CAR_Public/100903.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 174

                             Headlines

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dismissed From "Weber" Suit in New York
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss "Leiszler" Complaint Pending
AMERICREDIT CORP: Defends Suit Over Planned GM Holdings Merger
ARBITRON INC: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending

BEAZER HOMES: Hearing on $5.5 Million Settlement Set for Nov. 15
CANADA: Class Suit Over Insulation With Urea Formaldehyde Pending
CHARLIE CRIST: Judge Denies Request to Freeze Campaign Funds
CITICORP INC: Accused of Aiding Viola's Investment Fraud Scheme
COCA-COLA: Sued for Terminating Employees' Health Benefits

DICK'S SPORTING: State Law, ERISA and RICO Claims Dismissed
LIBERTYVILLE: Suit Complains About "No-Refusal Weekends"
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Lobbyists File Briefs With Supreme Court
MICHAELS STORES: Aaron Brothers Settles "Acevedo" Suit in Calif.
MICHAELS STORES: Appellate Court Dismisses Carson's Suit

MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Tijero" Suit in California
MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Rattray" Suit Over Gift Cards
NORTH SHORE: PEC in Discussions to Settle "Alport" Suit
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval
PENWEST PHARMA: Being Sold to Endo for Too Little, Suit Claims

PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Insurance Suit Expanded to Add Fraud Claims
RACKABLE SYSTEMS: SGI Discloses Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Discrimination Suit in New York
SIGNET JEWELERS: Sterling Jewelers Defends Suit by EEOC

TECUMSEH: Settles Class Action for $7 Million; Awaits Court Okay
TERRA MARKETING: Accused in California Suit of Fraud
THANE INTERNATIONAL: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
USA: Disabled Workers to Proceed With Lawsuit vs. Social Security
UNITED STATES: PPACA Unconstitutional, Suit Claims

VISTAPRINT NV: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Ruling
WAUKESHA ENGINE: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit for $1.1MM


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Glasser, Burghoff Charged for Federal Bank Fraud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Great Lakes, Ex-Unit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Reserves $109MM for A&E Matters at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Unit Still Subject to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire & Cable Faces Actions in 3 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Still Involved in AO Respirator Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 71 Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Records $35MM ARO at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Facing 86 Injury Actions at July 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Party to Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SSCGP Has $2.9MM ARO Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Cites $800,000 for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nine Cases Filed During Aug. 2-6 in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Cases Filed During Aug. 9-13 in Madison Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old GM Files Debt-Repayment Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brinkman Case Filed Aug. 23 in Jefferson County

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rudolph F. X. Migliore Settles 55 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 18 People File Suit v. 147 Firms in W.Va. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants' Committee Opposing Garlock's Process
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Facing Bailout After Losing Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NMED Charges Santa Fe Firm for Safety Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dublin Factory Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Mine Gets C$3.5MM From Quebec Gov't.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Completes A&E Liabilities Transfer to NICO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Expended $2.7MM in 2Q on Lobbying
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Denies Remand Motion in Olschewske


                             *********

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint is
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, according to the company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In August 2009, Plaintiff Charles Wozniak filed a lawsuit against
the company and its Chief Executive Officer and President, Thomas
M. Prescott, on behalf of a claimed class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Align
between Jan. 30, 2007 and Oct. 24, 2007.

The complaint alleges that Align and Mr. Prescott violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that Mr. Prescott
violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period
the company failed to disclose that it had shifted the focus of
its sales force to clearing backlog, causing a significant
decrease in the number of new case starts.

On Nov. 13, 2009, the Court appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2010.

The amended complaint alleges that the company and Mr. Prescott
issued a number of purportedly false and misleading statements
throughout the class period concerning the Patients First program,
the company's production capacity, a purported backlog, and the
focus of the company's sales force.

On March 26, 2010, the company and Mr. Prescott filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.  The motion was heard by the Court
on July 9, 2010, and the Court has not yet released a ruling on
the motion.

Align Technology, Inc. -- http://www.aligntech.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and markets the Invisalign system, a method for
treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth.  Invisalign
corrects malocclusion using a series of clear, nearly invisible,
removable appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final
position.  The Invisalign system is regulated by the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class II medical device.
The company distributes majority of its products directly to
customers, the orthodontist, and the general practitioner (GP)
dentist.  The Invisalign system is sold in North America, Europe,
Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Japan.  In addition, it serves
smaller country markets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Its
major products include Invisalign Full, Invisalign Express,
Invisalign Teen, Invisalign Assist and Retention.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dismissed From "Weber" Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York has
dismissed Align Technology, Inc., from the consumer class action
lawsuit filed by Debra A. Weber, according to the company's
Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The suit was filed by Weber on May 18, 2007, against the company,
OrthoClear, Inc. and OrthoClear Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a OrthoClear,
Inc.).

The complaint alleges two causes of action against the OrthoClear
defendants and one cause of action against the company for breach
of contract.  The cause of action against the company titled
"Breach of Third Party Benefit Contract" references the company's
agreement to make Invisalign treatment available to OrthoClear
patients, alleging that the company failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the class members".

On June 2, 2010, the Court granted the company's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the company from the action.

On June 29, 2010, Weber requested that the Court enter final
judgment as to Align pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) in order to certify Align's dismissal for immediate appeal.

The company filed an opposition to Weber's request on July 19,
2010, on the grounds that Weber failed to show that exceptional
circumstances warranted the entry of a final judgment where fewer
than all claims or parties had been dismissed.  The company awaits
the Court's ruling on Weber's motion.

Align Technology, Inc. -- http://www.aligntech.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and markets the Invisalign system, a method for
treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth.  Invisalign
corrects malocclusion using a series of clear, nearly invisible,
removable appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final
position.  The Invisalign system is regulated by the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class II medical device.
The company distributes majority of its products directly to
customers, the orthodontist, and the general practitioner (GP)
dentist.  The Invisalign system is sold in North America, Europe,
Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Japan.  In addition, it serves
smaller country markets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Its
major products include Invisalign Full, Invisalign Express,
Invisalign Teen, Invisalign Assist and Retention.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss "Leiszler" Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by
Christopher J. Leiszler is pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The complaint was filed by Dr. Leiszler on May 10, 2010.

The complaint alleges that the company implemented unfair and
fraudulent requirements for the prescription of Invisalign through
the Invisalign Proficiency Requirements.

Dr. Leiszler, a general practice dentist in Kansas City, Missouri,
attended Invisalign training in 2008 and had started one
Invisalign case since that time.  His Invisalign provider status
was changed in January 2010 for failing to meet the Proficiency
Requirements.

Dr. Leiszler purports to sue on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated.  The complaint seeks a refund of the price
paid to the company for Invisalign training.

On July 7, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss.  We intend
to vigorously defend ourselves against the litigation.  We believe
there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that a reasonable
possibility exists that a loss had been incurred as of June 30,
2010.

Align Technology, Inc. -- http://www.aligntech.com/-- designs,
manufactures, and markets the Invisalign system, a method for
treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth.  Invisalign
corrects malocclusion using a series of clear, nearly invisible,
removable appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final
position.  The Invisalign system is regulated by the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Class II medical device.
The company distributes majority of its products directly to
customers, the orthodontist, and the general practitioner (GP)
dentist.  The Invisalign system is sold in North America, Europe,
Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Japan.  In addition, it serves
smaller country markets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Its
major products include Invisalign Full, Invisalign Express,
Invisalign Teen, Invisalign Assist and Retention.


AMERICREDIT CORP: Defends Suit Over Planned GM Holdings Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriCredit Corp. is defending against a suit in connection with
its planned merger with General Motors Holdings LLC, according to
the company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2010.

On July 21, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with General Motors Holdings LLC, a wholly owned
subsidiary of General Motors Company, and Goalie Texas Holdco
Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of GM Holdings.

On July 28, 2010, an action styled Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AmeriCredit Corp., Clifton H. Morris, Jr.,
Daniel E. Berce, Bruce R. Berkowitz, John R. Clay, Ian M. Cumming,
A.R. Dike, James H. Greer, Douglas K. Higgins, Kenneth H. Jones,
Jr., Justin R. Wheeler and General Motors Company, Defendants, was
filed in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No.
236 246960 10.

In the Labourers' Pension Fund Case, the plaintiff seeks class
action status and alleges that members of the company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and
approving the proposed transaction between us and GM Holdings.
Among other relief, the complaint seeks to enjoin both the
transaction from closing as well as a shareholder vote on the
pending transaction and seeks the recovery of damages on behalf of
shareholders and the recovery of attorney fees and expenses.  The
court has not yet determined whether the case may be maintained as
a class action.

AmeriCredit Corp. -- http://www.americredit.com/-- is a leading
independent automobile finance company that provides financing
solutions indirectly through auto dealers across the United
States.  AmeriCredit has about 800,000 customers and approximately
$9 billion in auto receivables.  The company was founded in 1992
and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


ARBITRON INC: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended class action
complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of Arbitron
common stock between July 19, 2007, and Nov. 26, 2007.

The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris -- the
company's former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
-- and Sean R. Creamer -- the company's Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer -- violated federal securities laws.
The plaintiff alleges misrepresentations and omissions relating,
among other things, to the delay in commercialization of the
company's PPM ratings service in November 2007, as well as stock
sales during the period by company insiders who were not named as
defendants and Messrs. Morris and Creamer.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees, among other remedies.

On Sept. 22, 2008 the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint.  On Nov. 25, 2008, Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr.
Creamer each filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint.

On Jan. 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint.

On Feb. 23, 2009, Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Creamer filed
replies in support of their Motions to Dismiss.  In September
2009, the plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint in lieu of oral argument on the pending Motions
to Dismiss.  The court granted leave to file a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint and denied the pending Motions to Dismiss
without prejudice.

On or about Oct. 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint.

Briefing on motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint was completed in March 2010.  Oral argument on the
motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 2010.  No decision has
been issued by the Court.

Arbitron Inc. -- http://www.arbitron.com/-- is a media and
marketing research firm serving the media -- radio, television,
cable and out-of-home -- as well as advertisers and advertising
agencies.  Arbitron's core businesses are measuring network and
local market radio audiences across the United States; surveying
the retail, media and product patterns of local market consumers;
and providing application software used for analyzing media
audience and marketing information data.  The company has
developed the Portable People Meter and PPM 360, new technologies
for media and marketing research.


BEAZER HOMES: Hearing on $5.5 Million Settlement Set for Nov. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP and Keller Rohrback
L.L.P.:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

In re: Beazer Homes USA, Inc.           Civil Action No.
ERISA Litigation                        1:07-CV-00952 (RWS)


TO All PERSONS WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS IN OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE
BEAZER HOMES USA, INC. 401(K) PLAN (THE "PLAN") AT ANY TIME
BETWEEN JULY 28, 2005 AND MAY 12, 2008 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND
WHOSE ACCOUNT(S) INCLUDED INVESTMENTS IN THE BEAZER HOMES USA,
INC. COMPANY STOCK FUND (THE "BEAZER STOCK FUND"). EXCLUDED FROM
THE SETTLEMENT CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS, ANY ENTITY IN WHICH
DEFENDANTS HAVE OR HAD A CONTROLLING INTEREST, OR WHICH IS OR WAS
A PARENT OR SUBSIDIARY OF OR IS OR WAS CONTROLLED BY BEAZER HOMES,
AND THE CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AFFILIATES, LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, PREDECESSORS, AND ASSIGNS OF DEFENDANTS.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS
NOTICE.

THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. YOU HAVE NOT BEEN SUED.

A settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
Atlanta in a consolidated class action lawsuit against Beazer
Homes USA, Inc. ("Beazer Homes") and certain of its current and
former directors and officers (collectively, "Defendants"),
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), in connection
with the Plan. In particular, the lawsuit claimed that Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to allow
investment of the Plan's assets in the Beazer Stock Fund during
the Class Period. Defendants deny any liability in this Action.
Both sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid the cost and risk of
further litigation and/or to provide a recovery to the members of
the Settlement Class. The terms of the Settlement are contained in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation"), dated
July 19, 2010, a copy of which is available at
http://www.BeazerERISAsettlement.com/or by contacting Class
Counsel at the toll-free number or email address identified below.
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Legal Notice
shall have the meaning provided in the Stipulation.

The proposed Settlement provides for a payment of $5.5 million to
settle all claims against Defendants. The Settlement proceeds,
minus Court-approved fees and expenses described in the
Stipulation (which include attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses, Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs who
brought the lawsuit, and taxes and other costs related to the
Settlement) will be allocated to members of the Settlement Class
whose Plan accounts suffered alleged losses as a result of
investing in the Beazer Stock Fund.

If you qualify and the Settlement is approved, you will be
entitled to receive such an allocation. Your allocation (if any)
will depend on the decline in value of the amount of the Beazer
Stock Fund held in your Plan account during the Class Period. You
do not need to submit a claim or take any other action. If you are
entitled to an allocation, payment will be made directly to your
Plan account. If you are no longer a participant in the Plan, a
Plan account will be established for you, and you will be notified
of this account along with further instructions. It is important
that if you are no longer a Plan participant and you have not
provided the Plan with any changes in your address, you should
contact Class Counsel at the toll-free number below and advise
them of your current address.

You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
in this case, but you do have the right to object in writing to
the Court. You will be bound by any judgments or orders that are
entered in this Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you
will be deemed to have released all Defendants from all claims
that were or could have been asserted in this case, other than
your right to obtain the relief provided to you, if any, by the
Settlement.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta Division) authorized this Notice.

THE DISTRICT COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:30 A.M. ON
NOVEMBER 15, 2010 TO DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND
A REQUEST BY CLASS COUNSEL FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, FOR OTHER
LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND FOR CASE CONTRIBUTION AWARDS TO THE NAMED
PLAINTIFFS.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING INFORMATION
ABOUT HOW TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, IS AVAILABLE AT
WWW.BEAZERERISASETTLEMENT.COM. IN ADDITION, CLASS COUNSEL HAS
ESTABLISHED A TOLL-FREE NUMBER, 866-778-1167, AND EMAIL ADDRESS,
BEAZERERISASETTLEMENT@BTKMC.COM, TO ASSIST IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. YOU MAY ALSO CONTACT CLASS COUNSEL AT:

Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.       Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.         KELLER RORHBACK L.L.P.
BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER       1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP         Seattle, WA 98101
280 King of Prussia Road     Fax: (206) 623-3384
Radnor, PA 19087
Fax: (610) 667-7056

Please direct questions to Class Counsel, and not to the District
Court or Beazer Homes.

DATED: AUGUST 30, 2010.

By Order of the Court


CANADA: Class Suit Over Insulation With Urea Formaldehyde Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Saxon at GuelphMercury.com relates Jerry Doyle and Judy
Cherney had a plan.

The Fergus couple, both 51, planned to invest thousands of dollars
in their 85-year-old Fergus home with the idea of cashing in on
that investment when they downsized and sold the house in a few
years.

Instead, they are now left wondering if they will even be able to
sell their home.

Mr. Doyle is one of the lead plaintiffs in a $500 million class
action lawsuit against, amongst others, the federal government and
a Waterloo Region company that insulated their home with a product
that contained urea formaldehyde.

"We thought it was an easy way to insulate the inside of our
walls," Mr. Doyle said in the living room of the attractive brick
home on St. Andrew's Street. "Now look where we are."

Urea formaldehyde was banned in Canada 30 years ago under the
Hazardous Products Act due to its potential to cause various
health problems. It is not banned in the United States.

Mr. Doyle's story started in September 2008 when he wanted to take
advantage of the federal government's Eco-Energy Program, which
offered rebates to homeowners who were making their homes more
energy efficient.

A federally licensed auditor visited and recommended a product
called RetroFoam as a means of insulating the awkward space
between the double brick walls of his older home.

Breslau-based RetroFoam of Canada Inc. did the work at a cost of
$3,136, with Mr. Doyle qualifying to get roughly $2,000 of that
back through the federal rebate.

"I even said to the guy from RetroFoam, 'this isn't going to be
another (urea formaldehyde) situation like the 1980s is it?' " Mr.
Doyle said, referring to when the product was first banned.

"There was no mention of formaldehyde anywhere on the company
website or in their literature."

Besides, Mr. Doyle said, this was a product and company being
recommended through a government program. He thought that offered
a degree of security.

So, presumably, did roughly 800 other Ontario homeowners who had
the product put in their homes.

Then, just as RetroFoam was finished being injected into the
house, someone from the Centre Wellington building department came
to the house and issued a stop-work order. They had concerns about
the product.

Five months and many sleepless nights later for Mr. Doyle and Ms.
Cherney, the federal government banned RetroFoam.

The makers of the insulation, Knoxville, Tenn.-based PolyMaster
Insulating Foams, claim it was the Canadian distributor, Breslau's
RetroFoam of Canada Inc., that was responsible for making sure it
was safe to use and legal to distribute in Canada.

Their lawyer told the National Post newspaper the ball was in the
hands of RetroFoam of Canada owner Paul Weigel.

Mr. Weigel's lawyer, Waterloo's Ross Earnshaw, told the Post he
will file his client's statement of defence with the courts this
fall.

Federal government lawyer Paul Vickery told the Post that
homeowners had access to information about urea formaldehyde and
should have known not to use RetroFoam.

Mr. Doyle said that information was not readily available, and if
the federal government knew something was up with the product,
which the lawsuit's statement of claim says it did, then the
federal government shouldn't have been recommending and allowing
it.

Mr. Doyle wonders, if the Centre Wellington building department
had concerns, why didn't the federal government?

It could take up to five years for the lawsuit to be dealt with.

Meanwhile, Health Canada tests have shown the level of urea
formaldehyde in the Fergus home is not high enough to be a
significant health risk. But to Mr. Doyle and Ms. Cherney -- who
have not removed the insulation -- that's not the point.

They feel they were unknowingly sold a banned substance, misled
when they inquired about it, and now face significant issues when
they go to sell their home in a few years, given that home sellers
are obligated to inform perspective buyers if a home contains urea
formaldehyde.


CHARLIE CRIST: Judge Denies Request to Freeze Campaign Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Naples Daily News reports a judge Monday denied attempts by two
campaign contributors who want to prevent Gov. Charlie Crist's
U.S. Senate campaign from using $7.5 million donated to his
Republican campaign for his run as an independent candidate.

However, Senior Collier Circuit Judge Jack Schoonover said he'd
agree to hear the motion for a preliminary injunction again if
Rep. Tom Grady, R-Naples, is successful in his motion to certify
the lawsuit as a class-action; Rep. Grady represents two
plaintiffs, an East Naples woman and a former ambassador who was a
GOP financial chairman. The plaintiffs sued on behalf of
Republican contributors who donated before Gov. Crist's April 29
switch.

Rep. Grady plans to file that motion this week, while Gov. Crist's
attorney, Scott Weinstein of Fort Myers, will file a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Schoonover agreed to hear arguments
some time next week.

After the hearing, Rep. Grady said it was likely Mr. Weinstein's
lengthy memorandum persuaded the judge to hold off on granting the
motion until the plaintiffs are certified as a class.

"It may take us time to get there, but I am sure we will get
there," Rep. Grady said, referring to certification and a refund.
". . . Why should the governor be able to choose? Well, you'll get
your money back but you won't get your money back."

He referred to highly criticized refund to Jim Greer, the former
GOP chairman indicted on charges he used party funds for personal
expenses. Mr. Greer asked for his $9,600 contribution back and
Gov. Crist complied. It was among $177,883 in refunds, according
to recent federal campaign filings.

The plaintiffs, Linda Morton, a Lely mother of four, contributed
$500 to Gov. Crist's primary campaign, while John Rood of
Jacksonville, a retired U.S. ambassador, donated the maximum,
$2,400 for the primary and $2,400 for the Nov. 2 general election.
His affidavit says Gov. Crist agreed to refund $2,400 if he didn't
win the Republican primary.

They want to prohibit Gov. Crist from using the $7.5 million
remaining in his coffers after his switch. Their affidavits say
the GOP is important to them and Gov. Crist was using their money
to oppose a Republican. Neither was in court, nor was Gov. Crist.

Mr. Weinstein contended the lawsuit was a ploy to "choke [Gov.]
Crist's campaign" and "create havoc." He argued many contributors
support Gov. Crist and don't want refunds.

"Money is important to a campaign," Mr. Weinstein said, surrounded
by reporters and cameras. ". . . They don't have the right now to
say that there's some sort of a breach of warranty. This isn't
Sears: Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. This is an
election where the campaign finance laws allow and support this
use of these funds."

Judge Schoonover's ruling was the latest since the plaintiffs sued
in Collier Circuit Court on June 22. Gov. Crist's prior attorney
removed it to U.S. District Court on July 16, arguing it involves
the Federal Election Campaign Act, which Rep. Grady disputed.

On Aug. 18, U.S. District Judge Charlene Honeywell ruled the case
belonged in state court, agreeing it seeks compensation for unjust
enrichment and breach of contract, implied covenants of good faith
and fair dealing -- state laws.

Gov. Crist has been criticized for not returning money donated by
Republicans, but told CNN Saturday he'd provide refunds to those
who ask.

Mr. Rood was among 20 people, including GOP fundraisers and
contributors, who wrote an open letter in May demanding Gov. Crist
"return every penny of donor money from every donor who asks for a
refund." He didn't and the lawsuit was filed.

The lack of GOP backing hasn't hurt Gov. Crist, who switched
parties after falling behind former House Speaker Marco Rubio, a
Republican, in the polls. Recent polls show Gov. Crist leading at
39 percent, followed by Rubio at 32 percent and Democrat Kendrick
Meek, 16 percent.

Judge Schoonover often played devil's advocate, peppering
arguments with questions. "What legal reason have you given me to
give the money back in small claims court? Buyer's remorse?" Judge
Schoonover asked.

Later he asked, "Don't go too far with this, but what if [Gov.]
Crist died?"

Rep. Grady believed election laws required expenses be paid before
refunding the remainder.

Although Rep. Grady sought, at the least, a refund for the two
plaintiffs, Mr. Weinstein argued case law was mixed on "pick
offs," paying off plaintiffs in class-action suits and proceeding.
He maintained Rep. Grady wasn't entitled to that until the
plaintiffs were certified.

He argued the lawsuit should proceed to trial with experts
testifying, along with all contributors demanding refunds.

"But it can't be done in less than two months," Mr. Weinstein
said, referring to general elections. "It just can't."


