CAR_Public/100917.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 184

                             Headlines

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit in Illinois Over Acurox
ALBEE BABY: Recalls 130 Sorelle Brand "Prescott" Fixed-Sided Cribs
ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Agrees to Pay $3MM to Settle Strip-Search Suit
AMERICAN HOME: Hit With $459 Million Judgment Over "Junk Fax"
ASTELLAS PHARMA: Sued in Florida Over Adenisone Monopoly

BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 36,700 Children's Toys
CANADA: Vancouver Aboriginal People Join Class Suit Alleging Abuse
CHICAGO: FLSA Class Suit Over Blackberry Use Still Pending
CIBC: Ontario Court Dismisses Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal
COASTAL CHEMICAL: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime

COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls 50,000 Floating Spotlights
COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Okays Settlement of Shareholder Suit
DJSP ENTERPRISES: Law Firm Reminds Purchasers of Sept. 20 Deadline
FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Poligrip

HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 3,650 Spektrum Receivers
MARLABS INC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Defrauding H-1B Employees
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial in Kinetic Knife's Suit Underway
MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings in Canadian Suit Ongoing
MEDTRONIC INC: Court Stays Appeal on Dismissal of State Suits

MEDTRONIC INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Court Denies Appeal on Class Certification Ruling
MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Junked Securities Fraud Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit Pending
MEDTRONIC INC: Bid to Nix "Wright" Suit Set for Sept. 16 Hearing

MEDTRONIC INC: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Minnesota
NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Non-Binding Mediation in Illinois Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: Says APBO Can't Exceed $1 Billion
OREGON HEALTH: Sued for Conducting Bad-Faith Investigations
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Fixodent

SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Settles Lawsuit Over Foreign Royalties
SPEARMINT RHINO: Accused in Calif. Suit of Violating Labor Laws
TACO BELL: Completing Class Action Discovery Over Labor Violations
TOLL BROTHERS: Agrees to Settle Securities Violations Suit
TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Three Defective Drywall Suits

WEATHER SHIELD: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Defective Windows

* Federal Securities Class Action Filings Decline 4% in 1st Half


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: K-Sea Affiliate Involved in 1 Exposure Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Govt. Provides AU$533,000 Cash Grant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Longwell Co. Fined $165,400 for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie School Fined AU$1.6T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Ruling in Bevan Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Board Decision in Guidry's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment OK'd in Riggs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Affirms Ruling in Andersons' Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Decision in Fields Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Constantinides
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northrop Grumman's Bids Denied in Eckerle Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Russell Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Local Govt. Urged to Prioritize Safety
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup, Inspection at Middleport Site Complete

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from 22 Brown University Dorms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $921T Funds Allocated for Troy Bldg. Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rwanda Government to Discuss Report on Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Building Left at Former Fostoria Glass Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Affirms Ruling in Illinois Central

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Gitto's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Faddish Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Saller's Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling in Georgia-Pacific Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Falgoust Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Firms to Pay $16,250 for Cleanup Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial on Equitable Building Case Set Jan. 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Concerned Over Abatement at Va. School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Summerlin Road in Fla.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ilkeston Pit Worker's Death Linked to Exposure



                             *********

ACURA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit in Illinois Over Acurox
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed Monday that it and certain
of its current and former executive officers have been named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed on
September 10, 2010 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint
alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements,
or failing to disclose material facts in order to make statements
not misleading, during the period February 21, 2006 through
April 22, 2010, relating to the Company's Acurox(R) product
candidate, and that these statements artificially inflated the
trading price of the Company's common stock to the detriment of
shareholders who purchased shares during that time. Plaintiff
seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class.

Acura believes the claims are meritless and intends to defend this
lawsuit vigorously.

Acura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical company
engaged in research, development and manufacture of product
candidates intended to introduce limits and impediments to abuse
utilizing the Company's proprietary Aversion(R) Technology,
Impede(TM) Technology, and other novel technologies.

In a separate news release, the law firm Federman & Sherwood
stated: If you are a member of the Class as described above, you
may move the Court no later than Tuesday, November 9, 2010, to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. However, in order to do
so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Telephone: (405) 235-1560
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


ALBEE BABY: Recalls 130 Sorelle Brand "Prescott" Fixed-Sided Cribs
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Albee Baby, of East Rutherford, N.J., announced a voluntary recall
of about 130 Sorelle brand "Prescott" fixed-sided cribs.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

These cribs are re-labeled fixed-sided Simplicity cribs that
contain tubular metal mattress-support frames recalled in April
2010.  The mattress support frames can bend or detach, causing
part of the mattress to drop, creating a space into which an
infant or toddler can roll and become wedged, entrapped or fall
out of the crib.

In the April 2010 Simplicity recall, CPSC reported the death of a
one-year-old child from Attleboro, Mass. who suffocated when he
became entrapped between the crib mattress and the crib frame. In
addition, CPSC has received reports of 29 incidents involving the
Simplicity cribs where the cribs collapsed due to the metal
mattress support frame detaching or bending.  These include one
child entrapment that did not result in injury and one child who
suffered minor cuts when his head struck the broken mattress
support bar.  CPSC has received one report of a consumer who, in
April of 2010, removed the Sorelle Prescott label from the crib
and found a Simplicity crib label underneath.  (The consumer
purchased the crib in July of 2009, prior to the Simplicity
mattress support recall.)

This recall involves full-sized fixed-sided cribs sold in an oak
finish, as 3-in-1 or 4-in-1 convertible cribs.  "Sorelle
Furniture" along with the company's address, the crib's model
number and a manufacturer's code are printed on a label attached
to the headboard or footboard.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10344.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
by AlbeeBaby.com between July 2009 and October 2009 for between
$180 and $210.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Albee Baby for a replacement crib, store credit or refund.
C&T International/Albee Baby is attempting to directly contact
known consumers who purchased the recalled crib online from July
2009 through October 2009.  In the meantime, find an alternate,
age appropriate, safe sleeping environment for the child, such as
a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed.  For additional information,
contact Albee Baby toll-free at (877) 692-5233 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's website at http://www.albeebaby.com/


ALLEGHENY COUNTY: Agrees to Pay $3MM to Settle Strip-Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling at Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports Allegheny
County will pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that
successfully challenged the constitutionality of strip-searching
people jailed for minor offenses.

County solicitor Michael Wojcik said Monday the county agreed to
settle the case because recent rulings in similar cases across the
country favored plaintiffs.

"We're not too pleased with it, but it's better than going to
trial and getting hit with a larger amount," Mr. Wojcik said.

Megan Dardanell, spokeswoman for County Executive Dan Onorato,
said the proposed monetary settlement covering an estimated 12,600
people is comparable with those other Pennsylvania counties made.

Delaware County agreed to pay $2.9 million for about 10,000
people, Dauphin County agreed to $2.2 million for about 2,500
people, and Lancaster County agreed to $2.5 million for about
10,000 people, she said. Dauphin and Lancaster settled in 2009.
Delaware County settled this year.

Chester, Lackawanna, Pike and Susquehanna have similar cases
pending.

"We knew we were going to have to pay, so we tried to reach the
best settlement we could," Ms. Dardanell said. "And compared to
other counties, we think we did."

Rob Pierce, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said the proposed
settlement is fair.

"I believe that (the jail's) current policy is constitutional, and
this lawsuit helped change the practice," he said.

University of Pittsburgh law professor John Burkoff said the
county and plaintiffs faced "real risks of losing" at trial.
Individual settlements are capped at $3,000, about average for
this kind of case, Mr. Burkoff said.

"If there's a dollar recovery, that tends to be the range for a
strip-search," he said. "It's an interesting and sensible
settlement."

The jail strip-searched people held for misdemeanor or summary
offenses because they might be incarcerated with people processed
for felonies, violent misdemeanors or drug charges, Mr. Wojcik
said. They could have carried in weapons or drugs for other
people, either voluntarily or because the other person coerced
them, he said.

The plaintiffs claimed that conducting searches without reasonable
suspicion a person is carrying contraband violates the Fourth
Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches.

Nine of 11 federal circuit courts of appeal have ruled routine
strip-searches of people held on minor offenses are
unconstitutional. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has
jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, has not ruled on the issue.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry issued a preliminary
injunction March 18, 2008, banning the practice. If he approves
the settlement, the ban will become permanent.

"We believe the policy that existed before the lawsuit complied
with the law, but the court didn't agree with us," Mr. Wojcik
said.

The jail added scanning technology, including ion detectors, that
make it harder for someone to sneak in weapons or drugs, Mr.
Wojcik said. A scanner "hit" gives the jail probable cause to
conduct a search, he said.

About $1 million of the settlement goes to the plaintiffs'
lawyers. The rest of the money will be divided among people who
were unconstitutionally strip-searched between July 2004 and March
2008.

If the judge approves the settlement, the county will send notices
to people it believes are eligible for money and set up a website
with the settlement's details. Any money left over would be
donated to Neighborhood Legal Services, a nonprofit group that
provides legal services to the poor.


AMERICAN HOME: Hit With $459 Million Judgment Over "Junk Fax"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land at Fulton County Daily Report relates a now-defunct home
improvement company has been hit with a $459 million "junk fax"
judgment following a four-hour bench trial, said plaintiffs
attorney Marc B. Hershovitz.  The case, originally filed in 2003,
targeted American Home Services Inc. for sending unsolicited fax
advertisements to 306,000 class members in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"That's $1,500 per class member," said Mr. Hershovitz. "American
Home Services really liked sending junk faxes."

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Melvin K. Westmoreland heard
the case Monday morning and issued his ruling that afternoon, said
Mr. Hershovitz.  Prior to that, the case had been appealed to the
Georgia Court of Appeals, which upheld the class certification;
the state Supreme Court declined to hear the resulting appeal, he
said.

According to court documents, American Home Services operated from
mid-2002 to mid-2004, installing windows, siding and gutters.  Mr.
Hershovitz said that while the company no longer exists, he and
his co-counsel will pursue its commercial liability insurer, Alea,
in an effort to satisfy the judgment.

"We're arguing over that now," he said.

Mr. Hershovitz said the case had been narrowed by an earlier
summary judgment order, and the defendant elected to waive a jury
trial in favor of having Westmoreland decide the case. "We were
able to walk into court at 9 a.m. and walk out with a judgment at
1 p.m.," he said.

Mr. Hershovitz handled the case along with Michael K. Jablonski,
Ned Blumenthal and Roy E. Barnes. (Mr. Barnes did not participate
in the trial, as he is campaigning for governor.)

Defense attorneys Neal J. Quirk and Brendan H. Parnell of Quirk &
Quirk could not be reached immediately.

The case is A Fast Sign Co. v. American Home Services, No.
2003CV77276.


ASTELLAS PHARMA: Sued in Florida Over Adenisone Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Astellas Pharma abuses its
monopoly of adenisone to more than quadruple the price of the drug
used in cardiac stress tests, Lakeland Regional Medical Center
claims in an antitrust class action in Tampa Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc.
v. Astellas US, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-02008 (M.D. Fla.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/MedicAntiT.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          Timothy R. Fiedler, Esq.
          Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS, & MILES, P.C.
          P.O. Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: 334-269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  tim.fiedler@beasleyallen.com
                  archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Senn, Esq.
          PETERSON & MYERS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 24628
          Lakeland, FL 33802-4628
          Telephone: 863-683-6511
          E-mail: ssenn@petersonmyers.com


BAYSIDE FURNISHINGS: Recalls 36,700 Children's Toys
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fun Stuff Inc., of Newport News, Va., announced a voluntary recall
of about 14,400 Click Armband Bracelets, 7,900 Klick Klick Balls
and 14,400 BoBo Balls.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The small balls on the end of the toy's arms can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  The toys were marketed for
children age 3 and over.  CPSC staff has designated these toys for
children between the ages of 19 to 35 months.

CPSC has received one report of a ball detaching in a 21-month old
girl's mouth in Charlotte, N.C. No medical treatment was required.

This recall involves bracelets and balls are made of stretchy,
rubber material with hard plastic, colorful balls attached at the
end of the toy's arms.  The toys were sold with orange, green,
pink, purple and blue colored balls.  The BoBo balls have a
flashing lighted ball encased in the stretchy material.  The
following item numbers are involved in this recall:

       Toy                 Item Number
       ---                 -----------
  Click Armband Bracelet      FS1842
  Klick Klick Ball            FS1734
  BoBo Ball                   FS1814


Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10341.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Beach resort stores nationwide from January 2009 through August
2010 for between $2 and $5.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
young children and return them to the place of purchase or contact
Fun Stuff to receive a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Fun Stuff toll-free at (888) 386-7833 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.funstuffinc.net/


CANADA: Vancouver Aboriginal People Join Class Suit Alleging Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports hundreds of aboriginal people on Vancouver Island
have joined a class action lawsuit alleging they were victims of
abuse at Indian day schools, much like native residential school
students who recently received government compensation.

