CAR_Public/101001.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, October 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 194

                             Headlines

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Two Law Firms Seek Clients to File Class Suits
AMARANTH ADVISORS: Judge Certifies Suit as Class Action
AMBASSADORS GROUP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: 9th Circuit Allows Class Action to Proceed
BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Judge Decertifies "Frye" Suit Over Pay Practices

BAYER AG: US Supreme Court to Consider Baycol Lawsuit
BIG 5: Final Approval of Settlement in "Weyl" Suit Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: Estimates Maximum Loss in "Schleicher" at $2-Mil.
CNO FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Plumbers and Pipefitters Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Oppose Certification in "Hansen"

CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Yue" Suit in California
CNO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Motion on (B)(2) Class Pending
CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Oppose Certification in "Brady"
CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Oppose Certification in "McFarland"
CNO FINANCIAL: No Hearing Date Yet in "Rowe" Certification Plea

COMPELLENT TECH: Continues to Defend Two Suits in Minnesota
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Accused in Utah Suit of Defrauding Students
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Burg Simpson Files Class Suit Over Implants
DIAL CORP: Accused in Illinois Suit of Deceptive Advertising
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Accused of Not Paying Overtime

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Final Approval of Settlement Remains Pending
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Continues to Defend "McInerney/Zand" Suit
IOWA: Judge Grants Class Action Status to Race Discrimination Suit
KENEXA CORP: Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses Class Action
NETEZZA CORP: Being Sold to IBM for Too Little, Mass. Suit Says

NVIDIA CORP: Settles Suit Over Defective GPUs and MCPs in Laptops
OVERHILL FARMS: "Agustiana" Suit in Discovery Phase
OVERHILL FARMS: Defends "Salinas" Suit in Los Angeles
SLM CORP: Judge Allows Suit Over Misstatements to Move Forward
SUNRISE MEDICAL: Recalls 20 Quickie(R) Shark Bikes

USA: Black Farm Groups Demand "Immediate Action" on Funding
* Corporate Lawyers Balk at Class Action Disclosure Requirement


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ben DuBose Speaks at Perrin Asbestos Conference
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taiwanese Govt. to Ban Asbestos Use by 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pakistan Tribunal Wants Report by October 20
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulation to be Cleared From Lincoln Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4MM Grant Awarded for Cleanup at Harvey Mall

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Donnell Dismisses Asbestos Lawsuit Filed v. UW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EAD Firm Raising Awareness for Asbestos Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sinisgalli Owner Charged for Asbestos Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wallington Local to Get Payout from Ex-Employer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pusey's Death Related to Second-Hand Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Life Tech. Fined $7,940 for Breach at Hopkinton
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Fined $49,448 Each for Lowell Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Overrules Judge Stack in CSX Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Hazardous Waste Sites Added to Superfund NPL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Adds 3 Sites in Fla. & Tenn. to CERCLA NPL

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Actions Ongoing v. Ameron Int'l. at Aug. 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.L. Thomas Fined $8,400 for Abatement Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nuneaton and Bedworth Fined for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Inquest Rules on Lower Earley Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Secondhand Exposure Seen in U.K. Woman's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dredging at Sumas River Raises Asbestos Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Tewantin State School Grounds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leicester Council Awards Payout to Norton Widow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found at Washington Elementary Classroom
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Refurbishment at Buxton's Pool

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thurrock Council Rapped for Boiler Room Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court OKs Ruling in Moore Case v. Ericsson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Connell Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trascher Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearwater Bids in Seaton Insurance Case Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NKSJ Receiving Notices for Potential A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bird-Morgan Renovation Project Granted Sept. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fanslau Lawsuit v. Various Firms Filed Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Delays Reopening of Morristown's Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Trials to Commence on Oct. 4 in McLean County

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Defendants' Bid in Martin Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Smith's Lawsuit



                             *********

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Two Law Firms Seek Clients to File Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Business Journal of Milwaukee reports two law firms are
seeking clients who are shareholders of AirTran Holdings Inc. to
file class-action suits against the airline for matters related to
its proposed acquisition by Southwest Airlines.

Goldfarb Branham LLP, of Dallas, said Tuesday it is investigating
the proposed buyout of AirTran Holdings (NYSE: AAI) for
shareholders. Under the cash-and-stock deal announced Monday,
AirTran shareholders will receive approximately $7.75 per share
through a combination of $3.75 in cash and Southwest stock.

"Our firm is investigating the deal because it appears from a
review of AirTran's financial statements that the inherent value
of the stock is greater than $7.75 per share and also because at
least one analyst believes that the stock is worth $11 per share,"
said securities lawyer Hamilton Lindley. "Our proposed class
action lawsuit seeks to get more money and information for AirTran
shareholders."

The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith in Bensalem, Pa., on Monday
said it is investigating potential claims against the board of
AirTran Holdings related to the company's agreement to be acquired
by Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) for approximately $1.37 billion.
The Smith law firm said its investigation concerns possible
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law related to
approval of the proposed transaction by AirTran's board of
directors.


AMARANTH ADVISORS: Judge Certifies Suit as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports Amaranth
Advisors LLC, the hedge fund that collapsed in 2006 after losing
$6.6 billion on energy trades, must face a class-action lawsuit in
which it's accused of market manipulation, a judge in New York
ruled.

U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin said in a decision made
public Tuesday that futures traders who bought, sold or held gas
futures or options on futures contracts from Feb. 16 to Sept. 28
in 2006 can sue as a group.

"This case is best suited to proceed as a class action," Judge
Scheindlin said in the opinion. "It involves more than 1,000
potential claimants who are asserting claims based on common
issues."

Amaranth failed after losing two-thirds of its assets on natural-
gas bets. According to the traders, Amaranth used its market power
to manipulate the prices of natural gas futures contracts.

The hedge fund controlled more than half of the U.S. natural gas
market before it collapsed, according to a 2007 U.S. Senate
report.

"Judge Scheindlin made no decision on the merits of the claims
against Amaranth and we are confident that if, and when, those
merits are heard, the claims against Amaranth will be rejected,"
Steven M. Schwartz, a lawyer for Amaranth, said in an e-mailed
statement.

Mr. Schwartz said the chief economist of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission determined that Amaranth didn't cause the
changes in natural gas futures pricing in 2006. Amaranth is
considering an appeal of Judge Scheindlin's ruling, he said.

The case is In Re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation,
07-cv-06377, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
(Manhattan).


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington has
denied Ambassadors Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
complaint.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the company's Common Stock
between Feb. 8, 2007 and Oct. 23, 2007.

The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington by plaintiff Plumbers Union Local
No. 12 Pension Fund.  The Plumbers Union filed an amended
complaint on Jan. 11, 2010.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making untrue statements of material fact
and/or omitting to state material facts, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our Common Stock. We have reviewed the
amended complaint and deny the allegations contained therein.

On March 11, 2010, the company, and certain of its executive
officers, filed a motion to dismiss the Plumbers Union's amended
complaint.

On June 2, 2010, the Court issued an order denying the company,
and certain of its executive officers, motions to dismiss the
Plumber Union's amended complaint.

The company has tendered its defense and indemnity under
applicable insurance coverage and defense counsel in Seattle,
Washington has been retained to represent the company, according
to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

Ambassadors Group, Inc. -- http://www.ambassadorsgroup.com/-- is
a socially conscious, education company located in Spokane,
Washington.  Ambassadors Group is the parent company of People to
People Ambassador Programs, World Adventures Unlimited, and
BookRags, an educational research website.  The company also
oversees the Washington School of World Studies, an accredited
travel study and distance learning school.


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: 9th Circuit Allows Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri M. Okamoto, staff writer for Metropolitan News-Enterprise,
reports the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday revived a
class action against the AMC theatre chain for alleged violations
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

AMC's good faith effort to comply with the act after Michael
Bateman's lawsuit was filed and its potential liability -- up to
$290 million -- did not justify denial of class certification on
superiority grounds, the panel said.

Mr. Bateman filed a complaint against AMC in 2007, asserting
violation of FACTA provisions requiring that credit and debit card
receipts issued to consumers not reflect the expiration date or
more than the last five digits of the card number.

He sought to certify a class of individuals who received receipts
from some of AMC's automated box offices that included the first
four and the last four digits of the credit or debit card tendered
for payment between Dec. 4, 2006, and Jan. 29, 2007.

An AMC internal review conducted after the lawsuit was filed
revealed that more than 290,000 receipts had been printed in
violation of FACTA during the relevant period.

                        Statutory Damages

Mr. Bateman did not any actual harm caused by the violations, but
FACTA incorporates the Fair Credit Reporting Act's statutory
damages provision, which allows a consumer to recover damages
between $100 and $1,000 for each willful violation of the act.

U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, now deceased, denied
Mr. Bateman's motion, finding the potential for liability
"enormous and completely out of proportion to any harm suffered"
by the class members and that certification would not further the
purpose and policy of FACTA.

But Judge Richard A. Paez explained in his opinion for the
appellate panel that the statutory damages scheme was "intended to
compensate individuals for actual or potential damages resulting
from FACTA violations," and "the plain text of the statute makes
absolutely clear that, in Congress's judgment, the $100 to $1000
range is proportionate and appropriately compensates the
consumer."

Judge Paez added that the size of the putative class would not
affect the proportionality of relief because the amount potential
liability "expands at exactly the same rate as the class size."

Since FACTA does not place a cap on damages in the case of class
actions, does not indicate any threshold at which courts are free
to award less than the minimum statutory damages, and does not
limit the number of individuals that can be certified in a class
or the number of individual actions that can be brought against a
single merchant, Judge Paez reasoned that Congress had not
provided for judicial discretion to depart from the $100 to $1000
range where a district judge finds that damages are
disproportionate to harm.

                        Deterrent Effect

The jurist further posited that the $100 to $1000 figured
represented the range of damages the Legislature considered
sufficient to have a deterrent effect and that "[a]llowing denial
of class certification because of the sheer number of violations
and amount of potential statutory damages would allow the largest
violators of FACTA to escape the pressure of defending class
actions and, in all likelihood, to escape liability for most
violations."

Judge Paez suggested that certification in this case "would
preserve, if not amplify, the deterrent effect of FACTA," since
AMC's compliance with FACTA after the complaint was filed was
likely "promoted, at least in part, by the specter of a
substantial damages award."

He added that Cooper's denial of certification based on AMC's
later modification of its machines to comply with the act "would
communicate to other potential violators that, as long as they
comply with FACTA after a complaint is filed, they may avoid
liability for widespread violations," undermining the statute's
deterrent effect, and was also an abuse of discretion since
Congress did not include any safe harbor or otherwise limit
damages for good faith compliance after an alleged violation.

Judge Paez, however cautioned that yesterday's decision would not
foreclose the possibility that a showing of "ruinous liability"
would warrant denial of class certification or that the district
court could reduce the amount of damages awarded if Bateman
prevails at trial.

Senior Ninth Circuit Judge Betty B. Fletcher and Senior U.S.
District Judge Donald E. Walter of the Western District of
Louisiana, sitting by designation, joined in the opinion.

A copy of the decision in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
No. 09-55108 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/fwGDq

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Bateman is represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 West Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: 310-235-2468

American Multi-Cinema, Inc. is represented by:

          Robert H. Platt, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: 310-312-4000

Amicus Curiae Consumer Data Industry Association is represented
by:

          Adel James Chareq, Esq.
          HUDSON COOK LLP
          1020 19th St., N.W., 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-223-6930


BAPTIST MEMORIAL: Judge Decertifies "Frye" Suit Over Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wilemon, writing for The Daily News in Memphis, reports the
suit alleging Baptist hospitals in Memphis engaged in unfair pay
practices by making automatic meal deductions from employee
paychecks and 30-minute payroll deductions for lunch breaks has
lost its class action status.