CITICORP INC: Accused of Aiding Viola's Investment Fraud Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Citicorp allowed Joseph Viola
to open new bank accounts and swindle investors out of millions
through a Ponzi scheme, despite knowing he was a convicted felon
who had jumped bail, a class claims in San Francisco Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Scala et ux. v. Citicorp, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-03859 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/3859%20Citicorp%2023.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack W. Lee, Esq.
          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq.
          Lisa Charbonneau, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
          360 Post St. 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: 415-788-9000
          E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
                  dhoward@minamitamaki.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq.
          Larry W. Gabriel, Esq.
          JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP
          10085 Carroll Canyon Rd., Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: 415-982-8500
          E-mail: dan@jmglawoffices.com
                  lgabriel@jmglawoffices.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
          Justin T. Berger, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY
          840 Not Come Rd., Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                     nmcarthy@cpmlegal.com
                     jberger@cpmlegal.com


COCA-COLA: Sued for Terminating Employees' Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Coca-Cola Enterprises
illegally terminated 500 employees' health benefits when they went
out on strike last week, according to an ERISA class action in
Seattle Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ott et al. v. Coca-Cola Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01388 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/Labor.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dmitri Iglitzin, Esq.
          Jennifer Robbins, Esq.
          SCHWERIN CAMPBELL BARNARD IGLITZIN & LAVITT LLP
          18 West Mercer St., Suite 400
          Seattle, WA 98119-3971
          Telephone: 206-285-2828
          E-mail: iglitzin@workerlaw.com
                  robbins@workerlaw.com

               - and -

          Spencer Nathan Thal, Esq.
          TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 117
          14675 Interurban Ave., Suite 307
          Tukwila, WA 98168
          Telephone: 206-441-4860


DICK'S SPORTING: State Law, ERISA and RICO Claims Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has
dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims, as well as claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in a suit against Dick's
Sporting Goods, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a case that makes claims concerning
alleged failures to pay wages and overtime wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.  The case was filed
in May of 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York, captioned Tamara Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods,
Inc. and Galyan's Trading Company, Inc.

In their complaint, in addition to the unpaid wage and overtime
allegations, plaintiffs seek liquidated damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.  In September 2006, a magistrate
judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York conditionally certified a class for notice purposes under the
FLSA, which the U.S. District Judge upheld.

The parties and the court agreed to stay the litigation pending an
attempt to resolve all claims through mediation.  Mediation
sessions were held in April and August 2007 and November 2008 and
these attempts to resolve the case through mediation were
unsuccessful.

In December 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
five individual defendants, claims for allegedly unpaid wages and
overtime under the laws of thirty-five states, and claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

In August 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims
(except those arising under New York law), ERISA claims and RICO
claims. We currently believe that this case should not be
permitted to proceed as a class action, and the

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


LIBERTYVILLE: Suit Complains About "No-Refusal Weekends"
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action challenges the constitutionality of Libertyville's
"no-refusal weekends," in which drivers are not allowed to refuse
blood or breath tests for non-injury, non-accident DUI cases.  The
class claims that cities across Lake County and Illinois have
instituted the unconstitutional no-refusal weekends.

Named plaintiffs Cheryl Yachnin sued Libertyville, its police
chief, and the Lake County attorney on behalf of the class.

During no-refusal weekends, the city "requires all arrestees and
detainees suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol to
undergo a breathalyzer and/or blood test, thereby denying them
their statutory right to refuse a breath or blood test."

Ms. Yachnin says she was pulled over without probable cause and
"required to perform roadside sobriety tests while not wearing any
shoes on uneven pavement littered with stones, pebbles and other
road debris."

After refusing a Breathalyzer test, Ms. Yachnin says, she was
taken to the Libertyville Police Department, where she was
"detained her against her will in the rear of the squad car and
appeared before a judge and requested a search warrant."

The search warrant was signed by the judge, but when Ms. Yachnin
again refused a blood test, she was charged with criminal contempt
and held in jail for more than 13 hours, she says.

She was released the next day after posting $20,000 bond.  She
says she "was subsequently found not guilty because there was not
probable cause for the defendants' stop of the plaintiff."

She adds that "the no-refusal weekend policy has been and
continues to be adopted by numerous other municipalities
throughout the state and has been condoned, supervised by and
implemented and prosecuted by the Lake County States' Attorney as
well as the States' Attorney of other counties in the state."

Lake County, Peoria County and Kane County all have held no-
refusal weekends.

Ms. Yachnin seeks punitive damages for false arrest, malicious
prosecution and civil rights and constitutional violations.  She
seeks an injunction and damages for being "subjected to public
ridicule, unwanted and unwarranted publicity, anxiety, humiliation
and emotional distress."

A copy of the Complaint in Yachnin v. Village of Libertyville, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-05419 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/NoRefusal.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith L. Hunt, Esq.
          HUNT & ASSOCIATES, PC
          Three First National Plaza, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-558-1300
          E-mail: khunta@huntassoclaw.com
                  ecarlson@huntassoclaw.com

               - and -

          LAW OFFICES OF MERLE ROYCE
          Three First National Plaza, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-553-1233
          E-mail: royce4law@earthlink.net


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Lobbyists File Briefs With Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Johnsen at Drug Store News reports that industry lobbyists
last week weighed in on a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed for a
class action lawsuit to proceed against Matrixx Initiatives
because that company failed to disclose adverse event reports to
its shareholders.

Both the Consumer Healthcare Products Association and the Council
for Responsible Nutrition -- and separately, the Natural Products
Association -- filed supporting briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court
arguing that the mere nondisclosure of adverse event reports
should not give rise to liability under federal securities laws
without applying a statistical significance standard. The Supreme
Court had agreed to place the case on its docket in June.

The statements were in regard to Matrixx Initiatives vs. James
Siracusano and NECA-IBEW Pension Fund.

"The statistical significance standard recognized by most courts
of appeals appropriately recognizes that adverse event reports,
standing alone, are not 'material' for purposes of federal
securities laws," CHPA/CRN wrote in its amicus curiae. "The
statistical significance standard addresses the quality of the
evidence of a relationship between an adverse event and a product,
and therefore it is not the kind of 'bright-line' rule that [the
Supreme] Court rejected in Basic Inc. vs. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224
(1988)."

"The practical consequence of the Ninth Circuit's decision, if it
is not reversed, is that manufacturers . . . very likely will be
forced to disclose all AERs, however insignificant, in order to
avoid meritless -- but expensive -- strike suits against the
supplement industry," said Jonathan Cohn, who authored NPA's
separate amicus curiae.

CHPA/CRN also argued that the indiscriminate disclosure by public
companies of all adverse event reports potentially associated with
their products before being actually scientifically vetted may
negatively impact consumer selection in one of two ways: Either a
consumer will buy wholeheartedly into the alleged link between the
use of a particular product and potential harm, and choose not to
medicate or supplement with a product that could improve his or
her health, or, conversely, a consumer may become so inundated
with reports of AERs that he or she becomes numb to the
announcements.

"The Food and Drug Administration has recognized that
'overwarning' has the effect of not warning at all, because the
reader stops paying attention to excess warnings," CHPA/CRN wrote
in their brief.

"The [Ninth Circuit] decision is wrong because evaluation of
safety signals is a scientific judgment ultimately made by the
FDA," stated John Gay, executive director and CEO of the NPA in a
press release issued Friday. "Companies cannot possibly guess in
advance what will be deemed adequate disclosure years later in
collateral litigation," added Scott Bass, a partner at Sidley
Austin, which is counsel for NPA. "The [Dietary Supplement and
Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act] explicitly states
that AERs are not proof of causation."

Mr. Gay added, "The Ninth Circuit's action is not good for
manufacturers, not good for consumers and just is not good law. We
hope the Supreme Court will agree."


MICHAELS STORES: Aaron Brothers Settles "Acevedo" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Brothers, Inc., has reaches an agreement in principle to
settle a purported class action alleging that its stores are not
compliant with disability access non-discrimination statutes,
according to Michaels Stores, Inc.'s company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Michaels Stores operates Aaron Brothers stores.

On March 12, 2010, Arthur Acevedo, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Aaron Brothers, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of
himself and all similarly-situated mobility impaired or wheelchair
bound persons.

The suit alleges that certain of Aaron Brothers retail stores in
California are not compliant with disability access non-
discrimination statutes of California and the plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
matter on an individual basis for an immaterial amount and with
certain improvements or repairs to be made at selected Aaron
Brothers stores.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty
retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall decor, and
seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home
decorator.  As of Aug. 25, 2010, the company owns and operates
1,035 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 144 Aaron
Brothers stores.


MICHAELS STORES: Appellate Court Dismisses Carson's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, San Diego,
has ruled in favor of Michaels Stores, Inc., and dismissed the
purported class action filed by Linda Carson, according to the
company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

On Aug. 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated California consumers.  The
Carson suit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code)
as part of a credit card transaction.  The plaintiff sought
statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.  The
company contested certification of this claim as a class action
and filed a motion to dismiss the claim.  On March 9,
2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The plaintiff appealed this decision to the California Court of
Appeal for the Fourth District, San Diego.

On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor Michaels and
the case was dismissed.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty
retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall decor, and
seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home
decorator.  As of Aug. 25, 2010, the company owns and operates
1,035 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 144 Aaron
Brothers stores.


MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Tijero" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., defends a purported class action filed by a
former assistant manager of Aaron Brothers.

On Feb. 12, 2010, the company was served with a lawsuit filed on
May 7, 2009 by Jose Tijero, a former assistant manager for Aaron
Brothers as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of
himself and all current and former hourly retail employees
employed in California.

The Tijero suit, filed  in the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, alleges that Aaron Brothers failed to pay all
wages and overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with
adequate meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof),
and accurate wage statements and alleges that the foregoing
conduct was in breach of California's unfair competition law.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal
and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty
retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall decor, and
seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home
decorator.  As of Aug. 25, 2010, the company owns and operates
1,035 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 144 Aaron
Brothers stores.


MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Rattray" Suit Over Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., defends a purported class action relating
to its gift cards.

On April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of himself and
all similarly-situated California consumers.

The Rattray suit alleges causes of action for unlawful and unfair
business practices and false advertising under the California
Business and Professions Code, and a violation of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, for misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards
are not redeemable for cash and for failure to disclose that the
plaintiff could redeem the unused cash balance on a gift card when
the value fell below $10.00.  The plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief, restitution, punitive damages, costs, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Michaels Stores, Inc., is North America's largest specialty
retailer of arts, crafts, framing, floral, wall decor, and
seasonal merchandise for the hobbyist and do-it-yourself home
decorator.  As of Aug. 25, 2010, the company owns and operates
1,035 Michaels stores in 49 states and Canada, and 144 Aaron
Brothers stores.


NORTH SHORE: PEC in Discussions to Settle "Alport" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter Alport et al. v. Peoples Energy
Corporation, are currently engaged in settlement discussions,
according to North Shore Gas Company's Aug. 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In February 2004, a purported class action suit was filed in Cook
County Circuit Court against Peoples Energy Corporation (PEC), The
Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company (PGL), and North Shore Gas
(NSG) by customers of PGL and NSG.  The suit alleges, among other
things, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act related to matters at issue in the
utilities' fiscal year 2001 Gas Charge reconciliation proceedings.

In the suit, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement and punitive
damages.  PGL and NSG have been dismissed as defendants and the
only remaining counts of the suit allege violations of the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by PEC and
that PEC acted in concert with others to commit a tortious act.

On Nov. 19, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a class
composed of customers of PGL and NSG during the period April 26,
2000, through Sept. 30, 2002.

On May 26, 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court denied PEC's Petition
for Leave to Appeal challenging class certification.  The case
remains pending in the Circuit Court and the parties are currently
engaged in settlement discussions.

