor market for
carrier networks and subscriber premises equipment.


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Continues to Defend SRAM Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc., continues to defend a
consolidated case captioned In re Static Random Access Memory
Antitrust Litigation.

On Oct. 24, 2006, the company was served with a civil antitrust
complaint filed by Reclaim Center, Inc., as plaintiffs in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
company and 37 other entities on behalf of a purported class of
indirect purchasers of Static Random Access Memory products.

The Complaint alleges that the company and other defendants
conspired to raise the prices of SRAM, in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and several
other states' antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer
protection statutes.

Shortly thereafter, a number of other plaintiffs filed similar
complaints.  Given the similarity of the complaints, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to a
single judge in the Northern District of California and
consolidated the cases for pretrial proceedings in February 2007.
The consolidated cases are captioned In re Static Random Access
Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation.

In August 2007, direct purchasers of SRAM and indirect purchasers
of SRAM filed separate Consolidated Amended Complaints.  The
company was not named as a defendant in either complaint.

Pursuant to tolling agreements with the indirect and direct
purchaser plaintiffs, the statute of limitations was tolled until
Jan. 10, 2009 as to potential claims against the company.

The tolling agreements have now expired and the statute of
limitations is running on potential claims against the company.

Discovery has closed in both cases.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2010.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. -- http://www.idt.com/--
designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of
semiconductor solutions for the advanced communications and
computing industries.  The company operates in three business
segments: Networking, Timing and Memory Interface, and Standard
Products and Other.  The Networking segment includes network
search engines (NSEs), switching solutions, integrated
communications processors, flow-control management (FCM) devices,
first-in/first out (FIFOs), and multi-ports.  The Timing and
Memory Interface segment includes clock management, dual in-line
memory modules (DIMM) support and other timing solution products.
The Standard Products and Other segment include high-speed static
random access memory (SRAM), military applications, digital logic
products, telecommunications and video products.  On July 31,
2006, the company acquired the PC Audio business from SigmaTel,
Inc.


LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $23 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hemenway, writing for National Underwriter Property &
Casualty News, reports Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
has reached a $23 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit
over the reimbursement of contractor overhead and profit following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

"We think this was the best thing for everybody," said Citizens
chief executive John Wortman.

Citizens had enough cash set aside to pay for the settlement. In
fact, the money has already been transferred to the court, Mr.
Wortman said. The state-run insurer of last resort does have the
power to assess Louisiana property insurance holders to meet
financial obligations.

The case, Stephanie Press v. Louisiana Citizens, dealt with the
allegation Citizens did not pay for contractors' overhead and
profit. When a repair job takes three or more tradesmen, a
policyholder is allowed to hire a contractor to coordinate the
repairs. Policyholders can also act as their own contractor. In
each case the insurer is obligated to pay extra money -- about 20%
-- to cover the cost of a contractor.

Citizens denies the allegation.

Mr. Wortman said he expects between 7,000 and 10,000 people to
share the settlement, or what is left after attorneys take their
33% share.  According to a notice mailed recently, Citizens also
agreed to pay up to $225,000 for administration of the settlement.

Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
Metairie attorney Mark Smith filed the original petition for
damages in June 2006 and the case was consolidated with three
other suits Mr. Smith filed in a period of three days in August
2007.

According to the final settlement agreement, the class includes
everyone who had a LCPIC homeowner's policy at the time of
hurricanes Katrina and Rita. All parties eligible for compensation
will be notified via direct mail through the Claims Administrators
Kinsella Medial LLC and Rust Consulting Inc., according to the
settlement agreement.  Class counsel is also obligated to set up a
Web site.  An objection and opt-out deadline has been set for Oct.
20 and fairness hearing has been set for Nov. 18 to finalize the
settlement, according to a preliminary settlement agreement signed
by Judge Sidney Cates IV on July 23.

LCPIC was named in more than 300 suits in just the first two years
following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Orleans Parish. Court
papers state that LCPIC's databases registered some 77,000 claims
filed in relation to the storms.

The settlement agreement states that two pending class actions --
Oubre v. LCPIC in Jefferson Parish and Orrill v. AIG, Inc., et al.
in Orleans Parish -- are not affected by this settlement.

New Orleans attorneys Allan Kanner, Cynthia St. Amant and Melissa
Fuselier, as well as California attorneys Howard Snyder, Daniel
Gruber and James Kropff were also listed as class counsel.

Metairie attorneys John Culotta and Darren Patin represent LCPIC.


MAINE & MARITIMES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
Maine & Maritimes Corporation and the other parties in a lawsuit
filed by Kevin Duplisea in the Maine Superior Court, Aroostook
County, and a lawsuit filed by Amy Johnson-Gee in the United
States District Court for the District of Maine entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on July 30, 2010, the
company disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 9, 2010.

The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with BHE
Holdings Inc. and BHE Holding Sub One Inc., dated as of March 12,
2010.  On June 23, 2010, the Company filed with the SEC, and
mailed to its stockholders of record on or about July 1, 2010, a
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A relating to, among
other things, the solicitation of proxies by the Board of
Directors of MAM in favor of a proposal to approve the Merger
Agreement.

Class action complaints were filed in the Maine Superior Court,
Aroostook County, and in the United States District Court,
District of Maine, purportedly on behalf of MAM shareholders and
naming the Company, all the members of the Board of Directors
individually, and in the case of the United States District Court
complaint, BHE Holdings Inc. and BHE Holding Sub One Inc., as
defendants.  These Actions alleged, among other things, that the
Company's directors had breached their duty of disclosure in the
preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC by the Company on
April 9, 2010, and that MAM aided and abetted such breaches.

MAM and the other defendants and plaintiffs in both of the Actions
entered into the Stipulation setting forth a proposed framework
for the settlement of the Actions.  In connection with the
settlement, the parties agreed that MAM would make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders beyond the information
provided in the definitive proxy statement.  Following the
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the parties entered into the Stipulation. The
Stipulation is subject to customary conditions, including court
approval.

On August 4, 2010, the Maine Superior Court preliminarily approved
the settlement. On August 9, 2010, the Company distributed a
Notice of the Settlement to its shareholders. A final Settlement
Hearing is scheduled for September 23, 2010.  If the Court gives
final approval at the September 23, 2010 Settlement Hearing, the
settlement will resolve the Actions and all of the claims that
were or could have been brought in the Actions, including all
claims relating to the merger, the Merger Agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will petition the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $400,000.

The litigation costs for the Actions, comprised of any attorneys'
fees awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel by the Court and the costs
incurred by MAM to defend the lawsuit, will be paid by MAM.

MAM and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with respect to
the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been asserted,
in the lawsuits, including that they have committed any violations
of law or breaches of fiduciary duty, that they have acted
improperly in any way, or that they have any liability or owe any
damages of any kind to the plaintiffs and that any additional
disclosures are or were required under any applicable rule,
statute, regulation or law. The settlement is not, and should not
be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying or otherwise
imperiling the merger, and to provide additional information to
MAM stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause
any delay of the merger, MAM and its directors agreed to the
settlement described above. The parties considered it desirable
that the action be settled to avoid the substantial burden,
expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation and to fully and finally resolve the matter.

                     About Maine & Maritimes

Maine & Maritimes Corporation -- http://www.maineandmaritimes.com/
-- is the parent company of Maine Public Service Company, a
regulated electric transmission and distribution utility serving
approximately 36,000 electricity customer accounts in Northern
Maine.  MAM is also the parent company of MAM Utility Services
Group, an unregulated corporation that provides electrical
services, including transmission line and substation design and
construction.  Corporate headquarters are located in Presque Isle,
Maine.


MAMALITTLEHELPER LLC: Recalls 500 Infant and Toddler Hammocks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MamaLittleHelper LLC, of Frisco, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 500 Infant and Toddler Hammocks.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The side-to-side shifting or tilting of the hammock can cause the
infant to roll and become entrapped or wedged against the
hammock's fabric and/or mattress pad, resulting in a suffocation
hazard.

The firm has received three reports of the hammock becoming
unbalanced, including one report of a two-month old who rolled to
the side corner of the hammock and was found crying face down.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall includes MamaLittleHelper Hammocks with model numbers
1010, 1020 and BL222.  They have a steel frame and a fabric
hammock with a mattress which are connected by a large spring,
safety rope and a metal hanger.  Model BL222 has a computerized
rocker device.  "MamaLittleHelper" is printed on a label sewn onto
the hammock models 1010 and 1020.  Model BL222 does not have a
label.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10324.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Malaysia and sold
exclusively online at http://www.mamalittlehelper.com/from May
2008 through February 2010 for between $100 and $230.

Parents and caregivers should immediately stop using the hammocks
and find an alternative, safe sleeping environment for their baby.
Contact MamaLittleHelper to receive a free repair kit for hammock
models 1010 and 1020. Consumers who own model BL222 should return
the hammock to MamaLittleHelper in exchange for a new hammock.
There is no repair available for model BL222.  Repair kits can
also be ordered online at
http://www.mamalittlehelper.com/recall.htm/ For additional
information, contact MamaLittleHelper toll-free at (866) 612-9986
between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site
http://www.mamalittlehelper.com/recall.htm/or e-mail the firm at
recall@mamalittlehelper.com/


MAMALITTLEHELPER LLC: Recalls 6 Hammock Metal Stands
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MamaLittleHelper LLC, of Frisco, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 6 Infant and Toddler Hammock Metal Stands.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The C-shaped metal stand can break where the curved arm attaches
to the leg of the metal frame, posing a fall hazard to an infant
in the hammock.

A four-month old infant girl fell out of the hammock when the
metal stand broke, but she was not injured.

The baby hammock hangs from the recalled metal C-shaped stand
which is about five feet tall and is silver-colored.  The metal C-
shaped stands were sent to the six consumers with hammock model
numbers 1010 and 1020 instead of the original metal frame
advertised with the hammock.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10754.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively online at http://www.mamalittlehelper.com/ from
December 2009 through February 2010 for about $100 with the
hammock.

Parents and caregivers should immediately stop using the hammock
stands and find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for their
baby.  Contact MamaLittleHelper to receive a free metal hammock
stand in exchange for the recalled C-shaped metal stand.
MamaLittleHelper is directly contacting the six consumers who
received the C-shaped metal stands.

For more information, contact MamaLittleHelper toll-free at (866)
612-9986 between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday
through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.mamalittlehelper.com/or email the firm at
recall@mamalittlehelper.com/


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Bateman Appeal for Certification Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his renewed motion for
class certification in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Case No. 07-cv-00171 (C.D. Calif.), which names Marquee Holdings,
Inc., as a defendant, remains pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration
dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit
card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed
to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to actual
losses incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending the
outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the situation
where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a
receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision and the case is stayed pending this appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's August 10, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 1, 2010.

The suit is Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Telephone: (310) 235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Telephone: (213) 576-8097
         Facsimile: (213) 576-8080


MEDIACOM LLC: Awaits Final Judgment on Jury Verdict in "Ogg" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, on a
jury rendered verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg against
Mediacom LLC remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 10,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.  The lawsuit alleges that the company, in areas where there
was no cable franchise failed to obtain permission from landowners
to place Mediacom's fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding
the possession of agreements or permission from other third
parties.  While the parties continue to contest liability, there
also remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.  Based
on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim compensatory
damages of approximately $14.5 million.  Legal fees, prejudgment
interest, potential punitive damages and other costs could
increase that estimate to approximately $26.0 million.  Before
trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage theory of
$42.0 million in compensatory damages.  Notwithstanding the
verdict in the trial, the company remains unable to reasonably
determine the amount of Mediacom's final liability in this
lawsuit.  Prior to trial, the company's experts estimated its
liability to be within the range of approximately $0.1 million to
$2.3 million.  This estimate did not include any estimate of
damages for prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees or punitive
damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.  On
March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary
and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive
damages of $35,000.  The Court did not enter a final judgment on
this verdict and therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at
this time be judicially collected.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corp, is involved in the acquisition and
operation of cable systems serving smaller cities and towns in the
United States.  Mediacom Capital Corporation, a New York
corporation wholly owned by the Company, co-issued public debt
securities.


MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Continues to Defend "Knight" Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Mediacom Communications Corp. remains a defendant in a purported
class action entitled Jim Knight v. Mediacom Communications Corp.,
according to Mediacom LLC's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Mediacom LLC is wholly-owned by Mediacom Communications
Corporation (MCC).

The suit was filed on March 5, 2010, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint asserts that
the potential class is comprised of all persons who purchased
premium cable services from MCC and rented a cable box distributed
by MCC.  The plaintiff alleges that MCC improperly "tied" the
rental of cable boxes to the provision of premium cable services
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The
plaintiff also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment and seeks
injunctive relief and unspecified damages.

MCC was served with the complaint on April 16, 2010.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corp, is involved in the acquisition and
operation of cable systems serving smaller cities and towns in the
United States.  Mediacom Capital Corporation, a New York
corporation wholly owned by the Company, co-issued public debt
securities.


MEDIACOM LLC: Parent Faces 3 Class Action Lawsuits in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2010, three shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against Mediacom Communications Corporation and its individual
directors all in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware,
according to Mediacom LLC's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Mediacom LLC is wholly-owned by Mediacom Communications
Corporation (MCC).

The lawsuits, Colleen Witmer vs. Mediacom Communications
Corporation et al., J. Malcolm Gray v. Mediacom Communications
Corporation et al., and Haverhill Retirement System v. Mediacom
Communications Corporation, relate to the offer by Rocco B.
Commisso to acquire all of the outstanding shares of MCC's common
stock, not already owned by Mr. Commisso.  The three lawsuits have
been consolidated for all purposes in the Delaware Chancery Court.
The lawsuits allege breach of fiduciary duty and seek injunctive
relief to prevent consummation of the proposed transaction or in
the alternative, rescission and compensatory damages.

MCC and its directors intend to defend the actions vigorously.

Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company wholly owned by
Mediacom Communications Corp, is involved in the acquisition and
operation of cable systems serving smaller cities and towns in the
United States.  Mediacom Capital Corporation, a New York
corporation wholly owned by the Company, co-issued public debt
securities.


META FINANCIAL: Continues Defense in Certified Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
certified class action complaint filed by Guardian Angel Credit
Union in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire, according to Meta Financial's August 10, 2010, Form 10-
Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  Since its
filing of Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, the
matter of Methodist Hospitals of Dallas v. MetaBank and Meta
Financial Group, Inc., filed in the 95th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, TX, Cause No. 08-06994, has been settled for a
payment and the matter dismissed with prejudice.  In all, nine
cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, two have been
dismissed, and three have been settled for payments that the
Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.  Of the four remaining cases, two are class
action cases.

On May 5, 2010, in one of these two cases, Guardian Angel Credit
Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC, District of
NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the
class.

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

Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.bankmeta.com/-- is a
holding company.  The company through banking subsidiaries
MetaBank and MetaBank West Central (MetaBank WC), provides a
range of financial services.  The principal business of MetaBank
consists of attracting retail deposits from the general public
and investing those funds primarily in one- to four-family
residential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real
estate, agricultural operating and real estate, construction,
consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's
market area.  The company operates in areas, including the Iowa
counties of Adair, Buena Vista, Dallas, Guthrie, Pocahontas, Polk
and Sac, and the South Dakota counties of Brookings, Lincoln and
Minnehaha.  The company also has a wholly owned subsidiary, First
Midwest Financial Capital Trust. The MetaBank has four market
areas and the Meta Payment Systems division: Northwest Iowa,
Brookings, Central Iowa, and Sioux Empire.


NEBRASKA: Denied Medical Care to Unborn Children, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a pregnant,
legal immigrant claims Nebraska denied medical care for her and
her unborn child by refusing to process a claim for prenatal care.
The state class action claims the Nebraska's Department of Health
and Human Services unconstitutionally revoked unborn children's
rights to medical assistance, which is guaranteed by state law,
and have denied care to more than 1,500 women and babies since
March 1.

The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services killed
medical assistance for unborn children on March 1, "effectively
repealing regulations that provided for such eligibility," under
the state's Medical Assistance Act, Jane Doe claims for the class.

Ms. Doe, 38, and 35 weeks pregnant, holds a non-immigrant U Visa.
U-Visas are given to victims of crime, often because they may be
needed to testify.  The U Visa customarily grants work privileges,
and is good for up to 4 years.  Only 10,000 U Visas may be granted
annually.

Ms. Doe was a victim of domestic violence.  The U Visa does not
qualify her for Medicaid herself, but immigration law, and her
status as a low-income working mother should qualify her unborn
child for care, according to the complaint in Lancaster County
Court.

Ms. Doe says she earns $16,000 a year and cannot afford prenatal
care.  Neither she nor her child have received any.  She claims
the Department of Health and Human Services, its CEO Kerry
Winterer, Division of Children and Families Director Todd
Reckling, and Division of Medicaid and Long-Term Care Director
Vivianne Chaumont violated the separation of powers clause of the
Nebraska Constitution and the state's Administrative Procedure
Act.

Since the defendants' new "rule" took effect on March 1, at least
1,551 pregnant women in Nebraska have been denied medical care or
had medical assistance terminated for their unborn children,
according to the complaint.

Ms. Doe claims her case is particularly traumatic because during
two of her previous pregnancies she developed gestational
diabetes, which can cause brain damage, heart disease, poor spine
development in the fetus, and even death.

"Without prenatal care, especially with her history of gestational
diabetes, the likelihood that Ms. Doe and her unborn child now
have or will have serious health problems is greatly increased,"
the complaint states.

Ms. Doe seeks an injunction and declaratory judgment that the
defendants exceeded their authority by denying of medical care to
unborn children.

A copy of the Complain in Doe v. The Nebraska Department of Health
and Human Services, et al., Case No. CI10-3492 (Neb. Dist. Ct.,
Lancaster Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/24/UVisa.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Goddard Esq.
          Rebecca Gould, Esq.
          NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          941 O St., Suite 920
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: 402-438-8853


NEUROMETRIX INC: Oral Argument on Dismissal Appeal Set for Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal on the dismissal of a consolidated amended class action
complaint against Neurometrix, Inc., remains pending and oral
arguments is scheduled for mid-September, according to the
company's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

On March 17, 2008, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers.  On March 27, 2008, a related putative securities
class action complaint was filed in the same court, against the
same defendants.  These two actions were subsequently
consolidated, and the court appointed a lead plaintiff.

On November 10, 2008, a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed, which alleged, among other things, that
between October 27, 2005, and February 12, 2008, the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by allegedly making false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material information
to the investing public.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages.

On January 30, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others, that
it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On
December 8, 2009, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissing the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 6, 2010.  The
appeal is currently pending and oral arguments on the appeal have
recently been scheduled for mid-September 2010.

The litigation process is inherently uncertain, and the Company
cannot guarantee that the outcome of the lawsuit will be favorable
for the Company or that it will not be material to its business,
results of operations, or financial position.  However, the
Company does not believe that a loss is probable related to the
litigation.  Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded relating to
the matter at June 30, 2010.

NeuroMetrix, Inc. -- http://www.neurometrix.com/-- is a science-
based health care company transforming patient care through
neurotechnology.  The company provides innovative products for
preservation and restoration of nerve and spinal cord function,
and pain control.


NEW CENTURY: Nov. 8 Fairness Hearing on $124 Mil. Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson will convene a hearing in Los
Angeles at 10:00 a.m. on Nov. 8, 2010, to review and consider the
fairness of a $124 million settlement pact between buyers of New
Century Financial Corporation common stock, 9.125% Series A
Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, 9.75% Series B Cumulative
Redeemable Preferred Stock, and call options and sellers of New
Century put options, between May 5, 2005, and Mar. 13, 2007,
inclusive, and:

    -- Underwriter Defendants, contributing $15 million,
    -- KPMG LLP, contributing $45 million; and
    -- Individual Defendants, contributing $65 million.

Investors' claims must be filed by Dec. 15, 2010, and must be
delivered to:

         In re New Century Securities Litigation Settlement
         c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 2004
         Chanhassen MN 55317-2004

Claim forms and additional information about In re New Century
Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00931 (C.D. Calif.), are
available at http://www.newcenturysettlement.com/


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss NY Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's
August 11, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated.

Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding
Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization
trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and
the purported class members.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims.

No further developments were reported in the company's August 11
Form 10-Q filing.

NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/--
and its subsidiaries holds non-conforming residential mortgage
securities.  The company previously originated, purchased,
securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential
nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities.  It
retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio,
interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased,
and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in
which it retained interests.  Effective Aug. 1, 2008, the Company
acquired a 75% interest in StreetLinks National Appraisal
Services LLC (StreetLinks), a residential mortgage appraisal
company.  The company also acquired a majority interest in Advent
Financial Services LLC.


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Georgia Suit Remains Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02660, remain engaged in
discovery, according to Piedmont REIT's August 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A purported class action was filed on October 25, 2007, by a
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., stockholder before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Piedmont and its board of directors.  The complaint attempts to
assert class action claims on behalf of (i) those persons who were
entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed
with the SEC by Lex-Win Acquisition LLC, a former stockholder, on
May 25, 2007, and (ii) all persons who are entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the SEC on October 16, 2007.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.
In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants have also
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes.

On December 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that
the court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class
lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008.

On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which contained the same counts as the original complaint. On June
30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed two
of the four counts of the amended complaint in their entirety.
The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of
allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose information
regarding the likelihood of a listing in the company's amended
response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii) purported
misstatements or omissions in the company's proxy statement
concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to a
listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the
results of conversations with potential buyers as to the company's
valuation, and certain details of the company's share redemption
program.

On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration of the
court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for certification
of the order for immediate appellate review.  The defendants also
requested that the proceedings be stayed pending consideration of
the motion.   On June 19, 2009, the court denied the motion for
reconsideration and the motion for certification of the order for
immediate appellate review.

On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff, joined by a second plaintiff,
filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the
federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and void any
authorizations secured by the proxy statement, and to compel a
tender offer. On May 11, 2009, the defendants answered the second
amended complaint.

On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 10, 2010.

On March 24, 2010, the defendants filed a petition for permission
to appeal immediately the court's order granting the motion for
class certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs filed a response to the defendant's petition for
permission to appeal on April 8, 2010.  The parties are presently
engaged in discovery.

Piedmont believes that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend the
action.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100
          Phone: 215-642-8500
          E-mail: nick@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: 404-873-3900
          E-mail: MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 212-907-0700
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

Representing the defendants is:

          J. Timothy Mast, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza
          600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
          Phone: 404-885-3312
          Fax: 404-962-6796
          E-mail: tim.mast@troutmansanders.com


PIEDMONT OFFICE: Trial Date in Wells REIT Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set in the class action suit In Re Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No.
07-cv-00862, according to Piedmont REIT's Aug. 10, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a
purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled,
"Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real
Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells
REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction.  The complaint
attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons
who received and were entitled to vote on the proxy statement
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 26, 2007.  The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the internalization transaction.  The court then
granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the
case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April
24, 2007.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with
amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring
subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a
Piedmont officer as an individual defendant.

On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the
defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.  The court dismissed
five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their
entirety.  The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the
exception of allegations regarding the company's failure to
disclose in its proxy statement details of certain expressions of
interest in acquiring Piedmont.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for Internalization omitted details of certain
expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont.  The second amended
complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages,
to nullify and rescind Internalization, and to cancel and rescind
any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for
Internalization.

On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain
defenses to the second amended complaint.  On June 23, 2008, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.

On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The plaintiff filed its reply
in support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19,
2009, and the motion is presently pending before the court.  The
parties are presently engaged in discovery.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The
defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
on April 30, 2009.  The plaintiff filed its reply of its motion
for leave to amend on May 18, 2009.  The court denied the motion
for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.

On August 2, 2010, the court entered an order denying the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part, the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The court ruled
that the failure to disclose certain expressions of interest by a
third party in acquiring Piedmont raises questions of fact that
must be determined at trial.