U.S. District Judge Samuel H. Mays Jr. has issued an order
decertifying collective action for the suit filed by James Allen
Frye, a former nurse.

Judge Mays granted conditional certification in September 2008,
but left the door open for Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp. to
argue in the second stage of the proceeding the status was not
appropriate because of the "individualized nature" of the jobs.
About 400 plaintiffs, who worked in several of the hospitals'
departments, signed up behind Frye as plaintiffs.

Judge Mays cited three reasons for the decision. Mr. Frye failed
to prove Baptist had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
the instances of alleged violations required "individualized
defenses" and the suit would reduce judicial economy.

"Standing alone, an employer policy providing automatic deductions
for meal breaks does not violate the FLSA," Judge Mays wrote.

He pointed out the system did correct the automatic deductions if
employees reported having worked through breaks.

"Baptist's formal policy is to compensate employees for time
worked during meal breaks," he wrote. "[Mr.] Frye has introduced
no direct evidence that Baptist has maintained a de facto policy
to the contrary. Indeed, many of the employees deposed by Baptist
admit that, when they used their departments' exemption
procedures, Baptist paid them for time worked during meal breaks."

Greg Duckett, senior vice president and corporate counsel for
Baptist Memorial Health Care, welcomed the decision.

"We are pleased that the court agreed with us," he said. "We
believe this case is without merit because we value and respect
our employees and work hard to protect their rights."

The lawyer representing Mr. Frye and the other plaintiffs in the
case, Alan Crone, was unavailable for comment as of press time.

The decision marks the second time this year an attempt to file a
collective action suit against Memphis hospitals has failed.

In January, Judge Mays denied a motion to allow a substitute
plaintiff in a case that had bigger ramifications for hospitals.
It alleged hospitals citywide conspired about wages and suppressed
competition for nurses.

Judge Mays had previously ruled that the two originally named
plaintiffs did not adequately represent nurses in the Memphis area
because one had worked for a union-affiliated organization and the
other had filed for bankruptcy.


BAYER AG: US Supreme Court to Consider Baycol Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires reports the U.S. Supreme
Court said Tuesday it will consider a lower court ruling that
barred a group of West Virginia plaintiffs from proceeding with a
class-action lawsuit over Bayer AG's (BAYRY, BAYN.XE) cholesterol-
lowering drug Baycol, which was withdrawn from the market in 2001.

Bayer argued the lawsuit could not proceed because a federal judge
had previously rejected a similar class-action lawsuit filed by
another West Virginia plaintiff. The drug maker said the second
group of plaintiffs was unfairly seeking to relitigate the case.

Two lower courts agreed.

The Supreme Court will consider the plaintiffs' arguments that
their class- action suit was wrongly thrown out.

Bayer withdrew Baycol from the market in August 2001 because of
its alleged role in serious side effects and the deaths of some
patients using the drug.

Bayer said none of the West Virginia plaintiffs suffered an injury
caused by Baycol.

The plaintiffs in the current case filed their lawsuit in
September 2001. They said they were unaware of the previous
attempt at a class-action lawsuit involving West Virginia users of
Baycol.

The case is Smith v. Bayer Corp., 09-1205. Oral arguments are
likely to take place early next year, with a decision expected by
July.


BIG 5: Final Approval of Settlement in "Weyl" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation continues to await final approval
of the settlement agreement resolving the matter Shane Weyl v. Big
5 Corp., et al., Case No. 37-2009-00093109-CU-OE-CTL.

On Aug. 6, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed in
the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
the Company's hourly employees in California for the four years
prior to the filing of the complaint.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the company failed
to provide hourly employees with meal and rest periods and failed
to pay wages within required time periods during employment and
upon termination of employment.  The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of
the class members, an award of one hour of pay (wages) for each
workday that a meal or rest period was not provided; restitution
of unpaid wages; actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages; pre-judgment interest; statutory penalties including an
additional 30 days' wages for each hourly employee in California
whose employment terminated in the four years preceding the filing
of the complaint; civil penalties; an award of attorneys' fees and
costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On Dec. 14, 2009, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to
settle the lawsuit.

On Feb. 4, 2010, the parties filed a joint settlement and a motion
to preliminarily approve the settlement with the court.

On July 16, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10, 2010, to consider
final approval of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to pay up to
a maximum amount of $2.0 million, which includes payments to class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms, plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement payment to the class
representative, claims administrator fees and payment to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

Under the settlement, in the event that fewer than all class
members submit valid and timely claims, the total amount required
to be paid by the company will be reduced, subject to a minimum
payment amount calculated in the manner provided in the settlement
agreement.  The company's anticipated total payments pursuant to
this settlement were reflected in a legal settlement accrual
recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009.

The company admitted no liability or wrongdoing with respect to
the claims set forth in the lawsuit.  Once final approval is
granted, the settlement will constitute a full and complete
settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit. If
the court does not grant final approval of the settlement, the
company says it intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

If the settlement is not finally approved by the court and the
lawsuit is resolved unfavorably to the company, this litigation
could have a material adverse effect on the company's financial
condition, and any required change in the company's labor
practices, as well as the costs of defending this litigation,
could have a negative impact on the company's results of
operations, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 4, 2010.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation --
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/-- is a leading sporting goods
retailer in the western United States, operating 388 stores in 12
states under the "Big 5 Sporting Goods" name.  Big 5 provides a
full-line product offering in a traditional sporting goods store
format that averages 11,000 square feet.  Big 5's product mix
includes athletic shoes, apparel and accessories, as well as a
broad selection of outdoor and athletic equipment for team sports,
fitness, camping, hunting, fishing, tennis, golf, snowboarding and
in-line skating.


CNO FINANCIAL: Estimates Maximum Loss in "Schleicher" at $2-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc., estimates that the maximum loss it
could reasonably incur in the matter Franz Schleicher, et al. v.
Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James
Adams, et al., is approximately $2.0 million.

CNO Financial -- formerly known as Conseco, Inc. prior to its name
change in May 2010 -- became the successor to Conseco, Inc., in
connection with the company's bankruptcy reorganization which
became effective on Sept. 10, 2003.

After Conseco announced its intention to restructure on Aug. 9,
2002, eight purported securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  The complaints named the company as a defendant, along
with certain of its former officers.

These lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased Conseco's common stock on various dates between
Oct. 24, 2001 and Aug. 9, 2002.

The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege material
omissions and dissemination of materially misleading statements
regarding, among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and
alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.'s manufactured housing
division, allegedly resulting in the artificial inflation of
Conseco's stock price.

These cases were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned Franz
Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea,
Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-
TAB.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint with respect to the individual defendants on Dec. 8,
2003.  The company's liability with respect to this lawsuit was
discharged in Conseco's plan of reorganization and the company's
obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were not serving
as an officer or director on the Effective Date is limited to $3
million in the aggregate under such plan.

The company's liability to indemnify individual defendants who
were serving as an officer or director on the Effective Date, of
which there is one such defendant, is not limited by such plan.
The company's current estimate of the maximum loss that it could
reasonably incur on this case is approximately $2.0 million.

A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea, Wendt
and Chokel and on July 14, 2005, this matter was dismissed.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
Aug. 24, 2005.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on May 2,
2008, and on March 20, 2009 the court granted that motion.
On April 24, 2009, certain defendants initiated a request to
appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals which was accepted by the 7th Circuit.  Oral argument on
the appeal was held on Sept. 22, 2009, and the matter was taken
under advisement.  Trial is currently scheduled to occur on Nov.
1, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Plumbers and Pipefitters Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. (fka Conseco, Inc.) has filed a motion
to dismiss the matter Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719
Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CIV-6966.

On Aug. 6, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Conseco Inc. common stock during the
period from Aug. 4, 2005 to March 17, 2008.

The complaint charges Conseco, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On June 2, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants issued numerous statements regarding the company's
financial performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following
adverse facts, among others: (i) that the company was reporting
materially inaccurate revenue figures; (ii) that the company's
reported financial results were materially misstated and did not
present the true operating performance of the company; (iii) that
the company's shareholders' equity was materially overstated
during the Class Period, including the overstatement of
shareholders' equity by $20.6 million at December 31, 2006; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company,
its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings
growth.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Oppose Certification in "Hansen"
------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. (fka Conseco, Inc.) continues to oppose
class certification in the matter Robert H. Hansen, an individual,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conseco
Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation f/k/a Conseco Annuity
Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726.

The complaint was filed on Nov. 17, 2005, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in
2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national
class for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and
unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading
advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of
breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition of
constructive trust.

On Jan. 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
entitled Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois
company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-
00537.  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.

Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and that
the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable for
seniors age 65 and older.

On March 3, 2006, a first amended complaint was filed in the
Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two
cases under the original Hansen cause number and retitled the
consolidated action:  In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity
Marketing & Sales Practices Litig.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and
denied in part, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 27, 2007, which has added as defendants Conseco
Services, LLC and Conseco Marketing, LLC.

The court has not yet made a determination whether the case should
go forward as a class action, and the company intends to oppose
any form of class action treatment of these claims.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 7,
2010.  The company's motion in opposition was due to be filed by
Aug. 21, 2010.  The hearing on the motion for class certification
was set for Sept. 10, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Yue" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. (fka Conseco, Inc.) continues to defend
the matter Celedonia X. Yue, M.D. on behalf of the class of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v.
Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life
Insurance Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life
Insurance Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS.

The suit was filed on March 4, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal
life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by
Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff
is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national
class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and
declaratory relief.

The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm
universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts
General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and
serviced by Conseco Life.

Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will be damaged by
increases in the cost of insurance that are set to take place in
the twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies.
No such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies,
and none is scheduled to take effect until the latter half of 2010
when the oldest of these policies reaches its twenty-first
anniversary.

Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of the class and on
Dec. 7, 2009, the court granted that motion.  The case was set for
trial commencing Sept. 14, 2010, according to the company's Aug.
6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Motion on (B)(2) Class Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for summary judgment on the (B)(2)
Florida state class alleging injunctive relief, remains pending.

On Dec. 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case No. 08-
23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer.

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the inflation escalation
rider on her policy of long-term care insurance operates to
increase the policy's lifetime maximum benefit, and that
Washington National breached the contract by stopping her benefits
when they reached the lifetime maximum.  The company takes the
position that the inflation escalator only affects the per day
maximum benefit.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the
motion has been fully briefed by both sides.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion or set it for hearing.
Additional parties have asked the court to allow them to intervene
in the action, and the existing parties opposed their motion.

On Jan. 5, 2010, the court granted the motion to intervene and
granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The court certified a (B) (3) Florida state class alleging damages
and a (B) (2) Florida state class alleging injunctive relief.  The
parties have reached a settlement in principle of the (B) (3)
class.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to the (B)
(2) class, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Oppose Certification in "Brady"
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. (fka Conseco, Inc.) continues to oppose
class certification in the matter Cedric Brady, et. al.
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance Company Case No.
3:08-cv-05746.

The purported class action was filed on Dec. 24, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that Conseco Life and
Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and insurance bad faith
and violated various consumer protection statutes in the
administration of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by requiring the payment
of additional cash amounts to maintain the policies in force.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.
On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that
Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the
breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

On Oct. 15, 2009, Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating this case and the McFarland case into
a single action.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case be
consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
The company filed its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Continues to Oppose Certification in "McFarland"
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNO Financial Group, Inc. (fka Conseco, Inc.) continues to oppose
class certification in the matter Bill W. McFarland, and all those
similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No.
3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.

The purported class action was filed on July 2, 2009, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Conseco Life committed
breach of contract and has been unjustly enriched in the
administration of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend."  The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

On Oct. 15, 2009, Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating this case and the Brady case into a
single action in the Northern District of California Federal
Court.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case be
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of
California Federal Court.