North Shore Gas Company is a regulated natural gas utility
company.  The company is wholly owned by Peoples Energy
Corporation.  PEC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Integrys Energy
Group, Inc.  NSG provides regulated natural gas utility service to
approximately 157,900 residential, commercial and industrial, and
transportation customers located in 54 communities within the
northern suburbs of Chicago.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Settlement Agreement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement resolving three purported class actions
where ON Semiconductor Corporation is a defendant, has received
final approval from the court, according to the company's Aug. 5,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2010.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the company completed its acquisition of all of
the outstanding shares of common stock of  California Micro
Devices Corporation through a cash tender offer of $4.70 per share
which was then followed by the merger of Pac-10 Acquisition
Corporation, the company's direct, wholly owned subsidiary, and
CMD, in accordance with the Dec. 14, 2009 definitive merger
agreement which the company previously announced it had entered
into with CMD.  Shortly after the company signed the Merger
Agreement and announced the tender offer, the company was named as
a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, filed in
California and Delaware against the company, CMD, CMD's Board of
Directors and Pac-10 Acquisition.

On Dec. 14, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California captioned
Robert Varrenti, et al. v. Robert Dickinson, Edward Ross, John
Sprague, David Wittrock, David Sear, Jon Castor, John Fichthorn,
J. Michael Gullard, Kenneth Potashner, California Micro Devices,
ON Semiconductor Corporation and Pac-10 Acquisition Corporation
(No. 109CV159469).  On Dec. 29, 2009, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2009, a second purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware captioned
Annamarie Medeiros et al. v. California Micro Devices, Jon S.
Castor, Robert V. Dickinson, Edward C. Ross, John Fichthorn, J.
Michael Gullard, Kenneth Potashner, David L. Wittrock, Pac-10
Acquisition Corporation and ON Semiconductor Corporation (No.
5159).

On Jan. 4, 2010, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware captioned Sanjay
Israni, et al. v. California Micro Devices, Robert V. Dickinson,
Edward C. Ross, Jon S. Castor, John Fichthorn, J. Michael Gullard,
Kenneth Potashner, David L. Wittrock, ON Semiconductor Corporation
and Pac-10 Acquisition Corporation (No. 5181).

All three lawsuits contain similar allegations, stating generally
that the proposed Transaction is the product of a breach of
fiduciary duties by CMD's Board of Directors by failing to
adequately discharge their duties in negotiating and agreeing to
the Transaction and that the company and the Purchaser assisted in
that breach.  All three lawsuits requested an injunction enjoining
the consummation of the Transaction.

The Israni complaint also included a request for damages.

On Jan. 19, 2010, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the three lawsuits and on Feb. 18, 2010,
the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement.

The settlement, like the MOU, calls for CMD to agree to make
available to shareholders certain additional information, which
has been completed, and CMD or its insurer to agree to pay
plaintiffs' counsel for fees and expenses not to exceed $495,000.
The company expects CMD's insurer to pay $245,000 of this total
amount.  This payment did not affect the amount of consideration
paid to the stockholders of CMD in connection with the
Transaction.

The Stipulation was filed with the Court on March 29, 2010 and a
hearing to preliminarily approve the settlement was held on
May 7, 2010.

On May 25, 2010, the Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation
and scheduled a settlement hearing on July 23, 2010.

At the July 23, 2010 hearing, the court approved the settlement,
but requested additional information from the plaintiffs regarding
fees and expenses.

ON Semiconductor Corp. -- http://www.onsemi.com/-- is a premier
supplier of high performance, energy efficient, silicon solutions
for green electronics.  The company's broad portfolio of power and
signal management, logic, discrete and custom devices helps
customers effectively solve their design challenges in automotive,
communications, computing, consumer, industrial, LED lighting,
medical, military/aerospace and power applications.  ON
Semiconductor operates a world-class, value-added supply chain and
a network of manufacturing facilities, sales offices and design
centers in key markets throughout North America, Europe, and the
Asia Pacific regions.


PENWEST PHARMA: Being Sold to Endo for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Penwest Pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply to Endo Pharmaceuticals and West
Acquisition Corp., for $168 million or $5 a share, shareholders
say in a class action in Putnam County Court, N.Y.

A copy of the Complaint in Steinmetz v. Tang, et al., Index No.
2561/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Putnam Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad St., 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: 212-363-7500


PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated pet
food class action litigation against PetSmart, Inc., are still
pending.

Beginning in March 2007, PetSmart was named as a party in these
lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by several
manufacturers:

   * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed
     3/23/07)

   * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07)

   * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07)

   * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA
     (filed 4/10/07)

   * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07)

   * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07)

   * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina,
     Canada (filed 7/11/07)

   * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario
     Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07)

   * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland
     and Labrador (filed 9/5/07)

   * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British
     Columbia (filed 3/23/07)

   * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba
     (filed 3/30/07)

   * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
     Justice (filed 3/28/07)

The plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers
claiming that their pets suffered injury or death as a result of
consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil
No. 07-2867).  The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for
court approval.  Preliminary court approval was received from the
U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian
courts as of July 8, 2008.  On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District
Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final
approval on Nov. 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with
respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S.
settlement.  Upon expiration of the prescribed appeal process
these cases should be resolved, and PetSmart continues to believe
it will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated
financial statements.  There have been no appeals filed in Canada.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2010.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Insurance Suit Expanded to Add Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports a lawsuit
accusing Prudential Insurance Co. of America of improperly
collecting interest on unpaid veterans' life-insurance benefits
was expanded to include claims of fraud.

The plaintiffs, seeking to have the case certified as a class
action on behalf of 60,000 beneficiaries of military life
insurance policies, filed an amended complaint Tuesday adding the
fraud claims and additional claimants. The case was originally
filed July 29 in federal court in Springfield, Massachusetts.

The suit claims Prudential fails to pay beneficiaries in a lump
sum as required by U.S. law and the language of the policies,
instead encouraging them to leave the money in accounts with the
company, which pays them a small amount of interest.

"The amount Prudential has made through this misconduct is
believed to be half a billion dollars or more," the amended
complaint said.

The plaintiffs, who are the beneficiaries of eight military life
insurance policies, said Prudential puts death benefits into
"Alliance Accounts," which pay only 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent
interest. The company invests the money at a higher rate of return
and keeps the difference, according to the suit.

Bob DeFillippo, a spokesman for Newark, New Jersey-based
Prudential Financial Inc., declined to comment on the suit. He
said the company informs death-benefit beneficiaries of their
payment options and that they can immediately withdraw all the
money from their Alliance Accounts and invest it wherever they
choose.

                           'Lump-Sum'

The beneficiaries said Prudential "fraudulently informs
beneficiaries that this Alliance Account scheme constitutes a
'lump-sum' payment as required by law." Instead, the company keeps
the money in its general account, paying only when the
beneficiaries write drafts on the account, they claim.

More than 100 insurance carriers earn investment income on $28
billion owed to life insurance beneficiaries, Bloomberg Markets
magazine reported last month.

The case is Lucey v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 10-
30163, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
(Springfield).


RACKABLE SYSTEMS: SGI Discloses Dismissal of Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SGI, a global leader in HPC and data center solutions, disclosed
that on Friday, August 27, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the
class action lawsuit [In Re Rackable Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation], Case No. C-09-0222-CW, filed on January 16, 2009.

Based on the ruling of United States District Judge Claudia
Wilken, the dismissal was issued because further amendment or
actions by the plaintiffs would have been futile. SGI is pleased
that the Court supported the Company's position and that this
milestone was favorably achieved.

                           About SGI

SGI -- http://www.sgi.com/-- is a global leader in large-scale
clustered computing, high performance storage, HPC and data center
enablement and services. SGI is focused on helping customers solve
their most demanding business and technology challenges.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit Defends Discrimination Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc., defends a class action lawsuit alleging
that U.S. store-level employment practices are discriminatory as
to compensation and promotional activities.

Sterling Jewelers is a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited.

The suit was filed in March 2008 by private plaintiffs for an
unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

No updates were reported in Signet Jewelers Limited's Aug. 27,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Signet Jewelers Limited, formerly Signet Group plc --
http://www.signetjewelers.com/-- is a specialty retail jeweler by
sales, with stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic
of Ireland and Channel Islands.  Signet's United States division
operated 1,361 stores in 50 states at Jan. 30, 2010.  Its business
is managed as two geographical operating divisions: the United
State division and the United Kingdom division.  Its stores trade
worldwide in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay),
and regionally under a number of mall-based brands.  Destination
superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry
(Jared).  The UK division's stores trade as H.Samuel, Ernest
Jones, and Leslie Davis, and are situated in prime High Street
locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian
traffic) or shopping malls.  The United Kingdom division operated
552 stores at Jan. 30, 2010, including 14 stores in the Republic
of Ireland and three in the Channel Islands.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Sterling Jewelers Defends Suit by EEOC
-------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Jewelers Inc., defends a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission.

Sterling Jewelers is a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers Limited.

On Sept. 23, 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Sterling in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.  The
EEOC's lawsuit alleges that Sterling engaged in a pattern or
practice of gender discrimination with respect to pay and
promotions of female retail store employees from Jan. 1, 2003 to
the present.  The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary
relief and non-monetary relief against the company on behalf of a
class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices.

No updates were reported in Signet Jewelers Limited's Aug. 27,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Signet Jewelers Limited, formerly Signet Group plc --
http://www.signetjewelers.com/-- is a specialty retail jeweler by
sales, with stores in the United States, United Kingdom, Republic
of Ireland and Channel Islands.  Signet's United States division
operated 1,361 stores in 50 states at Jan. 30, 2010.  Its business
is managed as two geographical operating divisions: the United
State division and the United Kingdom division.  Its stores trade
worldwide in malls and off-mall locations as Kay Jewelers (Kay),
and regionally under a number of mall-based brands.  Destination
superstores trade nationwide as Jared The Galleria Of Jewelry
(Jared).  The UK division's stores trade as H.Samuel, Ernest
Jones, and Leslie Davis, and are situated in prime High Street
locations (main shopping thoroughfares with high pedestrian
traffic) or shopping malls.  The United Kingdom division operated
552 stores at Jan. 30, 2010, including 14 stores in the Republic
of Ireland and three in the Channel Islands.


TECUMSEH: Settles Class Action for $7 Million; Awaits Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACR News reports that Tecumseh has agreed to pay $7 million and up
to $250,000 in costs as settlement in the US class action launched
against a number of refrigeration compressor manufacturers
allegedly involved in a price fixing conspiracy.

The class members in the case include customers who directly
purchased products from Tecumseh in the US from January 2004 to
December 2008. The settlement awaits court approval.

Antitrust claims in the US against other compressor manufacturers
are ongoing.

The offices of a number of refrigeration compressor manufacturers'
offices across Europe, the US and Brazil were raided by anti-trust
authorities in February 2009. In the operation codenamed zero
degrees, 60 federal agents in Sao Paulo searched Whirlpool offices
and seized computer equipment. Unannounced raids were also carried
out at the offices of Whirlpool and Tecumseh in Brazil and the US,
and Danfoss facilities in Denmark, Germany and the US.

In October last year Embraco agreed to pay $56.5 million to settle
its compressor cartel allegations in Brazil.


