CAR_Public/110204.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, February 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 25

                             Headlines

ANZ: Feb. 10 Hearing Set for Class Action Over Unfair Charges
APTS DOWNTOWN: Faces Class Action Over Rental Code Violations
BOULEVARD TAXI: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Lease Charges
CANADA: Bands Mull Class Action Over Day Scholars' Compensation
CITY SUBURBAN: Sued for Violating the Illinois Notary Public Act

COINSTAR INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in Washington
HEAT SURGE: Amish Fireplace Suit Seeks Class Action Status
HOUSING NSW: May Face Class Action Over Chatham Housing Units
HOLOGIC INC: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
OHIO: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Lakefront Class Action

PLAYBOY ENTERPRIES: Accused of Violating Civil Rights Laws
SALLIE MAE: Autodialing Lawsuit Settlement Hearing on Apr. 13
SEARS ROEBUCK: Feb. 23 Conference Set for Washing Machine Suit
SIGNAL INT'L: Indian Guestworkers Seek Class Certification
SMART ONLINE: May 11 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

SMURFIT-STONE: D&OS Face 2nd Suit Over Rock-Tenn Buyout
SMURFIT-STONE: D&OS Face 3rd Suit Over Rock-Tenn Buyout
TACO BELL: Runs WSJ Ad Explaining Seasoned Ground Beef
TENET HEALTHCARE: Board Sued for Impeding CHS Merger Offer
TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Being Sold for Too Little, Fla. Suit Claims

UNITED STATES: Cobell Class Action Attorneys Demand $223MM Fee
WACHOVIA CORP: Settles "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Bank Account Freezing Policy

* Advisen Sees More Lawsuits in U.S. Financial Sector in 2011

                            Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 4 Suits, Claims at Nov. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Posts $578MM Current Settlement at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered at Wellington Demolition Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hissey's Widow Awarded Compensation for Injury
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swadlincote Resident's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clarksville Fined $77,000 for Handling Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing in Deleon Lawsuit Moved to March 23
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goldenberg's Malpractice Lawsuit Gets New Judge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weymouth School Seeks $6M State Aid for Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: India Supreme Court Junks Plea for Asbestos Ban

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Oks UGL Summary Judgment in Travis Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Globe Summary Judgment Granted in Travis Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Ruling in Bohannon Case v. CSX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Mt. McKinley Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Decision in McCann v. Foster Wheeler

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Posts $8MM Litigation Credit at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Facing 64,839 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Claim v. Crane Still Subject to Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baccus Case v. Crane Settled During Q4 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Woodard Action v. Crane Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Mulls Appeal in Bell & Nelson Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Incurs $106MM for Settlement, Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $619.7M Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Posts $2.548BB A&E Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $826MM for Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barrington OKs $25.8T Abatement Deal With Angel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opposition Seeks Explanation on Maningrida Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adkins Case v. 80 Firms Filed in Kanawha County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Violations on Troy City Hall Demolition Issued

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Middleboro Contractors Fined $45,412 by MassDEP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Packer Case v. 91 Firms Filed Dec. 12 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Astin Wife's Death Linked to Secondary Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Case v. 76 Firms Filed Jan. 12 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hill Action v. 58 Firms Filed Jan. 12 in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Street Case v. 80 Firms Filed Jan. 12 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Choat Seeks to Enforce $25T Asbestos Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orange Residents "Angry" Over Approval of Quarry
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-RAF Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abbotsford to Resume Dredging at Sumas in 2011

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Posts $179MM Payments in Q4 2010


                             *********

ANZ: Feb. 10 Hearing Set for Class Action Over Unfair Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Randall, writing for Cranbourne Leader, reports Cranbourne
mother of five Colleen Ross is taking on the big banks.

The 35-year-old said her family had paid more than $5,500 in fees
to the ANZ over the past five years and hoped the class action now
against the bank would pave the way for reform.

"We pretty well live week-to-week.  With five kids and a mortgage,
it gets hard most weeks," she said.

"We often get stung with overdrawn fees because it's so hard to
make ends meet on one wage, with five mouths to feed.  Sometimes
for a $30 direct debit that's bounced, it can cost upwards of $70.

"There's even been a few weeks where we've had fees come out
because we've been overdrawn earlier and had to ring up St.
Vinny's or the Salvos to feed the kids."

Ms. Ross said she wasn't asking for sympathy, just understanding
from a bank that announced a $5 billion profit last year.

"I hope this action says to the banks and other companies you
cannot do this to families, to couples, to young families starting
out trying to buy a house," she said.

An ANZ spokesman declined to comment on the likely outcome of the
case.  "As the matter is currently before the Federal Court, it's
inappropriate for ANZ to make any comment other than to say we
will be actively defending our position," he said.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn lodged the suit on behalf of about
27,000 of the ANZ's customers in the Federal Court last September.

Its chairman, Bernard Murphy, said it was time the banks
reimbursed their customers for unfair charges.

The next hearing for the class action is scheduled for
February 10.

The claim is the first in a wider action -- organized by Financial
Redress -- against 12 banks from 240,000 customers who allege they
have been wrongly charged $5 billion in fees in the past six
years.


APTS DOWNTOWN: Faces Class Action Over Rental Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa City Press Citizen reports a pending class action alleging
widespread rental code violations has been filed against Apts
Downtown, Inc., the largest student landlord in Iowa City.