Philomena Alphonse, who attended St. Catherine's Indian Day School
in the Cowichan Valley during the 1940s and '50s, is among the 800
Vancouver Island First Nations members who have joined a country-
wide, class action lawsuit against the federal government and
several churches.

Ms. Alphonse says she and her fellow day students were subjected
to the same kind of abuse that many students suffered at
residential schools. The only difference was she and her
classmates went home to their parents at night.

Now she is hoping the lawsuit will result in recognition and some
kind of help.

"What I'm hoping now is some kind of help, because we're faced
with high unemployment, high dropout rate, alcoholism and drug
abuse," said Ms. Alphonse.

                  $15 Billion in Damages Sought

Joan Jack is the Winnipeg lawyer leading the class action lawsuit,
which now represents thousands of day school students across the
country.

Ms. Jack also compares the situation to the widespread abuse of
aboriginal children at native residential school during the same
era.

"It's exactly the same," said Ms. Jack. "It's just at night,
children got to go home to their parents."

In the claim, the school survivors say they were physically and
sexually abused and stripped of their language, culture and
heritage. They are seeking $15 billion in damages.

If successful, the class action lawsuit could apply to an
estimated 75,000 aboriginal students who attended government-
funded, church-run day schools during the residential-school era.

According to Ray Mason, who heads the Manitoba group Spirit Wind
that is leading the lawsuit, many of the students lived in
convents, boarding houses, hostels and orphanages, rather than in
school dormitories, or went home to their families.

In June 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in the House of
Commons and offered a formal apology and $1.9 billion in
compensation to about 80,000 former students who attended
residential schools.

Overseen by the Department of Indian Affairs, the church-run
residential schools aimed to force aboriginal children to learn
English, and adopt Christianity and Canadian customs as part of a
government policy called "aggressive assimilation."

                          No Apology Yet

Ms. Jack says, unlike the residential school students, the day
school students have never received an apology, let alone
compensation, for what they allegedly went through.

"Children were beaten excessively, children were beaten for
speaking their language, children were sexually abused, children
were physically abused," said Ms. Jack.

But the lawsuit is about more than money, she said.

"It's really more about giving the people the opportunity to be
heard and to have their day in court," she said.

Ms. Jack expects the lawsuit will take years to resolve, and she's
hoping the federal government and the churches involved will come
forward sooner, with apologies and the money to help individuals
and their communities heal.


CHICAGO: FLSA Class Suit Over Blackberry Use Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Heller, a contributing writer to Workforce Management,
a sister publication of Business Insurance, reports that for the
past three years, the Chicago Police Department has handed
powerful new tools to officers in the field -- BlackBerry
smartphones.  But the BlackBerry may have backfired on the
department, which is now being sued by a sergeant in the gang
investigations unit for the overtime he claims he earned while
using his smartphone off the clock.

The department "has willfully violated the (Fair Labor Standards
Act) by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees all compensation due them under
the FLSA" for their after-hours Blackberry use, Sgt. Jeffrey Allen
said in a suit filed in May as a proposed class action. A judge
has to certify the case as a class action for it to proceed.

The case is one of a handful nationwide in which employees have
claimed overtime pay for smartphone use -- and apparently the
first involving public employees. But lawyers say such cases are a
clear warning to employers to put a smartphone usage policy in
place before they end up in potentially costly litigation.
Smartphones "are very dangerous and risky for nonexempt employees
to have if you're worried about overtime," says Jeremy A. Roth, a
partner at San Diego law firm Littler Mendelson.

"Clearly there's a tremendous benefit to being able to access work
remotely," says Howard S. Lavin, an attorney at the law firm
Stroock & Stroock & Lavin in New York. "It's a fabulous tool. The
problem is when you take technology and apply it to longstanding
laws, there are unintended consequences."

Employers can minimize the risk of litigation by restricting
smart-phone use to exempt employees or by instructing nonexempt
employees to take calls from customers or clients only during
regular work hours.

Under the FLSA, nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime
compensation for "time spent working" beyond a 40-hour workweek.
An employee does not even need to be required by the employer to
work overtime but must merely do so for the employer's benefit.

Mr. Allen said the police department provided him with a
BlackBerry so he could "access work-related e-mails, voice mails,
and text message work orders regardless of their location. Chicago
Police Department work was routinely accomplished through" using
his BlackBerry. An attorney for the Chicago Police Department
could not be reached for comment.

In a class action suit filed last year in Wisconsin, a former CB
Richard Ellis Group Inc. employee said the Los Angeles-based real
estate brokerage required him to answer messages and calls on his
smart phone within 15 minutes "regardless of and without receiving
compensation for the time spent doing so." CB Richard Ellis did
not return calls seeking comment.

While an employee's off-the-clock smartphone use may amount to
only a few minutes here or there -- and the FLSA provides an
exception for "de minimis" overtime -- legal experts say an
employer's liability can mount up in a class action.

Moreover, the electronic records stored on smartphones may give an
employee solid evidence on which to base an overtime claim.

None of the suits has reached an adjudication on the merits.
Bellevue, Wash.-based T-Mobile USA Inc. recently settled a case
filed by sales representatives who claimed they were entitled to
overtime pay because they were required to monitor their
smartphones "at all hours of the day." As part of the settlement,
the parties agreed not to disclose the terms.


CIBC: Ontario Court Dismisses Appeal of Class Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Executive reports that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has dismissed the appeal of a decision that stalled a
class action suit against CIBC claiming compensation for unpaid
overtime.

In June 2009, a motion court judge dismissed the effort to certify
a class action on behalf of about 31,000 tellers and customer
service reps against CIBC ruling that "the action lacked the
essential element of commonality". The suit sought seeking $600
million in damages.

That ruling was appealed, and, according to the Superior Court's
decision, the main issues of the appeal were "whether the motion
judge erred in failing to find that there were common issues that
would advance the proceeding and in rejecting the appellant's
argument as to the illegality of the bank's overtime policy."

The Superior Court turned down the appeal in a majority opinion,
with one of three judges dissenting.


COASTAL CHEMICAL: Accused in Texas Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a dispatcher claims Coastal
Chemical Co. forced him, and others, to work more than 100 hours a
week without overtime pay, in a class action in Corpus Christi
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cavazos v. Coastal Chemical Co., LLC,
Case No. 10-cv-00295 (S.D. Tex.) (Jack, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Elizabeth Mosterson, Esq.
          Robert E. Goodman, Jr., Esq.
          KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC
          3109 Carlisle St.
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: 214-969-9099


COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls 50,000 Floating Spotlights
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Coleman Company, Inc., of Wichita, Kansas, announced a
voluntary recall of about 50,000 Coleman (R) WaterBeam (TM) 4D
Water-Activated Floating Spotlights.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The lens assembly can come apart from the main housing of the
spotlight with force and pose a risk of impact injuries to
consumers.

Coleman has received 33 reports of the lens assembly coming apart,
18 of which resulted in reports of impact injuries such as
bruising, lacerations and minor burns.

This recall involves Coleman(R) water-activated hand-held
spotlights, model number 5338-782 (orange) UPC 76501 222733, model
number 5338-792 (yellow) UPC 76501 222753 and model number
2000000153 (blue/white) UPC 76501 226683.  A white label is
affixed to the inside of the spotlight lens with the model number
and production date information printed on the label.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10343.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
various sporting good stores and retail outlets nationwide from
January 2005 through June 2010 for between about $20 and $25.

Consumers should immediately remove the batteries and stop using
the spotlights.  Visit http://www.coleman.com/for additional
instructions on how to obtain a replacement light.  For additional
information, contact Coleman at (800) 835-3278 between 7:00 a.m.
and 4:45 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's website at http://www.coleman.com/or via e-mail at
colemanrecall@coleman.com


COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Court Okays Settlement of Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York gave
its final approval to the settlement agreement resolving a
shareholder class action against Comverse Technology, Inc.,
according to Verint Systems Inc.'s Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period
ended July 31, 2010

Comverse and certain of its current and former officers and
directors were named in these litigation relating to the matters
involved in the Comverse special committee investigation:

     (a) a consolidated shareholder class action before the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
         In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
         No. 06-CV-1825;

     (b) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the
         U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
         New York, In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Derivative
         Litigation. No. 06-CV-1849; and

     (c) a consolidated shareholder derivative action before the
         Supreme Court of the State of New York, In re Comverse
         Technology, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
         No. 601272/2006.

Verint was not named as a defendant in any of these suits.  Igal
Nissim, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, was named as
a defendant in the federal and state shareholder derivative
actions in his capacity as the former Chief Financial Officer of
Comverse, and Dan Bodner, the company's Chief Executive Officer,
was named as a defendant in the federal and state shareholder
derivative actions in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer
of Verint (i.e., as the president of a significant subsidiary of
Comverse).

Mr. Nissim and Mr. Bodner were not named in the shareholder class
action suit.

The consolidated complaints in both the state and federal
shareholder derivative actions alleged that the defendants
breached certain duties to Comverse and that certain current and
former officers and directors of Comverse were unjustly enriched
(and, in the federal action, violated the federal securities laws)
by, among other things: (a) allowing and participating in a scheme
to backdate the grant dates of employee stock options to
improperly benefit Comverse's executives and certain directors;
(b) allowing insiders, including certain of the defendants, to
personally profit by trading Comverse's stock while in possession
of material inside information; (c) failing to properly oversee or
implement procedures to detect and prevent such improper
practices; (d) causing Comverse to issue materially false and
misleading proxy statements, as well as causing Comverse to file
other false and misleading documents with the SEC; and (e)
exposing Comverse to civil liability. The complaints sought
unspecified damages and various forms of equitable relief.

On December 16, 2009, Comverse entered into agreements, which were
subsequently amended, to settle the consolidated shareholder class
action and the consolidated shareholder derivative actions.
Neither the company nor Mr. Nissim or Mr. Bodner is responsible
for making any payments or relinquishing any equity holdings under
the terms of the settlement.

On June 23, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York issued orders in the shareholder class action and
federal shareholder derivative action granting final approval of
the settlement agreements in the respective actions.  The Court
later amended its order in the federal derivative action on July
1, 2010 to incorporate ministerial changes.  The respective orders
dismissed both actions with prejudice.

The parties to the state shareholder derivative action entered a
stipulation of discontinuance in July 2010, referencing the
dismissal of the federal shareholder class action and derivative
actions.  A conference before the state court is scheduled for
September 14, 2010.

Verint Systems Inc. -- http://verint.com/-- is a provider of
analytic software-based solutions for the security and business
intelligence markets.  Its analytic solutions collect, retain and
analyze voice, fax, video, e-mail, Internet and data transmissions
from voice, video and Internet protocol networks
for the purpose of generating actionable intelligence for decision
makers to take more effective action.  Its solutions for the
security market consist primarily of communications interception
solutions and networked video solutions.  Its solutions for the
business intelligence market consist primarily of solutions for
enterprises that rely on contact centers for voice, e-mail and
Internet interactions with their customers.  The business
intelligence segment utilizes networked video information to allow
enterprises and institutions to enhance their operations,
processes and performance.  In February 2010, Verint announced the
acquisition of Iontas.


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Law Firm Reminds Purchasers of Sept. 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. reminds all purchasers of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.
securities between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive,
that September 20, 2010 is the lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

The Complaint filed by Saxena White alleges that during the Class
Period, DJSP and certain of its officers and directors violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false
and misleading statements and failing to disclose adverse facts
known to them regarding the Company's business and financial
results.

On March 16, 2010, DJSP informed the investing community that
"there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that we
anticipate to go for another two or three years... foreclosure
volumes through 2012 are expected to increase dramatically." Then
on May 27, 2010, DJSP shocked the market when it lowered its
guidance for adjusted net income by $15 million to $17 million and
for adjusted EBITDA by $18 million to $22 million. On this news,
the Company's shares fell nearly 29%, opening on May 28, 2010 at
$6.33 per share.

If you purchased common stock between March 16, 2010 and May 27,
2010, inclusive, you may, no later than September 20, 2010,
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of the
class members. You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the
class action at www.saxenawhite.com, or directly contact Joe White
or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and
interests at:

     Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
     Greg Stone, Esq.
     SAXENA WHITE P.A.
     2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Telephone: (561) 394-3399
     Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
     E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
             gstone@saxenawhite.com

Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and
need not take any action at this time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston,
specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently
serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions
nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States.


FOOT LOCKER: Defends "Pereira" Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., continues to defend the suit captioned Pereira
v. Foot Locker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

Certain of the company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number
of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing various
class action allegations under state wage and hour laws, including
allegations concerning classification of employees as exempt or
nonexempt, unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and uniforms.