TERRA MARKETING: Accused in California Suit of Fraud
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Terra Marketing Group dba
Swipebids.com defrauds customers in online auctions, a class
action claims in Sacramento Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Fasugbe, et al. v. 1524948 Alberta
Ltd., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02320 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/OnlineFraud.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas St., Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: 949-459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          William Haselden, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
          350 North LaSalle St, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370
          E-mail: whaselden@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


THANE INTERNATIONAL: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles River Associates, a worldwide leader in providing
management, economic, and financial consulting services, disclosed
Monday that Dr. Bradford Cornell, CRA Senior Consultant and
visiting professor of Financial Economics at the California
Institute of Technology, played a central role in the dismissal of
a long-running securities class action.  Professor Cornell
provided critical economic analysis and testimony as part of Thane
International's successful defense.  On August 9, 2010, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's finding that
the defendants had proven their affirmative defense of absence of
loss causation.  The Appellate Court also held that stock prices
may be used in assessing loss causation even though the stock in
question does not trade in an efficient market so long as there is
sufficient evidence that the market incorporates new information
into the stock's price.  In its decision, the Court of Appeals
upheld the District Court's reliance upon Professor Cornell's
testimony.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Thane International, Inc.
misled them about listing on the NASDAQ National Market System
(NMS) following a merger, and that the failure to list on the NMS
caused them financial harm. Professor Cornell testified that
Thane's post-merger share price remained above the imputed merger
price for nineteen days after the merger when Thane's stock traded
on the OTC Bulletin Board. According to Professor Cornell, this
was sufficient evidence to conclude that Thane's shareholders were
not damaged because Thane's stock price incorporated the effects
of the company's failure to list on the NASDAQ NMS during that
time period.

During a bench trial, the District Court originally ruled that
Thane's failure to list on the NASDAQ NMS did not constitute a
material misstatement and that the defendants were not liable for
any losses the Thane shareholders may have suffered during the
class period. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling on materiality
and were successful in having it overturned. The Court of Appeals
sent the case back to the District Court for a determination of
loss causation and damages given that a material misstatement was
found to have occurred.

Upon remand, the District Court found that Professor Cornell's
prior testimony regarding the ability of the market to incorporate
new information into Thane's stock price was particularly
persuasive in determining that there had been no loss causation.
Thane's shareholders appealed unsuccessfully. In affirming the
District Court's finding of no loss causation, the Ninth Circuit
cited Dr. Cornell's expert testimony and credibility.

"In a complex securities class action, CRA provided objective
economic analysis and testimony on behalf of our client that
proved to be extremely valuable to the case," said CRA's President
and Chief Executive Officer Paul Maleh. "Based on Professor
Cornell's testimony, the courts rendered an important decision
about stock-price movements, and the distinction between
materiality and loss causation in cases alleging securities fraud.
We are pleased to have contributed to our client's successful
defense and the dismissal of all claims."

CRA staff assisting Professor Cornell on the project were led by
Principal John Haut and Vice President John Hirshleifer. Partners
Daniel Tyukody and Michael Tu of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP represented the defendants in the proceedings.

               About Charles River Associates (CRA)

Charles River Associates(R) -- http://www.crai.com/-- is a global
consulting firm specializing in litigation, regulatory, and
financial consulting, and management consulting. CRA advises
clients on economic and financial matters pertaining to litigation
and regulatory proceedings, and guides corporations through
critical business strategy and performance-related issues. Since
1965, clients have engaged CRA for its unique combination of
functional expertise and industry knowledge, and for its objective
solutions to complex problems. Headquartered in Boston, CRA has
offices throughout North America, Europe, the Middle East, and
Asia.


USA: Disabled Workers to Proceed With Lawsuit vs. Social Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports a group
of disabled workers is moving forward with a class-action lawsuit
against the Social Security Administration alleging the federal
agency discriminates against employees with disabilities by
denying or limiting promotions.

An office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on
Aug. 25 affirmed a 2008 decision by an EEOC administrative judge
that certified the case as a class action, attorneys for the
plaintiffs said Monday. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and other
damages as well as changes in policies and procedures that will
improve career opportunities for disabled employees, according
attorneys for the plaintiffs.

The federal agency could not be reached late Monday for comment.

The plaintiffs, roughly 2,000 current and former Social Security
employees with disabilities, include those who applied for
promotions on or after Aug. 22, 2005, and appeared on a government
"best qualified" list but were denied promotions. Their
disabilities include deafness, blindness, missing extremities,
partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental
retardation, mental illness and conditions affecting limbs or
spine.

Ronald Jantz, a deaf Social Security employee who initially filed
the lawsuit, has worked for the agency for more than 20 years and
repeatedly made the "best qualified" list when applying numerous
times for promotions.

"Nonetheless, he has never been promoted during his entire, 20-
year career," said Dan Goldstein, a partner with Brown Goldstein &
Levy LLP in Baltimore, one of the firms representing the
plaintiffs. "Unhappily, what I am describing . . . is not peculiar
to Mr. Jantz but is an experience that many Social Security
employees with disabilities have experienced."

Mr. Jantz, a management analyst from Woodlawn, said in a statement
he hopes the case brings a change in policies.

"I brought this lawsuit to bring about change necessary to ensure
that employees with targeted disabilities receive the same
promotions and career advancement opportunities as non-disabled
employees," he said.

An administrative judge with the EEOC certified the case as a
class action on Oct. 8, 2008. Social Security appealed that
decision in December 2008. Last week, the EEOC's Office of Federal
Operations, the commission's appellate unit, affirmed the
administrative judge's decision. The case will now be remanded to
an administrative judge for trial.

Mr. Goldstein can be reached at:

     Dan Goldstein, Esq.
     BROWN GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP
     120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Telephone: 410-962-1030 ext. 1314
     Facsimile: 410-385-0869
     E-mail: dfg@browngold.com


UNITED STATES: PPACA Unconstitutional, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that the federal
government lacks the authority to force Americans to buy health
insurance, a class action claimed Tuesday in Federal Court.

People V. Us, Independent American Party of Nevada, the Nevada
Eagle Forum and several individuals claim in a 55-page lawsuit
that "the United States Constitution gives Congress no legal
authority to, and the Bill of Rights disarms the federal
government of, any power to compel citizens who have not
purchased, and do not wish to purchase, health insurance."

They say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed
into law by President Obama in March, "exceeds the powers of the
United States," and that "Congress has no enumerated power . . .
to compel plaintiffs herein to purchase with after-tax dollar a
particular product, here health insurance."

They also say the law violates their right to privacy because it
forces Americans "against their will, and without legal authority,
to divulge highly personal and confidential information," through
the likely creation of a database that will store health care
information.

They also say the law doubles as involuntary servitude "because it
involuntarily creates a debt and coerces plaintiffs herein to work
off the debt by threat of legal sanction."  They also claim the
law is tantamount to a federally sponsored religion by "promoting
and compelling participation in the secular religion of
Socialism."

Plaintiffs want the courts to determine the law unconstitutional,
and to ban its enforcement.

A copy of the Complaint in People v. Us, Independent American
Party of Nevada, et al. v. Obama, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01477 (D.
Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/Healthcare.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel F. Hansen, Esq.
          HANSEN RASMUSSEN
          1835 Village Center Circle
          Las Vegas, NV 89134
          Telephone: 702-385-5533
          E-mail: joelh@hrnvlaw.com


VISTAPRINT NV: Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the ruling
dismissing the consolidated complaint against VistaPrint, N.V.,
according to the company's Aug. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2010.

On July 29, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
Vistaprint Corp., Vistaprint USA, Inc., Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive
Marketing, LLC.

Adaptive Marketing, LLC is a Vertrue, Inc., company that provides
subscription-based membership discount programs, including
programs that are offered on the company's Vistaprint.com website.

The Texas Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated, among
other statutes, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-
Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act, in
connection with certain membership discount programs offered to
the company's customers on the company's Vistaprint.com Web site.
The Texas Complaint also seeks recovery for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and similar common law claims.

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas complaint, in July, August
and September 2008, several nearly identical purported class
action lawsuits were filed in these U.S. District Court's:

     (a) District of New Jersey,
     (b) Southern District of Alabama,
     (c) District of Nevada,
     (d) District of Massachusetts, and
     (e) District of Florida,

against the same Defendants, and in one case Vistaprint Limited,
on behalf of different plaintiffs.

The complaints in each of these nearly identical lawsuits include
substantially the same purported Federal and common law claims as
the Texas Complaint but contain different state law claims.

In addition, on Aug. 28, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit
asserting substantially the same Federal and common law claims as
the Texas Complaint, but containing a state law claim under the
Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act, was filed by a different
plaintiff in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, against Vistaprint Limited, Vistaprint USA, Inc.
and the Vertrue Defendants.

Among other allegations, the plaintiffs in each action claim that
after ordering products on the company's Vistaprint.com website
they were enrolled in certain membership discount programs
operated by the Vertrue Defendants and that monthly subscription
fees for the programs were subsequently charged directly to the
credit or debit cards they used to make purchases on
Vistaprint.com, in each case purportedly without their knowledge
or authorization.

The plaintiffs also claim that the Defendants failed to disclose
to them that the credit or debit card information they provided to
make purchases on Vistaprint.com would be disclosed to the Vertrue
Defendants and would be used to pay for monthly subscriptions for
the membership discount programs.  The plaintiffs have requested
that the Defendants be enjoined from engaging in the practices
complained of by the plaintiffs.  They also are seeking an
unspecified amount of damages, including statutory and punitive
damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs for the purported class.

In response to opposing motions filed by the plaintiffs and the
Defendants, on Dec. 11, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered the transfer of all of the outstanding cases to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

As a result of the ruling of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, on March 2, 2009, four of the existing plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

On April 17, 2009, Vistaprint USA, Incorporated filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas dismissed all of the claims against the
Defendants and ruled on substantive grounds that the Defendants
had not violated any of the statutes or common law claims cited by
the plaintiffs.

In September 2009, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and on Aug. 23, 2010, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling and dismissal.

VistaPrint, N.V. -- http://www.vistaprint.com-- is an online
provider of coordinated portfolios of marketing products and
services to small businesses globally.  The company offers a range
of products and services ranging from printed business cards,
brochures and post cards to apparel, invitations and
announcements, holiday cards, calendars, creative design services,
copywriting services, direct mail services, promotional gifts,
signage, Website design and hosting services, and e-mail marketing
services.  The company has automated and integrated the design and
production process, from design conceptualization to product
shipment and service delivery.


WAUKESHA ENGINE: Settles Racial Discrimination Suit for $1.1MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Romell of the Journal Sentinel reports Dresser Waukesha,
known locally as Waukesha Engine, would pay $1.1 million to settle
a racial discrimination lawsuit, an agreement between the
plaintiffs and company proposes.

The engine manufacturer also would take steps aimed at preventing
discrimination in hiring, with an outside monitor reviewing the
firm's performance.

The settlement would resolve a lawsuit filed in 2008 by several
African-Americans who alleged they were discriminated against in
hiring and promotions.

The case has been preliminarily approved as a class action. More
than 300 black job applicants who unsuccessfully applied at
Waukesha Engine potentially stand to share in $650,000 the company
would pay.

The plaintiffs' attorneys would get $300,000 for the class action,
plus $165,000 for their representation of six current and former
Waukesha Engine employees who brought individual claims.

Waukesha Engine also would establish benchmarks under which it
would try to hire African-Americans at levels that reflect the
pool of job applicants and the surrounding labor market. The firm
would train employees, and particularly supervisors with hiring
responsibilities, in diversity and equal-employment issues.

An attorney representing the company said it would not comment on
pending litigation. Waukesha Engine is part of Texas-based Dresser
Inc. The Waukesha operation employs several hundred people
manufacturing large engines used in gas compression, power
generation and mechanical drives.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by federal Judge
Lynn Adelman.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Glasser, Burghoff Charged for Federal Bank Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Attorney's Office on Aug. 31, 2010, said Samuel Glassner,
owner of Samuel & Company LLC, and Matthew Burghoff, owner of
Mambo Development LLC were indicted on a federal bank fraud charge
for allegedly helping to bilk a bank out of more than US$100,000,
stltoday.com reports.