On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.
The company filed its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


CNO FINANCIAL: No Hearing Date Yet in "Rowe" Certification Plea
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing date on the plaintiff's motion for class certification
in the matter Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers
Life & Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of
Illinois, Case No. 09CV491, has not been set.

On Jan. 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., breach
of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and violation of California Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf of the proposed national
class and seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and
misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to
disclose all facts, misuses consumers' confidential financial
information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials,
promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and
less valuable than readily available alternative investment
products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks
including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other
restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date
beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy.

Plaintiffs have amended their complaint attempting to convert this
from a California only class action to a national class action.
In addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.

On Nov. 20, 2009, Bankers Life filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's RICO claims.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification on July 16, 2010.  The company's motion in
opposition was due to be filed by Sept. 8, 2010.

A hearing date on the motion for class certification has not been
set, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

CNO Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.CNOinc.com/-- is a
holding company.   The company's insurance subsidiaries --
principally Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Colonial Penn Life
Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company --
serve working American families and seniors by helping them
protect against financial adversity and provide for a more secure
retirement.


COMPELLENT TECH: Continues to Defend Two Suits in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
Compellent Technologies, Inc., continues to defend two purported
securities class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

The suits were filed on April 14 and 15, 2010, respectively,
naming the company and certain of its executive officers as
defendants.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants made materially false or
misleading public statements about the company's business and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of investors who
purchased the company's common stock between Oct. 28, 2009 and
April 7, 2010, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Compellent Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.compellent.com/--
provides Fluid Data storage solutions that automate the movement
and management of data at a granular level, enabling organizations
to constantly adapt to change, slash costs and secure information
against downtime and disaster.  This patented, built-in storage
intelligence delivers significant efficiency, scalability and
flexibility.  With an all-channel sales network in 35 countries,
Compellent is one of the fastest growing enterprise storage
companies in the world.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Accused in Utah Suit of Defrauding Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that students claim that
Corinthian Colleges dba Everest College defrauded them about its
accreditation, costs, and transferability of credits, in a class
action in Salt Lake County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Miller, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., et al., Case No. 100918220 (Utah Dist. Ct., Salt Lake City
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/27/CollegeCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall K. Spencer, Esq.
          Matthew R. Howell, Esq.
          FILLMORE SPENCER LLC
          3301 North University Ave.
          Provo, UT 84604
          Telephone: 801-426-8200
          E-mail: rspencer@slaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Melanie Williamson, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L St., N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-973-0900
          E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  mwilliamson@tzlegal.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Burg Simpson Files Class Suit Over Implants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., one of the nations'
leading plaintiff litigation law firms, has filed a class action
lawsuit in Ohio against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. on behalf of all
United States citizens who received an implant of the ASR XL
Acetabular System hip replacement.

On August 24, 2010, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a subsidiary of
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), announced a voluntary recall of its
ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System hip replacement, after a report
published in Britain revealed an unacceptable failure rate of the
device, resulting in revision surgery for 13 percent of patients
within five years.

Individuals represented by Burg Simpson are seeking answers to a
number of questions including, whether DePuy should have known of
the defects in the device prior to its sale and implant in
patients, and whether DePuy failed to provide timely and adequate
post-market warnings of the health risks associated with the its
ASR(TM) XL Acetabular System.

"Hip replacement surgery is among the most painful and disruptive
surgeries an individual may have to endure. Once is certainly
enough, but to undergo the procedure twice, and as a result of a
defective implant is almost unimaginable," said Seth A. Katz, Burg
Simpson shareholder, and one of several attorneys working on this
case.

Mr. Katz continues, "When medical devices such as DePuy's ASR XL
Acetabular System fail, the impact on a patient's life can be
devastating. Given the large number of devices recalled, it is
conceivable that thousands of individuals across the United States
may unknowingly need revision surgery, even if they are currently
not experiencing any pain or discomfort." Although the company
announced it will reimburse "reasonable medical expenses" to
patients who sign releases providing DePuy complete access to
their private medical records, the "offer" may be misleading,
according to Burg Simpson shareholder Janet G. Abaray.

"In our opinion, DePuy's 'offer' may deceive potential claimants
into believing that the company has actually agreed to advance or
reimburse their costs for medical monitoring or revision surgery.
In fact, no specific offer to pay medical costs has been made and
no specific plan for reimbursement has been announced.  Moreover,
DePuy has stated that before reimbursement of expenses will be
provided, it will review the patient's medical records to
determine if the patient meets DePuy's criteria for payment.
According to DePuy, the medical records must confirm that the
revision is related to the ASR recall and 'not some other type of
cause, such as a traumatic fall.'  Blaming the device failure on a
fall, or another cause, such as physician error, patient misuse,
pre-existing condition or underlying diseases is a standard
litigation defense in these types of cases. Thus a patient who
releases medical records to DePuy may do nothing but provide DePuy
with a jump start on litigation defenses."

Burg Simpson's defective medical device attorneys have
successfully litigated hundreds of defective artificial joint
replacement cases over the last 30 years in state and federal
courts and in the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) arena. Anyone
who has received a DePuy hip replacement in the last seven years
and is concerned about the potential health risks should, in the
first instance, contact their physician.

With offices in Denver, Cincinnati, Cody, and Phoenix, Burg
Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., is a firm of award winning
national trial lawyers, practicing in the areas of personal
injury, class action, medical malpractice, dangerous drug
litigation, defective products, insurance bad faith, employment
law, commercial and securities litigation.


DIAL CORP: Accused in Illinois Suit of Deceptive Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims Dial Corp. defrauds consumers about its Dial
Complete soap by falsely claiming that it "'kills 99.99% of
germs', is the '#1 Doctor Recommended' brand of antibacterial
liquid hand wash and 'kills more germs than any other liquid hand
soap'".

The complaint states: "Through its extensive and comprehensive
nationwide marketing campaign, defendant claims that Dial Complete
'kills 99.99% of germs', is the '#1 Doctor Recommended' brand of
antibacterial liquid hand wash and 'kills more germs than any
other liquid hand soap', when in actuality, it does not, a fact
which Dial knew and purposely misrepresented and failed to
disclose to consumers.  To this day, Dial has taken no meaningful
steps to clear up consumer misconceptions regarding its product."

Named plaintiff David Walls claims there are no reliable studies
that show Dial Complete lives up to these claims.

The class wants Dial enjoined from continuing its deceptive
advertising, disgorgement and damages for consumer fraud and
deceptive business practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Walls v. The Dial Corporation, Case No.
10-cv-00734 (S.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/27/Dial.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Eric D. Holland, Esq.
         Steven J. Stolze, Esq.
         HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER & STOLZE, LLC
         300 North Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: 314-241-8111
         E-mail: eholland@allfela.com


DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: Accused of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Dick's Sporting Goods stiffs
workers for overtime and other wages, a class action claims in
Middlesex County Court, Woburn, Mass.  This is the 20th class
action labor complaint filed against Dick's this month, in courts
around the country.

A copy of the Complaint in Lenahan, et al. v. Dick's Sporting
Goods, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-3602 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/27/Dicks.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jody L. Newman, Esq.
          DWYER & COLLORA, LLP
          600 Atlantic Ave.
          Boston, MA 02210-2211
          Telephone: 617-371-1000
          E-mail: jnewman@dwyercollora.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
          Peter J. Glennon, Esq.
          THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
          693 East Ave.
          Rochester, NY 14607
          Telephone: 585-272-0540
          E-mail: psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com
                  pglennon@theemploymentattorneys.com


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Final Approval of Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of a settlement agreement resolving a suit
against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., remains pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The company has had several lawsuits filed against it and
additional lawsuits may be filed.  These include lawsuits which
assert claims against the company by cardholders (including
various putative class actions seeking in the aggregate to
represent all cardholders in the United States whose transaction
information is alleged to have been placed at risk in the course
of the Processing System Intrusion), and banks that issued payment
cards to cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to
have been placed at risk in the course of the Processing System
Intrusion (including various putative class actions seeking to
represent all financial institutions that issued payment cards to
cardholders whose transaction information is alleged to have been
placed at risk in the course of the Processing System Intrusion),
seeking damages allegedly arising out of the Processing System
Intrusion and other related relief.

The actions generally assert various common-law claims such as
claims for negligence and breach of contract, as well as, in some
cases, statutory claims such as violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state
unfair and deceptive practices statutes.  The putative cardholder
class actions seek various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs. The putative financial institution class actions seek
compensatory damages, including recovery of the cost of issuance
of replacement cards and losses by reason of unauthorized
transactions, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
entered an order centralizing the class action cases for pre-trial
proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, under the caption In re Heartland Payment
Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No.
2046, 4:09-md-2046.

On Aug. 24, 2009, the court appointed interim co-lead and liaison
counsel for the financial institution and consumer plaintiffs.  On
Sept. 23, 2009, the financial institution plaintiffs filed a
Master Complaint in the MDL proceedings, which the company moved
to dismiss on Oct. 23, 2009.

Briefing on that motion to dismiss concluded on Feb. 1, 2010 and
the motion remains pending.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the company and interim counsel for the consumer
plaintiffs filed with the Court a proposed settlement agreement,
subject to court approval, of the consumer class action claims.

On May 3, 2010, the Court entered an order preliminarily
certifying the settlement class, authorizing notice to the class
to proceed, and scheduling a fairness hearing for Dec. 10, 2010,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. --
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/-- the fifth largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid card
processing, gift marketing and loyalty programs, payroll, check
management and related business solutions to more than 250,000
business locations nationwide.  A FORTUNE 1000 company, Heartland
is the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  The company is also a leader in
the development of end-to-end encryption technology designed to
protect cardholder data, rendering it useless to cybercriminals.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Continues to Defend "McInerney/Zand" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., continues to defend the matter
Ryan McInerney, Hossein Vazir Zand v. Heartland Payment Systems,
Inc., pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.

On Dec. 16, 2008, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

The plaintiffs purport to represent a putative class of
individuals who allegedly were not reimbursed by the company for
business expenses and whose compensation was allegedly reduced for
their costs of doing business.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

No updates were reported in the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. --
http://HeartlandPaymentSystems.com/-- the fifth largest payments
processor in the United States, delivers credit/debit/prepaid card
processing, gift marketing and loyalty programs, payroll, check
management and related business solutions to more than 250,000
business locations nationwide.  A FORTUNE 1000 company, Heartland
is the founding supporter of The Merchant Bill of Rights, a public
advocacy initiative that educates merchants about fair credit and
debit card processing practices.  The company is also a leader in
the development of end-to-end encryption technology designed to
protect cardholder data, rendering it useless to cybercriminals.


IOWA: Judge Grants Class Action Status to Race Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press writer Michael J. Crumb reports a judge granted
class-action status Tuesday for a lawsuit brought by almost three
dozen job applicants who claim they were denied state positions
because they are black.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2007, now lists 32 plaintiffs who
allege racial discrimination when they applied for a state job or
sought a promotion from their existing jobs.

Polk County District Court Judge Robert Blink approved the class-
action status, which could open it to far more plaintiffs.

Thomas Newkirk, the Des Moines attorney who filed the lawsuit,
said the case seeks to deal with varying degrees of discrimination
seen in state government.

"It's about identifying the nature of bias or discrimination
against African Americans and how it acts as a barrier to
employment in a large employment system, in this case, the state
of Iowa," Mr. Newkirk said. "It looks to deal with the large
system with a lot of people who have different degrees or
attitudes toward African Americans that can impact their decision
making in a negative way."

The case was initially filed against the state and Iowa Workforce
Development with 14 plaintiffs. It has grown over the past three
years and expanded the number of state agencies where
discrimination allegedly occurred. Those additional agencies
include the departments of transportation, corrections, human
services, administrative services and the Executive Branch.