Christine Boyer and Christopher Warnock, local Iowa City
attorneys, filed the case on behalf of their client Michael Conroy
on December 22.

"We are in the initial stages of the lawsuit," says Mr. Warnock,
"and are looking for more tenants of Apartments Downtown and
Apartments Near Campus to act as representative plaintiffs in the
case."

Apts. Downtown, Inc., has a vast array of different corporate and
trade names, including Associated University Realty, Iowa City
Maintenance, Apartments Downtown and Apartments Near Campus with
over 1,000 tenants and a focus on rentals to University of Iowa
students.

Owned by the Clark family, reputedly the largest landowners in
Iowa City, Apts.  Downtown has been described as a "juggernaut"
among local landlords.

The lawsuit alleges that Apts. Downtown has systematically
violated tenants' rights by charging illegal automatic cleaning
fees, requiring tenants to pay for cleaning that the landlord is
legally required to do, charging tenants for common area damages
they did not cause and withholding a variety of excessive and
unreasonable fees and costs from tenants' security deposits.  At a
conservative estimate of $100 per tenant and 1,000 tenants,
illegal cleaning fees alone totaled $100,000 a year.

"The more we've dug into this case," says Mr. Warnock, "the more
we find that raises concerns about how Apts.  Downtown does
business.  They appear to be taking advantage of students' lack of
knowledge of their rights and inability to object to Apts.
Downtown's excessive and illegal fees and charges."

The Web site for the Apts Downtown Class Action is
http://www.ictenantsclassaction.com/


BOULEVARD TAXI: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Lease Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Carrega, Tom Namako and Erin Calabrese, writing for The
New York Post, report a courageous cabby has blown the whistle on
a Queens taxi-garage owner who repeatedly overcharged drivers for
leasing their cars, according to a new class-action lawsuit.

Since 2008, Samir Talbi and 124 other drivers say that Mike
Mellis, who operates Boulevard Taxi Leasing in Long Island City,
forced them to rent a cab for the entire week -- while still
paying the rates for individual days, according to court
documents.

So instead of charging the drivers the weekly lease rate of $666,
which is the Taxi and Limousine Commission mandated maximum, the
garage would simply add up the TLC-approved individual day rates:
$115 for Sunday, $120 on Monday and Tuesday, $120 for Wednesday,
and $129 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, the suit says.

That's $852 a week.

But it didn't stop there, the Queens Supreme Court suit claims.
The garage also tacked on fees for each day, bringing the total to
$894 a week.

Steve Gounaris, a principal at the garage, said the hiked-up fees
account for "state sales tax" -- even though the TLC rules say no
owner "may charge or accept from a driver any payment of any kind,
such as a tax."

Mr. Gounaris went on to say that the daily lease charges listed in
the lawsuit are the rates charged by his garage.

The suit also accuses the garage of forcing the drivers to pay
extra on holidays.

Mr. Talbi said through his lawyer that he would not comment for
fear of losing his job.

Mr. Gounaris told The Post it's a moot point, saying, "He ain't
gonna come back here and work again."


CANADA: Bands Mull Class Action Over Day Scholars' Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Youds, writing for Kamloops Daily News, reports a group of
B.C. First Nations, including Tk'emlups Indian Band, are prepared
to launch a class-action suit against the federal government to
win compensation for residential school day scholars.

Though excluded from the 2008 settlement package for residential
school survivors, day scholars were treated no differently than
other students, said Tk'emlups Chief Shane Gottfriedson.

"The government is liable for the forced attendance and the
irreparable harm that occurred at the day schools . . .," he said.

About 40 former day scholar students attended a recent TIB
consultation meeting, but Mr. Gottfriedson estimates they could
number as many as 200.

The group eyeing a class-action suit, including a half-dozen other
bands from across the province, met recently in Kamloops to plot
their course of action after years of lobbying without result.

The meeting was described as a final stance -- putting the
government on notice -- prior to legal action.

"I don't think our intent is in any way a pressure tactic,"
Mr. Gottfriedson said on Feb. 1.  "It's a reality that our people
want to be treated fairly and respectfully."

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs,
Chief Garry Feschuk of Sechelt First Nation, together with band
representatives from Penticton, Neskonlith, northern Secwepemc and
Williams Lake are also part of the initiative.

Mr. Gottfriedson wasn't optimistic about political action to
forestall court action.

"The process is, anytime government deals with you, an incentive
has to be with court action. . . . Obviously the next step is to
develop a legal case."


CITY SUBURBAN: Sued for Violating the Illinois Notary Public Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Gloria Franceschi, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. City Suburban Title Services Company, Case
No. 2011-CH-03549 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. January 27, 2011),
accuses the title services provider of hiring employee title
clerks to notarize title closing documents without the actual
appearance of the signatories of the Plaintiff and proposed class
members' title closing documents, as a result of which Plaintiff
and the proposed class members suffered damages.

City Suburban Title Services Company provides title, escrow and
related services to lenders, mortgage brokers, realtors, and
attorney with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois.

Anna Gloria Franceschi was a client of the Defendant who hired the
Defendant to facilitate with her mortgage closing of May 13, 2005.