Federal prosecutors said the 65-year-old Mr. Glasser and Mr.
Burghoff used false and inflated bills to defraud Montgomery Bank.

Mr. Burghoff had received a loan to buy and rehab the Ford
Building at 1405 Pine Street in St. Louis and Mr. Glasser agreed
to do the interior demolition work, including lead and asbestos
abatement, for US$378,000, Mr. Glasser's indictment says.

However, after Mr. Glasser and Mr. Burghoff agreed to submit bogus
bills to the bank, the demolition price ballooned to US$578,000,
the indictment says.  Mr. Glasser kicked back US$133,000 to Mr.
Burghoff or Mambo, prosecutors said.

Mr. Glasser was indicted on May 26, 2010 but the indictment was
sealed until his arrest on Aug. 30, 2010. Mr. Glasser's lawyer
Scott Rosenblum, Esq., said, "I fully anticipate that this will be
a trial.  Mr. Glasser was without scienter."

Mr. Burghoff was sentenced on Dec. 19, 2008 to two years in prison
for bank fraud and asbestos-related violations of the Clean Air
Act and ordered to pay US$524,000 in restitution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. Great Lakes, Ex-Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation or its former subsidiary,
NATCO Limited Partnership, is named as a defendant in pending
asbestos-related lawsuits.

The Company or NATCO faced about 251 lawsuits, the majority of
which were filed between 1989 and 2000.  In these lawsuits, the
plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily pleural abnormality
or asbestosis, from exposure to asbestos on the Company's vessels.
Most of these lawsuits have been filed in the Northern District of
Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of Michigan.

All of the cases filed against the Company prior to 1996 were
administratively dismissed in May 1996 and any cases filed since
that time have similarly been administratively transferred to the
inactive docket.  Plaintiffs in these cases could seek to
reinstate the cases at a future date without being barred by the
statute of limitations.

By order dated Oct. 29, 2009, however, the presiding judge
reactivated 512 lawsuits in an effort to clean out the
administrative docket and has stated that he intends to reactivate
about 250 cases each month.  Six of the cases reactivated to date
name the Company as a defendant.  Of these six cases, one of the
plaintiffs has elected not to pursue his claims.  Discovery on the
remaining five cases was stayed by the presiding judge.

In addition, by order entered March 2, 2010, the judge dismissed
7,405 lawsuits pending in the administrative docket, including 12
which named the Company as a defendant.

Oak Brook, Ill.-based Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation
provides dredging services in the United States.  In addition, the
Company is the only U.S. dredging service provider with
significant international operations, which represented 12% of its
dredging revenues for the first six months of 2010, compared with
the Company's three year average of 30%.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Reserves $109MM for A&E Matters at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s gross loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental matters were US$109.3 million as of
June 30, 2010, compared with US$152.3 million as of June 30, 2009.

The Company's gross asbestos- and environmental-related reserves
amounted to US$113.3 million as of March 31, 2010, compared with
US$162.6 million as of March 31, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter,
June 4, 2010)

The Company's net loss reserves for asbestos and environmental
matters were US$80 million as of June 30, 2010, compared with
US$111.9 million as of June 30, 2009.

The Company's net A&E-related reserves amounted to US$83.9 million
as of March 31, 2010, compared with US$122.3 million as of March
31, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, June 4, 2010)

Pembroke, Bermuda-based Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is
an international underwriter of specialty insurance and
reinsurance products in the property and casualty market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Unit Still Subject to Injury Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
FutureFuel Corp.'s subsidiary, FutureFuel Chemical Company, may be
parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations and
proceedings, including product liability, personal injury,
asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,
environmental, antitrust, health and safety and employment
matters.

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

Based in St. Louis, FutureFuel Corp. has two reportable segments:
chemicals and biofuels.  The Chemicals segment manufactures
diversified chemical products that are sold externally to third
party customers.  The Biofuels segment manufactures and markets
biodiesel.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire & Cable Faces Actions in 3 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of asbestos lawsuits in the state
courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The suits allege that certain electrical wire and cable, which may
have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were
exposed to this electrical wire and cable.  These lawsuits are
individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of
money damages as the sole remedy.

It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result
of the electrical wire and cable in question or whether the
Company, in fact, distributed the electrical wire and cable
alleged to have caused any injuries.  The Company maintains
general liability insurance that has applied to these claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered
by the applicable insurance policies and all defense of these
claims has been handled by the applicable insurance companies.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated
with these claims that the Company said it believes it could
enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

Houston-based Houston Wire & Cable Company distributes electrical
and mechanical wire and cable and related hardware to the U.S.
industrial distribution market through 21 locations in 13 states
throughout the United States.  The Company has no other business
activity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Still Involved in AO Respirator Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation's respirator liabilities involve claims for
personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of American
Optical Corporation respirators that are alleged to have been
negligently designed or labeled.

The Company has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from AO in an April
1990 asset purchase transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured
respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in
July 1995.

In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary
agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's
liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts
paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Company
subsidiary.

There were about 45,000 as of June 30, 2010 and 47,000 claimants
as of Sept. 30, 2009 in pending cases asserting claims against AO
in connection with respiratory products.  The number of claimants
at Sept. 30, 2009 has been adjusted from the number stated in
prior reports to reflect a reclassification of pending cases that
occurred during the third quarter of fiscal 2010.

At June 30, 2010 the reserve was US$12 million on a discounted
basis (US$22 million on an undiscounted basis).  Cash payments
related to this liability were US$1 million in the first nine
months of fiscal 2010 and US$2 million in the first nine months of
fiscal 2009.

Boston-based Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a
reinforcing and pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and
coatings. It has about 25% of the world market for the product.
The Company also holds its own as a maker of fumed metal oxides
like fumed silica and fumed alumina, which are used as anti-
caking, thickening, and reinforcing agents in adhesives and
coatings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Still Party to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation, or its subsidiaries, has been named in
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 9, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.  The Company said it believes that the minimal use of
asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it
unlikely that the Company will face material liability in any
asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.

The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and it said it believes adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Parsippany, N.J.-based Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a company
that designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and
systems and provides products and services to the aerospace,
defense, automotive, shipbuilding, processing, oil, petrochemical,
agricultural equipment, railroad, power generation, security, and
metalworking industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Ongoing v. Manitowoc Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is still involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Manitowoc, Wis.-based The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is a multi-
industry, capital goods manufacturer operating in two principal
markets: Cranes and Related Products and Foodservice Equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Still Subject to Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is still routinely subject to claims related to its
current services and operations, and asbestos-related claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these
claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event any
asbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

Rolling Meadows, Ill.-based MYR Group Inc. performs construction
services in two business segments: Transmission and Distribution
and Commercial and Industrial.  T&D customers include electric
utilities, cooperatives and municipalities nationwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren, Units Face 71 Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 71 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of June 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 9, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company and its units: Union Electric Company (UE), Central
Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating
Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) and
Illinois Power Company (IP) have been named, along with numerous
other parties, in a number of lawsuits filed by plaintiffs
claiming varying degrees of injury from asbestos exposure.  Most
cases have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois.

The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with as
many as 192 parties named in some pending cases and as few as six
in others.  However, in the cases that were pending as of June 30,
2010, the average number of parties were 72.

The claims filed against the Company, UE, CIPS, Genco, CILCO and
IP allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's present or former electric generating
plants.

Former CIPS plants are now owned by Genco, and former CILCO plants
are now owned by AERG.  Most of IP's plants were transferred to a
former parent subsidiary prior to the Company's acquisition of IP.

As a part of the transfer of ownership of the CIPS and CILCO
generating plants, CIPS and CILCO have contractually agreed to
indemnify Genco and AERG, respectively, for liabilities associated
with asbestos-related claims arising from activities prior to the
transfer.

Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at trial,
typically would be shared among the various defendants.

At June 30, 2010, the Company had US$14 million, UE had US$4
million, CIPS had US$2 million, Genco had none, CILCO had US$2
million and IP had US$6 million in liabilities recorded to
represent their best estimate of their obligations related to
asbestos claims.

At June 30, 2010, the trust fund balance was about US$23 million,
including accumulated interest.

St. Louis-based Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4
million customers and natural gas to almost one million customers
in Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries.  The
Company has a generating capacity of more than 16,500 MW.  The
Company also operates a nuclear power facility, three
hydroelectric plants, and several turbine combustion facilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: STERIS Still Involved in Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
STERIS Corporation is, and is likely to continue to be involved in
a number of legal proceedings, government investigations, and
claims that are asbestos-related.

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

Mentor, Ohio-based STERIS Corporation provides infection
prevention and surgical products and services, focused primarily
on the critical markets of healthcare, pharmaceutical and
research.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Records $35MM ARO at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. says that in the second quarter
of 2010, subsidiary Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.'s (HECO)
asbestos and environmental asset retirement obligation was
increased by US$11 million to US$35 million due to an increase in
estimated removal and abatement costs.

HECO, as of March 31, 2010, recorded an asbestos-related asset
retirement obligation of US$24 million.  (Class Action Reporter,
June 11, 2010)

In July 2009, HECO hired an industrial hygienist to conduct an
inspection at HECO's Honolulu power plant to determine the extent
of asbestos and lead-based paint at a non-operating, sealed and
vacant portion of the plant.  The inspection indicated that
retired Generating Units Nos. 5 and 7 at the plant were now
deteriorating, and the industrial hygienist recommended removing
the asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.

Based on the inspection, however, HECO now intends to remove Units
Nos. 5 and 7, including abating the asbestos and lead-based paint,
over the period 2010 to 2013.

Honolulu, Hawaii-based Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the
holding company for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and some non-
utility businesses.  HECO serves more than 440,400 customers as
the sole public electricity provider on the islands of Hawaii,
Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and Oahu.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Facing 86 Injury Actions at July 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc., as of July 26, 2010, faced 86 asbestos-related
personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 11, 2010
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of April 26, 2010, the Company faced 87 asbestos-related
personal injury cases, in which it is one of many defendants.
(Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2010)

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Illinois and Pennsylvania, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.  Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products
more than 20 years ago.

Through July 26, 2010, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 370 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with only a small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

St. Louis-based Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial automation, enterprise, transportation, infrastructure,
and consumer electronics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Resources Party to Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies
has been named, along with numerous others, as a defendant in
lawsuits filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos during work at such formerly owned
facilities.

Those facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.

CERC anticipates that additional claims like those received may be
asserted in the future.

Houston-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates
natural gas distribution systems in six states.  Its subsidiaries
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  The Company is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a public
utility holding company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SSCGP Has $2.9MM ARO Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. says that subsidiary, Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., at June 30, 2010, had an asbestos
regulatory asset of US$2.3 million and a related asset retirement
obligation liability of US$2.9 million.

The asbestos existing on Company unit Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc.'s system is primarily in building materials and
pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of 1973 that
established the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) that regulates the use of asbestos.

Central, at Dec. 31, 2009, had an asbestos regulatory asset of
US$2.4 million and a related asset retirement obligation liability
of US$2.8 million.

Owensboro, Ky.-based Southern Star Central Corp. was incorporated
in Delaware in September 2002 and operates as a holding company
for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. is the
Company's only operating subsidiary and the sole source of its
operating revenues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Properties Cites $800,000 for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of June 30, 2010, had accrued
about US$800,000 for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow properties.