A news release issued by Newkirk indicated the case encompasses
more than 20,000 employment applications and potentially covers
thousands of black Iowans who encountered discrimination.

Deputy Iowa Attorney General Jeff Thompson says his office
encouraged the certification of the case. He says it allows the
case to move forward without delay.

"We think it's a good result and we encourage the judge to do it
exactly like he did," Mr. Thompson said.

Mr. Thompson said both sides agreed to focus on one claim in the
class-action case and let the others be decided individually.

He said the case address what he called the "disparate impact
claim." That deals with practices that may not intentionally
discriminate but create a discriminatory effect.

Other claims by plaintiffs will be addressed individually, Mr.
Thompson said.

Trial in the case is set for Sept. 12, 2011.


KENEXA CORP: Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenexa(R), a global provider of business solutions for human
resources, Tuesday  disclosed that on Monday, September 27, 2010,
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania dismissed the class action lawsuit, Case No.
2:09-cv-02642-JS, filed on June 11, 2009.

"We are pleased with the decision of the court to dismiss the
class action lawsuit, which supports our position that the lawsuit
was without merit," said Rudy Karsan, Chief Executive Officer of
Kenexa.


NETEZZA CORP: Being Sold to IBM for Too Little, Mass. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Netezza is selling itself to
International Business Machines too cheaply, through an unfair
process, for $27 a share or $1.7 billion, shareholders say in a
class action in Middlesex County Court, Woburn, Mass.

A copy of the Complaint in Walker v. Netezza Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-3583 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/27/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Lagorio, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          63 Atlantic Ave.
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-367-4200

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000

               - and -

          Randall Baron, Esq.
          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          65 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058


NVIDIA CORP: Settles Suit Over Defective GPUs and MCPs in Laptops
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of a class action lawsuit (The NVIDIA GPU Litigation,
Case No. 08-cv-04312-JW) relates to the NVIDIA chips inside
certain Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Apple notebook computers. The
lawsuit claims that NVIDIA sold defective Graphics Processing
Units and Media and Communications Processors that affected the
performance of some of the notebook computers in which they were
incorporated. NVIDIA denies all allegations of wrongdoing and has
asserted many defenses. The settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing.

Who is Affected by this Class Action?

All United States residents who purchased in the United States a
version of one of the Dell, HP or Apple notebook computer models
listed in the Table of Class Computers containing an NVIDIA MCP or
GPU. These individuals are referred to as "Class Members" in this
Notice.

What Can You Get From the Proposed Settlement?

Class Members who file an approved claim will be entitled to:

1. Replacement of the NVIDIA graphics processing unit or media and
communications processor, which are referred to in this Notice as
the "chips" if you purchased a version of certain models of
notebook computers manufactured by Dell, Inc. or Apple Inc.
containing one of the NVIDIA chips; or

2. A Replacement notebook computer similar in kind and value if
you purchased a version of certain models of notebook computers
manufactured by HP containing one of the NVIDIA chips; or

3. Reimbursement of amounts paid for repairs related to problems
with the NVIDIA chips. NVIDIA will fund $2 million from which
reimbursements will be made. The amount paid may depend on the
number of reimbursement claims received.

NVIDIA is providing these benefits to members of the class, and is
funding the settlement. Dell, HP and Apple are not parties to this
lawsuit.

How Do You Receive a Benefit?

You must first qualify for filing a claim, and then file an
approved claim with supporting documentation during the Claim
Period. To qualify for a replacement as described in numbers 1 and
2 above, your notebook computer must be one of the Dell, HP or
Apple notebook computer models listed in the Table of Class
Computers, contain an NVIDIA MCP or GPU, and be exhibiting one of
the symptoms listed in the Table of Identified Symptoms. To
qualify for a reimbursement as described in number 3 above, your
notebook computer must be listed in the Table of Class Computers,
contain an NVIDIA MCP or GPU, and must have been repaired because
it was exhibiting one of the symptoms listed in the Table of
Identified Symptoms. The Claim Period will begin after the Court
grants final approval of the Settlement. Whether or not the Court
has granted final approval, the Claim Period dates and further
instructions for how to qualify and file a claim will be posted at
the settlement website (www.NVIDIASettlement.com) and at the toll-
free telephone support line (1-877-440-7557).

Register Your Email Address To Receive an Alert When the Claim
Period Begins.

To receive an email alert when the Claim Period begins, between
now and December 20, 2010, visit http://www.NVIDIASettlement.com/
and register your e-mail address. If you previously received an
emailed notice about this settlement, there is no need to
register.

What Are Your Options?

If you are a Class Member and you don't want to receive a
replacement or reimbursement as described above and you don't want
to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself
by November 5, 2010, or you won't be able to sue, or continue to
sue, NVIDIA about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude
yourself, you can't receive a replacement or reimbursement under
this settlement. If you remain a Class Member, you may object to
the settlement by November 5, 2010. The Full Notice describes how
to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a hearing in
this case (The NVIDIA GPU Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-04312-JW) on
December 20, 2010, to consider whether to approve the settlement
and attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $13 million. You
may appear at the hearing, but you don't have to. For more
details, call toll-free 1-877-440-7557, go to
http://www.NVIDIASettlement.com/or write to:

     NVIDIA GPU Litigation Settlement Administrator
     P.O. Box 6177
     Novato, CA 94948-6177


OVERHILL FARMS: "Agustiana" Suit in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter Agustiana, et al. v. Overhill Farms, are
engaged in the discovery phase of the case.

On July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munoz
filed a purported "class action" against the company in which they
asserted claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to
furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties,
conversion and unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs are
former employees who had been terminated one month earlier because
they had used invalid social security numbers in connection with
their employment with the company.

They filed the case in Los Angeles County on behalf of themselves
and a class which they say includes all non-exempt production and
quality control workers who were employed in California during the
four-year period prior to filing their complaint.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  The company filed a motion to
dismiss the conversion claim, and the motion was granted by the
court on February 2, 2010.

The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of the case,
according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 27, 2010.

Overhill Farms, Inc., manufactures high quality, prepared frozen
food products for branded retail, private label, foodservice and
airline customers.  The company's product line includes entr‚es,
plated meals, bulk-packed meal components, pastas, soups, sauces,
poultry, meat and fish specialties, and organic and vegetarian
offerings.


OVERHILL FARMS: Defends "Salinas" Suit in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc., defends the matter Alma Salinas, et al. v.
Overhill Farms, pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a purported "class action" in
Los Angeles County Superior Court against the company in which she
asserted claims on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated current and former production workers for failure to
provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within the required
time, unfair business practice in violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code and Labor Code
Section 2698 (known as the Private Attorney General Act).

Salinas is a former employee who had been terminated because she
had used an invalid social security number in connection with her
employment with the company.

Salinas seeks allegedly unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees, the amounts of which are
unspecified, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 27, 2010.

Overhill Farms, Inc., manufactures high quality, prepared frozen
food products for branded retail, private label, foodservice and
airline customers.  The company's product line includes entr‚es,
plated meals, bulk-packed meal components, pastas, soups, sauces,
poultry, meat and fish specialties, and organic and vegetarian
offerings.


SLM CORP: Judge Allows Suit Over Misstatements to Move Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports a federal judge has cleared the way for
a shareholder Sallie Mae class action lawsuit to proceed involving
allegations that the company misled investors about its financial
health.

Last week, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III in Manhattan
ruled that the lawsuit, brought by SLM Venture against Sallie Mae,
could move forward because plaintiffs had shown enough evidence to
bring a case. SLM Venture is a joint venture created by families
investing in Sallie Mae. The plaintiffs are seeking class action
status to represent other Sallie Mae investors.

Sallie Mae, whose official name is SLM Corp., faces a number of
claims that it acted irresponsibly between January 2007 and
September 2009 by expanding its private loans to students
attending for-profit or non-traditional schools. During that time
period, Sallie Mae's stock price dropped 57 percent. Plaintiffs
say that the company perpetrated financial fraud by
misrepresenting its private loan portfolio and underwriting
standards, as well as inflated its profits.

Judge Pauley dismissed a related suit brought by plaintiffs
Jitandra Patel and Alex Cordero, however, saying that their
lawsuit against Sallie Mae's employee savings and retirement plans
could not go forward because neither plaintiff participated in,
nor were beneficiaries of, the retirement plans themselves.

He also dismissed lawsuits filed against C.E. Andrews, Sallie
Mae's former president and Chief Executive Officer. Judge Pauley
said that the plaintiff who filed those claims did not provide a
motive or opportunity.


SUNRISE MEDICAL: Recalls 20 Quickie(R) Shark Bikes
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunrise Medical (US) LLC, of Fresno, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 20 Quickie(R) Shark Bikes.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The custom footrests can break, posing a risk of injury to the
rider.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Quickie(R) Shark bikes with custom footrests
that are designed for use by disabled persons.  Model numbers
included in the recall are SB472900001 and SB471900001.  Model and
serials numbers are printed on the right side of the bike frame.
Serial numbers included in the recall are: KS910634, KS933266,
KS935245, KF130177, KF130177, KF138342, KF157355, KF182230,
KF214063, KF214095, KF228670, KF230678, KF268500, KF271632,
KF275166, KF341126, KF344298 and KF370981.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10756.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold
through Sunrise Medical authorized dealers nationwide from March
2007 through October 2009 for about $4,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bikes and contact
Sunrise Medical or their Sunrise Medical dealer for instructions
on how to obtain replacement footrests.  For more information,
contact Sunrise Medical at (888) 208-4901 anytime, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.sunrisemedical.com/


USA: Black Farm Groups Demand "Immediate Action" on Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------
From the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Web site:

On Monday, September 27, the Network of Black Farm Groups and
Advocates delivered a letter to all Senators urging "immediate
action" regarding the passage of a measure providing funding for
the settlement of Pigford vs. Vilsack, a class-action lawsuit
filed by Black farmers against USDA more than a decade ago.

The current measure, which has been passed by the House, calls for
$1.25 billion to fund discrimination claims that were unresolved
in the 1999 settlement, known as Pigford I, which paid about $1
billion in claims to 16,000 farmers.

It is now up to the Senate to find a bill to which the Pigford II
measure can be attached, and to secure this long-overdue
settlement either before the fall recess or after the November
general elections. Discussions are underway on a variety of
possible budget cuts or revenue raisers that could offset the cost
of the USDA settlement as well as a Native American discrimination
settlement with the Department of the Interior.

USDA and the Department of Justice announced the $1.25-billion
settlement back in February, and despite President Obama calling
the settlement "a just settlement" and a "priority" earlier this
month, Congress has yet to bring this issue to a close.


* Corporate Lawyers Balk at Class Action Disclosure Requirement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pugh, writing for The Lawyer, reports in-house lawyers in
some of the US's biggest businesses are fighting plans that would
force them to disclose potential losses from class action
lawsuits.

The proposals, which have been drawn up by the Financial
Accounting Standards Board and which would apply to all publicly
listed US companies, are set be put in place by this December.

The driving principles behind the plans are to protect investors
and promote greater transparency among the major financial
institutions and corporations. The FASB argues that, by forcing
businesses to disclose potential damages, investors would be in a
better position to decide where to place their money and reduce
their risk of losses.

While the ruling sounds good enough on paper, general counsel fear
that in reality it could produce the opposite effect and actually
damage investors' ability to make an accurate assessment of a
company's financial footing.

The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) is at the forefront of
the opposition to the plans. Its letter of objection to the FASB
has been signed by more than 150 of the biggest companies in the
US, including the likes of McDonald's, Bank of America, Citigroup
and General Electric. That these companies are willing to oppose a
plan aimed at satiating the populist appetite for greater
transparency following the economic crisis illustrates the depth
of their opposition.