Plaintiff says that by executing notarial acts without the actual
presence of the signatories of the Plaintiff and the proposed
class members' title documents, defendant negligently, recklessly,
or purposefully violated the Illinois Notary Public Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas S. Lane, Esq.
          Law Offices of Nicholas S. Lane
          35 E. Wacker, 9th Floor,
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 854-7160

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.,
          TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
          55 W. Wacker, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209


COINSTAR INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on February 1 filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western
District of Washington, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Coinstar, Inc. between October 28, 2010 and
January 13, 2011, inclusive, against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers, alleging securities fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs.
78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5].

The case name is styled Wilkerson v. Coinstar, Inc., et al.  A
copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com/

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented to
investors and securities industry analysts that the Company was
operating as expected and that the Defendants were successfully
managing inventory, acting to remove older titles and replacing
them with newer titles, which were purportedly in greater demand.
Further, the Defendants represented that the 28-day delay in
obtaining new releases from movie studios, which represented a
paradigm shift for the whole DVD industry, was not having, and
would not have, a material effect on the Company's revenues,
earnings or gross margins.

The complaint alleges that the representations made by the
Defendants concerning the Company's financial position, its
forecasted increases in earnings and revenues, and the overall
adequacy and effectiveness of defendants' inventory management
systems and internal controls were false and misleading.
Throughout the Class Period and through no fault of their own,
investors were unaware the Company was suffering from numerous
undisclosed problems, which were adversely affecting its
businesses and would cause declining financial results, materially
less than the market expectations cultivated by the Defendants'
false and misleading statements.

The truth was revealed on January 13, 2011, when investors learned
that Coinstar would earn only $0.65 per share for the quarter on
revenues of only $391 million, well below the consensus analyst
estimate of $0.84 per share on revenues of $427 million.  The
Defendants also explained that these factors would continue to
have a materially adverse impact on the Company's business,
earnings and gross margins throughout the fiscal year 2011.

On this news, the Company stock price suffered an immediate and
adverse impact as it collapsed over 27% in a single trading day or
$15.46 per share in a single day to close at $41.50.

Defendants were concealing the true operational and financial woes
of Coinstar, and materially misrepresented and failed to disclose
the material adverse factors affecting Coinstar throughout the
Class Period.  The Defendants were motivated to do so because:
(i) it enabled the Defendants to register with the SEC for the
sale of millions of shares of their privately held stock at an
artificially inflated price; and (ii) it enabled Company insiders
to sell millions of shares of their privately held common stock
with knowledge of non-public information, which would have a
material adverse impact on the Company.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of Coinstar securities.  Had
plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased said securities, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased Coinstar securities during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
March 25, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (800) 575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site at http://www.whafh.com/

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Coinstar.


HEAT SURGE: Amish Fireplace Suit Seeks Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports five people have sued an Ohio company
over whether its fireplaces cut heating bills sharply and are made
in the U.S. by Amish workers.

The lawsuit filed on Jan. 31 in Cleveland federal court asked that
it be made a class action on behalf of anyone with similar
complaints against Heat Surge LLC of North Canton.

The lawsuit says Heat Surge fireplaces with "genuine Amish
mantles" were inefficient and parts were made in China and didn't
involve Amish workers in the U.S. as implied in advertising.

There was no immediate comment from the company on Tuesday.

The lawsuit asked for unspecified damages.


HOUSING NSW: May Face Class Action Over Chatham Housing Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Manusu, writing for Manning River Times, reports class
action is now being considered against Housing NSW, over its
bungled handling of the Chatham housing units affair.

Concerned residents in streets surrounding the 28 new units in
Gill Avenue and Bruntnell Street will meet next Wednesday evening
to determine whether to begin legal action.

They hope by then to have legal advice from a compensation
specialist.

The meeting at 38 Cowper Street from 6:30 p.m. will involve
residents living in the Cowper Street, Gill Avenue, Bruntnell
Street area, where the double storied complex of Housing NSW units
are now being tenanted by mainly young people, many with children.

Residents claim their property values have dropped by as much as
$60,000 because of the medium density units and their risk of
becoming a "ghetto".

The decision to investigate a possible class action follows
Housing NSW's apology on Jan. 27 for the "distress" it had caused
nearby residents, many of whom have lived in their homes in a
quiet neighborhood for several decades.

The department backed down on its statements the previous week
that nearby residents had been "under the impression" that their
new neighbors were to be seniors aged 55, when it maintained that
was never the intention.  The backdown came after member for Myall
Lakes John Turner revealed the contents of a letter from the then
Housing minister, David Borger, when the units were being planned,
which nominated them as seniors housing.

The department now accepted "full responsibility for the
confusion", a spokesperson said in the Jan. 27 apology.

Resident concerns arose last month when the new tenants began
moving in, and it was discovered many were young families with
children, despite there being no designated playground facility in
the complex, and just a handful of car parking spaces.

Long-time property owners now claim they should be compensated for
loss of amenity to their area through added noise and traffic, and
loss of property values.


HOLOGIC INC: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Maryann Reynolds, Dana Shawa, and Shella Leahy, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hologic, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00462 (N.D. Calif. January 31, 2011), accuse the
Defendants of misclassifying its in-servicing trainers as exempt
and not paying them overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Maryann Reynolds was employed by Defendants as a
Clinical Education Specialist from September 10, 2007, to
November 25, 2008, working out of her own home San Francisco.