In Pereira v. Foot Locker, one of the class actions, plaintiff
alleged that the company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In September 2009, the
court conditionally certified a nationwide collective action.

No further updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a global
retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785
primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008.  The company,
through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers.  The Athletic Stores segment is an
athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include Foot
Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports and
Footaction.  The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects
Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates,
including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and
Internet Web sites.  The Foot Locker brand is the company's
principal brand.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Poligrip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Regina Leader-Post reports a Saskatchewan-based law firm is
launching class action lawsuits against the makers of two popular
denture adhesives.

Statements of claim which Merchant Law Group planned to file
Monday in Saskatchewan and B.C. allege zinc used in the products
Poligrip and Fixodent led to health problems in their users.

The suits, following on similar legal action taken in the U.S.,
are against the companies GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturer of
Poligrip, and Proctor and Gamble, which makes Fixodent.

"The zinc helps the dentures to stick to the gum," lawyer Tony
Merchant said in a news release. "The companies have placed
warnings and recognize the dangers," he added.

American Web sites began to inform consumers that Poligrip
contained zinc. However, the suit contends those warnings
downplayed the potential health effects of excessive zinc
consumption. In February this year, GSK announced that it would
stop using zinc in Poligrip as a precaution because of concerns
about potential health problems from long-term, excessive use.

At the time, Proctor and Gamble said it didn't plan changing the
formula of Fixodent, which used about half the zinc contained in
the GSK product Super Poligrip. However, its Web site also
notified consumers that, "Some reports suggest that excessive and
prolonged zinc intake may be linked to adverse health effects. Use
as directed and consult doctor if taking other products containing
zinc."

The statement of claim, which contains allegations not yet proven
in court, contends users of the dental adhesives have experienced
such adverse effects as numbness and tingling in the extremities,
burning sensations, balance problems and unexplained pain.

"Until recently, no mention was made of the potential injuries
that can result from using the products and the defendants
continued to breach their duty to warn consumers of the risks of
using denture adhesives until 2010," the claim alleges.

The suit does not contain a dollar figure for the damages sought.

In the U.S. some of the claims arising from GSK's product have
been settled.


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls 3,650 Spektrum Receivers
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Horizon Hobby Inc., of Champaign, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,500 Spektrum Receivers in the United States and
150 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The receiver can lose contact with the model airplane glider's
radio control while within normal radio range limits.  If this
happens, the glider can fall from the sky and hit consumers,
posing a risk of injury.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Spektrum AR6250 receivers designed for use
with carbon fiber model gliders.  Model number AR6250 can be found
on the back of the packaging and on the front and back of the
receiver. "Spektrum" is printed on the front of the receiver.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10342.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
Horizon Hobby direct sales representatives nationwide and Canada
from March 2009 through May 2010 for about $105.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled receivers and
contact Horizon Hobby for information on receiving a free
replacement receiver.  For additional information, contact Horizon
Hobby toll-free at (877) 504-0233 between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Central Time, Monday through Saturday, between 12:00 noon and 7:00
p.m., Central Time, Sunday, or by mail at 4105 Fieldstone Road,
Champaign, Ill. 61822. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.horizonhobby.com/


MARLABS INC: Accused in N.J. Suit of Defrauding H-1B Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims
Marlabs, Sona Patel, Siby Vadakekkara, Sanjay Vidayadharan, and
System Efficiency, software consultants, get workers H-1B visas
through fraud, then cheat them and put them to forced labor in the
United States, in Newark Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ramakapeta v. Marlabs Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 9420 in Case No.
33-av-00001 on Sept. 10, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/ForcedLabor.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cindy D. Salvo, Esq.
          THE SALVO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          165 Passaic Ave., Suite 310
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: 973-233-4080
          E-mail: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
          Daniel L. Low, Esq.
          Robert Klinck, Esq.
          Alicia Gutierrez, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          2300 M St., NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: 202-416-1848
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  dlow@kotchen.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Brown, Esq.
          PETERSON, BERK & CROSS, S.C.
          200 E. College Ave.
          Appleton, WI 54912
          Telephone: 920-831-0300
          E-mail: mbrown@pbclaw.com

               - and -

          Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq.
          V.K. VANDAVEER, P.L.L.C.
          P.O. Box 27317
          Washington, DC 20038-7317
          Telephone: 202-340-1215
          E-mail: atty@vkvlaw.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial in Kinetic Knife's Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings are underway in a putative class action filed
by Kinetic Knife against Medtronic, Inc., according to the
company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians
about the possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism
might manifest itself in a subset of implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-
defibrillators (CRT-Ds).  These included certain Marquis VR/DR and
Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits
were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims,
including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and
third party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.

One third party payor, Kinetic Knife, dismissed its original
action without prejudice and subsequently filed a putative class
action relating to the same subject matter.

Medtronic removed the action to federal court in the District of
Minnesota and filed a motion to dismiss.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Proceedings in Canadian Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial proceedings in a consolidated class action product
liability suit against Medtronic, Inc., in Canada, are underway,
according to its Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 30, 2010.

On Feb. 10, 2005, Medtronic voluntarily began to advise physicians
about the possibility that a specific battery shorting mechanism
might manifest itself in a subset of implantable cardioverter
defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-
defibrillators (CRT-Ds).  These included certain Marquis VR/DR and
Maximo VR/DR ICDs and certain InSync I/II/III CRT-D devices.

Subsequent to this voluntary field action, a number of lawsuits
were filed against the company alleging a variety of claims,
including individuals asserting claims of personal injury and
third party payors alleging entitlement to reimbursement.

Class action product liability suits pending in Canada are
consolidated in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The court certified a class proceeding on Dec. 6, 2007, and denied
Medtronic's leave to appeal certification on May 15, 2008.  The
class was certified to include individual implant recipients and
their family members.

In addition, the subrogated claims of the provincial health
insurers to recover costs incurred in providing medical services
to the implant class are claimed in the class proceeding.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Court Stays Appeal on Dismissal of State Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has issued an order staying further
proceedings of the plaintiffs' appeal on the dismissal of ten
cases against Medtronic, Inc., filed in state court, according to
the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2010.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads.
The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified the
company's action as a Class I recall.

As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of
approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases.  In general,
the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer
protection violations.

One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act as
a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and
one lawsuit has been brought by a third-party payor as a putative
class action suit.  Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been
commenced in state court, generally alleging similar causes of
action.  Of those state court actions, almost all are pending
before a single judge in Hennepin County District Court in the
state of Minnesota.

On Oct. 22, 2009, that court granted, on grounds of federal
preemption, Medtronic's motion to dismiss ten cases that the
parties had agreed represented all claims asserted in the cases
pending before the Minnesota court.  Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissals was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on July 14,
2010.

The Minnesota appellate court subsequently issued an order staying
further proceedings of the appeal until a pending appeal on the
same issues is resolved by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissed Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a multi-district
litigation against Medtronic, Inc., remains pending in the U.S.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Sept.
8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended
July 30, 2010.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads.
The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified the
company's action as a Class I recall.

As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of
approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases.  In general,
the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer
protection violations.

One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act as
a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and
one lawsuit has been brought by a third-party payor as a putative
class action suit.  Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been
commenced in state court, generally alleging similar causes of
action.  Of those state court actions, almost all are pending
before a single judge in Hennepin County District Court in the
state of Minnesota.

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a single federal judge in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) rules.

On January 5, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with prejudice the
master consolidated complaint for individuals and the master
consolidated complaint for third-party payors on grounds of
federal preemption.  On May 12, 2009, the MDL court dismissed with
prejudice 229 cases that adopted the master consolidated complaint
and stayed all other cases pending further order of the court.

Plaintiffs' appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was
argued on April 12, 2010.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Court Denies Appeal on Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada has denied the
appeal on its ruling denying class certification on the claim for
punitive damages against Medtronic, Inc., according to the
company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 30, 2010.

On Oct. 15, 2007, the company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads.
The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified the
company's action as a Class I recall.

As of Sept. 1, 2010, approximately 3,700 lawsuits regarding the
Fidelis leads have been filed against the company, including
approximately 47 putative class action suits reflecting a total of
approximately 8,100 individual personal injury cases.  In general,
the suits allege claims of product liability, warranty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional distress, and consumer
protection violations.

One lawsuit includes a claim by an individual purporting to act as
a surrogate for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and
one lawsuit has been brought by a third-party payor as a putative
class action suit.  Approximately 2,600 of the lawsuits have been
commenced in state court, generally alleging similar causes of
action.  Of those state court actions, almost all are pending
before a single judge in Hennepin County District Court in the
state of Minnesota.

In addition, one putative class action has been filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada.

On Oct. 20, 2009, that court certified a class proceeding, but
denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive
damages, which the plaintiffs appealed.

On July 16, 2010, the appeal was denied; plaintiffs have sought
leave to take a further appeal.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Junked Securities Fraud Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated putative class
action complaint against Medtronic, Inc., is pending before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according to the
company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 30, 2010.

On Nov. 8, 2007, Stanley Kurzweil filed a putative class action
complaint against the company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic during the period of June 25,
2007 through Oct. 15, 2007.

The complaint alleges that "materially false and misleading"
representations were made as to the market acceptance and use of
the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate
Medtronic's stock price.

Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to
Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated
putative class action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, the court entered an order dismissing the
complaint with prejudice and denying plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment was denied on May 29,
2009.

Plaintiffs' appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was
argued on May 12, 2010.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Appeal of Dismissal of "Brown" ERISA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of a putative ERISA class action
complaint against Medtronic, Inc., is pending before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, according to the
company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2010.

On Aug. 11, 2008, Mark Brown filed a complaint against the company
and certain directors, officers and other company personnel in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
arising from the same subject matter as the
consolidated putative class complaint.

The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings
and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held shares of
company stock at any time from Feb. 15, 2007 to Nov. 19, 2007.

On Dec. 29, 2008, the plaintiff amended the complaint to add
similar allegations relating to alleged off-label promotion of
INFUSE Bone Graft and to amend the class to include participants
in the plan from Feb. 15, 2007 to Dec. 12, 2008.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice on
May 26, 2009 on the grounds plaintiff lacked standing to assert
his claims.

Plaintiffs' appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was
argued on May 12, 2010.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Bid to Nix "Wright" Suit Set for Sept. 16 Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Christin Wright's amended
putative class action complaint is scheduled for hearing on Sept.
16, 2010, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 30, 2010.

On Feb. 24, 2009, Christin Wright filed a complaint against the
company and certain directors, officers and other company
personnel in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The complaint was filed purportedly on behalf of a putative class
comprised of participants and beneficiaries of the Medtronic, Inc.
Savings and Investment Plan, whose individual accounts held shares
of company stock at any time from June 28, 2006 to Nov. 18, 2008.

The plaintiff claims the defendants breached fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to properly disclose the September 2008
settlement of the litigation with Fastenetix, LLC and the October
2008 settlement of the Cordis litigation.

On March 17, 2010, defendants' motion to dismiss the allegations
in the original complaint was granted without prejudice. On May
14, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add allegations
similar to those made in the Brown case. Defendants' motion to
dismiss that amended complaint is scheduled for hearing on
September 16, 2010.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


MEDTRONIC INC: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., defends a consolidated securities class action
complaint in Minnesota, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 30, 2010.

On Dec. 11, 2008, the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association
filed a putative class action complaint against the company and
two of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic from Nov. 19, 2007 through
Nov. 17, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements concerning the INFUSE Bone Graft
product which artificially inflated Medtronic's stock price during
the period.

On May 28, 2009, the court order appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.

On Aug. 1, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class
action complaint making similar allegations but expanding the
class to include those persons or entities who purchased
securities of Medtronic from Nov. 20, 2006 to Nov. 17, 2008.

On August 21, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative class
action complaint expanding the class. Medtronic's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied on Feb. 3, 2010, and
pretrial proceedings are underway.

Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com/-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Non-Binding Mediation in Illinois Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation continues to defend an amended
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois.

In December 2007, a complaint was filed against the company by
Norfolk County Retirement System and Brockton Contributory
Retirement System, which was subsequently amended in May 2008.

The plaintiffs in the Norfolk case allege they are shareholders
suing on behalf of themselves and a class of other shareholders
who purchased shares of the company's common stock between Feb.
14, 2003, and July 17, 2006.  The amended complaint alleges that
the defendants, which include the company, one of its executive
officers, two of its former executive officers, and the company's
former independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP, violated
federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements
about the company's financial condition during that period.

In March 2008, the court appointed Norfolk County Retirement
System and the Plumbers Local Union 519 Pension Trust as joint
lead plaintiffs.  On July 7, 2008, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint based on the plaintiffs' failure to
plead any facts tending to show the defendants' actual knowledge
of the alleged false statements or that the plaintiffs suffered
damages. Deloitte also filed a motion to dismiss on similar
grounds.