Their biggest concern is the potential impact on share prices. The
FASB ruling relates to potential losses from class action
lawsuits, even though many claims are settled for a fraction of
the headline claim for damages.

Corporate giants such as Walmart, for example, receive thousands
of claims every year, many of them relating to so-called 'slip and
fall' claims. Under the new proposals companies would be required
to disclose potential losses that, on paper, could run into
hundreds of millions of dollars, but in reality would be far
smaller.

"At the moment," explains ACC vice-president Susan Hackett,
"companies only report claims if they believe they'll have a
material impact on the bottom line, not those cases that include
vastly overblown claims."

Another big problem can arise when it comes to making the
estimates. Companies will be forced to provide these far in
advance of cases actually reaching court, when they still lack the
means to assess thoroughly their credibility. Those opposed to the
ruling claim that if they get the estimates wrong they could find
themselves facing a second round of litigation if they are accused
of misleading investors.

Disclosing potential losses also forces companies to show their
hands well in advance of any settlement discussions. When a
company has gone public with a figure plaintiffs are unlikely to
settle for a lower amount and are far more likely to increase
their demands.

"If you have a fairly substantial litigation portfolio, then this
will put a huge amount of additional work and stress your way,"
says Ken Grady, general counsel at New York Stock Exchange-listed
Wolverine Word Wide. "You'll be asked to make some extremely
difficult calls.

"I understand the need to provide more transparency for
shareholders, but this could have the opposite effect -- this is
taking place in a general climate of pushing for disclosure,
whether there's any benefit to the investor or not."

Irwin Shur, general counsel at Snap-on, a company with a turnover
of more than $2.5 billion (GBP1.61 billion), agrees. "Investors
are meant to be provided with materials that allow them to make
informed decisions," he says, "but this tilts the balance in such
a way that information could be disclosed that would suggest the
company's in trouble when it isn't.

"Disclosures are meant to give shareholders accurate information
about how a company's performing, but this has gone so far that it
would actually distort a company's performance, which in turn
could lead to volatility in share prices."

One group certain to benefit from the ruling is the plaintiff bar.
Divulging potential losses would essentially give it a road map by
which to navigate its strategy. If companies' quarterly results
show their estimated losses moving either up or down, it gives
plaintiffs a fairly good indication of what the companies are
thinking.

Mr. Shur adds: "You could have a situation where a claimant brings
a claim of 'x' and says, 'you can either talk to me now or we can
settle'. Rather than disclose a potential ś100m lawsuit in their
results, companies might instead decide to settle for GBP3
million."

While it may be good news for plaintiffs, it is not necessarily
the same for defence lawyers. In-house teams will be relying on
outside counsel to help assess their potential losses, but that
runs the risk of the courts later deeming these communications a
waiver of the client-attorney privilege.

The ACC believes this could actually deter management from
engaging counsel on sensitive litigation matters to avoid this
risk. The ACC's letter of objections states: "The proposal thus
could have the unintended consequence of chilling full and frank
discussions between companies and their counsel (in-house and
external), to the detriment of the company client."

The fact that outside counsel will be instructed to assess
potential losses also opens them up to the threat of legal action
if they prove to be wildly inaccurate or misleading.

"The most disturbing thing of all," says Mr. Hackett, "is that
nobody knows why they [the FASB] want to make these changes. Who
was complaining about the current rules? No one. There was no
group suggesting the rules were incomplete or broke. This is a
solution in search of a problem."

The new ruling could be in place by December 15. Dealing with the
scope of the proposed changes will be a huge logistical challenge,
with companies forced to assess and develop new disclosure
processes. At a time when they are still dealing with fallout from
the Dodd Frank Act, the timing could not be worse.

While the ACC is hoping the FASB will abandon its plans, there are
few signs that it will, which is why the ACC is also urging the
FASB to at least delay its introduction.

Surprisingly, several high-profile Wall Street litigators
contacted by The Lawyer were unaware of the proposals. That will
not be the case for much longer.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ben DuBose Speaks at Perrin Asbestos Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben DuBose, Esq., of DuBose Law Firm, PLLC, participated in a
panel discussion at the Perrin Asbestos Litigation Conference:
A National Overview and Outlook, Sept. 13, 2010 to Sept. 15, 2010,
in San Francisco, according to a DuBose press release dated
Sept. 23, 2010.

Mr. DuBose was a member of the panel discussing "Household &
Secondary Exposure -- Bystander and Idiopathic Cases."

This conference provided a three-day in depth study of asbestos
litigation with commentary from plaintiff and defense attorneys,
judges, doctors, corporate counsel as well as insurance counsel.
Mr. DuBose has represented mesothelioma victims from coast to
coast for over a decade.

Mr. DuBose said, "Sharing information that can assist other
attorneys who are fighting for justice on behalf of their clients
is rewarding.  I've had the opportunity to help injured victims
and their families throughout my career and want to pass that on."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taiwanese Govt. to Ban Asbestos Use by 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Focus Taiwan News Channel, the Taiwanese
Environmental Protection Agency intends to ban the use of asbestos
from all construction materials by the year 2020, the Mesothelioma
Resource Center reports.

Lin Chien-hui, the agency's director of the Department of
Environmental Sanitation and Toxic Substance Management, told the
news station that asbestos will be phased out over the next 10
years.

By July 1, 2015, Mr. Lin said asbestos will no longer be allowed
to be used in sealants or sealing materials.  By July 1, 2020,
asbestos will be banned from all construction materials, including
floor and ceiling tiles, wall board and concrete.

Taiwan follows the lead of the European Union nations that have
banned chrysotile asbestos, because of its proven role as a
carcinogen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pakistan Tribunal Wants Report by October 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 23, 2010, the Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal of
Pakistan ordered the "commission on uses of asbestos" to submit a
comprehensive report of its findings about health affects of
asbestos by Oct. 20, 2010, the Daily Times reports.

The tribunal comprising only Senior Member (Legal) Abdul Karim
Memon proceeded the complaint that unfavorable environmental
conditions at a prominent pipe-making factory which was using
"asbestos" in the production process had caused cancer to a
worker.

Haroon Ahmed, resident of Gulistan-e-Jauhar, had filed a complaint
at SEPT that use of asbestos at the factory caused cancer to his
brother, who later died of the ailment.  On the previous hearing,
the SEPT constituted a commission to investigate the use of
asbestos in factories and submit a report on its health affects.

When Mr. Memon asked about the commission's report from the Deputy
District Prosecutor General, he informed the tribunal that "the
commission had not completed the report."

The commission included SDPI research fellow Dr. Mahmood Khan, and
Prof. Dr. Noor Jahan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insulation to be Cleared From Lincoln Hospital
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos insulation boarding is scheduled to be removed from the
maternity unit at Lincoln County Hospital in Lincolnshire,
England, the Lincolnshire Echo reports.

However, bosses at United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust are
reassuring the public there is a very low risk to new and
expectant mums, babies and hospital staff.

Built in 1966, the maternity unit used asbestos insulation
boarding as fire protection and an opportunity has now arisen to
remove the boarding from the service voids, situated behind the
walls.

Mike Speakman, Director of estates and facilities for ULHT, said
this is because they need to replace its drainage system.  He said
tests reveal there is no trace whatsoever of asbestos in the air
and the unit would be shut down if there was the slightest health
concern.

Mr. Speakman said all areas of the maternity unit containing
asbestos insulation boarding are properly sealed off.

Mr. Speakman said the work was being undertaken in consultation
with the Health And Safety Executive (HSE).  Inspector Sarah
Jardine, for the HSE, told the Echo, "We are aware of the proposed
work at the hospital and are meeting with them to discuss their
plans."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4MM Grant Awarded for Cleanup at Harvey Mall
--------------------------------------------------------------
A US$4 million federal grant will pay for the demolition and
asbestos cleanup of a Harvey, Ill., shopping mall that was the
site of a famous car-chase in "The Blues Brothers" movie, The
Associated Press reports.

The money will clean up asbestos and remove debris from the Dixie
Square Mall, which opened in 1965 but has been abandoned since the
classic movie was made.

On Sept. 23, 2010, Gov. Pat Quinn said the money will come from
disaster recovery funds given to 41 Illinois counties after
widespread flooding in 2008.

The money will go to the South Suburban Mayors and Managers
Association on behalf of the city of Harvey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Donnell Dismisses Asbestos Lawsuit Filed v. UW
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany County District Judge Jeffrey Donnell, on Sept. 21, 2010,
dismissed a series of actions filed by David Morse, a former
University of Wyoming employee, who sought damages for allegedly
being exposed to asbestos and subsequently fired in retaliation,
laramieboomerang.com reports.

Mr. Morse states he was employed by UW as a preventive maintenance
technician from Aug. 18, 2008 to March 6, 2009.  After receiving
asbestos awareness training on Oct. 30, 2008, he said he
discovered asbestos material in his work areas, and that
supervisors were not responsive to his concerns.

After filing OSHA complaints alleging discrimination and exposure
to amosite and chrysotile asbestos, Mr. Morse was terminated from
his position at UW on March 6, 2009.

Mr. Morse claimed UW was negligent, "failed to exercise reasonable
care" and violated the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, and that
he suffered "intentional infliction of emotional distress."  He
was seeking damages totaling US$500,000 and reinstatement as an
employee of UW.

In dismissing this claim, filed June 28, 2010, Judge Donnell found
UW's asserted grounds for dismissal to be correct.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EAD Firm Raising Awareness for Asbestos Disease
----------------------------------------------------------------
EAD Solicitors, a law firm based in Liverpool, England, raises
awareness of the rising levels of asbestos-related illness as it
tackles an increasing number of claims for sufferers,
HeatingandVentilating.net reports.

"Asbestos was used so widely from the 1950s to the 1980s that the
figures relating to linked illnesses are quite shocking," said
solicitor Paul Currie of EAD, a specialist in asbestosis claims.

Mr. Currie added, "For instance, the Health & Safety Executive,
which describes asbestos as the 'hidden killer,' estimates that
one in 17 carpenters born in the 1940s will die of mesothelioma,
one of the most severe conditions.  According to the HSE's
predictions, deaths caused by asbestos will peak in the next five
or six years."

Some of the most hazardous occupations for contact with asbestos
include lagging and insulation, demolition, building, painting and
decoration, roofing, shipbuilding, welding, plumbing, electrical
work, gas fitting and boiler making.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sinisgalli Owner Charged for Asbestos Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of Sinisgalli Inc., a Rochester, N.Y. demolitions firm
and tied to bribery of a city official and illegal dumping of
asbestos-laden material, faces federal charges of tax evasion and
failing to file notice of asbestos work, the Democrat and
Chronicle reports.

Information outlining the charges was filed in U.S. District
Court.  Such a filing can precede a plea, but none is scheduled.

Sinisgalli Inc. has been at the center of a city, state and
federal probe begun in mid-2008, focused initially on the handling
of city demolition contracts and alleged illegal dumping of the
debris.

As that investigation turned to Louis Sinisgalli, personally,
records showed authorities were probing possible mail and wire
fraud, and his alleged failure to file federal income tax and
corporate tax returns the five years while his company took in
more than US$8 million, including US$5 million from the city.

The information states that Mr. Sinisgalli failed to file an
income tax return on or before April 15, 2008, owing US$51,738 on
about US$169,045 taxable income.

An additional charge alleges Mr. Sinisgalli failed to notify the
Environmental Protection Agency prior to removing asbestos during
the demolition of a commercial building at 480 Emerson St.  Three
Sinisgalli employees and a former city inspector previously
pleaded guilty to charges.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wallington Local to Get Payout from Ex-Employer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Wickings, of Wallington, London, is looking to claim
compensation from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (f/k/a Inland
Revenue), which she alleges negligently exposed her to asbestos,
the Croydon Guardian reports.