No trial date has been set.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
         CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
         One Haverford Centre
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500
         E-mail: nick@chimicles.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq.
         KING & SPALDING, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600
         E-mail: mcates@kslaw.com


PROFESSIONAL NAT'L: Sued for Retaining Recording Fees for Own Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Zamudio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Professional National Title Network, Inc., Case No.
2010-CH-35976 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. August 20, 2010), accuses
the settlement and closing services provider of collecting money
supposedly to pay government recording fees, but rather that using
the money as it had stated it was for, kept all or a portion of
the money for its own use, in violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the common law
of unjust enrichment.  Ms. Zamudio says that in March 2009 she
bought her home, located at 465 Onyx Court, in Schaumburg,
Illinois.  She narrates that at the closing of the purchase of her
home, defendant collected $55.50 from her and another $55.50 from
the seller for the same recording fees.  Ms. Zamudio states that
the recording fee charged by the Cook County Recorder's office was
only $52.  According to the complaint, defendant never refunded
any monies to her for the overcharge, but retained the money for
itself.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George S. Bellas, Esq.
          Misty J. Cygan, Esq.
          BELLAS & WACHOWSKI
          15 N. Northwest Highway
          Park Ridge, IL 60608
          Telephone: (847) 823-9030
          E-mail: george@bellas-wachowski.com
                  misty@bellas-wachowski.com


REDBOX INC: Blockbuster Seeks to Quash Discovery Subpoena
---------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The St. Clair County Record, reports
Blockbuster, Inc., is moving to quash a discovery subpoena served
by the plaintiff in a St. Clair County class action suit filed
against its rival, Redbox, Inc.

The motion filed Aug. 2 claims plaintiff Laurie Piechur is
conducting a "fishing expedition" outside the scope of third party
discovery.

Blockbuster and its parent, NCR Corp., argue that their internal
documents and trade practices would be unfairly revealed to
Redbox, the company Laurie Piechur is suing on behalf of a
nationwide class of DVD renters.

Blockbuster Inc. is the video rental chain behind Blockbuster
Express video rental kiosks.

The 2009 class action claims that Laurie Piechur and others were
unfairly overcharged by Redbox after they returned DVDs after
specified times.  It seeks more than $350,000 in damages,
attorney's fees and other relief.

Redbox has tried, unsuccessfully, to have the suit dismissed.

The class has not been certified as yet, although Laurie Piechur
has moved for a briefing schedule on the issue.

Laurie Piechur subpoenaed Blockbuster over its DVD rental kiosks,
asking for internal documents such as meeting minutes, drafts and
other corporate communications.

Blockbuster argues Laurie Piechur has no reason to ask the Texas-
based company for as much as she has.  The rival company isn't
part of the litigation in any way, its motion states.

"There is no mention of the Blockbuster Express program in her
complaint," the motion to quash states. "Her requests are
amazingly overbroad, particularly for non-party discovery. In
short, Plaintiff Piechur's subpoena is nothing more than a fishing
expedition through the corporate files of a non-party with no
conceivable connection to the claims at issue in her case."

The company points to its rivalry with the defendant in Ms.
Piechur's case, claiming the revelation of its internal documents
during discovery would harm it.

"This fishing expedition would expose Blockbuster to serious
competitive harm, forcing it to produce sensitive business
information in litigation involving a direct competitor," the
motion states.

Blockbuster and its parent also allege that Ms. Piechur is
skirting the laws of Texas by issuing the subpoena to
Blockbuster's Illinois agent while asking for documents held in
Texas.

The case is assigned to St. Clair County Circuit Judge Patrick
Young.

Thomas Maag, Esq., Peter Maag, Esq., Jeffrey Millar, Esq., and
Thomas Keefe Jr., Esq., represent Ms. Piechur and the proposed
class.

Robert Sprague, Esq., and Eric Brandfonbrener, Esq., represent
Redbox.

Kurt Reitz, Esq., Robert Wagner, Esq., and Heath Hooks, Esq., of
Belleville represent Blockbuster.

Michael Raiff, Esq., and Mark Fuller, Esq., of Vinson & Elkins LLP
of Dallas also represent the company.

Jeffrey Reel, Esq., of St. Louis, David Ahlstrom, Esq., and James
Dyer, Esq., of Sebaly Shillito & Dyer LPA of Dayton Ohio represent
NCR. NCR is based in Georgia.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.


SANFORD BROWN: Case Management Held Wednesday on Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports a
class action suit against Sanford Brown colleges and their owner
was set for case management before a new judge on Wednesday.

The class action, brought by lead plaintiffs Jenna Lilley, Jessica
Lilley, Candace Lindsey and Ashley Cunningham, will be overseen by
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.

Judge Stack took over the case from Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder
due to the shifting of the asbestos docket.

The case management conference was set for 9 a.m.

Ms. Lilley and the other named lead plaintiffs allege that Career
Education Corp. and Sanford Brown College Inc. allegedly
misrepresented their medical assistants program in order to enroll
paying students.

A similar class action against Sanford Brown also is pending in
Missouri.

The Madison County suit alleges breaches of the state's consumer
fraud statutes and other claims.

It seeks unspecified damages, attorney's fees and other relief.

The suit has not yet moved to the class certification stage and
there has been little activity indicated in the case filings.

The plaintiffs are represented by Corey Sullivan, Esq., of St.
Louis.

The defendants are represented by Randal Mullendore, Esq., of St.
Louis.

The case is Madison case number 08-L-113.


SILVER POINT: NJ Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted motions to dismiss, including one
filed by Silver Point Capital Fund Investments LLC, an amended
class action complaint alleging violations of Sections 18 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and negligent
misrepresentation.

The action was brought by LLDVF, L.P., investor in certain notes
issued by Linens 'n Things, Inc., against certain current and
former officers and directors of Linens and its controlling
persons, Apollo Management V, L.P., NDRC Real Estate Advisors I
LLC and Silver Point Capital Fund Investments LLC for negligently
misrepresenting the financial condition and future prospects of
the Company from at least March 27, 2007 until May 2, 2008, the
date on which Linens filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Oral argument on the motions was heard on June 21, 2010. The Court
has considered the submissions in support of and in opposition to
the motions as well as the arguments from the June 21 hearing.

Judge Linares that causation has been insufficiently pled, and so
dismisses Plaintiff's Section 18 and negligent misrepresentation
claims without prejudice to amend the complaint to cure the
deficiencies. "Because Plaintiff will have an opportunity to amend
the complaint on this basis, rather than try to piece together all
of Plaintiff's clarifying statements to fully evaluate the other
elements of its claims, the Court finds that the better approach
is to have Plaintiff amend these claims to clearly identify the
basis for each claim as to each defendant. Not only will this
assist the Court in determining if Plaintiff has stated a claim
against each defendant, but it also will aid the Court in managing
the case going forward if the amendment successfully cures the
deficiencies."

A copy of the court's opinion in the case LLDVF, L.P. v. Dinicola,
Civil Action No. 09-1280 (JLL), is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100812a10


TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK: Superior Court Affirms Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the May 10, 2007 Order
of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which held
that Brethren Mutual Insurance Company had no duty to defend
Paradise under certain provisions of two insurance policies.

Paradise Distributing Inc. was an office supply company, which
supplied, among others products, fax machine paper, toner, and
supplies. Paradise was insured under two successive Business
Owners' Liability Coverage insurance polices issued by Brethren
Mutual Insurance Company. The policies covered the periods from
July 8, 2001 through July 8, 2002, and July 8, 2002, through
July 8, 2003. During that period, Paradise transmitted over one
million unsolicited advertising faxes.  Telecommunications Network
Design, Inc., was the recipient of one of those faxes.

In May 2003, TND filed a class action suit in the Circuit Court of
Cook County Illinois, Chancery Division, under a federal statute,
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and under Illinois law. In
the action, TND claimed to represent a class of persons and
entities who had wrongfully received faxes sent by Paradise.
Subsequently, the underlying action was certified as a class
action lawsuit. Brethren refused to defend and indemnify Paradise
under the policies. Ultimately Paradise and TND settled the
underlying action, and the trial court entered judgment against
Paradise in the total amount of $3,999,999. However, judgment was
to be satisfied only from the proceeds of the policies, which were
assigned to the plaintiff class.

On January 25, 2006, Paradise and TND filed a declaratory judgment
action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.  On
October 2, 2006, they filed an amended complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas, alleging that Brethren acted in bad faith in denying
coverage.  On May 10, 2007, the trial court ruled that there was
no duty to defend under the "personal injury" and "advertising
injury" provisions of the policies, but a duty to defend existed
under the "property damages" provision of the policies because the
amended complaint in the underlying action contained averments
asserting the possibility that Paradise had unintentionally
transmitted the advertisements to the plaintiff class.

A copy of the Superior Court's opinion is available at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=inpaco20100823368


UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA: Faces Class Action Over Dining Dollars
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Jones, staff writer for TuscaloosaNews.com, reports two
former University of Alabama students have sued the university,
contending that its mandatory food fee, called Dining Dollars,
violates state law.

The two, David Vandenberg and Elizabeth Beene, request their money
back and ask that the case become a class-action suit covering all
UA students who have paid the fee.

It is one of three nearly identical lawsuits filed in Jefferson
County Circuit Court earlier this month against UA, University of
Alabama at Birmingham and Auburn University, along with the
private companies that manage each campus' dining.

At UA, each undergraduate student taking more than nine credit
hours (two or three courses) must pay a $300 fee each fall and
spring semester and $100 for the summer semester that can be used
at on-campus dining locations, some vending machines and three
off-campus restaurants. The Dining Dollars program started in
1996.

Married students, as well as students who are the head of their
household, can request to be exempted from the program, and any
unused money can be returned to the student through a written
request at the end of each academic year.

"The mandatory aspect of a Dining Dollar program at a state
university is a troubling thing," said Danny Evans, one of the
attorneys representing the former students. "You've got the power
of the state coupled with a private company mandating and taking
away the opportunity and freedom of choice of students. It's
pretty troubling."

UA spokeswoman Debbie Lane said the university does not comment on
pending litigation. David Gargione, spokesman for Aramark, a
national company contracted to run UA's dining, also declined to
comment.

Auburn spokeswoman Deedie Dowdle, said in an e-mail that fees are
needed to pay for what students and parents want, whether its a
transit system, recreation center or dining.

"There is no state funding for dining, yet the demand from parents
and students to provide readily available services is high," Ms.
Dowdle said. "The vast majority of universities now have on-campus
programs, and to remain competitive we need to attract and retain
students."

Auburn's required dining program began charging students who
enrolled since fall 2008, but not those who enrolled before.
Auburn students living on campus must pay $995 a semester, while
those off-campus pay $300 a semester. Auburn contracts with
Compass Group USA and Thompson Hospitality Services to run campus
dining.

UAB's dining program began in 2005 and charges students $225 per
semester. UAB hired Sodexo to run campus dining.

"In these tough economic times, students and families struggle to
pay the cost of higher education," Mr. Evans said. "Many are using
loans, work study and minimum wage jobs to finance their
education. They should not be further burdened by being forced to
enrich three of the world's largest food vendors."

The students ask the court to halt the collection of required
dining fees during the case, and abolish the program permanently,
according to the lawsuit.

The students argue in the lawsuits that the contract between the
universities and the food companies violates a section of the
state Constitution that restricts state agencies from "being
interested in any private or corporate enterprise."

"The University (of Alabama), by virtue of its contractual
agreement with Aramark, has become a market participant in the
food service market, making its contract illegal and in violation
of the state constitutional restriction," wrote the students'
attorneys in the lawsuit against UA.

The students also allege the agreements violate a state law on the
use of campus debit cards by charging off-campus restaurants too
high a fee to participate in the dining programs.

"The (students) have been damaged by having their funds unlawfully
converted; by losing the use of their funds since they were
required to be placed in the possession of Aramark, by being
subjected to fixed higher pricing, limited food selection, limited
choice of food vendors and lower quality food as the result of
being forced into this anti-competitive market," the students'
attorneys wrote in the complaint against UA.

The students are seeking $500 in damages for each semester's
Dining Dollars charge.

Mr. Vandenberg graduated from UA in 2009 and Ms. Beene graduated
this month, according to the complaint.


UNUM GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal of Claims Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs in the matter In re Insurance
Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, on the dismissal of the federal
antitrust and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
claims remains pending in the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Unum Group and certain of its subsidiaries, along with many other
insurance brokers and insurers, have been named as defendants in a
series of putative class actions that have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of multidistrict
litigation (MDL) No. 1663, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.