On July 28, 2009, the Court granted Deloitte's motion to dismiss
but denied the motion to dismiss as to all other defendants.  The
parties are currently engaged in discovery focused on class
certification issues.

The next status conference with the Court was scheduled for June
14, 2010.

The lead plaintiffs in this matter seek compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees among other relief.

The parties have agreed to discuss non-binding mediation.

No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.Navistar.com/--
is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce
International(R) brand commercial and military trucks,
MaxxForce(R) brand diesel engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and
commercial buses, Monaco RV brands of recreational vehicles, and
Workhorse(R) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans.  The
company also provides truck and diesel engine service parts.
Another affiliate offers financing services.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Says APBO Can't Exceed $1 Billion
-------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation seeks a declaration from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that it is
not required to fund or provide retiree health benefits that would
cause its Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation to exceed
the approximate $1 billion amount provided under a settlement
agreement, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2010.

In April 2010, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America and others filed a "Motion of
Plaintiffs Art Shy, UAW, et al for an Injunction to Compel
Compliance with the Settlement Agreement."

The Shy Motion is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.  The Shy Motion seeks to enjoin the company from
implementing an administrative change relating to prescription
drug benefits under a healthcare plan for Medicare eligible
retirees (the "Part D Change").  Specifically, Plaintiffs claim
that the Part D Change violates the terms of a June 1993
settlement agreement previously approved by the Court.  That
Settlement Agreement resolved a class action originally filed in
1992 regarding the restructuring of the company's then applicable
retiree health care and life insurance benefits.

The Part D Change was effective July 1, 2010, and made the
company's prescription drug coverage for post-65 retirees ("Plan
2" or Medicare-eligible retirees) supplemental to the coverage
provided by Medicare.  Plan 2 retirees now pay the premiums for
Medicare Part D drug coverage.  For drugs that are covered by
Medicare Part D, Plan 2 supplements that coverage through a "buy
down" of co-payments to the amounts in place prior to the Part D
Change.

The Shy Motion contends that the Part D Change violates the
Settlement Agreement, because the Settlement Agreement (i) only
describes retiree participation in Medicare Parts A and B, not
Part D, (ii) only specifies retiree premiums for Medicare Part B,
not Part D, and (iii) does not allow the company to "terminate"
coverage for drugs previously covered by Plan 2 that fall outside
the formulary of the Part D plan selected by the company.

On May 20, 2010, the company filed its Opposition to the Shy
Motion (the "Opposition").  In the Opposition the company argued
that the Part D Change is within the company's authority as "Plan
Administrator" to construe and interpret Plan 2, and that the
language of Plan 2 makes it clear Plan 2 is supplemental to all
available Medicare benefits (even Medicare benefits that did not
exist in 1993 and therefore could not have been referenced in the
Settlement Agreement).  The Opposition further argues that Plan 2
requires retirees to pay the premiums for "available" Medicare
benefits and restricts supplemental coverage to "expenses covered
by Medicare, but not paid in full by the government program."

Plaintiffs' filed their reply brief in support of the Shy Motion
on June 3, 2010.  In the Reply, Plaintiffs reiterate the arguments
in the Shy Motion.  With respect to the company's arguments in its
Opposition, Plaintiffs contend that (a) the company's authority as
Plan Administrator does not include the authority to make the Part
D Change, (b) the language about Plan 2 being "supplemental" or
"secondary" to Medicare means "supplemental" or "secondary" only
to Parts A and B of Medicare, and (c) even if the company was
correct that Plan 2 is supplemental to Medicare Part D, that does
not imply that retirees must bear the costs of any Part D
premiums.

On July 19, 2010, the company filed a Surreply to the Shy Motion
(the "Surreply").  In the Surreply the Company argued that since
July 1, 2010, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has
informed the Part D provider to Plan 2 retirees that over 900 Plan
2 retirees have already qualified for the low income subsidy under
Part D, meaning that Shy Class members most in need of assistance
will pay less for their prescription drugs under the Part D change
than they paid under Plan 2 before July 1, 2010.  The Surreply
responds to claims of hardship to Plan 2 retirees.  The company
disputes the allegations in the Shy Motion and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

On June 4, 2010, Navistar filed a separate Complaint in the Court
relating to the Settlement Agreement (the "Complaint").  In the
Complaint, the company argues that it has not received the
consideration that it was promised in the Settlement Agreement --
specifically, that the Company's APBO for health benefits would be
"permanently reduced" to approximately $1 billion.  The company,
therefore, seeks a declaration from the Court that it is not
required to fund or provide retiree health benefits that would
cause its APBO to exceed the approximate $1 billion amount
provided in the Settlement Agreement.

A settlement conference was set with the Court for Sept. 13, 2010.

Navistar International Corporation -- http://www.Navistar.com/--
is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce
International(R) brand commercial and military trucks,
MaxxForce(R) brand diesel engines, IC Bus(TM) brand school and
commercial buses, Monaco RV brands of recreational vehicles, and
Workhorse(R) brand chassis for motor homes and step vans.  The
company also provides truck and diesel engine service parts.
Another affiliate offers financing services.


OREGON HEALTH: Sued for Conducting Bad-Faith Investigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown at Courthouse News Service reports that 19 midwives
and pregnant women claim a state licensing agency bullied the moms
to keep them from having home births and ran investigations on
trumped-up charges in at attempt to shut down Oregon's largest
midwifery center.  Andaluz Waterbirth Center and Alma Midwifery
joined the women as plaintiffs in the federal class action.

Midwives in Oregon may preside over home births, including
difficult deliveries of breech babies, twins and babies born after
their mothers have had a Caesarean section, according to the
complaint.

But lead plaintiff Jennifer Gallardo, owner of Andaluz Waterbirth
Center, Oregon's largest midwifery center, says employees of an
unnamed Portland hospital publicly announced the intention of "top
officials" to shut Andaluz down unless its midwives stop
delivering breech babies and twins outside of hospitals.

Ms. Gallardo and the other midwives declined to name the hospital
in the complaint, saying the parties are involved in mediation.

Ms. Gallardo claims the Oregon Health Licensing Agency played
along with the campaign, initiating "bad faith" investigations and
filing baseless complaints against Andaluz.

Ms. Gallardo says the agency is targeting Andaluz not because of
any actual violations, but merely because midwives there are
practicing their profession.  She says the false charges have
scared mothers away from the center.

The moms and midwives claim that the Licensing Agency's Director
Randy Everitt's actions "have been geared towards punishing
midwives who perform these births," despite their legal right to
do so.

While conducting the bad-faith investigations, the agency harassed
pregnant women who sought to give birth at home or at a midwife-
centered birthing center, according to the complaint.

Agency investigators Tim Molloy and Janet Bartel allegedly
demanded the women's medical and birthing records, in violation of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.  Both
investigators are named as defendants.

Ms. Gallardo claims the investigators, who have no knowledge or
training in midwifery, forced the women to describe "the most
intimate details of one of the most personal of life experiences
to state investigators who they know to be antagonistic toward
their midwives."

Ms. Gallardo claims the investigators intended to harass the women
into having their babies at hospitals "and to make it nearly
impossible for birthing mothers to find a midwife willing to
attend their birth."

Seven plaintiff-mothers seek class action status on civil rights
claims, asserting their right to give birth attended by a midwife
and to protect their medical privacy.

Midwives provide prenatal and postpartum care.  In Oregon,
midwives may deliver babies without a license.  In 1994, midwives
lobbied to create a licensing board, to increase their credibility
with mainstream doctors and to get coverage from clients'
insurance policies.

"The medical community in Oregon lobbied against the bill to
establish the Board of Direct Entry Midwifery.  They did so in
large part to protect their economic interests in having a
monopoly on health care in the state of Oregon," according to the
complaint.

The doctors say that deliveries of twins and breech babies should
be done only through expensive Caesarean section, according to the
complaint.  It adds that obstetricians often claim that births
outside of a hospital are unsafe.

But Ms. Gallardo says that "breech and twin homebirths have been
the current and virtually only method for delivering babies for
centuries and, in this country, are a part of its rich history.
Obstetrics is not a part of that history, but is a new medical
model ground in allopathic medicine and surgery.

"Experienced midwives consider breech births and delivery of twins
as natural birthing events.  Under most circumstances, trained
midwives are fully capable of performing such births."

In the event of complications, midwives take mothers to the
nearest hospital.

Medical doctors treat births of breech babies, twins and births
after mothers have had Caesarean operations "as medical problems,"
Gallardo says, and "routinely turn to invasive procedures such as
Caesarean operations."

Caesareans are the most common operation performed in U.S.
hospitals, Ms. Gallardo says, citing a study published by Amnesty
International.

She says they account for 32% of all births, despite a World
Health Organization recommendation to keep the average between 10%
and 15% of births.

Caesareans triple the risk of maternal death and put both mother
and child at risk during future pregnancies, Ms. Gallardo says.
She claims that 40 other countries, including "nearly all"
industrialized countries, have lower maternal death rates than the
United States.

Half of the women who undergo Caesareans experience complications,
including "infection, blood loss and hemorrhage, hysterectomy,
transfusions, bladder and bowel injury, incisional endometriosis,
heart and lung complications, blood clots in the legs, anesthesia
complications [and] re-hospitalization due to surgical
complications," the midwives claim.  They add that "chronic
complications from scar tissue adhesions include pelvic pain,
bowel problems and pain during sexual intercourse."

Not only is the procedure dangerous, expensive and too heavily
relied upon, Ms. Gallardo claims, midwives have the expertise to
safely perform vaginal births "that would otherwise result in a
Caesarean operation."

And that, they claim, is "an economic threat to the medical
community."

The women seek declaratory judgment and injunctions on
constitutional claims, including free speech, free association,
due process, equal protection, and freedom from searches and
seizures.  They also alleged intentional interference with
economic relations.  And they want the state agency restrained
from filing "'bad faith' complaints that do not factually allege
midwifery practice violations," and ordered to expunge records of
bad faith investigations of midwives.

A copy of the Complaint in Gallardo, et al. v. The Oregon Health
Licensing Agency, et al., Case No. 10-cv-06258 (D. Or.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/14/Babies.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy S. Haber, Esq.
          ROY S. HABER P.C.
          570 East 40th Ave.
          Eugene, OR 97405
          Telephone: 541-485-6418
          E-mail: haberpc@cyber-dyne.com

               - and -

          Michael Rose, Esq.
          CREIGHTON & ROSE
          815 SW Second Ave.
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: 503-221-1792
          E-mail: mrose@sstcr.com


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Law Firm to File Class Action Suit Over Fixodent
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regina Leader-Post reports a Saskatchewan-based law firm is
launching class action lawsuits against the makers of two popular
denture adhesives.

Statements of claim which Merchant Law Group planned to file
Monday in Saskatchewan and B.C. allege zinc used in the products
Poligrip and Fixodent led to health problems in their users.

The suits, following on similar legal action taken in the U.S.,
are against the companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer
of Poligrip, and Proctor and Gamble, which makes Fixodent.

"The zinc helps the dentures to stick to the gum," lawyer Tony
Merchant said in a news release. "The companies have placed
warnings and recognize the dangers," he added.

American Web sites began to inform consumers that Poligrip
contained zinc. However, the suit contends those warnings
downplayed the potential health effects of excessive zinc
consumption. In February this year, GSK announced that it would
stop using zinc in Poligrip as a precaution because of concerns
about potential health problems from long-term, excessive use.

At the time, Proctor and Gamble said it didn't plan changing the
formula of Fixodent, which used about half the zinc contained in
the GSK product Super Poligrip. However, its Web site also
notified consumers that, "Some reports suggest that excessive and
prolonged zinc intake may be linked to adverse health effects. Use
as directed and consult doctor if taking other products containing
zinc."

The statement of claim, which contains allegations not yet proven
in court, contends users of the dental adhesives have experienced
such adverse effects as numbness and tingling in the extremities,
burning sensations, balance problems and unexplained pain.

"Until recently, no mention was made of the potential injuries
that can result from using the products and the defendants
continued to breach their duty to warn consumers of the risks of
using denture adhesives until 2010," the claim alleges.

The suit does not contain a dollar figure for the damages sought.

In the U.S. some of the claims arising from GSK's product have
been settled.


SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Settles Lawsuit Over Foreign Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony McCartney, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
attorneys for the Screen Actors Guild and the actor who played
Eddie Haskell on "Leave It to Beaver" have reached a settlement in
a class-action lawsuit over the distribution of millions of
dollars in foreign royalties to actors.

Attorneys for the union and actor Ken Osmond filed the agreement
for a judge's approval on Monday.

SAG has already paid out millions in royalties to the performers,
but the agreement spells out how both remaining and future
royalties will be distributed.