Plaintiff Dana Shawa was employed by Defendants as an
Applications Specialist, a Clinical Services Specialist, and a
Clinical Education Specialist from February 2008 until June 2009,
working out of her own home in Fairfield, Solano County,
California.

Plaintiff Shella Leahy was employed by Defendant, as a Clinical
Education Specialist from May 6, 2007, to September 2010, working
out of her own home in Torrance, Los Angeles County.

The Plaintiffs' primary job duty was and is to perform product
training for customers of Hologic and Hologic/Suros products.

According to the Complaint, Hologic is a developer, manufacturer
and supplier of premium diagnostics, medical imaging systems and
surgical products dedicated to the healthcare needs of women.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Pillette, Esq.
          Julieanna Vinogradsky, Esq.
          PILLETTE LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          795 Sutter Street, Suite 203
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 567-2221
          E-mail: jwp@pillettelaw.com
                  jiv@pillettelaw.com


OHIO: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Lakefront Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Morning Journal reports the Ohio Supreme Court on Feb. 1 heard
oral arguments in the legal fight over who owns Ohio's lakefront.

The court will decide on the class action lawsuit involving
thousands of shoreline property owners, including residents of
Lorain and Erie counties.

The high court is considering the dispute between the Ohio
Attorney General's Office and shoreline property owners who each
claim ownership of land between Lake Erie's ordinary high and low
watermarks -- essentially Ohio's beaches.

The Ohio Lakefront Group, made up of private property owners along
the shore, claimed Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine is wrongly
following the path started by Attorneys General Marc Dann and
Richard Cordray.

"It is disappointing that Attorney General Mike DeWine has chosen
to follow the lead of disgraced Attorney General Marc Dann and
defeated Attorney General Richard Cordray, and defend state
efforts to take citizens' private property," said Tony Yankel, OLG
president.  "During the campaign, Mr. DeWine told journalists that
he disagreed with Mr. Cordray's decision to continue to pursue the
case.  By deciding to go forward with the appeal, Mr. DeWine is
flip flopping and undermining our fundamental private property
rights guaranteed by the United States as well as the Ohio
Constitution."


PLAYBOY ENTERPRIES: Accused of Violating Civil Rights Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court claims Playboy violated civil rights laws
by charging men $625 to attend a "White Party at the Playboy
Mansion" in May 2009, but letting women in free.


SALLIE MAE: Autodialing Lawsuit Settlement Hearing on Apr. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you received an auto-dialed or pre-recorded call from Sallie
Mae, Inc., or Another Affiliate or Subsidiary of SLM Corporation,
to your cell phone on or after October 27, 2005, to September 14,
2010, you could receive benefits from this class action
settlement.

Subject to Court approval, a proposed settlement has been reached
in a class action lawsuit against Sallie Mae, Inc., or calls
allegedly made to Plaintiffs and Class Members on their cellular
telephones through the use of an automatic telephone dialing
system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without their
prior express consent.  The case is known as Arthur v. Sallie Mae,
Inc., United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Case No. 10-cv-00198-JLR.

Who is a Class Member?

You may be a Class Member if, on or after October 27, 2005 to
September 14, 2010, you received a call to a cellular telephone
through the use of automated telephone equipment from Sallie Mae
or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation.  The
Settlement Class includes all persons who received such calls.

What are the benefits?

The primary focus of the Settlement will be prospective changes to
the practices at issue.  Class Members can submit a demand (a
"Revocation Request") that Sallie Mae and/or any other affiliate
or subsidiary of SLM Corporation not make calls to their cellular
phones using automated telephone equipment.  If a Class Member
does not submit this Revocation Request, he or she will be deemed
to have provided prior express consent to the making of calls
by Sallie Mae or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM
Corporation to any phone numbers reflected in such entities'
records.

In addition, Sallie Mae has agreed to pay $19.5 million into a
settlement fund, out of which eligible Class Members who file a
qualified claim will receive a monetary award.  To obtain a
Revocation Request form or information about the award benefits
and deadlines to act, go to http://www.ArthurTCPASettlement.com/
or call the Claims Administrator at 1-888-730-7196.

The settlement fund will also be used to pay Class Counsel's
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs, stipends for the
Representative Plaintiffs, and all costs of notice and claims
administration.

What are your rights?

If you are eligible, you may seek a monetary award by submitting a
Claim Form NO LATER THAN February 26, 2011.  You may also file a
Revocation Request, as described above, by NO LATER THAN
February 26, 2011.

You may exclude yourself from the lawsuit and keep your right to
sue Sallie Mae on your own, by sending a written request for
exclusion to the Claims Administrator by December 13, 2010.  If
you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the terms of the
settlement and give up your rights to sue regarding the settled
claims.

If you do not exclude yourself, you or your lawyer has the right
to appear before the Court and object to the proposed settlement.
If you choose to appear through an attorney, you are responsible
for paying that attorney.  Written objections must be postmarked
by December 13, 2010.  You will be bound by the terms of the
Settlement even if your objection is rejected.