Mrs. Wickings is calling on other former employees to come forward
with information about asbestos at the Croydon Four and Epsom
branches between 1961 and 1996.

The 65-year-old Mrs. Wickings was diagnosed with the asbestos-
related cancer mesothelioma in April 2010.  She said she believes
she was regularly exposed to asbestos during a 40-year career
based at the IR offices in Croydon and Epsom.

Mrs. Wickings, who now cares for her disabled husband Ernie, has
vowed to spend her remaining months fighting for compensation to
pay for the 86-year-old's care.

Mrs. Wickings believes she was first exposed to asbestos in the
IR's Croydon office in the 1970s, when she took frequent trips to
the building's archives among dusty folders and paperwork.  Her
potential exposure continued in Epsom in the 1980s when her job
was to read fuel meters in the building's boiler room among old
and exposed pipes.

Mrs. Wickings recalls a flood in the room led to outside
contractors being called in to remove asbestos, which they did
using protective suits and masks.

A second stint in Croydon between 1988 and 1996 involved Mrs.
Wickings making repeated trips to a store cupboard which was
sealed off for some time following a fire, a situation she also
believes was down to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pusey's Death Related to Second-Hand Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Portsmouth, England, heard that the death of Sylvia
Pusey, of Emsworth, England, was related to exposure to asbestos
from her father's overalls when she was a child, The Portsmouth
News reports.

The 62-year-old Mrs. Pusey was taken to Queen Alexandra hospital,
in Cosham because of breathing problems last November 2010.  She
later died in hospital from mesothelioma.

Mrs. Pusey, a retired secretary, was raised in Fawley, near
Southampton, where her father worked at Fawley Power Station.  Her
widower John Pusey said, "When my wife was three her father worked
at Fawley Power Station from 1950 to 1975 and was primarily
exposed to asbestos.  He used to come home with his work overalls
on and then he'd leave them on in the house after he had got in.

"He would sit in the living room with the family wearing them and
not realizing the dangers of asbestos.  I guess no one did then as
there wasn't much awareness of it.  I don't know if her father
ever realized."

Mrs. Pusey was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 2007.

Robert Stone, deputy coroner for Portsmouth and South East
Hampshire, had listened to the evidence presented to him at the
inquest.  He said, "I must say with all that I've heard I record
Sylvia's death as a result of an industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Life Tech. Fined $7,940 for Breach at Hopkinton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Technologies Corporation, a Delaware-based corporation, has
been assessed a US$7,940 penalty by the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection for violations of state asbestos
regulations that occurred during work conducted at its former
facility located at 94-96 South Street in Hopkinton, Mass.,
according to a MassDEP press release dated Sept. 27, 2010.

MassDEP personnel observed the violations during an inspection of
the site conducted in August 2009.  Under the terms of the
negotiated settlement, MassDEP suspended US$1,940 of the assessed
penalty, provided that the Company completes a Supplemental
Environmental Project.

During the August 2009 inspection, MassDEP inspectors discovered
pieces of floor tiles coated with asbestos-containing adhesive
uncontained in an open-top roll off container located in the
parking lot at the site.  The Company, which was vacating the
facility, had the floor tiles removed as part of efforts to return
the leased space to its pre-occupancy condition.

The Company was cited for:

-- Failing to notify MassDEP of a demolition/renovation
   operation involving asbestos-containing materials;

-- Improper removal, handling, packaging and storage of
   asbestos-containing materials; and

-- Allowing asbestos-containing materials to be handled in a
   manner that caused or contributed to a condition of air
   pollution at the site.

Upon discovery of the violations, MassDEP required the Company to
hire a Massachusetts Division of Occupational Safety-licensed
asbestos contractor to properly remove, package and dispose of all
the asbestos containing waste at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Fined $49,448 Each for Lowell Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection penalized
two companies, Tremont Yard, LLC, and Soucy Industries, Inc., a
total of US$49,448 each for environmental and asbestos violations
that occurred during the redevelopment of 257 Father Morrissette
Boulevard in Lowell, Mass., according to a MassDEP press release
dated Sept. 23, 2010.

Tremont Yard had entered into a lease with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to demolish existing structures and redevelop the
property, while Soucy Industries was hired by Tremont Yard, LLC,
to perform demolition, renovation and construction activities at
the property.  William Soucy serves as registered agent and
manager for Tremont Yard, and also as resident agent and president
of Soucy Industries.

Richard Chalpin, director of MassDEP's Northeast Regional Office
in Wilmington, said, "Redevelopment of old industrial sites like
this one play a key role in economic recovery, but environmental
protection safeguards are essential.  Developers who push forward
without the proper protections in place can jeopardize public
health and safety."

Tremont Yard, LLC, received an Environmental Notification Form
certificate from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs on March 12, 2008, prior to initiating the demolition
work.  Language in the certificate, issued under the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), specifically reminded Tremont
Yard, LLC that any work at the site must comply with all
applicable environmental regulations pertaining to solid waste,
air quality and waste site cleanup.

However, after receiving a complaint on July 6, 2008, concerning
the visible presence of oil on the surface water of the Western
Canal adjacent to the property, MassDEP inspected the site several
times and found that actions taken at the site resulted in the
following violation of state regulations:

     -- Air Quality.  Neither Tremont Yard nor Soucy Industries
notified MassDEP prior to demolishing the old mill buildings, as
is required.  Asbestos-containing materials were also managed
improperly during the demolition.

     -- Surface Water Discharge.  A pump was left unattended to
dewater the lower foundation of the existing structure during
demolition activities and this resulted in the discharge of fuel
oil to the surface water of the Western Canal.

     -- Waste Site Cleanup.  Neither Tremont Yard nor Soucy
Industries reported a release of petroleum tar that occurred when
several metal drums were crushed during the demolition work.
Neither party took appropriate steps to expeditiously clean up the
subsequent release of petroleum tar either.

Tremont Yard, LLC, the lease-holder, has agreed to pay US$36,000
of the US$49,448 penalty, and MassDEP has agreed to suspend
US$13,448 provided Tremont does not commit additional
environmental violations or acts of non-compliance.

Soucy Industries will have the entire US$49,448 penalty suspended
provided the contractor does not commit additional environmental
violations or acts of non-compliance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Overrules Judge Stack in CSX Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth District appellate judges, on Sept. 21, 2010, ruled that
Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack kept a mesothelioma
lawsuit (involving CSX Transportation) that belonged in Michigan,
The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Two of three judges directed Judge Stack to grant a motion from
CSX Transportation and 34 other defendants for a more convenient
forum.

Justice James Wexstten wrote that "residents of Illinois should
not be burdened with jury duty given the fact that the action did
not arise in, and has no relation to, their state."

Claudious Laverty of Texas filed the suit in 2007, individually
and as administrator of the estate of late husband Thomas Laverty.
Mr. Laverty resided in Texas when he died, after living in Ohio
and Michigan.  He worked for Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, which
merged with Seaboard Coast Line in 1980 to form CSX.

Mrs. Laverty's lawyer, Michael Bilbrey of Edwardsville, argued
that the suit caused no inconvenience because CSX maintained
offices and trackage rights in Illinois.  Judge Stack agreed, but
CSX prevailed at the Fifth District.

Judge Wexstten found the railroad's presence in Illinois
sufficient to fix venue but not significant in determining
convenience.  He wrote that jurors might have to view the injury
site.  He added that on appeal, Mrs. Laverty suggested she might
identify an expert witness in Illinois.

Judge Wexstten supplied statistics showing Madison County's docket
carried 15,709 pending civil cases in 2007, while Saginaw County's
docket carried 780.

Justice Thomas Welch concurred, and Justice Richard Goldenhersh
dissented.

Judge Goldenhersh wrote that CSX did not meet its burden to show
an alternative forum was more convenient than the one the
plaintiff chose.

Kurt Reitz, Esq., Erick VanDorn Esq., and Heath Hooks, Esq., all
of Thompson Coburn in Belleville, represented CSX.

Robert Ramsey, Esq., represented Mrs. Laverty along with Mr.
Bilbrey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Hazardous Waste Sites Added to Superfund NPL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is adding seven new
hazardous waste sites that pose risks to human health and the
environment to the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund
sites, according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 27, 2010.

Superfund is the federal program that investigates and cleans up
the most complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
in the country.

Contaminants found at the sites include arsenic, asbestos, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, dichloroethene (DCE), lead, mercury,
polynuclear aromatic hydrcarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethane (TCA),
trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride, and zinc.

To date, there have been 1,627 sites listed on the NPL.  Of these
sites, 345 sites have been deleted resulting in 1,282 sites
currently on the NPL (including the seven new sites added in
today's rulemaking).  There are 61 proposed sites awaiting final
agency action: 56 in the general Superfund section and five in the
federal facilities section.  There are a total of 1,343 final and
proposed sites.

The following seven sites have been added to the National
Priorities List are:

     -- Black River PCBs, Jefferson County, N.Y.
     -- Newtown Creek, Brooklyn/Queens, N.Y.
     -- General Dynamics Longwood, Longwood, Fla.
     -- Sanford Dry Cleaners, Sanford, Fla.
     -- Smokey Mountain Smelters, Knox County, Tenn.
     -- Ten Mile Drain, St. Clair Shores, Mich.
     -- Vienna Wells, Vienna, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Adds 3 Sites in Fla. & Tenn. to CERCLA NPL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has added three new
hazardous waste sites in the southeast that pose risks to human
health and the environment to the National Priorities List of
Superfund sites, according to an EPA press release dated Sept. 27,
2010.

Superfund is the federal program that investigates and cleans up
the most complex uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites
in the country.

The following three sites in the Southeast have been added to the
National Priorities List:

     -- General Dynamics Longwood, Longwood, Fla.
     -- Sanford Dry Cleaners, Sanford, Fla.
     -- Smokey Mountain Smelters, Knox County, Tenn.

Contaminants found at the sites include arsenic, asbestos, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, dichloroethene (DCE), lead, mercury,
polynuclear aromatic hydrcarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethane (TCA),
trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride, and zinc.

To date, there have been 1,627 sites listed on the NPL.  Of these
sites, 345 sites have been deleted resulting in 1,282 sites
currently on the NPL (including the seven new sites added in Sept.
27, 2010's rulemaking).  There are 61 proposed sites awaiting
final agency action: 56 in the general Superfund section and five
in the federal facilities section.  There are a total of 1,343
final and proposed sites.

With all Superfund sites, EPA tries to identify and locate the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination to either
fund the cleanup or conduct the cleanup with EPA oversight.  For
the newly listed sites without viable potentially responsible
parties, EPA will fund the cleanup.

Each Superfund site is investigated to determine the full extent
of the contamination before cleanup is started. Therefore, it may
be several years before significant cleanup funding is required
for the sites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Actions Ongoing v. Ameron Int'l. at Aug. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameron International Corporation was a defendant in 15 asbestos-
related cases as of Aug. 29, 2010, compared with 17 cases as of
Aug. 29, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Sept. 27, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 17 asbestos-related cases as of May 30, 2010,
compared with 22 cases as of Feb. 28, 2010. (Class Action
Reporter, July 2, 2010)

The Company is a defendant in a number of asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits.  These cases generally seek unspecified
damages for asbestos-related diseases based on alleged exposure to
products previously manufactured by the Company and others.

During the quarter ended Aug. 29, 2010, there were two new
asbestos-related cases, one case dismissed, three cases settled
and no judgments or recovery; and expenses totaled US$13,000.

In the nine months ended Aug. 29, 2010, the Company incurred
expenses of US$77,000 and recovered US$28,000.