The lawsuit is the last of three cases filed against unions
representing tens of thousands of actors, writers and directors
over royalties that have been generated in Europe since the 1980s.
The payments were created to compensate the performers for video
rentals, blank media and, in some countries, cable
retransmissions.

The settlement requires an independent audit of payments that have
already been made and sets out disclosure guidelines for how SAG
handles the royalties.  The union is not admitting any wrongdoing,
according to the settlement.

Neville Johnson, the attorney who represented Osmond and
plaintiffs in the other cases, said the actor and former Los
Angeles police officer was proud of the outcome. Mr. Osmond sued
SAG in September 2007.

"This is the end of a long saga to get all of the creative talent
adequately paid by these large unions," Mr. Johnson said.

"Screen Actors Guild is proud of its efforts to claim and
distribute foreign royalties on behalf of our members," said SAG
Deputy National Executive Director and General Counsel Duncan
Crabtree-Ireland. "We have distributed nearly $8.5 million -- more
than half of the total funds collected since the inception of
SAG's foreign royalties program."

Royalties had been paid to more than 70,000 actors and it was
"money that would otherwise have gone unclaimed and been lost to
them forever," he said.

Mr. Johnson credited Mr. Osmond -- who played the mischievous
Haskell on "Leave It to Beaver" in the 1950s and 1960s TV series
-- with pressing the issue.

"It takes a lot of guts for anybody to stand up and challenge a
powerful organization, and Ken had the integrity and the guts to
do so and all actors are in his debt," Mr. Johnson said.

The agreement requires the approval of Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Carl J. West, a judge who sits on a special court that
specializes in hearing complex litigation matters such as class
action lawsuits. His preliminary approval will likely come at a
hearing Sept. 20, but it will not go into effect later this year.


SPEARMINT RHINO: Accused in Calif. Suit of Violating Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that nude and
seminude dancers have filed 15 class actions against Los Angeles
strip clubs.  The dancers claim club owners trample labor laws by
confiscating more than half of their tips, fining them if they
don't sell enough drinks, paying less than minimum wage, falsely
classifying them as independent contractors, charging them a
"stage fee" to work, and subjecting them to other abuses.

Godfathers, Spearmint Rhino, and Players Club are among the best-
known of the defendants.  The allegations against Godfathers,
described in this article, are similar to those in the 14 other
class actions.

The two named plaintiffs claim Godfathers charges them a "stage
fee" to work, and "some of the clubs also force the dancers to
kick up to 60 percent of their tips back to the club.  Some of the
clubs also force the dancers to tip other club employees, e.g.,
the bartenders, waitresses DJs, [and] bouncers," according to the
complaint.

The dancers say they are forced under duress to enter
unconscionable agreements to "attempt to insulate themselves from
liability" by declaring dancers independent contractors.  But "the
dancers are really unpaid employees," the class claims.

The dancers say the clubs impose "illegal uniform requirements
without providing uniforms," and "sanction" them for not
performing for a certain number of hours, for not clocking out
properly, for not selling enough drinks, "for not being fully in
costume with hair and makeup complete," for "not offering
specials," "for leaving the dance floor," and for other
fripperies.

In addition to Godfathers, Spearmint Rhino and Players, class
actions were filed against Candy Cat 1, Sunny's Saloon, Desire
Gentleman's Club, Club 7557, Rouge Gentleman's Club, Blue Zebra,
Thirsty's Gentleman's Club, Star Strip, Seventh Veil, Eros
Station, Crazy Girls, Cheetah's Night Club and Scores Gentleman's
Club.

The dancers seek restitution, lost wages and punitive damages for
illegal wage deductions, illegal tip collection, illegal uniform
requirements and labor and business code violations.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Manuwal, Esq.
          MANUWAL & MANUWAL
          6320 Canoga Ave., Suite 270
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 818-715-6040


TACO BELL: Completing Class Action Discovery Over Labor Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
The BISNAR | CHASE -- http://BestAttorney.com/-- California
employment lawyers are in the process of completing class-action
discovery and gathering declarations in order to certify a class
of more than 18,000 current and former employees of Taco Bell Corp
and Yum! Brands, Inc.  According to the Consolidated Class-Action
Complaint, Taco Bell and Yum! Brands, Inc. violated a number of
California labor laws by failing to compensate managers and senior
assistant managers properly for overtime, breaks and work-related
travel expenses. The original complaint was brought against the
defendants by Sandrika Medlock, a former Taco Bell shift manager.
The class action request is pending in the Eastern District Court
of California, Fresno Division, case #1:07-cv-01314-OWW-DLB.

       Taco Bell Allegedly Violates California Labor Laws

According to the Consolidated Class-Action Complaint, Taco Bell is
in direct violation of a number of California labor laws in
regards to compensation involving its senior managers and
assistant senior managers over the past four years. To begin, the
complaint alleges Taco Bell failed to pay its employees overtime
compensation, directly violating California labor law.

What's more, it's alleged that Taco Bell failed to pay wages
immediately and in full when an employee was let go, and/or it
failed to pay wages owed within 72 hours if an employee
voluntarily left the organization -- again, directly violating
California labor statutes.

Additionally, Taco Bell allegedly violated state law by requiring
its employees to work through meal and rest periods without
additional compensation. Further still, the complaint alleges the
company failed to provide its employees with proper earnings
documentation, including itemized wage statements.

Finally, it's alleged Taco Bell failed to compensate its employees
for work-related expenses, including business travel and employer-
mandated shoes and clothing.

"It's troubling for Taco Bell and its affiliates to think it can
violate clear and obvious employment laws without legal
ramifications," said Brian Chase, Senior Partner at BISNAR |
CHASE. "What's even more troubling is how pervasive and blatant
the company violated even the most fundamental labor statutes,
such as failing to compensate employees for lunch breaks and rest
periods."

                Taco Bell Employee Reimbursements
                -- Company-Wide Violations Alleged

Under State wage and hour labor codes, employers are required to
reimburse their employees for all costs associated with business-
related expenses, including running errands, parking and mileage
costs. Despite Taco Bell employees' reimbursement requests for
work-related expenses such as these, they were denied.

According to Mr. Chase, not only did Taco Bell allegedly violate a
number of fundamental state labor laws, its employee manual failed
to outline any processes or procedures by which employees were to
submit requests for reimbursement.

"Due to the lack of reimbursement procedures in its employee
manual, we can only presume this was a uniform policy that
encompassed all Taco Bell restaurants," said Mr. Chase.

Upon certification as a class action, the complaint seeks damages
in excess of $5 million for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
lunch and rest breaks, unpaid business expense reimbursement and
failure to provide wage statements, in addition to attorneys' fees
and court costs.

                      About BISNAR | CHASE

The employment lawyers at BISNAR | CHASE represent people whose
employee rights have been violated when employers do not comply
with California labor laws. Among the areas they handle are wage-
and-hour claims; overtime, meal and rest period pay discrepancies;
unlawful deductions and expenses; job injuries; and other working
conditions. The law firm has won a wide variety of challenging
cases against Fortune 500 companies and governmental agencies,
including school districts, Caltrans, cities, the State of
California and the U.S. Federal Government.


TOLL BROTHERS: Agrees to Settle Securities Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., has agreed settle an amended complaint
alleging violation of federal securities laws pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according
to the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2010.

In April 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against
Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common
stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005.

In August 2007, an amended complaint was filed adding additional
directors and officers as defendants.

The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
company's stock.

It further alleges that the individual defendants sold shares for
substantial gains during the class period.  The purported class is
seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and expert costs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in July,
2010, which is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The entire settlement amount
will be funded by the Company's insurers.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the nation's
leading builder of luxury homes.  The company began business in
1967 and became a public company in 1986.  Its common stock is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL".  The
company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult and second-home
home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and
Virginia.  Toll Brothers builds luxury single-family detached and
attached home communities, master planned luxury residential
resort-style golf communities and urban low-, mid- and high-rise
communities, principally on land it develops and improves.  The
company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage,
title, land development and land sale, golf course development and
management, home security and landscape subsidiaries.  The company
also operates its own lumber distribution, and house component
assembly and manufacturing operations.


TOLL BROTHERS: Defends Three Defective Drywall Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Toll Brothers, Inc., defends three purported class action suits
relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in China.

On Dec. 9, 2009, and Feb. 10, 2010, the company was named as a
defendant in three purported class action suits filed by
homeowners relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in
China.

These suits are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana as part of In re: Chinese-
Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047.

The complaints also name as defendants other home builders, as
well as other parties claimed to be involved in the manufacture,
sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, and installation of
the drywall.

The plaintiffs claim that the drywall, which was installed by
independent subcontractors in certain homes built by the company,
caused damage to certain items and building materials in the
homes, as well as personal injuries.  The complaints seek damages
for, among other things, the costs of repairing the homes,
diminution in value to the homes, replacement of certain personal
property, and personal injuries.

The company has not yet responded to these suits.

No updates were reported in the company's Sept. 8, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2010.

Toll Brothers, Inc. -- http://tollbrothers.com/-- is the nation's
leading builder of luxury homes.  The company began business in
1967 and became a public company in 1986.  Its common stock is
listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL".  The
company serves move-up, empty-nester, active-adult and second-home
home buyers and operates in 20 states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and
Virginia.  Toll Brothers builds luxury single-family detached and
attached home communities, master planned luxury residential
resort-style golf communities and urban low-, mid- and high-rise
communities, principally on land it develops and improves.  The
company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage,
title, land development and land sale, golf course development and
management, home security and landscape subsidiaries.  The company
also operates its own lumber distribution, and house component
assembly and manufacturing operations.


WEATHER SHIELD: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Defective Windows
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 9, 2010, the Contra Costa County Superior Court for
the State of California certified a California statewide class
action lawsuit against Weather Shield windows for alleged
defective windows.

Weather Shield, a Wisconsin corporation, is a manufacturer of
window and door system products for the residential and commercial
building industry worldwide.

The action has been in litigation since March 2008.  The lawsuit,
entitled Pagano, et al. v. Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.,
Case No. C0800609, Contra Costa County Superior Court for the
State of California, concerns Weather Shield's "Visions 2000"
vinyl horizontal sliding window.  The lawsuit asserts the Visions
2000 vinyl horizontal sliding window is defective and the defects
have either caused the windows to fail and cause damage, or will,
to a substantial certainty, cause them to fail in the future and
cause damage to the home or building they are installed.
Plaintiffs seek remedies for those in California who have the
windows.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul Stevens, Esq.
     Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
     MILSTEIN ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP
     2800 Donald Douglas Loop
     North Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Telephone: (310) 396-9600
     E-mail: pstevens@maklawyers.com

Defendant Weather Shield is represented by:

     Charles L. Harris, Esq.
     Gary M. Lape, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
     650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
     Telephone: 714-668-5501
                714-668-5527
     Facsimile: 714-850-1030
     E-mail: charris@lbbslaw.com
             lape@lbbslaw.com

          - and -

     Pamela Ferguson, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
     One Sansome Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104-4448
     Telephone: 415-438-6638
     Facsimile: 415-434-0882
     E-mail: ferguson@lbbslaw.com


* Federal Securities Class Action Filings Decline 4% in 1st Half
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Underwriter Online News Service reports federal
securities class action filings declined 4% in the 2010 first half
compared to the same period in 2009, according to
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"Specifically, the number of cases filed through the second
quarter of 2010 totaled 70 cases compared to 74 cases during the
same time period in 2009," PwC said while announcing its
"Securities Litigation Mid-Year Update for 2010."

PwC added, "If filings continue at a similar rate, approximately
140 federal securities class actions will be filed by year-end
compared to a total of 155 filings made in 2009, reflecting a
decline of 10 percent."

PwC said financial crisis-related filings have continued to
decrease since 2008. Such cases represented 47% of 2008 first-half
filings, 33% of 2009 first-half filings and 17% of 2010 first-half
filings.

For 2010, PwC said there were 12% more filings in the second
quarter (37) compared to the first quarter (33).

Accounting-related cases during the 2010 first half represented
36% of filings, PwC said. Cases involving merger and acquisition
allegations represented 17% of filings and pharmaceutical/product
efficacy cases represented 10% of filings. PwC said three cases,
or 4%, related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The largest settlements through midyear, according to PwC, "have
been financial crisis-related with the Countrywide and Charles
Schwab settlements of $624 million and $235 million,
respectively."

The most active circuits continue to be the Second and Ninth, with
27% and 24% of the cases filed, respectively, PwC said.

"Although the financial services industry, with 20 filings,
continues to have the largest number of filings, the health
industry, which includes filings in both the pharmaceutical and
health services industries, with 17 filings, is not far behind,"
said Grace Lamont, principal and U.S. securities litigation
practice leader for PwC, in a statement.