If you do nothing, you will not revoke any rights to call you on a
cellular telephone through the use of automated telephone
equipment, you will not receive any monetary award in this
settlement, and will lose the right to sue regarding any issues
relating to this action.  You will be considered part of the
Settlement Class, and you will be bound by the Court's decisions.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to consider if the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be
granted final approval on April 13, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. (Pacific
Standard Time).  Class Counsel will also ask the Court for
approval of their request for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses,
and incentive awards to the Representative Plaintiffs from the
Fund.  More information about the Fairness Hearing may be found on
the settlement Web site at http://www.ArthurTCPASettlement.com/

Class counsel is asking the Court to award them $4,875,000 of the
$19,500,000 Settlement Fund.  Objections, if any, to this award
must be filed and served by Mar. 18, 2011.

Complete details describing eligibility, your rights, options and
how to submit a Claim Form or a Revocation Request can be obtained
by calling 1-888-730-7196, or visiting the Web site at
http://www.ArthurTCPASettlement.com/or write to:

         Arthur TCPA Claims Administrator
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9621
         Dublin, OH 43017-4921


SEARS ROEBUCK: Feb. 23 Conference Set for Washing Machine Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
although a case management conference is now set in a class action
brought against Sears Roebuck & Co., there is still no decision
months after a September hearing on whether Madison County Circuit
Judge David Hylla will stay or even dismiss the case.

Lead plaintiff Therese Dalla Riva seeks to lead a class of
Illinois customers who bought Kenmore Elite Oasis washing machines
that had allegedly defective control boards.

The Madison County suit is nearly identical to one pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by
lead plaintiff Renee Tietsworth.

Ms. Dalla Riva's suit alleges that the washing machines had the
potential to explode, a claim thrown out of Tietsworth case.

Sears' attorney Michael Williams dismissed arguments by
plaintiff's counsel Lori Andrus and Mark Goldenberg about the
merits of the Illinois suit.

"You've got some lawyers calling the shots and they didn't get
what they wanted there so they've come here because they want a
second shot here," Mr. Williams said in the September 2010
arguments.

Ms. Andrus and Mr. Goldenberg countered that there was enough at
issue to keep the Dalla Riva suit going.

Sears argued for a dismissal or, barring that, a stay until the
resolution of the Tietsworth suit.

Judge Hylla took the matter under advisement.

A case management conference is now set for Feb. 23 at 9:30 a.m.

Meanwhile, in the Tietsworth case, there has been no action in the
as-yet uncertified class action since November 2010.

The last action in the case was the entry of an initial case
management order by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel that
governs that case's progress until a certification hearing set in
September.

Mr. Andrus is from the San Francisco firm of Andrus Anderson LLP.

Mr. Williams is from the Denver firm of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP.

Stephen Strauss of Bryan Cave LLP of St. Louis also represents
Sears.

The case Dalla Riva class action is Madison case number 10-L-203.

The Tietsworth class action pending in the Northern District Court
of California is federal case number CV-09-288-JF/HRL.


SIGNAL INT'L: Indian Guestworkers Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Indian guestworkers who are suing Signal
International, LLC, along with its co-conspirators and other
entities for human trafficking and racketeering, filed for class
certification on Feb. 1 to include hundreds of additional Indian
guestworkers in the lawsuit.  If class status is granted, the
lawsuit could be the largest human trafficking case in U.S.
history.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(AALDEF), Louisiana Justice Institute (LJI) and the law firm Dewey
& LeBoeuf LLP filed the original proposed class action lawsuit on
behalf of the seven individuals, who seek to represent a class of
approximately 500 former guestworkers lured to work in the U.S.
after Hurricane Katrina and subjected to racial and national
origin discrimination, forced labor and other abuse by Signal and
its agents and co-Defendants, including labor recruiters Sachin
Dewan and Michael Pol and immigration attorney Malvern Burnett.
Today's filing urges the court to certify the class.

Signal, a marine and fabrication company with shipyards in
Mississippi, Texas and Alabama, is a subcontractor for several
major multi-national companies.  After Hurricane Katrina scattered
its workforce, Signal retained its co-defendants who used the U.S.
government's guestworker program to import employees to work as
welders and pipefitters.  Between 2004 and 2006, hundreds of
Indian men paid the defendants as much as $20,000 each for travel,
visa, recruitment and other fees after they were told it would
lead to good jobs and permanent U.S. residency for themselves and
their families.

However, when the men arrived at Signal in late 2006 and early
2007, they discovered that they wouldn't receive the green cards
as promised, but rather 10-month guestworker visas.  Signal also
forced them to pay $1,050 a month to live in overcrowded,
unsanitary and racially segregated labor camps where as many as 24
men shared a trailer with only two toilets.  When the guestworkers
tried to find their own housing, Signal officials told them they
would still have the rent deducted from their paychecks. Visitors
were not allowed into the camps, which were enclosed by fences.
Company employees who stood guard at the camps regularly searched
the workers' belongings.  Workers who complained about the
conditions they faced were threatened with deportation.

Quotes can be attributed as follows:

Kurian David, a class representative in the lawsuit: "We hope the
court will give us all a chance to make our voices heard and to
right the wrongs that were done against us.  Signal and the other
defendants should be held accountable for what they did to so many
Indian guestworkers who worked for them, so that others won't have
to go through the same terrible things."

Murugan Kandhasamy, a class representative in the lawsuit: "I
speak on behalf of hundreds of Indian guestworkers subjected to
abuse by Signal and its co-conspirators.  We came to America for
good jobs and opportunity, which we were denied, and now we are
asking for justice."