The Company has removed or abated asbestos-containing building
materials from certain tenant and common areas at its City
National Plaza and Brookhollow properties.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos from various
areas of the building structures.

Los Angeles-based Thomas Properties Group, Inc. owns, manages,
leases, acquires and develops real estate, consisting of office
properties and related parking garages, located in Southern
California; Sacramento, Calif.; Philadelphia; Northern Virginia;
Houston; and Austin, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nine Cases Filed During Aug. 2-6 in Madison Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Aug. 2, 2010 through Aug. 6, 2010, a total of
nine new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-815) Eugene and Betty Buchard of Arizona claim
   Mr. Buchard developed mesothelioma after his work as an
   aircraft mechanic and as a worker for the civil service. Nate
   Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis, will represent
   the Buchards.

-- (Case No. 10-L-810) Lucy Burlone of Massachusetts, who is an
   office clerk and secretary, claims mesothelioma. Timothy F.
   Thompon Jr., Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Burlone.

-- (Case No. 10-L-819) Donald and Betty Carpenter of Wisconsin
   allege Mr. Carpenter developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a machinist and maintenance worker at James River Paper.
   Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian
   and Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the
   Carpenters.

-- (Case No. 10-l-812) Kenneth Cheyne III of Michigan claims the
   deceased Kenneth Cheyne Jr. developed mesothelioma after his
   work as a member of the U.S. Navy and at General Motors and
   Ford Motor Company. Richard L. Saville Jr., Esq., and Ethan
   A. Flint, Esq., of Saville and Flint in Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Cheyne.

-- (Case No. 10-L-818) George Demas of Illinois, a laborer and
   electrician, claims lung cancer. Amy E. Garrett, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Demas.

-- (Case No. 10-L-822) Alexandros and Hariklia Economou claim
   Mr. Economou developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   second mechanic and second assistant engineer on overseas
   trips to the United States and as a member of the National
   Maritime Union of America. Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry
   Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville,
   Ill., will represent the Economous.

-- (Case No. 10-L-809) Tesenru Ewakone of Ohio, a janitor and
   laborer, claims mesothleioma. Shane F. Hampton, Esq., and
   Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides
   and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Ewakone.

-- (Case No. 10-L-821) Eddie Fisher of Texas, a laborer, welder,
   machine operator and truck driver, claims mesothelioma.
   Allyson M. Romani, Esq., and Matthew B. McLeod, Esq., of
   Shrader and Associates in Houston, Ill., will represent Mr.
   Fisher.

-- (Case No. 10-L-811) Kenneth H. and Ruth Ann Haas of Missouri
   claim Mr. Haas developed lung cancer after his work as a
   boilermaker. Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland,
   Esq., of Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in
   Edwardsville, Ill., will represent the Haas couple.

-- (Case No. 10-L-820) Erma Jordan of Illinois claims the
   deceased Russell Jordan developed lung cancer after his work
   as a gunner's mate in the U.S. Navy and as a machinist at
   John Deere Harvester. T. Barton French Jr., Esq., and Nate
   Mudd, Esq., of French and Mudd in St. Louis will represent
   Ms. Jordan.

-- (Case No. 10-L-817) Mary M. Krohn of Florida claims her
   deceased husband, Richard A. Krohn, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a laborer for Clark Oil Refinery. Elizabeth
   V. Heller, Esq., and Robert Rowland, Esq., of Goldenberg,
   Heller, Antognoli and Rowland in Edwardsville, Ill., will
   represent Mrs. Krohn.

-- (Case No. 10-L-816) Robert and Mary White of Iowa claim Mr.
   White developed mesothelioma after his work as an insulator
   and estimator. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent the Whites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10 Cases Filed During Aug. 9-13 in Madison Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
During the week of Aug. 9, 2010 through Aug. 13, 2010, a total of
10 new asbestos-related lawsuits were filed in Madison County
Circuit Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

These cases are:

-- (Case No. 10-L-844) Richard D. Bloss of Missouri, a mechanic,
   gas station attendant and boilermaker, claims lung cancer. W.
   Brent Copple, Esq., and Myles L. Epperson, Esq., of Simmons,
   Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill.,
   will represent Mr. Bloss.

-- (Case No. 10-L-830) William and Carolyn Boughman of Indiana
   allege Mr. Boughman developed mesothelioma after his work as
   a laborer, mechanic, truck driver and operator. Shane F.
   Hampton, Esq., and Paul M. Dix, Esq., of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent the Boughmans.

-- (Case No. 10-L-845) Donald Frantz of Iowa, a construction
   laborer, maintenance mechanic, welder, laborer and installer,
   claims mesothelioma. The law firm of Simmons, Browder,
   Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East Alton, Ill., will
   represent Mr. Frantz.

-- (Case No. 10-L-843) Iona Frost of Washington, a worker at a
   laundry mat, claims mesothelioma. Stephanie A. Lyons, Esq.,
   of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Frost.

-- (Case No. 10-L-839) Donald J. Gongol of Iowa, a laborer,
   salesman and greeter, claims mesothelioma. Myles L. Epperson,
   Esq., of Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in
   East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Gongol.

-- (Case No. 10-L-840) Sydney Kotalik of Florida, a seaman and
   cook in the U.S. Coast Guard, a carpenter in the U.S. Air
   Force and a fireman and laborer, claims mesothelioma. Robert
   Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of SimmonsCooper
   in East Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Kotalik.

-- (Case No. 10-L-829) John Kuhlo claims his deceased father,
   Stanley C. Kuhlo, developed mesothelioma after his work as a
   laborer. Andrew O'Brien, Esq., Christopher Thoron, Esq.,
   Christina J. Nielson, Esq., Bartholomew J. Baumstark, Esq.,
   and Gerald J. FitzGerald, Esq., of O'Brien Law Firm in St.
   Louis, will represent Mr. Kuhlo.

-- (Case No. 10-L-832) Susan Lineen-Prizio of Massachusetts
   claims her deceased father, Richard J. Lineen, developed
   mesothelioma after his work as a welder and pipefitter.
   Robert Phillips, Esq., and Perry J. Browder, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mrs. Lineen-Prizio.

-- (Case No. 10-L-831) Charlotte Neumann of Wisconsin claims her
   deceased husband, Paul Neumann, developed mesothelioma after
   his work as a sheet metal worker. Randy S. Cohn, Esq., of
   Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides and Barnerd in East
   Alton, Ill., will represent Mr. Neumann.

-- (Case No. 10-L-834) Sydney A. Rose of Iowa claims her
   deceased husband, Clarence A. Rose, developed mesothelioma
   after his work as a boilertender in the U.S. Navy, as a
   boilermaker at General Services Administration, as a
   shadetree mechanic in Missouri from and as a drywaller and
   home remodeler. Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and
   Associates in Edwardsville, Ill., will represent Mr. Rose.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old GM Files Debt-Repayment Plan
-------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company, f/k/a General Motors Corporation, on
Aug. 31, 2010, announced that MLC, MLC of Harlem, Inc. (f/k/a
Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc.), MLCS, LLC (f/k/a Saturn, LLC),
MLCS Distribution Corporation (f/k/a Saturn Distribution
Corporation), Remediation and Liability Management Company, Inc.,
and Environmental Corporate Remediation Company, Inc. have filed a
Joint Chapter 11 Plan and proposed Disclosure Statement.

The Plan and Disclosure Statement were filed with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Plan
creates a framework for resolving the challenges of one of the
most complex chapter 11 cases in U.S. history.

Al Koch, CEO of MCL, said, "The focus of our small, lean team at
MLC has been to work closely with federal and local governments,
regulatory bodies, local communities and creditors to develop a
plan that comprises environmental remediation, asset liquidation
and claims resolution, all on a very large scale, and to do so in
very short period of time.

"We not only have been successful in doing that, but we have also
developed unique processes and approaches that could serve as
templates for other big bankruptcies in the future. In both
regards, what has been accomplished here is historic."

If the Plan is confirmed, substantially all of the Debtors' assets
and liabilities will be transferred to four trusts, including one,
the Environmental Remediation Trust that provides funds for the
continuing environmental remediation of the Debtors' remaining
properties, and another, the General Unsecured Creditors Trust,
that will be responsible for resolving the outstanding claims of
the Debtors' unsecured creditors and distributing the General
Motors Company common stock and warrants owned by MLC to those
unsecured creditors whose claims are allowed.

MLC presently owns 10% of General Motors' common stock, plus
warrants that are exercisable for a further 15% of General Motors'
common stock on a fully diluted basis.  MLC will be issued up to
an additional 2% of General Motors' common stock if the final
estimated aggregate amount of the Debtors' unsecured claims
exceeds certain thresholds.

A third trust will handle both present and future asbestos-related
claims against the Debtors, while a fourth trust will deal with
certain litigation-related claims of the Debtors.

One of the most significant aspects of the Plan is the ERT, which
MLC was instrumental in crafting.  If the Plan is confirmed, the
ERT will make US$536 million available to handle environmental-
remediation activities at the Debtors' remaining properties.

Ted Stenger, executive vice president of MLC, said, "A significant
number of these properties are old industrial sites that have a
need for substantial environmental remediation.  It is nearly
impossible to redevelop such properties for productive, job-
creating purposes unless environmental remediation is complete or
the buyer can be assured the funding and procedures exist to do
the remediation.  The Plan establishes a framework that will
provide this assurance."

MLC anticipates that the majority of the environmental remediation
contemplated in the ERT should be completed or well underway
within five years, and that the ERT will have adequate funding to
complete further remediation activities (such as periodic site
testing and maintenance) for up to 100 years.

The Debtors are presently targeting the first quarter of 2011 for
the confirmation of the Plan and expect that the majority of the
Debtors' unsecured claims will be resolved within the first two
years after the Plan is confirmed.

On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation and certain
subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York.

An order was entered approving the sale of substantially all of
the Company's operating assets to a new and independent company
under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and the sale closed on
July 10, 2009.  On that date, General Motors Corporation changed
its name to Motors Liquidation Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brinkman Case Filed Aug. 23 in Jefferson County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Brinkman Jr., on behalf of his father Fred Brinkman, on Aug.
23, 2010, filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against 45 defendant
corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Some of the defendants named in the suit include Able Supply,
Chevron Corporation, DuPont, Entergy Corporation, Shell Oil
Company, and Texaco.

Court documents show that the elder Mr. Brinkman worked as brick
mason for Huber Construction and Able Supply at several Beaumont
and Port Arthur refineries, including DuPont and Chevron.  The
suit does not give exact dates of employment.

The suit states, "Fred Brinkman died on Dec. 31, 2008, from a
debilitating, disfiguring and painful asbestos-caused disease
known as lung cancer."

On top of exemplary damages, the younger Mr. Brinkman is suing for
his father's past and future mental anguish, medical expenses and
lost wages.

Beaumont attorney Tina Bradley, Esq., of the Hobson & Bradley law
firm represents the younger Mr. Brinkman.

Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, will preside over Case No.
A187-750.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rudolph F. X. Migliore Settles 55 Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Rudolph F. X. Migliore P.C. and their co-council
have been successful in recovering compensation for victims of
asbestos, mesothelioma and lung cancer, according to a Company
press release dated Aug. 27, 2010.

The most recent major settlements cover 55 individual clients
collecting compensation from 27 different companies or trusts.
Each case was unique in the amount of asbestos exposure and the
degree to which the victim was affected.  The lawsuits were
brought in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County.

An individual lawsuit was brought on behalf of every victim and
this settlement does not necessarily represent the total amount
that the victims may be awarded.  These collective settlements
will provide compensation to deserving victims that were afflicted
with asbestos exposure, lung cancer, mesothelioma or even death at
the hands of this dangerous substance.