The plaintiffs in MDL No. 1663 filed a consolidated amended
complaint in August 2005, which alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws, the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and various state common law
requirements by engaging in alleged bid rigging and customer
allocation and by paying undisclosed compensation to insurance
brokers to steer business to defendant insurers.  Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 29, 2005.  On April 5,
2007, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice
as to all counts except the ERISA counts.  Plaintiffs were granted
a last opportunity to file an amended complaint, and they did so
on May 22, 2007.

On Aug. 31, 2007, and Sept. 28, 2007, plaintiffs' federal
antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ERISA counts was
granted on Jan. 14, 2008.  All pending state law claims were
dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals of the order dismissing their federal antitrust and RICO
claims.  The appeal was argued in April 2009

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- is one of the leading
providers of employee benefits products and services and the
largest provider of group and individual disability insurance in
the United States and the United Kingdom.


WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart defrauds customers
by backdating their annual membership in its Sam's Club stores to
the date at which the previous membership expired, regardless of
when they seek the new membership, a class action claims in Los
Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Law Offices of J. John Oh, APC v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01271 (C.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/24/WalMart.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Lee, ESq.
          Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
          LEE TRAN & LIANG APLC
          601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4025
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-612-3737
          E-mail: jml@ltlcounsel.com
                  chl@ltlcounsel.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Foote, Esq.
          Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
          Matthew Herman, Esq.
          FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE FLOWERS LLC
          30 North La Salle St., Suite 2340
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 630-232-6333
          E-mail: rmf@foote-meyers.com
                  kchavez@foote-meyers.com
                  mherman@foote-meyers.com


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: 11,000 Beaba Express Steam Bottle Warmers
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 11,000 Beaba Express Steam Bottle
Warmers.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bottle warmers can overheat liquids and baby food, posing a
burn hazard to adults and babies.

The firm has received 10 reports of the bottles overheating,
including one report of an adult who received a finger burn from
touching a hot bottle.

This recall involves the Beaba Express Steam Bottle Warmer which
uses steam to heat baby bottles or baby food.  The bottle warmer
is green with an orange temperature dial.  "Beaba" is printed on
the base and model number 9602 is printed on the underside of the
warmer.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10323.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
through Williams-Sonoma stores nationwide, online at
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/and through Williams-Sonoma
catalogs from June 2010 through July 2010 for about $65.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bottle
warmers and call Williams-Sonoma for instructions on how to return
the product for a full refund.  Additionally, consumers who return
the bottle warmers will receive a $25 Williams-Sonoma merchandise
card.

For additional information, contact Williams-Sonoma toll-free at
(877) 548-0850 between 4:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
seven days a week or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Applica Consumer Facing Three Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands, Inc.'s subsidiary, Applica Consumer Products,
Inc., is a defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the
plaintiffs have alleged injury as the result of exposure to
asbestos in hair dryers distributed by that subsidiary over 20
years ago.

Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was
used in certain hair dryers distributed by it prior to 1979,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 18, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Russell Hobbs, another subsidiary, is a defendant in one asbestos
lawsuit in which the plaintiff has alleged injury as the result of
exposure to asbestos in toasters and/or toaster ovens.

There are numerous defendants named in these lawsuits, many of
whom, unlike Russell Hobbs or Applica, actually manufactured
asbestos containing products.

COMPANY PROFILE:

Spectrum Brands, Inc.
601 Rayovac Drive

Madison, Wis. 53711
Phone No.: (608) 275-3340

Description:
The Company is a global branded consumer products company.
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. was created in connection with the
combination of Spectrum Brands and Russell Hobbs, Inc., a small
appliance brand company, to form a new combined company. The
Merger was consummated on June 16, 2010.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Harbinger Faces Exposure Suits in Miss., La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. faces multiple complaints in Mississippi and
Louisiana state court and in a federal multi-district litigation
alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling
rigs and shipping vessels formerly owned or operated by the
Company's offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates.

The Company has aggregate reserves for its legal and environmental
matters of about US$300,000 at both June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31,
2009.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Harbinger Group Inc.
100 Meridian Centre, Suite 350
Rochester, N.Y. 14618
Phone No.: (212) 906-8555

Description:
The Company is a holding company that is owned by Harbinger
Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., Global Opportunities
Breakaway Ltd. and Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations
Fund, L.P. At June 30, 2010, the Company held about US$144.8
million in consolidated cash, cash equivalents and investments and
about 98% of Zap.Com Corporation. The Company's principal focus is
to identify and evaluate business combinations or acquisitions of
businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Records $14.4Mil 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: General Motors Facing Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company and Motors Liquidation Corporation (f/k/a
General Motors Corporation) are subject to litigation arising out
of alleged product defects, including asbestos-related claims.

Detroit-based General Motors Company develops, produces and
markets cars, trucks and parts worldwide. It operates through
three segments: General Motors North America (GMNA), General
Motors International Operations (GMIO) and General Motors Europe
(GME).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 488 Claims Ongoing v. Constellation Energy, BGE
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 488 individuals who were never employees of Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE)
have pending asbestos claims each seeking several million dollars
in compensatory and punitive damages.

About 482 individuals who were never employees of the Company or
BGE had pending asbestos claims each seeking several million
dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. (Class Action
Reporter, May 28, 2010)

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.

In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases. Cross-claims and third party claims
brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and
Constellation Energy in these actions.

To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority has
been resolved for amounts that were not material to the Company's
financial results.

Baltimore-based Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy
company that includes a generation business, a customer supply
business, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 290 Cases Still Ongoing v. Park-Ohio at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at June 30, 2010, was a co-defendant in
about 290 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,200
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At March 31, 2010, the Company was a co-defendant in about 290
cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,200 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
(Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2010)

In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.

There are five asbestos cases, involving 25 plaintiffs, which
plead specified damages. In each of the five cases, the plaintiff
seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in
the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and
US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of US$10 million.

In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages each in the amount of
US$10 million for seven separate causes of action. In the fifth
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount
of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and US$5
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of US$20 million.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from asbestos cases
on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of its
subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any
asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by the Company or
its subsidiaries.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., through the
subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries,
Inc., is an industrial supply chain logistics and diversified
manufacturing business operating in three segments: Supply
Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Still Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company (IPL), as of June 30, 2010, is a defendant in a little
less than 100 lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death
stemming from exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing
products formerly located in IPL power plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" meaning that IPL did
not mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products. These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.

IPL has insurance, which may cover some portions of these claims.
Currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

Indianapolis, Ind.-based IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s business
consists of the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of
electric energy conducted through its principal subsidiary,
Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 84,000 Claims Ongoing v. Ashland Inc. at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 84,000 open asbestos-related claims during the
nine months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 103,000 open claims
during the nine months ended June 30, 2009.

The claims that allege personal injury (caused by exposure to
asbestos) asserted against the Company result from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 17,000 claims
dismissed. During the nine months ended June 30, 2009, the Company
recorded 2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 13,000
claims dismissed.

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical
products, services and solutions for many of the world's most
essential industries. The Company operates through five commercial
units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules
Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland
Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules Still Faces 20T Open Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, faced 20,000 open asbestos-
related claims during the nine months ended June 30, 2010,
compared with 24,000 claims during the nine months ended June 30,
2009.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Those claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2010, Hercules had 1,000
claims dismissed or settled. Asbestos reserves were US$385
million.

During the nine months ended June 30, 2009, Hercules had 4,000
claims dismissed or settled and 1,000 new claims filed. Asbestos
reserves were US$365 million.

Covington, Ky.-based Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemical
products, services and solutions for many of the world's most
essential industries. The Company operates through five commercial
units: Ashland Aqualon Functional Ingredients, Ashland Hercules
Water Technologies, Ashland Performance Materials, Ashland
Consumer Markets (Valvoline) and Ashland Distribution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Has 7,343 Open Claims at July 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 7,343 asbestos
claims as of July 23, 2010, compared with 7,464 such claims as of
April 29, 2010, and 7,809 claims as of Feb. 16, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products that the Company previously manufactured.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a
useful life of three to 12 months.

As of July 23, 2010, 2,930 claims remained against the Company in
the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) court. This compares to 12,758
claims that were pending at the MDL as of Feb. 6, 2009. Of these
remaining 2,930 MDL claims, 2,549 were originally filed in state
courts in Mississippi.

As of July 23, 2010, the remaining 4,413 claims pending against
the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than
the MDL.

As of July 23, 2010, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 33,310 claims. The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$6.9 million. Of this amount, US$6.9
million, or 99%, was paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that it should be able to access.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine
clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that move paper stock
through each phase of production). The Company produces about 45%
of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Has 7,907 Open Claims at July 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., was defending against 7,907 asbestis claims as of July 23,
2010.

This is the same amount as last reported April 29, 2010 and
compares with 7,905 such claims as of Feb. 16, 2010.

The Company acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wangner
Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Geschmay. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney
Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.

Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of
Abney's wholly-owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.
It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing
fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.

As of July 23, 2010, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement
or dismissal, 9, 678 claims for a total of US$200,000. Brandon's
insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8%
of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon.

As of July 23, 2010, 6,821 (or about 86%) of the claims pending
against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine
clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that move paper stock
through each phase of production). The Company produces about 45%
of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Still Named in Mt. Vernon Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., in some asbestos cases, is named both
as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount
Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products. The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany, N.Y.-based Albany International Corp. makes paper machine
clothing (PMC, custom-made fabrics and belts that move paper stock
through each phase of production). The Company produces about 45%
of the monofilament yarn used in its paper machine clothing and
relies on independent suppliers for the remainder.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 39 Exposure Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at June 30, 2010, there were about 39
asbestos lawsuits in which it is one of many defendants.

The Company is, from time to time, a party to various lawsuits
that are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek
an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states
of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Baar, Switzerland-based Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling
contractor for the oil and gas industry. The Company performs
contract drilling services with its fleet of 62 offshore drilling
units located worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Party to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
be named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2010 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Atlanta-based Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in three
business segments: Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil. Mueller Co.
manufactures valves for water and gas systems, including
butterfly, iron-gate, tapping, check, plug and ball valves, as
well as dry-barrel and wet-barrel fire hydrants and a full range
of metering products for the water infrastructure industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Records $2.8MM Liability Reserve at July 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation, as of July 4, 2010, has recorded an
asbestos bodily injury liability reserve of US$2.8 million and a
bodily injury insurance receivable of US$1.9 million.

This compares to a previously recorded bodily injury reserve and
insurance receivable of US$3 million and US$2.1 million,
respectively, at March 28, 2010.

The Company is named as a defendant in civil actions by parties
alleging damages from past exposure to toxic substances, generally
asbestos, at closed former facilities.

In addition to the Company, the cases generally include other ship
builders and repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers,
distributors and installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise
from injuries or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos or other toxic substances.

The Company is defending nine "malignant" claims and 175 "non-
malignant" claims.

The Company also includes in its reserves acknowledgement of 360
"inactive" claims that could become active upon the presentation
of additional evidence of disease and/or exposure by those
claimants and/or renewed prosecution of their claims.

Seattle-based Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private (or non-
Governmental) shipyard operator. Most of its business is repair
and maintenance work on commercial and federal government vessels
engaged in various maritime activities in the Pacific Northwest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Party to Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company still faces cases alleging injuries
that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-
containing products, apparently based on the Company's historic
use of vermiculite in certain of its products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 12, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of
the claims seek damages from the Company alone.

Marysville, Ohio-based The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and its
subsidiaries manufacture, market, and sell lawn and garden care
products. The Company's customers include home centers, mass
merchandisers, warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent
hardware stores, nurseries, garden centers, food and drug stores,
commercial nurseries and greenhouses and specialty crop growers.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Greswolde Penalized GBP1T for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates Court issued a GBP1,000 penalty to
Greswolde Construction Ltd, of Knowle, Solihull, England, after
the Company failed to take precautions against asbestos while
working at a school, according to a Health and Safety Executive
press release dated Aug. 19, 2010.

The HSE prosecuted the Company after bosses at Greswolde
Construction Ltd failed to warn its employees that the substance
was present despite being in possession of a survey detailing
where the asbestos was.

The Company pleaded guilty to a breach of regulation 10(1) and one
of 11(1)(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. As well
as the fine, it was also ordered to pay GBP2,268 costs.

Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates Court heard how on, July 9, 2009,
the Company was contracted to carry out building work on an
extension at Rokeby Primary School in Rugby.

Three employees were carrying out the work when they disturbed an
area containing asbestos. Despite the company being in possession
of a Type 3 Asbestos Survey detailing the materials that were
disturbed, and the fact that children were occupying adjacent
classrooms, it still gave the go ahead for the workers to begin to
strip out the area.

None of workers had been informed of the presence of asbestos on
the site and had not received asbestos awareness training or
protection.

HSE inspector Paul Cooper said, "The dangers of asbestos are well
known in the building industry so for the managers of Greswolde
Construction not to inform their employees of its presence shows a
complete disregard for their safety and wellbeing.

"What makes it worse is that this work was being carried out in a
primary school where young children were in the next room. We
can't stress enough how important it is for anyone carrying out
building work to obtain the proper asbestos surveys and then act
upon them."


ASBESTOS ALERT: Eastern Regional Fined GBP4T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Trafford Magistrates' Court, on Aug. 19, 2010, issued a
GBP4,000 fine to Eastern Regional Shopfitters Ltd for exposing
five workers to asbestos at the Arndale Centre in Manchester,
England, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release
dated Aug. 19, 2010.

Eastern Regional Shopfitters was prosecuted by the HSE after the
Company ignored a report, which stated asbestos was present in a
shop it was working on.

Two workers spent five days ripping out old shop fittings in
October 2009 before they discovered that asbestos had been used in
some of the ceiling panels. Another three management staff at the
Arndale Centre were also potentially exposed to the fibers during
routine checks on the work.

Eastern Regional Shopfitters admitted three breaches of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and one of the Health and
Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Mark Green, 45 years old, from Cambridge, was one of the two shop
fitters to be exposed to asbestos fibers. He said, "It plays on my
mind. I am more aware of the possibility I may become ill and that
my life has unwittingly been put on the line.

"I hope that companies in the construction industry, no matter
what their size, now begin to take asbestos more seriously. They
should put everyone who works for them on asbestos awareness
courses because workers need to be more aware."

Tom Merry, the investigating inspector at HSE, said, "Eastern
Regional Shopfitters knew asbestos was present in the shop but it
didn't inform its workers and it didn't ensure it was dealt with
safely."

Eastern Regional Shopfitters was charged with breaching
Regulations 5, 8 and 11 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006 by failing to carry out a suitable assessment of the
asbestos, carrying out asbestos removal without a license, and
exposing workers to asbestos.

The Company, of Norman Way Industrial Estate in Over near
Cambridge, also pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by putting workers at risk.

In addition to the GBP4,000 fine, Eastern Regional Shopfitters was
ordered to pay GBP3,215 towards the cost of the prosecution.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Acetech Construction Fined for Safety Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scunthorpe Magistrates Court fined Acetech Construction Ltd,
of Barrow Haven, North Lincolnshire, England, about GBP3,400 and
ordered it pay GBP5,000 for putting its workers and others at risk
of exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to a
Health and Safety Executive press release dated Aug. 19, 2010.

Acetech, a marine reclamation company, purchased a Polish former
fishing vessel "The Patricia III" in 2007 for dismantling and
selling on as scrap. The ship, built in the 1970s, had been lying
unused at Grimsby Dock for around three years.

An HSE investigation found Acetech had failed to carry out an
adequate survey that would have highlighted the presence of
asbestos containing materials before employees began work on the
boat.

Scunthorpe magistrates heard that between Dec. 1, 2007 and
Feb. 29, 2008, work took place to strip down the boat resulting in
several employees potentially exposed to asbestos containing
materials.

Acetech pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Kirsty Welsh said, "Asbestos is
responsible for around 4,000 deaths each year so it's vitally
important that workers are protected. You might not know what
damage has been caused by exposure, or the numbers of people who
may have been affected, until much later, if at all, but
identifying dangerous materials and removing them safely and
responsibly is essential in order to eliminate all possible risk.

"Had Acetech Construction carried out a full survey, assessed the
risks and put in place systems to protect their workers, then any
potential harm would have been avoided."


ASBESTOS ALERT: Rick Denoncourt Fined $10.2T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
levied a US$10,200 fine against Rick Denoncourt Carpentry, Inc.
for violating state asbestos regulations, according to a MassDEP
press release dated Aug. 25, 2010.

The violations were discovered during MassDEP's complaint
investigation of a residential building renovation located in
Holyoke in November 2009. The complainant reported that asbestos
thermal system insulation removal had been performed without
instituting the appropriate asbestos handling and disposal
procedures.

In a settlement agreement with MassDEP, Rick Denoncourt Carpentry
agreed to pay a penalty of US$10,200, of which US$7,200 was
suspended for one year provided that the company remains in
compliance with the state asbestos regulations.

Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, said, "Failure to identify and properly remove all
asbestos containing material prior to renovation or demolition
activity poses a public safety hazard. Such actions can result in
significant penalty exposure, as well as higher clean-up,
decontamination, disposal and monitoring costs."

Property owners or contractors with questions about asbestos-
containing materials, notification requirements, proper removal,
handling, packaging, storage and disposal procedures, or the
asbestos regulations are encouraged to contact the appropriate
MassDEP regional office for assistance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Unit Reserves $954MM for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Corporation unit, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, in the
respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets totaled US$954
million as of June 30, 2010 and US$980 million as of Dec. 31,
2009.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages
for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or
use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.

As of June 30, 2010, there were 373 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$91
million, and 159 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to US$41 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to Duke Energy Carolinas' asbestos-related
injuries and damages above an aggregate self insured retention of
US$476 million. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began
to exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy
during the second quarter of 2008.

Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke
Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier. The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.037
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of US$970 million as of June 30, 2010 and
US$984 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 related to this policy are
classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company
located in the Americas. The Company operates in the United States
through its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., which includes Duke
Energy Kentucky, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., as well as
in South and Central America through International Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Millers' June 30 A&E Liability at $2.3MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Millers Holding Corporation's estimated liability for
asbestos and environmental claims was US$2,301,000 at June 30,
2010 and US$2,397,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's estimated liability for A&E claims was US$2,318,000
at March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2010)

Of those amounts, a substantial portion results from the Company's
participation in assumed reinsurance pools, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 12, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Wilkes-Barre, Pa.-based Penn Millers Holding Corporation provides
property and casualty insurance products designed to meet the
insurance needs of certain segments of the agricultural industry
and the needs of middle market commercial businesses. The Company
is licensed in 39 states, but it currently limits its sales of its
insurance products to 33 states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Estimates $769.8Mil Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, as of June 30, 2010, estimates that the
liability for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity and
defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$769.8 million.

Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

Although the Company said it believes that its estimated liability
for pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the
best estimate of its future obligation, it utilized scenarios that
it believed were reasonably possible that indicate a broader range
of potential estimates from US$505 to US$877 million
(undiscounted).

Dublin-based Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment
makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures,
wiring devices, and other power management and distribution
equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use. Its
other main business segment makes power tools for the industrial
market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and commercial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $165.8MM Receivable at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2010, Cooper Industries plc's asbestos-related
receivable for recoveries of costs from insurers amounted to
US$165.8 million, of which US$56.2 million relate to costs
previously paid or insurance settlements.

As of June 30, 2010, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$670 million.

The Company's arrangements with the insurance carriers may defer
certain amounts of insurance and settlement proceeds that the
Company is entitled to receive beyond 12 months.

About 92 percent of the US$165.8 million receivable from insurance
companies at June 30, 2010 is due from domestic insurers whose AM
Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better.

The remaining balance of the insurance receivable has been
significantly discounted to reflect management's best estimate of
the recoverable amount.

Dublin-based Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment
makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures,
wiring devices, and other power management and distribution
equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use.  Its
other main business segment makes power tools for the industrial
market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and commercial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Cites 15,281 Abex Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, at June 30, 2010, recorded 15,281 pending
asbestos-related claims that are part of its obligation to Pneumo-
Abex Corporation (Pneumo).

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business
to Federal-Mogul Corporation. These discontinued businesses
(including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo in
1994) were operated through subsidiary companies, and the stock of
those subsidiaries was sold to Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and
Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17, 1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo
under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and
Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed
a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and
Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to
approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement. As part of its obligation to Pneumo
for any asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex Friction
product line (Abex Claims), the Company has rights, confirmed by
Pneumo, to significant insurance for such claims.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2010, a total of 148,473 Abex
Claims were filed, of which 133,192 claims have been resolved
leaving.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, about 733 claims were
filed and 8,281 claims were resolved. Since Aug. 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,015
before insurance. A total of US$175.9 million was spent on defense
costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through June 30, 2010.

Dublin-based Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment
makes circuit protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures,
wiring devices, and other power management and distribution
equipment for residential, commercial, and industrial use.  Its
other main business segment makes power tools for the industrial
market and hand tools for the do-it-yourself and commercial
markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Party to Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, California Water Service Group has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been dismissed without prejudice in several of
these cases. In other cases, the Company's contractors and
insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on
the Company's financial statements.

San Jose, Calif.-based California Water Service Group is a holding
company that provides water utility and other related services in
California, Washington, New Mexico and Hawaii through its wholly-
owned subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Records $10MM-$20MM for A&E Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million
per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials. The Company has, in the
past, performed remediation of such environmental matters, and is
not aware of any significant remaining potential liability
relating to these environmental matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testing
relating to these or other environmental matters.

Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has a
primary investment focus on retail shopping malls and strip and
power centers located in the eastern half of the United States,
primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $138M Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$138,001,259 as of June 30, 2010, compared with US$147,093,191
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$142,741,105 as
of March 31, 2010. (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2010)

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

Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$88,992,377 as of
June 30, 2010, compared with US$95,430,060 as of Dec. 31, 2009.
The current asbestos insurance receivable was US$20 million as of
both June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Pittsburgh-based Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two
business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists of
Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and The
Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid
Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and
Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburg Facing 8,155 Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was party to 8,155 open asbestos-
related claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 6, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
gross settlement and defense costs of US$8,710,000 and about 636
settled or dismissed claims.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of certain of the Company's operating subsidiaries and of
an inactive subsidiary in dissolution and another former division
of the Company Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company,
are defendants (among a number of defendants, typically over 50)
in cases filed in various state and federal courts.

In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability
against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury. The
trial resulted in a defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed that
verdict and in 2008 the California Court of Appeals reversed the
jury verdict and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some umbrella insurance coverage for
Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).

Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for a substantial majority of the pending
claims for Asbestos Liability. The claims against an inactive
subsidiary in dissolution of the Company, about 330 as of June 30,
2010, are not included within the Coverage Arrangement. The one
claim filed against the former division also is not included
within the Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
Buffalo, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies covering
Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical
products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former
subsidiary of the Company (Products).

The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization
on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than
the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access
the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a
Product.

In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products
will erode the coverage under the policies available to the
Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability
alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other
historical products of the Corporation and its subsidiaries
covered by the applicable policies.

Pittsburgh-based Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two
business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists of
Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and The
Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid
Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and
Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Howden's Lawsuit v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Continuing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howden Buffalo, Inc.'s asbestos-related insurance lawsuit against
its former parent, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, is ongoing in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed the suit against the Company, two
insurance companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that
are not relevant to the Company, and two other insurance companies
that issued excess insurance policies covering certain
subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies), but that are not
yet part of a Coverage Arrangement.

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks a declaratory judgment from the court
as to the respective rights and obligations of Howden, the Company
and the insurance carriers under the Excess Policies.

One of the excess carriers and the Company have filed cross-claims
against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective
rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that
carrier.

The Company's cross-claim also seeks damages for the carrier's
failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.

Pittsburgh-based Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation operates in two
business segments. The Forged and Cast Rolls segment consists of
Union Electric Steel Corporation (Union Electric Steel) and The
Davy Roll Company Limited (Davy Roll). The Air and Liquid
Processing segment includes Aerofin, Buffalo Air Handling and
Buffalo Pumps, all divisions of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Facing 868 Claims in W.Va. at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of claims alleging exposure
to asbestos, as of June 30, 2010, was 868 in West Virginia and
eight in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's total number of claims alleging exposure to asbestos
was 868 in West Virginia and five in Pennsylvania as of March 31,
2010. (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2010)

The Distribution Companies -- Monongahela Power Company, The
Potomac Edison Company, and West Penn Power Company -- have been
named as defendants, along with multiple other defendants, in
pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple sites.