Daniel Werner, SPLC Deputy Legal Director: "This case illustrates
in shocking detail the abuse occurring within the nation's
guestworker program.  These workers only wanted the American dream
but instead were bound to an abusive employer and forced to endure
horrific conditions."

Chandra Bhatnagar, ACLU Human Rights Program staff attorney:
"These courageous men who have been victimized by systemic
deficiencies in the U.S. guestworker program and subjected to
trafficking and racketeering at the hands of the defendants are
seeking to assert their fundamental human rights.  We hope the
court will certify the class and enable several hundred of their
fellow Indian guestworkers to have their day in court."

Alan Howard of Dewey & LeBoeuf, which has been jointly litigating
the case on a pro bono basis: "Class certification is warranted
because that is precisely how Defendants treated Plaintiffs, as a
class -- albeit second-class -- group of workers who could be
exploited for higher profits."

Ivy Suriyopas, AALDEF staff attorney: "After being treated as
disposable workers, these Indian guestworkers are entitled to seek
justice for their wholesale mistreatment.  They toiled under a
climate of fear and coercion and deserve their day in court."

The guestworkers' attorneys filed the class action human
trafficking and racketeering lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana in March 2008.

The class action complaint is available online at:

                    http://tinyurl.com/4w8g9nc

The Feb. 1 filing is available at:

                    http://tinyurl.com/4rwfcdy

The ACLU conserves America's original civic values working in
courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the
individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the
United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


SMART ONLINE: May 11 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven on Feb. 1 issued a statement regarding the Smart
Online Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MARY JANE BEAUREGARD, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff vs. SMART ONLINE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.; Civ. No. 07-CV-00785-WO-PTS

Summary Notice

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SMART ONLINE, INC.
("SMART ONLINE") PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD
BEGINNING MAY 2, 2005 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2007, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, that a
hearing will be held on May 11, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable William L. Osteen, Jr. at the United States Courthouse,
324 West Market Street, Suite 401, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed partial
settlement of the claims in the Action for the combined sum of
$462,500 in cash and 1,500,000 shares of Smart Online common stock
together with the assignment of claims and/or recoveries by Smart
Online against certain non-settling defendants should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, the Action should be partially dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Partial
Class Settlement ("Stipulation"); (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore should
be approved;(4) whether the application of Lead Plaintiff's
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses incurred in connection with the Action should be
approved; and (5) whether the application for attorneys' fees and
expenses for counsel who filed the initial complaint but was not
subsequently appointed Class Counsel should be approved.  If you
purchased or acquired Smart Online securities during the period
May 2, 2005 through September 28, 2007, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by the settlement of this Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency, Proposed Partial
Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Request For
Awards of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you
may obtain copies by writing to:

          Smart Online Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          PO Box 9349
          Dublin, OH 43017-4249

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than April 25, 2011,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked by March 15, 2011, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Members of the Settlement Class who have not requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection to the settlement, the plan of allocation, Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and the additional plaintiff's counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be
mailed or delivered such that it is received by no later than
April 18, 2011 as provided in the Notice.

To decide whether to seek exclusion from the Class or to object to
any of the applications that will be made at the fairness hearing
on May 11, 2011, you are strongly advised to obtain a copy of the
detailed Notice and following the directions provided therein.

To obtain a copy of the Notice, you can write, call or download a
copy as follows:

          Smart Online Securities Litigation
          c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
          PO Box 9349
          Dublin, OH 43017-4249
          Web site: http://www.gcginc.com/

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Lead Plaintiff's Counsel at:

          BROWER PIVEN
          488 Madison Avenue
          8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-501-9000

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA


SMURFIT-STONE: D&OS Face 2nd Suit Over Rock-Tenn Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Barry Roseman, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, et al., Case No.
2011-CH-03519 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. January 27, 2011), accuses
Smurfit, its Board of Directors, and Rock-Tenn Company of directly
breaching or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties to Smurfit's public shareholders arising out of
defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the Company to Rock-
Tenn via an unfair process and at an unfair price.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Smurfit will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of RockTenn.  For each share of Smurfit common
stock, Smurfit stockholders will be entitled to receive 0.30605
shares of RockTenn common stock and $17.50 in cash, representing
50% cash and 50% stock.  The aggregate consideration is $35 per
Smurfit common share.  The consideration represents a 27% premium
to Smurfit-Stone's closing stock price on January 21, 2011.

The aggregate purchase price being paid for Smurfit-Stone's equity
in the transaction is approximately $3.5 billion, consisting of
approximately $1.8 billion of cash and the issuance 30.9 million
shares of RockTenn common stock.  Following the acquisition,
RockTenn shareholders will own approximately 56% and Smurfit
shareholders will own 44% of the combined company.  In addition to
the equity consideration, RockTenn will assume Smurfit's net debt
and pension liabilities.

The transaction is expected to close in the second calendar
quarter of 2011 and is subject to customary closing conditions,
regulatory approvals, as well as approval by both RockTenn and
Smurfit stockholders.

Dr. Roseman is a shareholder of Smurfit, a company which
manufactures paperboard and paper-based packaging in North
America.  Defendant Rock-Tenn manufactures and sells packaging
products, recycled paperboard, containerboard, bleached
paperboard, and merchandising displays worldwide.