The Law Firm of Rudolph F. X. Migliore, P.C. and their co-council
has handled over 1,200 asbestos related cases, including 195 lung
cancer cases.  Rudy Migliore, Esq., also serves as a resource to
victims of exposure and assists them in their time of need.  The
firm worked with a network of attorneys to bring these lawsuits.

Individual lawsuits brought on behalf of every client allow each
settlement to be tailored to the specific exposure and its
consequences to the victim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 18 People File Suit v. 147 Firms in W.Va. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen individuals, on Aug. 11, 2010, filed 14 asbestos-related
complaints against 147 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The plaintiffs are: Ermel L. Deulley and Elneta J. Deulley; Carl
E. Douglas and Karen L. Douglas; Dolores A. Frazier, executrix of
the Estate of William P. Frazier; Marian J. Koller, executrix of
the Estate of George J. Koller; Edward D. Leasure Jr., executor of
the Estate of Edward D. Leasure Sr.; Cindy Zajac, executrix of the
Estate of Lester F. Mackey; Patricia A. Naegele, executrix of the
Estate of David C. Naegele Sr.; Franklin D. Pennington and Jennie
S. Pennington; Leroy Slappy Jr. and Ruth Slappy; Harold Thomas and
Sharon Thomas; Dorothy Jean Vincenti, executrix of the Estate of
Thomas G. Vincenti; Michael A. Wadas II, executor of the Estate of
Michael A. Wadas; and Doris Wells, administratrix of the Estate of
Harry F. Wells.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants exposed them to and/or caused
them to inhale asbestos dust and other dust from products.  They
claim the exposure it was caused their lung injuries.

The plaintiffs seek jury trials to resolve all issues involved in
their cases.  David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq.,
Lee W. Davis, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq., are representing the
plaintiffs.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case Nos. 10-C-1428, 10-C-1429, 10-C-1430,
10-C-1431, 10-C-1432, 10-C-1433, 10-C-1434, 10-C-1435, 10-C-1436,
10-C-1437, 10-C-1437, 10-C-1438, 10-C-1439, and 10-C-1440 have
been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants' Committee Opposing Garlock's Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Garlock Sealing Technologies
LLC, encounters opposition from the official asbestos claimants'
committee to the proposal for developing a Chapter 11 plan,
Bloomberg reports.

In an Aug. 30, 2010 court filing, the asbestos committee said that
Garlock is wrong when it proposes deciding the validity of
asbestos claims before estimating the total dollar amount of the
claims.  The committee said that trying individual claims would
tie up a U.S. District Court for years.

Instead, the committee first wants a determination about the
universe of asbestos claims.  The best evidence, according to the
committee, is what it calls "Garlock's historical claims
resolution database."  The committee wants access to the database.

The asbestos committee also wants a decision about the value of
Garlock's business.

In addition, the committee seeks to investigate whether pre-
bankruptcy restructurings of Garlock's business resulted in
fraudulent transfers that the committee can attack.  The committee
says that the restructurings may have been designed to move assets
beyond the reach of asbestos claimants.

The asbestos committee said it believes that the investigations
can be completed in time for the formulation of a plan before
Garlock's exclusive right to propose a plan expires on April 1,
2011. The April 11, 2011 deadline could be extended.

The committee disputes Garlock's argument that its remaining
asbestos liability should be minimal, even though it already paid
out more than US$1 billion.  The committee accuses Garlock of
attempting to "rewrite applicable state tort law and ignore the
teachings of medical science."

Garlock, a Palmyra, N.Y.-based gasket maker, filed under Chapter
11 in June 2010 to deal with the last 100,000 asbestos claims.
Non-bankrupt affiliates are defendants on 30,000 claims.

The company has been saying it intends to pay all asbestos
claimants in full, although litigation may be necessary in the
process.  Garlock intends for the plan to use special provisions
in bankruptcy law so that EnPro and all subsidiaries will have
releases. There is US$194 million of insurance remaining.

The case is styled In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 10-
31607, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina
(Charlotte).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Facing Bailout After Losing Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's contributions to the Asbestos Injury
Compensation Fund may be in jeopardy after it lost an appeal
against a tax ruling, The Australian reports.

The ruling -- that the Company owes AU$412 million in unpaid taxes
and penalties, a decision that the Company is expected to appeal -
- came as a surprise to investors and raises the specter of
another cash injection from the New South Wales government if the
Company is unable to provide adequate payments to the AICF.

The Company is required to pay 35% of its operating cash flow to
asbestos victims each year.  Its liabilities are estimated at
about AU$100 million a year.

Sept. 1, 2010's setback comes less than a year after the federal
and NSW governments bailed out the Company with an AU$320 million
loan to fund liabilities the Company could not meet, because its
earnings had been hit by the slump in U.S. housing.  The Company
derives about 80% of its sales from U.S. markets, where it is the
largest provider of home siding.

A spokesman for NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos said that
justice for asbestos victims was the government's priority.  The
Company confirmed it had 21 days to decide to appeal against the
decision by Federal Court judge Margaret Stone.

If the Company fails at this second appeal or chooses to accept
the Sept. 1, 2010 decision, it would need to book a non-cash
charge of US$330.4 million (AU$387.7 million).

The liability arose because RCI, a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company, allegedly owes back taxes on gains it made after a 1999
restructure to the business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NMED Charges Santa Fe Firm for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New Mexico Environment Department issued a compliance order
against Advantage Asphalt, a paving firm in Santa Fe, N.M., for
allegedly mishandling hazardous asbestos-containing construction
waste, the Mesothelioma Resource Center reports.

The state claims that Advantage Asphalt illegally dumped pipes
containing asbestos in early 2009 while the Company was working a
street improvement project in Bloomfield.  The Santa Fe New
Mexican reports that the compliance order comes during an ongoing
investigation by the Santa Fe County Sheriff into alleged fraud in
the county's Public Works Department.

While the city of Bloomfield directed the Company to abandon the
existing utilities in place, the state alleges that Advantage
Asphalt put at least 250 feet of the asbestos-containing pipe in a
dumpster that was then taken to a landfill.

The state then alleges that the landfill notified the dumpster
Company and when Advantage Asphalt employees were told of the
issue, they "used sledge hammers and a maul to crush the broken
pipe," put the remains in garbage bags and put the bags back into
the dumpster.

The compliance order lists 11 state law violations and carries
penalties of up to US$15,000 per day for each violation, the news
source reported.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dublin Factory Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Dublin City Coroner's Court in Dublin, Ireland,
heard that the death of 70-year-old Vincent Joyce, a former car
factory worker from Dublin, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, The Irish Times reports.

Mr. Joyce died at the Mater hospital on June 30, 2010.

The court heard Mr. Joyce was taken to Connolly hospital by
ambulance on May 27, 2010 after coming home from holidays, as he
had shortness of breath.  He had not been unwell before that,
apart from a chest infection.  He was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma.

The inquest heard Mr. Joyce had worked in the car manufacturing
industry more than 40 years earlier and in the shipping industry
before 1971, where he may have had exposure to asbestos.

Coroner Dr. Brian Farrell said it was an extraordinarily short
history [of illness].  He recorded a narrative verdict, a summary
of the facts of the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Mine Gets C$3.5MM From Quebec Gov't.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec government will guarantee a C$3.5 million line of
credit for the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos, Quebec, in which the mine
is one of Canada's last asbestos mines, CBC News reports.

The Jeffrey mine has been lobbying the provincial government for a
C$58 million loan. The money will allow the Jeffrey Mine to reopen
and resume exports of asbestos -- also called chrysotile -- for
September 2010.

During that time, Bernard Coulombe, the owner and president of
Jeffrey Mine, hopes to attract private investors in order to
secure a C$58 million loan from the provincial government.

The mine's supporters say the C$58 million will create 400 direct
and 1,000 indirect jobs, and allow the mine to remain open for
another 25 years.

Mr. Coulombe said the production and use of chrysotile are safe,
and the mine needs to meet an international demand for the
mineral.

The Canadian Cancer Society, as well as doctors across Quebec and
Canada, has lobbied the Quebec government to not support the
production of asbestos by lending money to the mine.

More than 50 countries have banned the production and use of
asbestos in all its forms, but Canada continues to permit the
mining of chrysotile fibers, mainly for export.

The Jeffrey Mine has until the end of December 2010 to pay back
the loan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Completes A&E Liabilities Transfer to NICO
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation announced on Aug. 31, 2010 the
completion of the previously disclosed transfer of legacy asbestos
and environmental pollution liabilities to National Indemnity
Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., according to a
Company press release dated Aug. 31, 2010.

The transfer is consistent with the terms announced on July 15,
2010.  CNA's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Thomas F.
Motamed, said, "We are pleased to have completed this important
transaction with a company of the stature of National Indemnity.
Overall, the transaction fully meets our objectives -- effectively
eliminating asbestos and pollution reserve risk, and legacy
reinsurer dispute and credit risk; enhancing our capital
flexibility; and sharpening our focus on ongoing businesses and
strategy."

CNA expects to recognize an after-tax loss of about US$370 million
in its third quarter 2010 financial statements.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation is a commercial insurance
writer and a property and casualty company.  The Company's
insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty
lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Expended $2.7MM in 2Q on Lobbying
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a disclosure report, The Dow Chemical Company, in the
second quarter of 2010, expended US$2.7 million to lobby Congress
and several federal agencies on issues ranging from energy
efficiency to asbestos to defense, The Associated Press reports.

The Company's total lobbying cost compared with the US$1.2 million
it spent in the second quarter of 2009 and US$2 million it spent
in the first quarter.

From April 2010 to June 2010, the Company discussed pending
legislation and issues on a number of fronts, including security
of chemical facilities and energy efficiency.

The Company also lobbied on green chemistry, asbestos legislation,
derivatives, health reform, taxes, trade and in support of
ballistics shield material and solar materials under defense
appropriations measures.

In addition to Congress, the Company lobbied a number of agencies,
including the Commerce Department, the U.S. Trade Representative,
the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House, according
to the report filed on July 20, 2010 with the House clerk's
office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Denies Remand Motion in Olschewske
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, denied a
Motion to Remand filed by the heirs of Thomas Olschewske, in an
asbestos-related action filed against Rockwell Automation, Inc.

The case is styled Linda Olschewske, et al., Plaintiffs v.
Asbestos Defendants (B-P), Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered judgment in Case
No. C 10-1729 PJH on Aug. 11, 2010.

This was an action brought by the heirs of Thomas Olschewske,
deceased, alleging injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos.
Plaintiffs originally filed this action in December 2008,
asserting claims against numerous defendants.  On March
10, 2010, plaintiffs amended the complaint to substitute Rockwell
Automation, Inc. for one of the "Doe" defendants.

On April 22, 2010, Rockwell removed the case.  Rockwell contended
that plaintiffs' claims against Rockwell were based on the
decedent's exposure to equipment allegedly supplied by the U.S.
Navy, products that Rockwell claimed would have been designed and
manufactured in accordance with specifications provided by the
United States Government, and designed and built under the
direction and control of the U.S. Government and its officers.

The plaintiffs' motion to remand was denied.

David R. Donadio, Esq., Richard Martin Grant, Esq., of Brayton
Purcell LLP in Novato, Calif., represented the Plaintiffs.

Evan Craig Nelson, Esq., Nicole Elisabet Gage, Esq., of Tucker
Ellis & West LLP in San Francisco represented Defendants.


                           *********

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  * * *