These suits have been brought mostly by seasonal contractors'
employees and do not involve allegations of the manufacture, sale
or distribution of asbestos-containing products by the Company.
These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities.

The Company's historical operations were insured by various
foreign and domestic insurers, including Lloyd's of London.
Certain insurers have contested their obligations to pay for the
future defense and settlement costs relating to the asbestos
suits.

The Company is currently involved in two asbestos and/or
environmental insurance-related actions:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
   Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
   County, Md.) and

-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
   Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.).

The parties seek a declaration of coverage under the policies for
asbestos-related and environmental claims.

Greensburg, Pa.-based Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated
energy business. The Company owns and operates electric generation
facilities primarily in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland.
The Company manages its operations through two business segments:
Merchant Generation and Regulated Operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending Against Roper Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Industries, Inc., or its subsidiaries, faced some asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Over recent years there has been a significant increase in certain
U.S. states in asbestos-related litigation claims against numerous
industrial companies.

Sarasota, Fla.-based Roper Industries, Inc. is a diversified
growth company that designs, manufactures and distributes energy
systems and controls, scientific and industrial imaging products
and software, industrial technology products and radio frequency
(RF) products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Still Reserves $277,000 at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc., as of June 30, 2010, has a reserve of US$277,000
concerning a potential asbestos issue that is expected to be
abated over time, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At June 30, 2010, the Company had an environmental reserve in the
amount of US$1,608,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
facility in New Philadelphia, Ohio.

Three specific remediation projects that were identified prior to
the acquisition are in process of remediation with a remaining
reserve balance of US$143,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.

Seguin, Tex.-based Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures,
distributes and services high quality equipment for right-of-way
maintenance and agriculture.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potters Bar Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest held last Aug. 19, 2010 heard that the death of Sheila
Sawyer, a care home manager from Potters Bar, England, was linked
to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Times reports.

Hertfordshire coroner Edward Thomas told the court how Mrs.
Sawyer, who lived in Hatfield and worked as a seamstress in the
1950s, was based next door to the manufacturers where she was
exposed to the asbestos dust.

The 71-year-old Mrs. Sawyer, who went on to work at Wroxham House
in Wroxham Gardens, developed the terminal illness which left her
needing home help and hospital care during her last few days.

Mrs. Sawyer died on July 25, 2010 and Mr. Thomas recorded the
cause of death as mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sebelius, Baucus Criticized on Mont. Healthcare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several residents rebuked Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and
Sen. Max Baucus on Aug. 23, 2010 for a law that could help
potentially thousands of asbestos victims in Libby, Mont., The
Associated Press reports.

The health care reform law passed in 2009 expands Medicare
coverage for the sick residents of Libby, where years of asbestos
pollution from a vermiculite mine made this the nation's deadliest
Superfund site.

About 400 Libby residents have signed up for the new coverage as
of this week, Mrs. Sebelius said. However, many of those from
Libby who came to listen to the town hall meeting appeared to be
less concerned about how the new law helps those with asbestos
illnesses than with the legislation itself.

One woman asked Sen. Baucus where it says in the Constitution that
people should be required to purchase health care. Another,
retired nurse, Judy Mattot, demanded to know whether Mrs. Sebelius
and Sen. Baucus had read the entire bill.

Sen. Baucus played an instrumental role in the bill's passage said
the new law was not perfect but it is a good start in getting rid
of waste in the health care industry.

Asbestos pollution from the now-defunct W. R. Grace & Co.
vermiculite mine has killed more than 400 people from Libby.
Another 1,500 locals and others who were exposed have X-rays
revealing the asbestos scarring.

In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency declared a health
emergency in the town, nearly a decade after saying it would take
about two years and US$5.6 million to clean it up. Ten years
later, the cost is more than US$333 million, as asbestos keeps
showing up in schools, businesses and houses.

Some residents expressed gratitude for the new coverage, calling
it a major milestone in Libby's recovery. Gayla Benefield, one of
the original advocates who helped bring Libby into the national
spotlight, said this was one of the dreams that she's had.

The Medicare coverage, which includes screenings and treatment,
gives residents an alternative to W. R. Grace's health program and
exceeds the company's coverage, Ms. Benefield said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everett Facing Potential Action by Firefighters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters exposed to asbestos during training three years ago
are moving toward a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the City
of Everett, Wash., HeraldNet reports.

In July 2010, dozens of Everett firefighters and their spouses
filed claims with the City seeking a total of US$9 million. That
move is often the last step before bringing a lawsuit.

The firefighters were exposed to asbestos in July 2007 while
conducting training exercises in City-owned houses. The buildings
were known to contain asbestos.

Representing the firefighters, Jeff Keane, Esq., said that the
firefighters do not want a check. What they want is for the City
to pay for lifetime medical monitoring for potential asbestos-
related health problems. The firefighters also want the agreement
to be a formal, legal document, not just a promise.

"We were waiting for the city to do the right thing but it never
happened," said Paul Gagnon, president of the firefighters union.

The city already has offered lifetime medical monitoring to 27 of
the firefighters who are named in the claim. They were thought to
have had the greatest exposure to asbestos fibers during the
training exercise, city spokeswoman Kate Reardon said.

What the City has not done is make that same offer to another 22
firefighters who also trained in the houses.

In July 2007, Everett firefighters chopped holes in several old
homes the city owned on N. Broadway and Tower Street. They were
engaged in a training exercise. Unlike what happens at an actual
fire, the crews were not wearing their self-contained breathing
gear.

At least one fire official knew the houses contained asbestos
before the training, but the exercise went on anyway, apparently
because of miscommunication.

A state consultant with the Department of Labor and Industries
concluded in a December 2007 report that the asbestos exposure
problem was serious enough that firefighters who had "significant
exposures" should be checked by a doctor on a regular basis to
monitor their health.

Since then, the City has taken steps to prevent asbestos exposure,
including inspecting buildings for hazards before firefighters
tear them apart during training. Crews are required to wear
breathing protection during the drills and undergo decontamination
afterward. Firefighters also have been provided training on
avoiding asbestos and other airborne risks.

Mr. Gagnon said firefighters would like to reach an agreement with
the City without going to court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Robertson Suit v. Asbestos Workers Fund Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Robertson's lawsuit against the National Asbestos Workers
Pension Fund was filed on Aug. 6, 2010 in Cabell Circuit Court,
W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Robertson filed the suit alleging breach of contract after the
Fund continued to pay disability benefits to his wife for nearly
two years.

Mr. Robertson is a member of the Asbestos Workers Local 80, where
he has a disability pension plan, according to the complaint. In
September 2001, he filed a claim for and received disability
retirement benefits under his plan.

Mr. Robertson claims he subsequently returned to work and resumed
paying contributions to the disability pension plan.

Because Mr. Robertson had returned to his employment and resumed
paying contributions to the defendant, he "assumed that the
defendant was aware of his employment status and had unilaterally
stopped paying him disability retirement benefits," according to
the suit.

Mr. Robertson claims without his knowledge, his wife continued to
receive his disability retirement benefits until July 2003. He
claims he did not learn about this until his separation from her
in August 2003, which by that time, he was indebted to the fund in
the amount of US$11,615.

In 2004, Mr. Robertson became disabled again and filed another
application with the defendant for disability retirement benefits,
but, despite his having a legitimate disability under the terms of
the plan, the fund repeatedly denied his application, according to
the suit.

Mr. Robertson claims he is entitled to payment of disability at
the onset of a disability defined by the terms of the plan and
that because the fund repeatedly denied his application, it
breached its contract with him.

Mr. Robertson seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He is being
represented by Kenneth P. Hicks, Esq., and Roger L. Lambert, Esq.

Case No. 10-C-583 has been assigned to Circuit Judge David M.
Pancake.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $189,000 Awarded to Fund Ohio Cleanup Projects
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Department of Development awarded US$189,000 in stimulus
funding to two asbestos removal projects, in which US$48,000 was
awarded to the Fairborn Performing Arts and Cultural Center and
US$141,000 was awarded to the Ohio State University, the Dayton
Business Journal reports.

The Fairborn Performing Arts and Cultural Center's share is for
remediation and rehabilitation efforts to remove asbestos in the
historic Fairborn Theater.

The Fairborn Theatre, which opened in 1947 and is located next to
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, is undergoing a US$5.5 million
renovation.

The Ohio State University received US$141,000 for asbestos removal
in Hayes Hall. The hall, built in 1892, was formerly occupied by
the Department of History of Art. It is undergoing a US$1.2
million renovation project to accommodate lab, classroom and
office space.

The state of Ohio received US$1.8 million from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for brownfield revitalization efforts.

The Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund, administered by the Ohio
Department of Development's Urban Development Division, offers
below market rate loans and sub-grants to assist with the
remediation of a brownfield property to return it to a productive
economic use in the community.

The funding from these grants will be used to employ certified
contractors and environmental specialists to safely abate the
asbestos hazard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 50,000 Claims Ongoing v. Crown Cork at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., during the six months ended June 30, 2010, faced about
50,000 outstanding asbestos claims.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, Crown Cork received
about 1,100 new claims and settled or dismissed about 500 claims
for a total of US$4 million.

The outstanding claims at June 30, 2010 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos. The outstanding
claims at June 30, 2010 also exclude about 19,000 inactive claims.

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.

About 90 days after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its
insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

During 2010, the states of Nebraska and South Dakota enacted
legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under state
law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these
liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger to
companies that had been involved with asbestos.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases Ongoing Against Crown Cork in Tex. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in Texas
courts.

In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies like
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.

The Texas legislation, which applies to future claims and pending
claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at the total gross value
of the predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims
than the total adjusted value of its predecessor's assets.

In May 2006, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld a grant
of summary judgment to Crown Cork and upheld the state
constitutionality of the statute (Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Tex.). The Appeals Court decision has been appealed by
the plaintiff to the Texas Supreme Court.

A favorable ruling for summary judgment in an asbestos case
pending against Crown Cork in the district court of Travis County,
Tex. (in Re Rosemarie Satterfield as Representative of the Estate
of Jerrold Braley Deceased v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No.
03-04-00518-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin)
has been reversed on appeal on state constitutional grounds due to
retroactive application of the statute.

Although the Company believes that the Texas legislation is
constitutional, there can be no assurance that the legislation
will be upheld by the Texas Supreme Court on appeal. An adverse
ruling by the Texas Supreme Court could have a material impact on
the Company.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims Ongoing Against Crown Cork in Pa. Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., is still involved in asbestos-related lawsuits in
Pennsylvania courts.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.

Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims
than the acquired company's adjusted asset value. In November
2004, the legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania
Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No.
117 EM 2002), which held that the statute violated the
Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive application.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, due
to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas' dismissal of three cases against Crown Cork raising
federal and state constitutional challenges to the amended statute
(Stea v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., et. al, No. 2956 EDA 2006). The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of this
decision.

The Company cautions that the limitations of the statute, as
amended, are subject to litigation and may not be upheld. Adverse
rulings in cases challenging the constitutionality of the
Pennsylvania statute could have a material impact on the Company.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Has $222MM for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2010, Crown Holdings, Inc.'s accrual for pending
and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was
US$222 million, including US$169 million for unasserted claims and
US$1 million for committed settlements that will be paid over
time.

The Company's accrual includes estimates for probable costs for
claims through the year 2019. Potential estimated additional
claims costs of US$38 million beyond 2019 have not been included
in the Company's accrual.

Company unit Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. has entered into
arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions
where claims are not yet filed, or asserted, against the Company.
However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be
filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future.

The projected value of these claims is included in the Company's
estimated liability as of June 30, 2010.

Philadelphia-based Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells packaging products for consumer goods. The Company's primary
products include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage,
household, and other consumer products and metal vacuum closures
and caps.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Has $2.98B Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos liability for
unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$2.977 billion
during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$3.242
billion during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

The Company's gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense was US$3.409 billion during the three
months ended March 31, 2010, compared with US$3.330 billion during
the three months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May
28, 2010)

The Company's net asbestos liability for unpaid claims and claims
adjustment expense was US$1.075 billion during the six months
ended June 30, 2010, compared with US$1.152 billion during the six
months ended June 30, 2009.