Headquartered in Pasadena, Calif., Ameron International
Corporation manufactures highly-engineered products and materials
for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and
infrastructure markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.L. Thomas Fined $8,400 for Abatement Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a
US$8,400 penalty to W.L. Thomas Environmental LLC, of Albany,
Ore., for an asbestos-handling violation during a building
renovation project conducted in July 2010 at First Baptist Church
in Salem, according to an Oregon DEQ press release dated Sept. 28,
2010.

The penalty stems from a July 6, 2010 inspection DEQ conducted at
the church, located at 395 Marion St. NE, Salem.  DEQ Inspector
Dottie Boyd documented W.L. Thomas Environmental employees
removing about 850 square feet of asbestos-containing vinyl floor
tiles from the church's basement without adequately wetting the
tiles during removal.

As a licensed asbestos abatement contractor, W.L. Thomas
Environmental is required to comply with Oregon asbestos abatement
law.  By failing to adequately wet the vinyl floor tiles, it did
not follow a basic work practice requirement intended to minimize
release of asbestos fibers.

W.L. Thomas Environmental, which is located at 1170 Anderson Place
SE, Albany, has appealed the penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nuneaton and Bedworth Fined for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council has been fined after sending
an employee to deal with a water leak in a housing complex without
warning him asbestos was present, according to a Health and Safety
Executive press release dated Sept. 28, 2010.

The HSE prosecuted the Council after it failed to warn the trained
plumber that asbestos was present at a sheltered accommodation
complex, despite possessing a survey detailing where it was.

Nuneaton Magistrates Court heard that on Aug. 17, 2009, the
employee was sent to Craddock Court in the town after a leak was
reported.  He found the faulty pipe in a ceiling void on the first
floor of the building after removing an asbestos insulation board
(AIB) ceiling sheet.

As the worker was unaware he was dealing with asbestos, he used a
hand saw to cut part of the AIB sheet to gain access to the
leaking pipe.  He stood directly underneath the tile while sawing
the material for around 20 minutes and though covered in dust was
not wearing any personal protective clothing.

Nuneaton and Bedworth BC pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation
4(9)(c) and Regulation 11(1) of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006.  The council was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP2,140.

HSE inspector Mike Ford said, "This case is particularly
disappointing as we expect more from local authorities who
actually have a duty to enforce the law concerning asbestos, and
should be setting a good example.

"The dangers of asbestos are well known in the building industry
so for Nuneaton and Bedworth BC not to inform its employee of its
presence showed a major failing in the Council's procedures at
that time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Inquest Rules on Lower Earley Man's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Reading Civic Centre in Berkshire, England, has been
unable to determine whether exposure to asbestos during a refit to
a town center department store caused the death of Maurice Rivers,
a resident of Lower Earley, getreading reports.

Mr. Rivers, who died at the age of 79, died from lung cancer at
Royal Berkshire Hospital on Dec. 30, 2009.  He had been
transferred from the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford after
suffering with a dry cough, breathing difficulties and weight loss
in the six months before he died.

A chest X-ray revealed Mr. Rivers had a 12mm thick malignant tumor
and further examinations showed his coronary artery and other
blood vessels had become calcified.

The Sept. 21, 2010 inquest heard Mr. Rivers worked at John Lewis
in Broad Street from 1951 to his retirement in 1995 during which
time the shop was refitted.

A post-mortem examination revealed Mr. Rivers had died from
bilateral bronchopneumonia due to a malignant mesothelioma.
Berkshire assistant deputy coroner Ravi Sidhu recorded a verdict
of death by natural causes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Secondhand Exposure Seen in U.K. Woman's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Southampton Coroner's Court heard that the death
of 71-year-old Hazel Williams was related to secondhand exposure
to asbestos from her husband, David Williams, the Southern Daily
Echo reports.

Mr. Williams worked with asbestos for years fitting out
Southampton ships including QE2 for the company J I Thornycroft.
He said he is unharmed.

However, Mrs. Williams was killed from the disease after coming
into contact with the deadly particles when she cleaned Mr.
William's work clothes during the 1960s and 1970s.

Mrs. Williams, a retired medical secretary, died from mesothelioma
on Aug. 1, 2010 at Oakhaven Hospice in Lymington.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dredging at Sumas River Raises Asbestos Concern
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Abbotsford in British Columbia, Canada, dredges the
Sumas River for flood control amid the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's concerns on elevated asbestos levels in the
river's sediments, The Times reports.

According to an Abbotsford press release dated Sept. 10, 2010,
contaminated sediment will be dumped in the Valley Road Landfill,
covered in soil and then capped with clay.

Abbotsford Mayor George Peary said the EPA notified the city and
the federal and provincial governments in 2009 that there was a
potential for higher concentrations of asbestos in the Sumas
River.

This is due to a naturally occurring deposit of asbestos that is
eroding in the headwaters of Swift Creek in Whatcom County, Wash.

Sediments removed from the river are subject to testing to measure
contamination levels before being taken to the landfill, and once
dumped, they will be covered with soil followed by a clay "cap" or
layer.

Roy Thorpe, a Fraser Health Authority spokesperson, said health
officials have no concerns about the city's method for dealing
with the asbestos-contaminated sediment.

With a nod to ongoing communication between the city and
provincial and federal agencies, including Fraser Health the BC
Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada, Mayor Peary said
determinations are still being made in regards to assessing the
sediment and funding the project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Tewantin State School Grounds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos is found at the playground of Tewantin State School in
Tewantin, Queensland, Australia, The Medical News reports.

Since 2009, asbestos has been reported numerous times at the
school.  Since 2009, a total of eight cases of asbestos
discoveries have been reported at the Tewantin State School.

The area is blocked to prevent students and faculty members from
entering the contaminated area until the asbestos has been
removed.

Graham Atkins of Education Queensland's Infrastructure Services
says asbestos-contaminated sand was removed from the sand pits and
access was restricted to the affected areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leicester Council Awards Payout to Norton Widow
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city council of Leicester, England, awarded "substantial"
compensation to 69-year-old Janice Norton, a widow whose husband
Roger Norton died from workplace exposure to asbestos, the
Leicester Mercury reports.

Mr. Norton died of mesothelioma at the age of 67 in October 2006.
He was exposed to asbestos dust while employed by the city council
as a painter and decorator from 1969 to 1980.

Some 18 months after beginning legal proceedings, the council has
agreed to an out of court compensation settlement, just weeks
before a High Court hearing.

Mrs. Norton took legal action against the council with the help of
the Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team and asbestos claim
specialists Thompsons Solicitors, after attending the Leicester
Mesothelioma Support Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found at Washington Elementary Classroom
----------------------------------------------------------------
California state safety officials verified reports of asbestos in
a classroom at the Washington Elementary School in Berkeley,
Calif., Mesothelioma reports.

Children who took music and cooking classes at school may have
been exposed to the asbestos.  Inspectors with the California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) ordered that
the room remain closed until the school could make a full
assessment of the level of contamination.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Hazard
Emergency Response Act, public school districts must have trained
personnel on staff with the ability to detect asbestos in school
facilities.

The law specifies that schools conduct asbestos-awareness training
for their custodians.  However, the custodial staff did not
discover the asbestos, but a part-time teacher did.  The teacher,
Darwin Greenwell, also had experience in the construction and real
estate fields.

Mr. Greenwell and other teachers noted that the carpet runners in
the classroom had been removed.  The missing runners exposed the
floor tiles under the carpet.

Mr. Greenwell noticed that a fine white dust covered the carpets
near where the runners had been.  He told a local newspaper that,
when the children would dance during music class, "they would
raise the dust."

In response to the room closure, the school district contacted a
local asbestos abatement contractor, RGA Environmental, to conduct
the remediation project.

The workers removed the tiles and the adhesive (mastic), which
also tested positive for asbestos.  The room remains closed due to
the dust still evident on many surfaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Refurbishment at Buxton's Pool
---------------------------------------------------------------
Refurbishment work at the swimming pool in Buxton, Derbyshire,
England, has been delayed after asbestos was discovered at the
site, BBC News reports.

High Peak Borough Council's GBP2 million renovation project was
due to be completed in June 2010.  However, it was put back when
the structure was found to need more extensive repairs.

A revised completion date of September 2010 was announced, but
that is likely to be pushed back because of the asbestos, which
was found beneath the pool.

Council leader Tony Ashton said, "Although invasive survey work
had been undertaken to establish the extent of asbestos in the
building, the asbestos under the pool itself could not have been
discovered before the stripping out work was started."

The Health and Safety Executive has been notified, and discussions
are ongoing with contractors to set a new completion date.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thurrock Council Rapped for Boiler Room Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Health and Safety Executive told Thurrock Council to improve
its asbestos management after a boiler room in a school in
Thurrock, Essex, England, was found to have dangerous levels of
asbestos, the Thurrock Gazette reports.

Thurrock Council is now one of 10 authorities in the United
Kingdom to be told to improve its asbestos management or face
legal action.  It is also the only authority in the country to be
served a prohibition notice, after the boiler room was discovered
in April 2010.

The school was visited after Thurrock Council failed to provide a
satisfactory response to a survey of 152 authorities about their
asbestos management.  The HSE was looking at schools that were
built between 1945 and 1980 specifically, because these were often
fire proofed with asbestos.

The HSE says that a prohibition notice deals with immediate danger
and is given when an "employer fails to protect their employees
and the public and there is a risk of serious personal injury."

Thurrock Council has refused to name the school where the boiler
room caused such concern, but it did say that there was not any
danger now.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court OKs Ruling in Moore Case v. Ericsson
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the ruling of the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division,
which entered judgment in favor of Judith Moore in an asbestos
case filed against Ericsson, Inc.

Judges Allen, Lazarus, and Freedberg entered judgment in Case Nos.
2213 EDA 2009, 2112 EDA 2009 on Sept. 17, 2010.

In this asbestos personal injury action, Ericsson and Judith
Moore, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Donnie
R. Moore, Deceased (Plaintiffs/Moore), appealed from the order of
the trial court, which denied denying Ericsson's post-trial
motions and entering judgment on the molded jury verdict in the
amount of US$1,190,654.00 in favor of Moore.

The Superior Court affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Appeal Court OKs Ruling in Connell Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
in an asbestos case styled Gary Connell, Executor, Etc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Larry A. Jones, Ann Dyke, and Mary J. Boyle entered
judgment in Case Nos. 92833, 92923 on Aug. 12, 2010.

Gary Connell, as Executor of the Estate of Robert Connell,
appealed the decision of the lower court.

Robert Connell was employed by Goodyear Aerospace Corporation
(GAC) in Akron, Ohio from 1964 until 1973.  During these years,
GAC was a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company (Goodyear).  Robert Connell was employed in both the Vinyl
Division and Wheel and Brake areas of Plant B of GAC.  The Company
used asbestos in the making of its aircraft brake pads.  Robert
Connell left GAC in 1973.

This wrongful death lawsuit arose from Robert Connell's alleged
exposure to asbestos.  On Dec. 6, 2006, Gary Connell filed a
complaint against numerous defendants, including Goodyear and
Lockheed Martin Corporation.  Gary Connell alleged that defendants
caused Robert Connell's death through exposure to asbestos-
containing material.

Gary Connell alleged that Goodyear and Lockheed Martin were
responsible for the liabilities of Robert Connell's former
employer, GAC, for the duration of Robert Connell's employment at
GAC.

On June 26, 2007, Gary Connell filed a motion for partial summary
judgment against Goodyear, seeking an order that Goodyear is the
successor-in-interest for GAC's alleged liability.  On June 28,
2007, Gary Connell filed a motion for partial summary judgment
against Lockheed Martin seeking an order that Lockheed Martin is
the successor to GAC's alleged liability in this case.

On Oct. 2, 2007, Lockheed Martin filed its motion for summary
judgment.  On Oct. 26, 2007, Goodyear filed its own motion for
summary judgment, arguing that Goodyear is not the successor to
GAC's alleged liabilities.