Dr. Roseman tells the Court that in a transaction that will result
in a change of corporate control, shareholders are entitled to
receive a significant premium.  Therefore, Dr. Roseman asks the
Court to enjoin the defendants from consummating the proposed
acquisition, unless and until the Company adopts and implements a
procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for
shareholders.

The Complaint says that the process followed by the Board of
Directors leading to the proposed sale "was fraught with conflicts
of interest and designed to provide benefits to Company insiders
to the detriment of the Company's public shareholders."

In addition, the Board agreed to several preclusive deal
protection devices in the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Rock-
Tenn that effectively prevent competing bidders from coming
forward, including: (i) a no-shop clause; (ii) a termination fee
that requires the Company to pay Rock-Tenn $120 million if the
proposed acquisition is terminated in favor of a superior
proposal; (iii) matching rights and information rights that
provide Rock-Tenn with three business days to match any competing
proposal and require the Company to inform Rock-Tenn about any
indication of interest received by the Company; and (iv) a
provision that requires the Company to keep in place any existing
standstill agreements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818


SMURFIT-STONE: D&OS Face 3rd Suit Over Rock-Tenn Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Findley, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, et al., Case No.
2011-CH-03726 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. January 28, 2011), accuses
Smurfit, its Board of Directors, and Rock-Tenn Company of directly
breaching or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties to Smurfit's public shareholders relating to
defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the Company to Rock-
Tenn via an unfair process and at an unfair price.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Smurfit will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of RockTenn.  For each share of Smurfit common
stock, Smurfit stockholders will be entitled to receive 0.30605
shares of RockTenn common stock and $17.50 in cash, representing
50% cash and 50% stock.  The aggregate consideration is $35 per
Smurfit common share.  The consideration represents a 27% premium
to Smurfit-Stone's closing stock price on January 21, 2011.

The aggregate purchase price being paid for Smurfit-Stone's equity
in the transaction is approximately $3.5 billion, consisting of
approximately $1.8 billion of cash and the issuance 30.9 million
shares of RockTenn common stock.  Following the acquisition,
RockTenn shareholders will own approximately 56% and Smurfit
shareholders will own 44% of the combined company.  In addition to
the equity consideration, RockTenn will assume Smurfit's net debt
and pension liabilities.

The transaction is expected to close in the second calendar
quarter of 2011 and is subject to customary closing conditions,
regulatory approvals, as well as approval by both RockTenn and
Smurfit stockholders.

Mr. Findley is a shareholder of Smurfit, a company which
manufactures paperboard and paper-based packaging in North
America.  Defendant Rock-Tenn manufactures and sells packaging
products, recycled paperboard, containerboard, bleached
paperboard, and merchandising displays worldwide.

The Complaint says that the "quick sale", a mere 7 months from the
Company's emergence from bankruptcy, will cash out the equity
interests of the Company's Chief Executive Officer, defendant
Patrick Moore, who was set to retire, per agreement with Company,
no more than nine months after the Company successfully emerged
from bankruptcy.

In addition, certain other members of the Company's Board, as yet
unidentified, secured ongoing Board positions with Rock-Tenn.

According to the Complaint, the Board further breached its
fiduciary duties by agreeing to several preclusive deal protection
devices in the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Rock-Tenn that
effectively prevent competing bidders from coming forward,
including: (i) a no-shop clause; (ii) a termination fee that
requires the Company to pay Rock-Tenn $120 million if the proposed
acquisition is terminated in favor of a superior proposal; (iii)
matching rights and information rights that provide Rock-Tenn with
three business days to match any competing proposal and require
the Company to inform Rock-Tenn about any indication of interest
received by the Company; and (iv) a provision that requires the
Company to keep in place any existing standstill agreements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000


TACO BELL: Runs WSJ Ad Explaining Seasoned Ground Beef
------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Jan. 26, 2011, lawyers at Beasley Allen Crow
Methvin Portis & Miles PC filed a consumer rights class action
lawsuit against Taco Bell, which is a division of Yum! Brands
Inc., over the fast food chain's advertisements about its seasoned
ground beef.

In a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal, Greg Creed, Taco
Bell's President, says, "Thank you for suing us."

Here, Mr. Creed explains, is the truth about Taco Bell's seasoned
beef:

    (A) The claims made against Taco Bell and our seasoned beef
are absolutely false.  Our beef is 100% USDA inspected, just like
the quality beef you buy in a supermarket and prepare in your
home.  It is then slow-cooked and simmered in our unique recipe of
seasonings, spices, water, and other ingredients to provide Taco
Bell's signature taste and texture.

    (B) Plain ground beef tastes boring.  The only reason we add
anything to our beef is to give the meat flavor and quality.
Otherwise we'd end up with nothing more than the bland flavor of
ground beef, and that doesn't make for great-tasting tacos.

    (C) So here are REAL percentages.  88% Beef and 12% Secret
Recipe.

    (D) In case you're curious, here's our not-so-secret recipe.
We start with USDA-inspected quality beef (88%).  Then add water
to keep it juicy and moist (3%).  Mix in Mexican spices and
flavors, including salt, chili pepper, onion powder, tomato
powder, sugar, garlic powder, and cocoa powder (4%).  Combine a
little oats, caramelized sugar, yeast, citric acid, and other
ingredients that contribute to the flavor, moisture, consistency,
and quality of our seasoned beef (5%).