The Company's estimate of the gross IBNR included in the liability
for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense, relating to
asbestos, was US$1.825 billion during the six months ended June
30, 2010, compared with US$2.151 billion during the six months
ended June 30, 2009.

The Company's estimate of the net IBNR included in the liability
for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense, relating to
asbestos, was US$781 million during the six months ended June 30,
2010, compared with US$894 million during the six months ended
June 30, 2009.

New York-based American International Group, Inc. provides
insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to commercial,
institutional, and individual customers in the United States.
Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and
retirement services, asset management, and financial services
(including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in more than 120
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records 4,996 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. recorded 4,996 asbestos claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared with 5,485
during the six months ended June 30, 2009.

The Company recorded 5,208 asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2010, compared with 5,701 claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2010)

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
222 claims opened, 109 claims settled and 534 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded
380 claims filed, 161 claims settled, and 514 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

New York-based American International Group, Inc. provides
insurance property/casualty and specialty insurance to commercial,
institutional, and individual customers in the United States.
Overseas, the Company provides reinsurance, life insurance and
retirement services, asset management, and financial services
(including financing commercial aircraft leasing) in more than 120
countries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 32,727 Cases Ongoing v. General Cable at July 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of July 2, 2010, was a defendant in
32,727 asbestos cases, of which 578 were non-maritime cases and
32,149 were maritime cases, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As of April 2, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 33,691
asbestos-related cases, of which 1,091 were non-maritime cases and
32,600 were maritime cases. (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2010)

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.9 million as
of July 2, 2010 and US$5.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, and had
recovered about US$500,000 of insurance recoveries for these
lawsuits.

Highland Heights, Ky.-based General Cable Corporation develops,
designs, manufactures, installs, markets and distributes copper,
aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products. The Company's
operations are divided into three reportable segments: North
America, Europe and North Africa and Rest of World.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Review Denied in Harvey's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, denied the Louisiana
Insurance Guaranty Association's petition for review in an
asbestos case involving Robert Harvey.

The case is styled Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association; Baton
Rouge Marine Contractors Inc., Petitioners v. Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor; National
Ben Franklin Insurance Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Fidelity
and Casualty Company of New York; Robert Harvey, Respondents.

Judges Davis, Smith, and Haynes entered judgment in Case No. 09-
60509 on Aug. 10, 2010.

This case arose from Mr. Harvey's claim before an administrative
law judge (ALJ) for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor
Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA).

Mr. Harvey worked as a longshoreman at the Port of Greater Baton
Rouge from 1965 to 1977.  His primary employer during that time
was Baton Rouge Marine Contractors (BRMC). During the 1960s, his
job was to unload bags of asbestos from the holds of ships docked
in the port. In 1970, he began working as a crane operator.

In 1977, Mr. Harvey began working for the State of Louisiana. His
new employment first led him to transfer to the Baton Rouge Barge
Terminal and then to the Slack Water Canal. Though he eventually
returned to the main port facility, he never again worked with
asbestos. He worked for the State from 1977 until his retirement
in 2005.

Mr. Harvey was first diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis in 1998
by Dr. Glenn Gomes. In 2002, he sought treatment from Dr. Mark
Hodges.

BRMC was covered by four different insurance companies for various
periods during Mr. Harvey's employment from 1965 to 1977. Relevant
here is that Employers' National Insurance Company provided
coverage from Oct. 1, 1972 until Nov. 1, 1982. It was declared
insolvent and placed into receivership in 1994. Consequently, LIGA
appeared in place of Employers' National in the proceedings.

The ALJ conducted a formal hearing, including the taking of live
testimony from Mr. Harvey, on May 10, 2007. In a Decision and
Order dated April 30, 2008, the ALJ awarded Longshore Act
compensation for the injuries flowing from Mr. Harvey's
asbestosis. The ALJ also awarded Mr. Harvey all reasonable and
necessary medical care for services related to his asbestosis,
including reimbursement for any past abestosis-related medical
expenses.

The parties cross-appealed the ALJ's April 30, 2008 Decision and
Order and the BRB affirmed on May 11, 2009. LIGA timely filed the
instant petition for review on July 8, 2009.

The petition for review of the decision of the BRB was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Court Upholds Dismissal of Claremont Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the decision
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
which upheld the district court's decision affirming the
bankruptcy court's order of dismissal of a case involving
Claremont McKenna College and five other colleges.

The case, which is part of The Celotex Corporation, The Asbestos
Settlement Trust, Debtors, is styled Claremont McKenna College, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Asbestos Settlement Trust, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Richard W. Goldberg, Edmondson, and Carnes entered judgment
in Case No. 09-12000 D.C. Docket Nos. 08-02343-CV-T-24-EAJ, 90-BK-
10016-PMG on Aug. 11, 2010.

The Appellants are six colleges who brought asbestos-related
property damage claims against the Asbestos Settlement Trust.  The
Trust originally disputed the Colleges' request for payment on
certain claims and commenced adversary proceedings in bankruptcy
court.

Eventually, the Trust made payments to the Colleges and moved to
dismiss the proceedings. The Colleges opposed dismissal. The
bankruptcy court rejected the Colleges' argument and granted the
Trust's motion for dismissal. The district court affirmed the
bankruptcy court's order of dismissal.

These colleges are Claremont McKenna College, Michigan State
University, Prince George's Community College, Rochester Institute
of Technology, the University of Cincinnati, and Fairfield
University.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling in Marcel v. Continental
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the
ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted
the dismissal of the asbestos claims filed by the heirs of Henry
Joseph Marcel.

The case is styled David B. Marcel, Todd J. Marcel, Henry John
Marcel, Kent Marcel, Mark H. Marcel, Susan M. Riedlinger,
Individually and as Proper Parties-In-Interest for Henry Joseph
Marcel v. Delta Shipbuilding Company, The Executive Officers of
Delta Shipbuilding Company, The Fidelity and Casualty Company of
New York n/k/a Continental Insurance Company, as Insurer of Delta
Shipbuilding Company and its Executive Officers, Viacom, Inc.,
Garlock, Inc., et al.

Judges Patricia Rivet Murray, Michael E. Kirby and Terri F. Love
entered judgment in Case No. 2010-CA-0168 on Aug. 4, 2010.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the deceased Mr. Marcel, appealed the
trial court's dismissal of their claims based upon its granting of
an exception of no right of action brought Continental Insurance
Company.

Plaintiffs instituted this direct action against Continental as
the former insurer of Delta Shipbuilding Company, a corporation
which was dissolved in 1946. Plaintiffs, who are the children of
Henry Marcel, alleged that Mr. Marcel died on Jan. 1, 2008 as a
result of malignant mesothelioma contracted due to his exposure to
asbestos fibers while working for Delta from 1942 to 1943, during
which time Delta was insured by Continental.

In response to plaintiffs' petition, Continental filed an
exception of no right of action. Following a hearing, the trial
court, on July 24, 2009, denied the exception with respect to
plaintiffs' survival action but deferred ruling on the exception
as it related to plaintiffs' wrongful death claim, ordering the
parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue.

Subsequently, the parties entered into a written judgment whereby
plaintiffs consented to the granting of Continental's exception of
no right of action with regard to their wrongful death action and
to the dismissal of that claim.

However, Continental filed a motion for new trial from the trial
court's denial of the exception as to the survival action.
Following a hearing on Sept. 11, 2009, the trial court on Sept.
28, 2009 rendered judgment granting Continental's motion for new
trial, granting the exception as to the survival action, and
dismissing with prejudice all remaining claims against
Continental.

The trial court also certified its judgment as final. The
plaintiffs now appealed that judgment.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court found that the trial court erred by
granting Continental's exception of no right of action and
dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The Appeals Court reversed the
judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter to that court
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Scott R. Bickford, Esq., Roshawn H. Donahue, Esq., Spencer R.
Doody, Esq., of Martzell & Bickford in New Orleans, La.,
represented the Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Gary Zwain, Esq., Ben S. Dipalma, Esq., of Duplass, Zwain,
Bourgeois, Pfister & Weinstock, in Metairie, La., represented
Continental Insurance Company by Merger to Fidelity & Casualty
Company of New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Croxley Green Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 24, 2010 inquest heard that the death of Uwe Delfs, a
Perspex worker from Croxley Green, England, was related to
exposure to asbestos in a hospital, the Watford Observer reports.

Mr. Delfs died on May 5, 2010. He had malignant pleuro-pulmonary
mesothelioma.

Before he died, the 70-year-old Mr. Delfs said he was exposed to
dust from asbestos in the 1970s, as it was being sawed into shape
to line hospital incinerators.

Coroner Edward Thomas said both Professor Michael Sheaff and Dr.
Robin Rudd, consultant physician, confirmed it was connected to
Mr. Delfs' exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Baddow Farmer's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Chelmsford ruled that the death of John Durgan, a
67-year-old tenant farmer from Great Baddow, Essex, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Chelmsford Weekly
News reports.

Mr. Durgan died of mesothelioma on June 9, 2010 at Broomfield
Hospital.

Stephen Parfrey of the Coroner's officer, told the hearing that
Mr. Durgan's sister said he had contracted the disease in the
1960s, when he was working for a company unloading asbestos.

Mr. Durgan was told in 2008 he had the industrial disease and had
been awarded compensation under the Government scheme. In May
2010, he went to Broomfield Hospital suffering from shortness of
breath.

Assistant deputy coroner for Essex and Thurrock Eleanor McGann
recorded a verdict that Mr. Durgan died from an industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Darlington Man's Kin Seeks Help in Payout Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE family of Richard Todd, a 77-year-old worker from Darlington,
County Durham, England, called on his former colleagues to help a
bid for justice, The Northern Echo reports.

Mr. Todd died shortly before Christmas 2009 of asbestosis. He
worked for British Rail throughout the North-East as a wagon and
horsebox builder and joiner from 1947 until about 1963. He then
worked at Darlington Power Station until 1976, when it closed.

It is believed that Mr. Todd's asbestos exposure could have taken
place at either of these workplaces and his family's lawyer,
Isobel Lovett, from Irwin Mitchell, is hoping people who worked
with him can confirm dates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Oversees Ambler Superfund Site Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is overseeing stream bank
maintenance work along the Wissahickon Creek at the former Ambler
Asbestos Superfund Site in Pennsylvania, according to an EPA press
release dated Aug. 24, 2010.

The maintenance work is needed to help control erosion around a
concrete structure called a revetment that is designed to reduce
erosion by absorbing the impact of water flowing in the creek. The
work is being done by a private contractor and is expected to be
completed in about three weeks.

The Ambler Asbestos site was successfully cleaned up in August
1993 and deleted from the EPA's National Priorities List in 1996.
As part of the ongoing maintenance program for the site, EPA
evaluates the effectiveness of the cleanup and the need for
routine maintenance and repair.

EPA's most recent evaluation determined that the cleanup continues
to be protective of public health and the environment and that the
concrete revetment is in excellent condition.

The ongoing stream stabilization work will use a technology called
riprap that reinforces stream banks with large angular stone
(riprap). The riprap work has been planned since 2007.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roosevelt Elementary in Ohio Set for Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Middletown Journal says the Middletown School District in
Middletown, Ohio, has taken a step toward the demolition of
Roosevelt Elementary School, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The elementary school has stood vacant for two years.  It will
cost the district US$402,800 to rid the building of asbestos, and
then demolish it.  Middletown's Phase 1 Building Project allotted
for US$750,000.

Debbie Alberico, Middletown City School community relations
specialist, said, "When we campaigned for the bond issue in 2003,
one of the promises the board made to the community was that they
would not leave any empty buildings standing. The building is the
building. What makes a building is the people in it."

The Board of Education approved a US$64,800 bid from Central
Insulation Systems to remove asbestos from the inside of the
building. The asbestos abatement process will take six weeks.

The demolition is slated to begin in the end of September 2010,
and conclude by Dec. 3, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Westover Elementary to Cost $30,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
The removal of asbestos at the former Westover Elementary School
in Westover, Md., costs about US$30,000, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The asbestos was found within pre-engineered wall panels of the
school. The wall panels were located in a section of the building
that was added on in the 1970s.