On April 15, 2008, the trial judge heard oral argument on the
parties' motions.  On Jan. 5, 2009, the case proceeded to a jury
trial on Gary Connell's remaining issue of supplier liability
against Goodyear.  The jury delivered a verdict in favor of
Goodyear on Gary Connell's supplier liability claim.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the trial judge entered an order and final
judgment granting Lockheed Martin's motion for summary judgment
and denying Gary Connell's motion for partial summary judgment
against Lockheed Martin.

On Feb. 26, 2009, the trial court entered an order and final
judgment granting Gary Connell's motion for partial summary
judgment against Goodyear.  Gary Connell filed separate appeals
regarding the judgments in favor of Lockheed Martin and Goodyear.

On Feb. 18, 2009, Gary Connell filed his notice of appeal of the
judgment.  On Feb. 27, 2009, Goodyear filed a notice of cross-
appeal challenging the trial court's order and final judgment
granting Gary Connell's motion for partial summary judgment
against Goodyear.

On March 6, 2009, Gary Connell filed a notice of appeal of the
trial court's judgment in Lockheed Martin's favor.  On April 29,
2009, Lockheed Martin filed a motion to consolidate these appeals.
The motion to consolidate was granted on June 2, 2009.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Trascher Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the ruling of the district
court, which denied Commercial Union Insurance Company's exception
of improper venue in an asbestos case styled Joseph C. Trascher,
et al. v. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. f/k/a Avondale
Industries, Inc., et al.

The Court entered judgment on Case No. 10-CC-1287 on Sept. 17,
2010.

This matter arose out of a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in
Orleans Parish against various defendants based on alleged
asbestos exposure to their decedent, which occurred during his
employment at Avondale Shipyards in Jefferson Parish.

Commercial Union, in its capacity as insurer of seven executive
officers of Avondale Industries who reside outside of Orleans
Parish, filed an exception of improper venue.

The district court denied Commercial Union's exception, and the
court of appeal denied Commercial Union's application for
supervisory writs.  This application followed.

The judgment of the district court was reversed.  The exception of
improper venue was granted.  The case was remanded to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clearwater Bids in Seaton Insurance Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, denied
Clearwater Insurance Co.'s motions in a case involving asbestos
styled Seaton Insurance Company (f/k/a Unigard Mutual Insurance
Company) and Stonewall Insurance Company, Plaintiffs v. Clearwater
Insurance Company (f/k/a Skandia America Reinsurance Corporation),
Defendant.

District Judge William E. Smith entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-516 S on Sept. 2, 2010.

In May 2009, Clearwater filed a declaratory judgment action
against Plaintiffs Seaton Insurance Co. and Stonewall Insurance
Co. in Connecticut Superior Court, arguing there was no coverage
for losses Seaton and Stonewall incurred regarding certain
asbestos-related claims.

Five months later, Seaton and Stonewall filed their own complaint
in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, seeking
monetary relief for Clearwater's alleged breaches of contract and
a declaration of the respective rights and obligations of the
parties.

Seaton and Stonewall's claims involved the same two reinsurance
contracts at issue in the Connecticut matter; however, they also
raised claims under 11 additional contracts between the parties.

In Connecticut, Seaton and Stonewall filed a motion to dismiss or
stay, arguing that the less complex state case should yield to the
later-filed federal case.  Judge Karazin of the Connecticut
Superior Court agreed and stayed the case.

Clearwater then filed a motion to stay or dismiss the federal
court action, and the Report and Recommendation suggested that it
be denied.

The Court denied Clearwater's objection to the R & R, and
therefore denied Clearwater's Motion to Dismiss or Stay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NKSJ Receiving Notices for Potential A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NKSJ Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary NIPPONKOA Insurance Company,
Limited has received and continues to receive notices of potential
claims asserting asbestos losses under certain insurance policies,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on
Sept. 29, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In prior years, Nipponkoa issued insurance policies and assumed
reinsurance for cover related to environmental pollution and
asbestos exposure.

Significant factors which affect the trends that influence
Nipponkoa's ability to estimate future losses for these types of
claims are the inconsistent court resolutions and the judicial
interpretations, which broaden the intent of the policies and
scope of coverage.

Nipponkoa said it believes that insurance loss reserves and
reinsurance contracts related to environmental pollution and
asbestos claims to be adequate, and the amount is less than five
percent of its total insurance loss reserves as of March 31, 2010
and 2009.

COMPANY PROFILE:
NKSJ Holdings, Inc.
26-1, Nishi-Shinjuku 1-chome
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8338
Japan

Company Profile:
The Company's businesses include domestic property/casualty and
life insurance as well as overseas insurance products, asset and
risk management services, pension plans, and some supplemental
health insurance products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bird-Morgan Renovation Project Granted Sept. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the East Rochester, N.Y., school district, on
Sept. 28, 2010, approved projects to renovate the Bird-Morgan
school campus, the Democrat and Chronicle reports.

The US$4.86 million Bird-Morgan school project includes a bus
loop, a new roof for the Morgan building and asbestos removal.
State aid will cover US$3.93 million, and Monroe No. 1 BOCES will
pay US$921,000.

The district will pay US$11,542 from its capital reserve fund.
School officials said the proposition for the Bird-Morgan work
passed 236-60.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fanslau Lawsuit v. Various Firms Filed Sept. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Richard W. Fanslau, on Sept. 27, 2010, filed an
asbestos lawsuit on his behalf against various defendants in
Lorain County Common Pleas Court in Ohio, The Morning Journal
reports.

The suit alleges Mr. Fanslau died from asbestos exposure while
working at the BFGoodrich facility in Avon Lake and for Nickel
Plate Railroad.

Mr. Fanslau's family is suing Goodrich, Norfolk Southern Railway
Co., and numerous other defendants stating Mr. Fanslau, whose date
of death was not listed in the suit, was exposed to asbestos while
working for the Nickel Plate Railroad and BFGoodrich.

Mr. Fanslau died from asbestos-related lung disease and lung
cancer, the suit stated, and he was a non-smoker.  The family is
suing for at least US$25,000 in damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Delays Reopening of Morristown's Library
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to officials, the discovery of more asbestos at the
damaged Morristown-Morris Township Free Public Library in
Morristown, N.J., will delay the building's reopening for an
unknown amount of time, the Star-Ledger reports.

Robert Russell, the architect overseeing reconstruction efforts,
said, "We are trying not to give dates at this point.  The
currently known task is about three weeks from completion, but we
are always on guard for more emergent matters."

On May 3, 2010, a series of underground explosions blew some doors
off the library building and buckled portions of the basement
floor.

Outside, on South Street, the blasts sent manhole covers into the
air.  While there was significant damage to the older wing, built
in 1917, and asbestos fibers were released into the building,
there were no injuries.

When the bulk of the asbestos was removed in late August 2010,
investigators and library officials were allowed back in to the
building.

At that point personnel from Jersey Central Power & Light, the
Board of Public Utilities and the library's insurance company
entered the library as part of their investigation into the cause
of the explosion.

Recently, Mr. Russell said, more asbestos was found behind
radiators in the 1917 wing.

Even once the newly found asbestos is cleared up, the opening
could be further complicated by unresolved issues surrounding the
installation of a permanent power supply to the building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Trials to Commence on Oct. 4 in McLean County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Michael Drazewski and Associate Judge Paul Lawrence,
on Oct. 4, 2010, will commence proceedings on claims that
companies concealed the hazards of asbestos, LegalNewsline.com
reports.

Pneumo Abex, a corporation that exists to pay claims, ran out of
lawyers and tried to settle the case before Judge Lawrence because
it could not defend two.

When Pneumo Abex lawyer Ray Modesitt, Esq., asked Judge Lawrence
to continue the case so he could help his 68-year-old wife through
surgery, Judge Lawrence looked skeptical.

Plaintiff lawyer James Walker, Esq., accused Mr. Modesitt of
dishonesty and reminded him that Pneumo Abex has litigated in
McLean County for decades.  He rattled off names of lawyers Mr.
Modesitt could call, ending the list with "that older gentleman
from Springfield."

Judge Lawrence denied a continuance but canceled the second week
of trial, a four day week due to a holiday on Monday, Oct. 11,
2010.  Mr. Modesitt must report to Bloomington on Oct. 18, 2010,
four days after his wife's surgery.

Honeywell International Inc. and Owens-Illinois Inc. plan to
defend themselves at both trials, but they must split up teams
that previously concentrated on one case at a time.

Mr. Walker and the plaintiff lawyer on the other case, James
Wylder, Esq., split up years ago, after jointly creating a
conspiracy theory that holds today's companies liable for acts
that occurred 50 to 100 years ago.

Jurors awarded US$10 million in punitive damages against Honeywell
in February, for buying a company that bought a company that made
brakes with asbestos long ago.

The string of success broke in July 2010, when jurors failed to
reach a verdict in a trial for two plaintiffs with no connection,
Norman Shoopman and Larry Dunham.

The judge at that trial, Circuit Judge Michael Prall, plans to
retire in November 2010.

A new trial for Mr. Shoopman and Mr. Dunham will begin before
Judge Drazewski on Oct. 4, 2010, while Judge Lawrence will preside
over a claim from Janet and James Shipley.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Defendants' Bid in Martin Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, denied Defendants' Motion in Limine in which Defendants
sought to preclude Plaintiffs from introducing the testimony, and
related documentary evidence, of four attorneys with whom
Plaintiffs entered into a written Associate Counsel Agreement
(ACA) related to asbestos cases.

The case is styled Edwin C. Martin, Jr., et al, Plaintiffs v.
James P. Holloran, et al., Defendants.

District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered judgment in Case No.
4:05CV1857 AGF on Sept. 8, 2010.

Plaintiffs sought to show by this evidence that Plaintiffs had a
"habit" or "routine practice," of insisting upon a written ACA
with local counsel, such as Defendants, before proceeding with the
asbestos screenings.  This evidence, according to Plaintiffs, is
relevant to show that Plaintiffs acted in accordance with that
practice in dealing with Defendants, that is, that the parties
executed a written ACA.

At the hearing on this and other motions in limine on Sept. 7,
2010, counsel for Plaintiffs represented to the Court that
Plaintiffs entered into about 10 asbestos ACAs with local counsel,
including Defendants, across the country in 1987, 1988, and 1989.
It appeared that the ACA (whether oral or written) with Defendants
was one of the earlier such arrangements, if not the earliest.

Accordingly, it was hereby ordered that Defendants' Motion in
Limine was denied.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Reverses Ruling in Smith's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California,
reversed the ruling of the Los Angeles Superior Court, which
awarded Mary Lou Smith an asbestos judgment of $450,834.46.

The case is styled Mary Lou Smith, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant and Appellant.

Judges Kitching, Croskey, and Aldrich entered judgment in Case No.
B217063 on Sept. 17, 2010.

This was a personal injury case arising out of Robert Smith's
alleged exposure to asbestos from products manufactured and
distributed by numerous defendants, including defendant Pneumo
Abex LLC.  Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith sued Abex and other defendants
for strict liability and negligence.  The jury returned a verdict
in favor of the Smiths and against Abex.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Smith died from mesothelioma.  Mrs. Smith
was then named his successor in interest.

After entering an initial judgment and adjudicating post-trial
motions, the trial court entered a final judgment in the amount of
US$365,029.35, plus US$85,805.11 in costs, for a total of
US$450,834.46 in favor of Mrs. Smith and against Abex.

Both Mrs. Smith and Abex appealed that judgment.

The Appeal Court concluded the trial court erroneously calculated
economic damages.  The Appeal Court reversed the judgment with
directions that the trial court ruled in Mrs. Smith's favor and
against Abex in the amount of US$440,107, plus costs in the amount
of US$85,805.11, for a total of US$525,912.11.

                             *********

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  * * *