"The continued increase of filings in the health industry is
noteworthy. In 2009, 17 percent of total filings were in the
health industry, and 24 percent during the first half of 2010, an
increase of 6 percent. Further, cases filed in the financial
services industry decreased from 41 percent to 29 percent of
filings. Filings in the high-technology industry increased from 12
percent of filings in 2009 to 16 percent in 2010."

A report in July by NERA Consulting also found that 2010 first-
half securities filings decreased compared to 2009.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: K-Sea Affiliate Involved in 1 Exposure Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P.'s affiliate, EW Transportation
LLC, and its predecessors are co-defendants in one asbestos-
related civil action.

This remaining case has been administratively dismissed, which
effectively means that it remains active for routine matters not
requiring a formal hearing, according to the Company's annual
report filed on Sept. 13, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

EW Transportation LLC and its predecessors have been named in 39
asbestos-related civil actions by various parties, including
former employees.

The suits allege unspecified damages from past exposure to
asbestos and second-hand smoke aboard some of the vessels that it
contributed to the Company in connection with its initial public
offering.

EW Transportation LLC and its predecessors have been dismissed
from 38 of these lawsuits for an aggregate sum of about US$47
million.

The Company may be subject to litigation in the future from these
plaintiffs and others alleging exposure to asbestos due to alleged
failure to properly encapsulate or remove friable asbestos on its
vessels, as well as for exposure to second-hand smoke and other
matters.

East Brunswick, N.J.-based K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P.
provides marine transportation, distribution and logistics
services for refined petroleum products in the United States.  As
of Sept. 1, 2010, the Company operated a fleet of 65 tank barges
and 66 tugboats that serves customers, including major oil
companies, oil traders and refiners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Govt. Provides AU$533,000 Cash Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Anna Bligh of Queensland, Australia, announced that an
AU$533,000 cash grant would go to the not-for-profit Queensland
Asbestos Related Disease Support Society over three years, The
Sydney Morning Herald reports.

The society will use the funds to employ a full-time social worker
and two support workers to help people suffering from diseases
like asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Ms. Bligh told the parliament, "This society helps its members
feel less socially isolated.  It offers emotional support as
members deal with common issues like ensuring a future for their
wives, their husbands and children, while they battle with
conditions which are both life-limiting and terminal."

Ms. Bligh said asbestosis and mesothelioma were on the rise across
the nation and asbestos-related diseases were not expected to peak
until 2020.  She added that the incidence of mesothelioma in
Queensland has almost tripled in the past two decades.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Longwell Co. Fined $165,400 for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Longwell Company, of Bellevue, Wash., faces a US$164,500
penalty for violating state asbestos laws, The Seattle Times
reports.

Longwell, which owns five apartment complexes in King County,
Wash., allegedly used untrained and uncertified workers to clean
up contaminated ceiling material from 43 apartments at one complex
last December 2009, state regulators said.

The Longwell Company of Bellevue was cited and fined by

The state Department of Labor and Industries cited and fined
Longwell, which is accused of being "willfully negligent and
indifferent" to regulations related to the safe clean up of
asbestos when it removed damaged "popcorn" ceilings from the
Avante Apartments in Kent, and from an apartment and a leasing
office at the Arbors at Sunset apartments in Renton.

The Sept. 2, 2010 citation marks the third time in 17 months that
Longwell has been cited for failing to test for asbestos before
undertaking remodeling or repairs, according to L&I spokesman
Hector Castro.

The Company appealed the citation, and its president and CEO,
Stanley Xu, said he was unaware that materials had to be tested
for asbestos before they were removed or disturbed during
construction.  The Company also owns apartments in Lynnwood and
Everett. In all, four of the Company's seven complexes have been
named in asbestos-removal violations, state records show.

However, L&I records show the company was cited for similar
violations at two other complexes in 2010.  Records from one case
show that Mr. Xu was directly involved in discussions last May
2010 about the need for a certified contractor to remove materials
containing asbestos at another Longwell complex.

L&I's most recent citation at Longwell stemmed from a tenant
complaint after cleanup of debris from a burst water pipe.

Longwell workers, who the state says are not trained in the proper
handling and removal of asbestos, removed debris from the damaged
ceilings until an insurance adjuster suspected the material
contained asbestos and told them to stop, according to an
inspection report.  Subsequent testing of the material showed that
the ceilings contained three percent asbestos.

Despite the finding, Longwell hired a contractor that was not
certified by the state, according to L&I.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie School Fined AU$1.6T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burpengary State School in Burpengary, Queensland, Australia,
faces an AU$1,600 penalty for asbestos-related safety law
violations, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Authorities fined the school following an asbestos contamination
linked to a Building the Education Revolution project.  An
inspector from Workplace Health and Safety saw a contractor cut
through asbestos sheeting with power tools, during a building
demolition at the school.

The inspector discovered the breach while visiting the school to
deal with a complaint about a lack of fencing around the worksite.
The work site will become a double-storey BER teaching block.
However, the demolition was not paid for by BER stimulus dollars.

Queensland Infrastructure Services, acting deputy director general
Graham Atkins told the Australian Associated Press that correct
protocols had not been followed.

Mr. Atkins said the school had not issued the contractor with a
Work Area Access Permit (a document detailing locations of
asbestos) before work started.  He added that the incident had
been referred to independent asbestos management expert John
Gaskin and the investigation should be finalized within a week.

A spokesman for the Education Minister said the contractor could
be struck off the Education Department's register pending the
outcome of the investigation.

No children or staff was in the area and the school was not closed
because of the incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeals Ct. Affirms Ruling in Bevan Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
upheld the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
Civil Division, which granted Bevan & Associates, L.P.A., Inc.'s
motion to appoint receiver in litigation involving asbestos styled
In re All Cases Against Sager Corporation.

Judges James J. Sweeney, Mary Eileen Kilbane, and Frank D.
Celebrezze, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 93567 on Aug. 19,
2010.

Sager Corporation appealed the trial court's order that granted
Bevan's motion to appoint receiver.

According to the record, Sager incorporated in Illinois in 1921
and as part of its business made products with asbestos materials,
such as gloves and curtains.  Sager benefited from the sale of its
asbestos-containing products in Ohio.  Sager obtained an Illinois
Certificate of Dissolution on June 17, 1998.  Since then, Ohio
citizens, represented by Bevan and other law firms, commenced
claims against Sager in Cuyahoga County following the
manifestation of their asbestos-related injuries.

Bevan believed that, despite Sager's dissolution, certain of its
assets remained in existence in the form of unexhausted insurance
policies.  It was alleged that these assets may afford coverage to
the Ohio asbestos litigants for injuries suffered as a result of
exposure to Sager's products.

In February 2009, Bevan moved the court to appoint an Ohio
receiver for Sager to wind up the affairs and accept service of
process.  Sager, who had entered an appearance in at least one
civil suit, opposed the motion arguing that it was not subject to
suit and its belief that Ohio law precluded appointment of an Ohio
receiver for a dissolved foreign corporation.

The trial court granted the motion to appoint receiver after
considering both briefing and oral arguments on the matter.  The
judgment was affirmed.

Bruce P. Mandel, Esq., Max W. Thomas, Esq., of Ulmer & Berne,
L.L.P. in Skylight Office Tower, Cleveland, Ohio, Patrick F.
Hofer, Esq., Jeffrey Orenstein, Esq., of Troutman Sanders, L.L.P.
in Washington, D.C., represented Sager.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Vacates Board Decision in Guidry's Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a May 27,
2008 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Marvin
E. Guidry's claim for entitlement to service connection for a
respiratory condition, claimed as asbestosis.

The case is styled Marvin E. Guidry, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Mary J. Schoelen entered judgment in Case No. 08-1912 on
Aug. 18, 2010.

Mr. Guidry served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from August 1955
to August 1957.  He filed a claim for service connection for
asbestosis on Jan. 2, 2003.  A VA regional office (RO)
subsequently informed Mr. Guidry of the evidence needed to
substantiate his claim, and requested his service records from the
Department of the Navy.  Postservice medical records were also
obtained.

In April 2001, Mr. Guidry was evaluated by a private physician to
ascertain "the presence or absence of illness or injury caused by
exposure to asbestos."

In July 2003, the RO denied Mr. Guidry's claim.  The RO received
Mr. Guidry's Notice of Disagreement in November 2003 and issued a
Statement of the Case in November 2004.  Mr. Guidry filed his
Substantive Appeal in December 2004, asserting that he was exposed
to asbestos in service while working as a deck hand on a "Harbor
Tug."

On June 6, 2006, Mr. Guidry testified in a video conference before
the Board.  He reiterated his assertion regarding his in-service
exposure to asbestos.  He also testified that he was exposed to
asbestos in his post-service employment.

On Aug. 4, 2006, the Board remanded Mr. Guidry's claim, directing
the RO to obtain all recent treatment records for lung diseases
and to "[s]chedule the veteran for an examination with a
respiratory specialist familiar with asbestos cases."

Mr. Guidry underwent a VA examination on Dec. 28, 2006.  The
examination was conducted by a physician's assistant who reviewed
Mr. Guidry's claims file, and noted Mr. Guidry's medical history,
smoking history, and reported in-service and post-service exposure
to asbestos.

In its May 27, 2008, decision here on appeal, the Board
acknowledged Mr. Guidry's in-service exposure.  This appeal
followed.

The May 27, 2008 Board decision was vacated and the matter was
remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment OK'd in Riggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
MW Custom Papers, LLC's motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos-related case filed by Rebekah Riggs on behalf of her late
husband, Farrell Riggs.

The case is styled Rebekah Riggs, Plaintiff v. Mead Corp. et al.,
Defendant.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-70094 on Aug. 12, 2010.

Mrs. Riggs commenced this wrongful death action on behalf of Mr.
Riggs for his exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products
for which the various defendants were allegedly liable.

MW Custom Papers, the successor in interest to named defendant The
Mead Corporation, moved for summary judgment.

Mrs. Riggs filed this action asserting claims for the wrongful
death of Mr. Riggs who allegedly suffered from asbestosis.  She
alleged that Mr. Riggs' disease was caused by exposure to asbestos
or asbestos-containing products during his employment at the
Cement Asbestos Products Company (CAPCO) facility in Ragland, Ala.
He was employed as a machinist at CAPCO from 1977 to 1980.

Mrs. Riggs' claims against Mead arose because it was a shareholder
of CAPCO from 1968 until 1974.  At all relevant times, CAPCO owned
and operated the Ragland Facility where it manufactured products
made from a combination of cement and asbestos.  MW Custom Papers
argued that a mere ownership interest cannot give rise to products
or premises liability claims, as it is shielded by the corporate
form.

The Court granted MW Custom Papers' motion for summary judgment.
It was further ordered that MW Custom Papers' motion to strike was
denied as moot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs MW Custom Papers Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
MW Custom Papers, LLC's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos
case filed by Richard Archer and Patricia Archer.

The case is styled Charles R. Archer et al., Plaintiff v. Mead
Corp. et al., Defendant.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-70093 on Aug. 12, 2010.

The Archers commenced this action for their exposure to asbestos
or asbestos-containing products for which the various defendants
are allegedly liable.  MW Custom Papers, the successor-in-interest
to named defendant The Mead Corporation moved for summary
judgment.

Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Archer suffers from pleural
mesothelioma, which was caused by exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products during his employment at the Cement
Asbestos Products Company (CAPCO) and National Cement facilities
in Ragland, Ala.  He was employed as a machinist at CAPCO from
1964-1976 and at National Cement from 1976-2002.  Also, Mrs.
Archer alleged a loss of consortium due to Mr. Archer's alleged
exposure.

The Archers' claims against Mead arose because it was a
shareholder of CAPCO and National Cement from 1968 until 1974.  At
all relevant times, CAPCO and National Cement owned and operated
their respective facilities where they manufactured products made
from a combination of cement and asbestos.

It was further ordered that MW Custom Papers' motion to strike was
denied as moot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Affirms Ruling in Andersons' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the
ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Middlesex County, which awarded US$7 million in asbestos damages
to Bonnie Anderson and US$500,000 per quod to her husband, John R.
Anderson, plus pre-judgment interest.

Judges Rodriguez, Reisner and Chambers entered judgment in the
case on Aug. 20, 2010.

The Andersons alleged that Mrs. Anderson contracted mesothelioma
from one or both exposures to asbestos at the Linden Bayway
Refinery owned by defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation.

The first was bystander exposure from laundering Mr. Anderson's
asbestos-laden work clothes during his employment with Exxon from
1969 to 2003.  The second was direct exposure during Mrs.
Anderson's employment with Exxon from 1974 to 1986.

The Andersons prevailed on their claim that Mrs. Anderson's
bystander exposure was a substantial factor in her contraction of
mesothelioma.  Exxon appealed a judgment in favor of the
Andersons.  The court rejected all of Exxon's contentions.