Workers discovered asbestos while cutting into the wall to install
a window, reports Delmarva Media Group. Samples were sent to be
tested, and found to be 25 percent asbestos.

Although the walls must be removed and replaced, the asbestos is
encapsulated, making the removal a much simpler process. Once the
asbestos is removed, renovations will resume.

Eighteen thousand square feet of the building will be used by the
Somerset County Health Department for its addictions program.

The school was turned over to the County Commissioners when the
new Somerset Intermediate School opened in 2008.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sterling Awarded $1MM for Northwestern Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Sterling, Ill., was awarded a US$1 million Brownfield
loan to help clean up and remove asbestos from the former
Northwestern Steel and Wire Plant, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Quad-City Business Journal reports that the cleanup process
will prepare the plant for future redevelopment. The abandoned 21-
acre plant, located at 121 W. Wallace Street, is situated on
riverfront property.

Sterling Mayor Amy Viering said, "This riverfront property was the
lifeblood for Sterling for many, many years. It employed thousands
of people. It's real important to allow the community to reclaim
it and to see what they want there."

The loan will be used to mitigate asbestos contamination at the
Plant 1 site. Once the asbestos is removed, the former steel mill
will be prepped for redevelopment.

The loan to clean up the site comes from the Illinois Brownfields
Revolving Loan


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 100 Steam Main Rupture Actions Ongoing v. ConEd
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 lawsuits are still pending against Consolidated Edison,
Inc. concerning its subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New
York's (CECONY) steam main rupture in midtown Manhattan in July
2007.

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured. It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident.

Several buildings in the area were damaged. Debris from the
incident included dirt and mud containing asbestos. The response
to the incident required the closing of several buildings and
streets for various periods.

The suits seek generally unspecified compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and
business interruption. The Company has not accrued a liability for
the suits.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York
City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd, Units Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. and its subsidiaries -- Consolidated
Edison of New York, Inc. [CECONY] and Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc. -- continue to be defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits in New York State and federal courts.

Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts
against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large
number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and
punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that
were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions
of dollars.

In 2008, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is US$9 million.

At June 30, 2010, the Company's accrued liability for asbestos
suits was US$10 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits
were US$10 million, its accrued liability for workers'
compensation was US$110 million, and its regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$36 million.

At June 30, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability for asbestos suits
was US$9 million, its regulatory assets for asbestos suits were
US$9 million, its accrued liability for workers' compensation was
US$105 million, and its regulatory assets for workers'
compensation were US$37 million.

New York-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, distributes electricity
to 3.3 million residential and business customers in New York
City; it also delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Still Has $11.3M A&E Reserve at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ending loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for all direct
business written by The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s property
and casualty companies related to asbestos and environmental
damage liability, included in the reserve for losses and LAE, were
US$11.3 million at June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, net of
reinsurance of US$19.9 million at June 30, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves for
assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental
damage liability of US$36.8 million at June 30, 2010 and US$45.6
million at Dec. 31, 2009.

These reserves relate to pools in which the Company has terminated
its participation. However, the Company continues to be subject to
claims related to years in which it was a participant.

The US$8.8 million decrease in these reserves during the first six
months of 2010 was primarily due to a large claim settlement
within these pools. A significant part of the Company's pool
reserves relates to its participation in the Excess and Casualty
Reinsurance Association (ECRA) voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982.

In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business
has been in runoff. The Company's percentage of the total pool
liabilities varied from one percent to six percent during these
years.

The Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of about US$2 million annually over the past 10 years.

Worcester, Mass.-based The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
underwrites personal and commercial property and casualty
insurance coverage.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Party to 180 Md. Actions at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Potomac Electric Power Company,
as of June 30, 2010, faced about 180 asbestos-related cases in the
State Courts of Maryland, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 6, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and
Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."

Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases
on a theory of premises liability. Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe
work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly
were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property.
Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco
to their complaints.

While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each
plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4
million in punitive damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed. As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, Pepco has had about 400 of these cases successfully
dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or
by the court.

Of the pending cases as of June 30, 2010, about 90 cases were
filed after Dec. 19, 2000, and were tendered to Mirant Corporation
for defense and indemnification under the terms of the Asset
Purchase and Sale Agreement between Pepco and Mirant under which
Pepco sold its generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

The aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the remaining
suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360
million.

Washington, D.C.-based Pepco Holdings, Inc. is a holding company
that is engaged primarily in the distribution, transmission and
default supply of electricity and the delivery and supply of
natural gas. Subsidiaries include Potomac Electric Power Company
(Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light Company (DPL), and Atlantic City
Electric Company (ACE).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Cites $2.8MM June 30 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of June 30, 2010, has
recorded a liability of US$2.8 million related to potential future
asbestos abatement activities at its Properties, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2010 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Chattanooga, Tenn.-based CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a
self-managed, self-administered, fully integrated real estate
investment trust that is engaged in the ownership, development,
acquisition, leasing, management and operation of regional
shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and office
properties. The Company's shopping centers are located in 27
states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quincy Group's Case Filed Aug. 13 in Ill. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 13, 2010, Jaime Chier, Mark Uzzetta, John Schilly and
Myrna Bomkamp filed an asbestos lawsuit in Madison County Circuit
Court, Ill., against Alter Trading Corp., Environmental
Consultants, Midwest Asbestos Abatement Corporation (d/b/a Midwest
Service Group), Envirotech and Talbert Industrial Commercial
Services, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

The plaintiffs claim they worked for Premier Demolition and began
dismantling a structure at 901 South Front St. in Quincy, Ill., on
Aug. 13, 2008. Before the plaintiffs' work began, the defendants
inspected the premises and promised it had been cleared of
asbestos-containing materials, according to the complaint.

The suit added that if asbestos remains on the premises when
demolition begins, it can cause workers to become exposed to
significant amounts of the fibers.

The plaintiffs claim they now fear asbestos-related diseases
because they became exposed to asbestos fibers when they
demolished the Quincy building.

In their 10-count complaint, the plaintiffs allege negligence,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, breach of implied warranty, battery, strict
liability, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy and negligent
misrepresentation against the defendants.

The plaintiffs seek a judgment of more than US$400,000, plus other
relief the court deems just. In addition, they seek compensatory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages for mental and
emotional distress, costs and other relief the court deems just.
They also would like to see a reimbursement of medical monitoring
tests they incurred and will incur.

Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Lauren E. Boaz, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will be representing them in
Case No. 10-L-849.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Chicago City Worker Charged for Bribery
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 24, 2010, Michael Cease, a 40-year-old former senior
inspector with the City of Chicago Department of Environment, was
sentenced to one year and one day in prison, according to an
Office of the Inspector General press release dated Aug. 25, 2010.

Mr. Cease pleaded guilty to federal program bribery on May 17,
2010.

Following a tip provided by a concerned citizen in September 2009,
the City of Chicago Inspector General's Office and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation partnered in an investigation that
revealed Mr. Cease had taken a bribe to overlook the presence of
asbestos in a building he had inspected.

Mr. Cease solicited a US$600 bribe in exchange for providing false
documentation to the building's owner indicating that an asbestos
abatement firm had appropriately disposed of the asbestos. He then
demanded additional money from the building's owner, which Mr.
Cease said was for his boss. This was untrue; Mr. Cease had always
intended to keep the money for himself. He was then arrested after
a cooperating witness gave Mr. Cease the additional US$550 bribe
while the FBI and IGO secured audio and video surveillance.

The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brandon
Fox and Carol Bell before Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S.
District Court for Northern Illinois.

Mr. Cease's sentence included two years of supervised release to
follow his time in prison. He is due to report on Oct. 15, 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cass Co. Courthouse Cleanup to Cost Over $100T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cass County, N.D., county engineer Keith Berndt says the removal
of asbestos from a crawl space beneath the old courthouse is
expected to cost more than US$100,000, Inforum reports.

On Aug. 24, 2010, Cass County commissioners unanimously gave the
go-ahead to seek bids to remove asbestos from the crawl space
beneath the old courthouse.

The asbestos, which wraps old steam pipes, must be removed before
tests can be performed on ground beneath the building

By declaring the work an emergency, bids can be in hand more
quickly, so the project can be expedited, he said. The asbestos is
in a contained area, and does not pose a health risk to county
employees or the public, officials said.

When the asbestos is safely removed, seismic tests can be
performed to determine if areas need to be filled to prevent
deterioration of timber pilings that support the building.

Two such spots were already found, but Mr. Berndt said it would be
good to test to see if there are other areas that cannot be
detected visually.  A concrete slurry can be pumped in to fill any
voids.

Altogether, including asbestos removal and testing, the project
should cost "in the US$300,000 area," County Administrator Bonnie
Johnson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La Crosse Masonic Temple Slated for Demolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 133-year-old Masonic Temple in La Crosse, Wis., is scheduled
for demolition, Mesothelioma.com reports.

During the first day of pre-demolition, four 30-yard-long bins
were filled with wet trash. The trash was kept wet in order to
keep any asbestos material from becoming airborne.

Debris will be cleared from the building over the next two weeks.
The removal of asbestos was scheduled for Aug. 23, 2010. The
asbestos must first be removed, before any real razing can begin.

Crews will begin razing the building in about three weeks, reports
La Crosse Tribune. The East end of the temple will be reduced to
an empty lot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Upholds $7.5M Award in Anderson Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 20, 2010, a New Jersey appellate court upheld a US$7.5
million jury award in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Bonnie
Anderson, Business Insurance reports.

The appellate court says a woman's "bystander exposure" to
asbestos from washing her husband's work clothes for more than
three decades substantially contributed to her mesothelioma.

The ruling in Bonnie Anderson vs. A.J. Friedman Supply Co. Inc.
upheld a jury award of US$7 million for Mrs. Anderson and
US$500,000 for her husband, plus prejudgment interest.

The Anderson couple brought product liability litigation naming
several defendants that manufactured and supplied asbestos, but
they went to trial only against Exxon Mobil Corp. after claims
against the manufacturers were dismissed.

The plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Anderson contracted mesothelioma
from one or two sources of asbestos exposures: her own 12-year
employment working at an Exxon refinery and from laundering her
husband's asbestos-laden work clothes during his employment with
Exxon from 1969 to 2003, according to court records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carson City Awarded $400T in Brownfield Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brownfield grants totaling US$400,000 from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency were awarded to Carson City, Nev., to assess
contaminants including asbestos in the city's redevelopment
districts, the Mesothelioma Resource Center reports.

According to the Nevada Appeal newspaper, the funding from the EPA
will assess the presence of petroleum, lead-based paint, asbestos
and other contaminants for as many as 15 commercial properties.
Soil and groundwater samples will be taken from the most toxic
sites.

The assessments will determine what steps are needed to remediate
the contaminants before the properties can be redeveloped for new
uses.

Marvin Tebeau, a principal in charge of environmental issues with
Resource Concepts, told the newspaper that the properties involved
have been contaminated by various commercial uses including gas
stations, paint shops and dry cleaners.

Resource Concepts and Geocon Consultants, two environmental
services firms in Carson City, have been retained as consultants
to the City on the redevelopment of the Brownfield sites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Unit Awarded $262M in Insurance Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., a subsidiary of Travelers
Cos., was awarded US$262.3 million plus interest against a group
of insurance companies including a unit of Munich Re AG, in a
reinsurance dispute tied to asbestos-injury claims from the 1970s,
Bloomberg reports.

Justice Richard Lowe of the New York state Supreme Court awarded
the judgment against the insurers in an Aug. 20, 2010 decision.

Fidelity & Guaranty sued American Re-Insurance Co., part of Munich
Re, and members of an insurance association over reinsurance
contracts. Fidelity & Guaranty had reached a settlement in 2002 to
pay asbestos-injury claims filed against Western MacArthur Co. and
was seeking to recover its losses, according to Judge Lowe's
decision.

The Munich Re unit was ordered to pay the most among the
defendants, US$202.5 million plus interest.

On Aug. 25, 2010, Terese Rosenthal, a spokeswoman for Munich Re,
said, "We are currently evaluating the ruling to assess all of the
issues, which will form the substance of an appeal."

The case is United Sates Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-
insurance Co., 604517-2002, State Supreme Court of New York
(Manhattan).

                           *********

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  * * *