These were facts relevant to this appeal.  Mrs. Anderson is now 61
years old.  She married John in 1967.  They have one daughter,
born in 1968, and one granddaughter.  In 1974, Mrs. Anderson
graduated with a college degree in elementary education and
library science.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Decision in Fields Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
reversed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas'
ruling, which denied CSX Transportation, Inc.'s motion to
administratively dismiss the asbestos complaint of Pearl Fields,
the representative of the Estate of Paul Fields.

The case is styled Pearl Fields, Executrix, etc., Plaintiff-
Appellee v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Judges Colleen Conway Cooney, Christine T. McMonagle, and Melody
J. Stewart entered judgment in Case No. 93813 on Aug. 19, 2010.

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County, Court of Common Pleas, Case
No. CV-663226.

In June 2008, Mrs. Fields brought an action against CSX under the
Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection
Act, alleging that CSX negligently allowed Mr. Fields to be
exposed to various substances, including asbestos and asbestos
dust while working as a conductor for CSX.  Mrs. Fields alleged
that Mr. Fields developed severe and permanent injuries, including
lung cancer.

In January 2009, CSX moved to administratively dismiss Mrs.
Fields's complaint.  Mrs. Fields opposed the CSX motion.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied CSX's motion to
administratively dismiss Mrs. Fields' complaint.  CSX then filed a
motion for reconsideration, which Mrs. Fields opposed.  The trial
court conducted another hearing in June 2009.  Thereafter, the
trial court issued an order denying CSX's motion for
administrative dismissal.

It is from this order that CSX appealed, raising three assignments
of error.  Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter was
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

David A. Damico, Esq., Ira L. Podheiser, Esq., of Burns, White &
Hickton, LLC in Pittsburgh, represented CSX.

Michael L. Torcello, Esq., of Christopher Murphy Doran & Murphy,
LLP in Buffalo, N.Y., represented Mrs. Fields.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Constantinides
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in a case involving
asbestos styled Peter & Elpis Constantinides, Plaintiffs v. Alfa
Laval, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-70613 on Aug. 17, 2010.

This case is part of MDL-875, the consolidated asbestos products
liability multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  The instant claims were based on failure to warn
causes of action.  Peter Constantinides is the injured party in
the instant case, and the injuries allegedly stemmed from his time
as a serviceman in the U.S. Navy.

Mr. Constantinides served aboard the U.S.S. Iowa from 1954-1956.
He alleged that his diagnosed mesothelioma was contracted because
of exposure to asbestos-containing products, including Crane Co.
products, used aboard the U.S.S. Iowa.  Crane moved for summary
judgment.

Crane raised two specific objections to the R & R.  First, it
objected to the Panel's finding that Mr. Constantinides advanced
sufficient evidence of causation to avoid summary judgment.
Second, Crane objected to the Panel's conclusion that Mr.
Constantinides worked on valves, contending that this conclusion
was not supported by the evidence.

The Court overruled each of these objections, and adopted the
Panel's R & R denying Crane's motion for summary judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northrop Grumman's Bids Denied in Eckerle Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, denied
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc.'s and other parties' motion to
stay all proceedings, including discovery, in a case involving
asbestos filed by Ronald Eckerle.

The case is styled Ronald Eckerle v. Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems, Inc., et al.

District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 10-1460 on Aug. 18, 2010.

Mr. Eckerle filed this purported class action to recover medical
monitoring costs in the Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated persons who were employed by Northrop Grumman
Shipbuilding, Inc. f/k/a Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. f/k/a
Avondale Industries, Inc.

The purported class consists of all persons who were exposed to
respirable asbestos fibers while working at the Avondale Shipyard
Main Yard or Harvey Yard at any time prior to Oct. 1, 1976, such
that periodic medical monitoring is medically advisable.

Mr. Eckerle alleged that the class included thousands of people.
Northrop Grumman removed the action, alleging that the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.  Mr. Eckerle
filed a motion to remand, which the court denied, finding that the
case did not fit the local controversy exception to CAFA.

Defendants, Northrop Grumman and American Motorist Insurance
Company, OneBeacon America Insurance Company (f/k/a Commercial
Union Insurance Company), American Employers Insurance Company,
and The Travelers Indemnity Company (incorrectly identified as The
Travelers Casualty & Surety Company), in their capacities as the
alleged insurers of certain deceased executive officers of
Avondale Industries, Inc., filed a motion to stay all proceedings,
including discovery.

Defendants argued that this matter should be stayed under the
Colorado River abstention doctrine because there is a parallel
action pending in the Louisiana state court, namely Bourgeois v.
A.P. Green Indus., Inc., Civil Action No. 488-642, 24th Judicial
District Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petition for Rehearing Denied in Russell Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8, denied Ford
Motor Company's and other defendants' Aug. 16, 2010 petition for
rehearing in an asbestos suit filed by John Russell.

The case is styled John Russell et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents
v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant and Appellant.

The court entered judgment in Case No. B213596 on Aug. 24, 2010.

David Carl Greenstone, Esq., of Simon Eddins & Greenstone LLP in
Long Beach, Calif., represented Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Eugene Brown, Esq., of Filice Brown et al, in Oakland, Calif.,
Brian James Recor, Esq., of Bryan Cave LLP in Santa Monica,
Calif., John Thomas, Esq., of Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis, Mo.,
represented Defendant and Appellant.

Mark S. Geraghty, Esq., of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Los
Angeles, represented Honeywell Intl.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scottish Local Govt. Urged to Prioritize Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Russell, partner at British law firm Irwin Mitchell, has
urged local Scottish authorities not to forget the risk of
asbestos in the face of major public spending cuts, according to
an Adessi Limited press release dated Sept. 15, 2010.

Ms. Russell warns councils not to ignore the essential surveying
and maintenance work needed to limit the devastating affects of
this deadly material.  She said that it could be easy for local
authorities not to prioritize the "silent killer," which can kill
people decades after initial exposure, and wants reassurances that
asbestos in older public buildings will continue to be managed
correctly.

Ms. Russell added, "We have handled a number of clients nationally
who had no idea, right up until their diagnosis, that they had
been exposed to asbestos.  Many were doctors, nurses or teachers,
who have been put at risk by the use of the material in the public
buildings in which they worked."

The warning came after a prominent Glaswegian doctor passed away
at the age of 58, about 14 months after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos in the hospitals
where he worked.

Dr. Kieran Sweeney had worked at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary and
Southern General Infirmary during the late 1970s.  There he
encountered dust and debris from asbestos pipe lagging which, 30
years later in December 2009, caused his premature death.

Ms. Russell added, "Sadly we have every reason to believe that the
incidence of mesothelioma and asbestos-related lung cancer cases
will rise further and medical experts expect numbers to peak by
around the year 2015.  Even more worryingly, mesothelioma is now
increasingly claiming younger victims in a wider range of
occupations, including hospital staff.

"My worry is that with public spending facing major reductions,
councils could ease up their efforts to tackle this silent killer.
Local authorities cannot neglect their responsibility and must
continue to dedicate resources to identifying and eliminating any
remaining sources of asbestos, in order to prevent further tragic
deaths, like that of Dr. Sweeney."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup, Inspection at Middleport Site Complete
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency considers New Freedom
Ministries and its Tiny Tech Daycare, in Middleport, Ohio, again
safe for occupancy, The Daily Sentinel reports.

In July 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had deemed
New Freedom Ministries and Tiny Tech Daycare unsafe because of
asbestos in the building, after a building inspector discovered
the unsafe conditions during a routine inspection.

In a letter dated Sept. 3, 2010, the Ohio EPA states the EPA has
concluded that Tiny Tech had adequately completed corrective
actions as outlined in July 2010, and deemed it safe to allow
people in the area.

At the time of the initial advisory, the EPA said New Freedom
Ministries and Tiny Tech Daycare violated the law by failing to
conduct an asbestos survey before renovation work at its South
Third Avenue church.  The EPA also set a seven-day deadline for a
safety inspection, cleaning the air ducts and proper disposal of
asbestos and other materials.

Mayor Michael Gerlach said the county health department also
participated in the initial inspection, and the EPA was alerted
after the village inspector conducted an inspection of the
building for reconnection of water service, an inspection required
by village code.

Friable asbestos was disturbed by removal of the ceiling,
according to the EPA inspector.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed from 22 Brown University Dorms
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Brown University's Facilities Management's Director
of Project Management Paul Dietel, the University completed the
removal of asbestos at 22 residence halls over the summer, The
Brown Daily Herald reports.

Stephen Morin, Director of Environmental Health and Safety, said,
"None of the work was done because of a hazard, but part of an
ongoing maintenance of the buildings.  We coordinated it around
the summer programs and had a closely planned schedule."

Mr. Morin said that projects like the current renovation of the
Metcalf Chemistry and Research Laboratory include a standard
asbestos abatement procedure, but the University also takes a
proactive approach in dealing with asbestos when students are not
using certain buildings.

Mr. Morin said, "For asbestos in buildings, the (Environmental
Protection Agency)'s policy is to not impact asbestos unless you
are doing renovation.  We took a proactive approach in Hegeman
(Hall), for example, because we wanted to prevent the potential
for students to impact the asbestos."

Mr. Dietel said there are other buildings being considered for
abatement, and the availability of funding will determine how soon
the University can move forward on treating those.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $921T Funds Allocated for Troy Bldg. Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Empire State Development Corp., on Sept. 14, 2010, approved
US$921,000 in state funds to demolish the former Troy City Hall on
Monument Square downtown in Troy, N.Y., timesunion.com reports.

While the ESDC said the city issued a request for proposals from
demolition companies, a spokesman for Mayor Harry Tutunjian said
an engineer still needs to evaluate the structure to determine if
and how asbestos would have to be removed.

The engineer would also have to determine which, if any, retaining
walls would have to be, well, retained at the site, which is on
the Hudson River bank.

The 35-year-old building has been empty since city government
moved to rented space in a former telephone company building on
Sixth Avenue earlier in 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rwanda Government to Discuss Report on Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rwandan Cabinet is set to discuss a report by a team of
Canadian experts who conducted a study on how asbestos roofing can
be phased out with minimal damage, The New Times reports.

This was revealed on Sept. 14, 2010 by the Minister of
Infrastructure, Vincent Karega, in a telephone interview.  He said
that they were working round the clock to ensure that asbestos
roofing is done away with.

According to Mr. Karega, the government has the challenge of
phasing out the asbestos without causing harm to people.  He said,
"We are doing our best to table the findings before cabinet
because we are aware that the more we delay, the more the risks
accumulate."  He added that some of the ways explored include
burning.

In 2010, Rwanda imposed a ban on asbestos and issued a six-month
ultimatum for all asbestos roofing to have been removed.  The move
was, however, challenged after it was realized hat it was
dangerous and could harm those who remove it without protective
gear.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: One Building Left at Former Fostoria Glass Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
One building at the former Fostoria Glass Factory in Moundsville,
W.Va. is left to be torn down as contractors wrap up demolition,
the Charleston Daily Mail reports.

The City bought the site several years ago. In 2008, it was found
to be contaminated with asbestos.

City Manager Allen Hendershot told The Intelligencer that the City
is awaiting approval from the state Department of Environmental
Protection for asbestos abatement.  He says the last furnace next
to the building also is being checked by the DEP.

Fostoria Glass was known for its dinnerware and hand-blown
stemware.  The company began operations in Fostoria, Ohio, in 1887
and moved to Moundsville in 1891.

The plant later changed owners and closed in 1986.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Miss. Court Affirms Ruling in Illinois Central
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld the ruling of the Circuit
Court of Holmes County, which granted remaining plaintiffs' motion
to enforce settlement, in an asbestos case filed against Illinois
Central Railroad Company.

Judges Graves, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce, Dickinson, Lamar,
Carlson, and Waller entered judgment in Case No. 2009-CA-00065-SCT
on Aug. 26, 2010.

After a large number of its former employees sued ICRR alleging
occupational exposure to asbestos, plaintiffs' counsel and ICRR's
counsel met to discuss the possibility of a settlement.

Although the parties disputed exactly what transpired at the
meeting, they agreed that ICRR later sent settlement checks to a
substantial majority of the 216 plaintiffs after receiving signed
releases and other pertinent information from them.  However, ICRR
refused to send settlement checks to several remaining plaintiffs.

Of these remaining plaintiffs, 25 sought enforcement of the
alleged settlement agreement.  Ultimately, the trial court granted
the remaining plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement, and ICRR
appealed.

This Court found that the trial judge was correct in finding that
each of the 25 remaining plaintiffs had complied with the
conditions of settlement and in enforcing the settlement
agreement.

The trial court also properly denied ICRR's motion to amend the
final judgment.  Thus, the decision of the Circuit Court of Holmes
County was affirmed.

Daniel J. Mulholland, Esq., Thomas R. Peters, Tanya D. Ellis,
Esq., and Heather Julia Wilkins, Esq., represented Appellant.

Elizabeth A. Chiappetta, Esq., Robert N. Pierce, Jr., Esq., and
Louis H. Watson, Jr., Esq., represented Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Gitto's Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case filed
by Salvatore and Phyllis Gitto.

The case is styled Salvatore Gitto and Phyllis Gitto, Plaintiff v.
A.W. Chesterton Co., Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 07-73417 on Aug. 19, 2010.

The Gittos filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, alleging that Mr. Gitto developed mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing materials while employed
by the U.S. Navy as a shipfitter mechanic and shipbuilding and
hull machinery inspector.  The action was subsequently removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of
MDL-875 in October 2007.

Mr. Gitto was employed as a shipfitter from 1951-1996.  He began
as an apprentice shipfitter at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, was drafted
and served in the U.S. Army from 1952-1954.  He completed his
shipfitter apprentice program in April 1957.  About four years
later, he was promoted to shipbuilding and hull machinery
inspection, and continued to work at the Brooklyn Navy Yard until
it closed in May 1996.

Mr. Gitto recalled a variety of ships on which he performed work
including the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, USS Independence, and USS
New Jersey.  Mr. Gitto testified that he performed new
construction on the USS Independence, and that he was involved in
construction to rehabilitate the USS FDR and USS New Jersey.

Mr. Gitto recalled spending about a month or less on the USS New
Jersey, and could not recall how long he was on the USS FDR.  He
testified that he spent about six months aboard the USS
Independence.

Crane Co. moved for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Gitto
failed to produce any evidence establishing Crane Co. as the
manufacturer of asbestos-containing products to which Mr. Gitto
was exposed.  The Panel issued its report and recommendation on
June 29, 2010, denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment.

It was ordered that Crane Co.'s Objections to the Magistrate
Judges' Report and Recommendation were overruled.  It was further
ordered that the Magistrate Judges' Report and Recommendation was
adopted and Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied in
part.

It was further ordered that Crane Co.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment on the issue of a "bare metal" defense was denied without
prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Summary Judgment Denied in Faddish Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the asbestos case
styled Ruth Faddish, Individually and as executrix of the estate
of John Faddish, deceased, Plaintiff v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et
al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-70626 on Aug. 17, 2010.

This case is part of MDL-875, the consolidated asbestos products
liability multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  The instant claims are based on failure to warn
causes of action.

John Faddish was a serviceman in the U.S. Navy.  He served aboard
the U.S .S. Essex from 1958-1961.  Mrs. Faddish alleged that Mr.
Faddish's death from mesothelioma was related to asbestos-
containing Crane Co. products used aboard the U.S.S. Essex.

Crane Co. moved for summary judgment relying solely on the
argument that Mrs. Faddish had failed to establish causation.

It was hereby ordered that Defendant Crane Co.'s Objections to the
Report and Recommendation denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary
judgment in the above captioned case were overruled.

It was further ordered that the Panel's Report and Recommendation
was adopted and Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment was
denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Saller's Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, reversed the
ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which favored
defendants Bondex International, Inc., RPM, Inc. and Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., in an asbestos case filed by Donna Saller on
William Saller's behalf.

The case is styled Donna Saller, Individually and as Personal
Representative, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Crown
Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Mallano, Rothschild, and Johnson entered judgment in Case
No. B206763 on Aug. 27, 2010.

Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment in favor of defendants Bondex
International, Inc., RPM, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.
in their action for wrongful death.  Plaintiffs' decedent William
Saller died of mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease, in
February 2006.

Mr. Saller asserted two sources of exposure to asbestos: his
employment at Standard Oil where he was exposed to pipe insulation
containing asbestos manufactured by Crown, and his personal use of
joint compound manufactured by Bondex for home repair.

At trial, the court refused to give plaintiffs' requested jury
instructions on the consumer expectations test and failure to
warn.  The Appeals Court reversed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Reverses Ruling in Georgia-Pacific Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed the ruling of the
County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court, which
favored the Bostic family in an asbestos action involving Georgia-
Pacific Corporation.

The case is styled Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Appellant v. Susan
Elaine Bostic, Individually and as Personal Representative of the
Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn Bostic, Deceased; Helen
Donnahoe; and Kyle Anthony Bostic, Appellees.

Judges Robert M. Fillmore, Bridges, and FitzGerald entered
judgment in Case No. 05-08-01390-CV on Aug. 26, 2010.

Georgia-Pacific appealed the final judgment of the trial court in
favor of appellees Susan Elaine Bostic, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Timothy Shawn
Bostic, Deceased, Helen Donnahoe, and Kyle Anthony Bostic.

In three issues, Georgia-Pacific contended (1) there was legally
insufficient evidence that Georgia-Pacific's joint compound caused
Timothy Bostic's mesothelioma, (2) there was no evidence to
support the jury's finding of gross negligence against Georgia-
Pacific, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying
Georgia-Pacific's motion for mistrial and by vacating the order
granting Georgia-Pacific a new trial.

Concluding there was legally insufficient evidence of causation,
the Appeals Court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered
judgment that appellees take nothing on their claims against
Georgia-Pacific.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Falgoust Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed the
ruling of the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, which granted
summary judgment in favor of Ellis Falgoust, Almarine C. Falgoust,
and Hopeman Brothers, Inc.

The case is styled Ellis Falgoust and Almarine C. Falgoust v.
Avondale Industries, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
Fibreboard Corporation, Cajun Insulation, Anco Industries, Inc.,
Flexitallic, Inc., Combustion Engineering, Inc., A.P. Green
Industries, Inc., Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Individually, et al.

Judges Charles R. Jones, Dennis R. Bagneris Sr., Terri F. Love,
Roland L. Belsome, and Paul A. Bonin entered judgment in Case No.
2009-CA-1671 on Aug. 25, 2010.

Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., formerly known as a/k/a,
Avondale Industries, Inc., Avondale Shipyards, Inc., and Avondale
Marine Ways Shipbuilding, appealed an adverse judgment in which
the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
appellees, the Falgousts and Hopeman Brothers, Inc.

This was an asbestos suit in which the Falgousts alleged that Mr.
Falgoust, now deceased, contracted mesothelioma as a result of
occupational exposures to asbestos while working for two
subcontractors at Northrop Grumman.

The defendant, cross plaintiff, and appellant, Northrop Grumman,
and the cross-defendant and co-appellee, Hopeman Brothers, were
among the numerous manufacturers, suppliers, employers, and
premises owners named as defendants.

The matter was remanded to the district court for a full
evidentiary hearing to determine the authenticity of the documents
submitted by both Northrop Grumman and, later discovered by
Hopeman Brothers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Firms to Pay $16,250 for Cleanup Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Victorians Inc. and In Addition Home Improvement have
agreed to pay civil penalties totaling US$16,250 to settle
asbestos violations at the former Masonic Temple (1276 North High
Street, Columbus), according to an Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency press release dated Sept. 8, 2010.

The building is owned by Columbus-based The New Victorians Inc.,
which hired In Addition Home Improvement of Reynoldsburg to
conduct renovations in 2008.

After the Ohio Department of Health and Ohio EPA received
complaints about asbestos-containing waste being thrown from a
second story window at the building during renovations, state
inspectors visited the site and found broken pieces of pipe
insulation inside and outside the building and more than 35 cubic
feet of construction debris in a container below a second story
window.  Analysis of samples collected from the site confirmed the
debris contained asbestos.

Ohio EPA regulates air pollution, such as asbestos, to protect
public health and safety and the environment.  Pre-notification
and a thorough inspection of sites scheduled for renovation or
demolition are required to allow the local air agency or Ohio EPA
to check for the presence of asbestos and ensure that any
regulated asbestos is properly removed and disposed.

Violations related to the former Masonic Temple renovation project
included failure to: conduct a thorough inspection for asbestos
prior to beginning renovation; provide proper notification prior
to demolition or renovation; properly remove damaged or friable
regulated asbestos-containing materials prior to renovation; have
authorized, trained personnel on site during renovation;
adequately wet asbestos-containing materials during removal; and
seal all asbestos-containing waste materials in adequately thick
plastic bags.

An asbestos abatement contractor was hired to clean up the
building and remove 4,100 cubic feet of regulated asbestos-
containing material from the site.

The New Victorians Inc. has agreed to pay Ohio EPA a civil penalty
of US$13,250.  A portion of the penalty (US$2,650) will go to Ohio
EPA's Clean Diesel School Bus Fund.  This fund helps retrofit
school buses with pollution control equipment to reduce
particulate emissions from their diesel engines and thereby
protect the children who ride the buses.

The remaining US$10,600 will be equally split between Ohio EPA's
Environmental Education Fund and the administration of air
pollution control programs.  In Addition Home Improvement has
agreed to pay Ohio EPA a civil penalty of US$3,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial on Equitable Building Case Set Jan. 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial on a lawsuit over alleged asbestos-related violations at
the Equitable Building in Des Moines, Iowa, is scheduled for
January 2011, the Des Moines Register reports.

Court documents state that criminal charges against Des Moines
developer Bob Knapp should be dropped because the federal
government failed to follow its own legally mandated testing
procedures on material removed from the Equitable Building during
its renovation in 2007.

Lawyers for Mr. Knapp and Russell Coco, the supervisor of the
renovation project at the Des Moines landmark building, also
contend that the federal government's case has been weakened
because the material removed from the building and tested for
asbestos by investigators cannot be found and likely has been
destroyed.

Mr. Knapp, 60, and Mr. Coco, 50, were indicted by a federal grand
jury in February 2010 on 11 counts each of violating the U.S.
Clean Air Act for their roles in the renovation of the building.
Both men have pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors allege that Mr. Knapp and Mr. Coco knowingly had
asbestos removed, placed into open Dumpsters and improperly
disposed of in a landfill as part of the building was renovated
into high-end condominiums.  Several floors of the Equitable
Building were gutted while still containing excessive levels of
asbestos, prosecutors say.

The indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy to violate
the Clean Air Act's work-practice standards, intended to prevent
releases of asbestos, and with failing to give notice before
renovation and demolition.  Each count of the indictment carries a
maximum penalty of five years in prison and a fine of US$250,000.

2009, Iowa's Occupational Safety and Health Bureau fined Oakmoor
Management Co. and Equitable LP, two limited partnerships owned by
Mr. Knapp, for failing to have a trained supervisor to handle the
asbestos removal and for failing to properly equip and train
workers.  Mr. Knapp's partnerships were fined US$10,175.  Jacobson
Staffing Co. LC of Des Moines, which also provided workers, was
fined US$11,250 for similar offenses.

Prosecutors have until Sept. 20, 2010 to respond to the motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Concerned Over Abatement at Va. School
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAVY-TV 10 reports that the parents of students at Virginia Beach
Middle School in Virginia Beach, Va., are concerned about the
asbestos abatement ongoing at the facility, the Mesothelioma
Resource Center reports.

The news provider added that with workers outside the school
wearing head-to-toe white suits and gas masks, some parents have
expressed concern that their children are not far away during the
asbestos removal.

Brian Riley, superintendent for the firm completing the project
(McKenzie Construction), said that air monitors have not recorded
any bad readings and that chances of any of the asbestos becoming
airborne was very unlikely.

School officials said that alerting parents of the abatement
project was unnecessary as the demolition did not pose a safety
threat to the school or community.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Asbestos Found at Summerlin Road in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBC-2.com reports that more asbestos has been found on the south
side of the Summerlin Road overpass project in Florida, the
Mesothelioma Resource Center reports.

While not finding asbestos on the project's north side, the
Department of Environmental Protection discovered that the south
side, which was the project's original area of concern, did
contain an additional amount of asbestos.

The DEP's test of dirt from the northern ramp revealed that no
asbestos existed on the College Parkway side of the overpass, the
news provider said.  The news source added that the overpass
project, which is costing US$25 million, is already four months
behind schedule.

The new asbestos discovery on the project's south side does not
pose any health risk to drivers, according to the news source, but
those who fear that they or a loved one has been exposed to the
dangerous material could contact an asbestos law firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ilkeston Pit Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derby Coroners Court heard that the death of
75-year-old Colin Webster, of Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England, was
linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Webster spent 12 years at Coppice Colliery, Shipley, and was
in contact on a "daily basis" with asbestos, the inquest heard.
In a statement, Mr. Webster said that his job involved making
checks on pipes lagged with asbestos in the boiler house.

Pathologist Andrew Hitchcock said that he found a large tumor on
Mr. Webster's right lung during a post-mortem.

Dr. Robert Hunter, coroner at Derby Coroners Court, added, "I'm
satisfied there was asbestos exposure during his employment and
that led to the development of malignant mesothelioma."

                             *********

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  * * *