"We stand behind the quality of our seasoned beef 100% and we are
proud to serve it in all our restaurants.  We take any claims to
the contrary very seriously and plan to take legal action against
those who have made false claims against our seasoned beef," Mr.
Creed adds.

The lawsuit seeks to require Taco Bell to "properly advertise and
label food items, and to engage in a corrective advertising
campaign to educate the public about the true content of its food
products," according to a news release from Beasley Allen.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Board Sued for Impeding CHS Merger Offer
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Jeb Bush is the lead
defendant in a Tenet Healthcare shareholders derivative complaint.
The class representative, a union pension fund, claims Mr. Bush
and Tenet's other board members fought off a merger offer from
Community Health Services by changing company bylaws, adopting a
poison pill under the pretext of protecting an alleged "tax asset"
-- an operating loss, to entrench themselves in their positions at
shareholders' expense.  Mr. Bush was paid $245,000 for sitting on
the board in 2009.

Community Health Services offered to buy up all Tenet shares in a
stock and cash deal valued at $6 per share -- a 40% premium over
Tenet's price on the day of the announcement.

Tenet rejected the offer "without any negotiation or due
diligence," according to the complaint in Dallas County Court.
The directors also "adopted a 'poison pill' (with a 4.9% ownership
trigger) under the pretext of protecting an alleged tax asset (net
operating loss carryforwards).  As a consequence of the minimal
threshold triggering the pill, the pill is preclusive in that it
makes it virtually impossible for an acquitting company to wage a
successful proxy contest," according to the lead plaintiff, the
Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW.

The pension fund says that the defendant directors also changed
Tenet's bylaws, "removing annual meeting timing requirements," to
delay the shareholders meeting by 6 months, "in the hopes that
CHS's interest in Tenet will have waned by the time the annual
meeting is eventually held and the incumbent directors will be
able to run unopposed.  Indeed, at the annual meeting, all
director defendants are up for re-election."

The shareholders say the defendants breached their fiduciary duty,
to entrench themselves in office.  They seek class certification
and a hearing on the merits for an injunction to rescind the
poison pill, enjoin the defendants "from implementing any coercive
or preclusive defensive measures that would have the effect of
impeding or frustrating proper consideration, in good faith, of
the CHS offer or any competing offer," and they want the delay of
the shareholders meeting rescinded.

Nine other Tenet board members are named as defendants with
Mr. Bush.

A copy of the Complaint in Indiana Electrical Workers Pension
Trust Fund IBEW v. Bush, et al., Case No. CC11-00646-D (Tex. Cty.
Ct., Dallas Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/01/Jeb.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Peter Andrews, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000


TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Being Sold for Too Little, Fla. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders
of Terremark Worldwide say directors are selling the company too
cheaply to Verizon -- for $1.4 billion or $19 per share -- to
entrench themselves at shareholders' expense.  Terremark's share
price more than sextupled in the 2 years before the "unfair"
buyout, shareholders say.

"Verizon's offer of $19 per share substantially undervalues the
company," according to the class action in Miami-Dade County
Court.

Headquartered in Miami, Terremark is a global provider of
information technology infrastructure services.  Its share price
increased by 654% in past two years, from $1.87 in March 2009 to
$14.10 this month.

"Terremark's directors and officers will continue in their
management positions with the company after consummation of the
proposed merger," lead plaintiff Norbert Shaefer says.  "In light
of this benefit to the board, which will not be shared with the
company's shareholders, it is clear that the board members were
more concerned with securing continued employment for themselves
than fulfilling their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder
value."

Mr. Shaefer describes the deal as "the product of a flawed process
that is designed to ensure the proposed merger between Terremark
and Verizon on terms preferential to Verizon and Terremark's board
members, but detrimental to plaintiff and other public
stockholders of Terremark."

"Indeed, Verizon's offer of $19 per share substantially
undervalues the company as is merely an attempt by Verizon to
acquire Terremark for a bargain during a temporary downturn in the
economy."

Mr. Shaefer also contests the "lockup provisions," which include a
$52.5 million termination fee.

Defendants include Terremark Worldwide, Verizon Communications,
Verizon Holdings, and 10 Terremark directors.

Mr. Shaefer wants the merger enjoined as a breach of fiduciary
duty, and therefore void and unenforceable.

A copy of the Complaint in Shaefer v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-03274CA32 (Fla Dist. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/01/Terremark.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Randall Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314


UNITED STATES: Cobell Class Action Attorneys Demand $223MM Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
from the plaintiffs' lawyers representing Elouise Cobell in a
landmark class action in Washington, D.C., there are no apologies
over their legal fee demand.

Led by Washington solo practitioner Dennis Gingold and a team of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton attorneys, the attorneys last week
told a federal judge that class counsel deserve $223 million for
steering a 15-year-old suit to a $3.4 billion settlement.

The amount is more than double the maximum $99.9 million the
plaintiffs' lawyers agreed to seek under the terms of the
settlement, which resolves claims the government mismanaged
billions of dollars held in trust flowing from the use of Indian
land for oil, gas, timber and minerals.  More than $1.5 billion in
the settlement is tax-free compensation for potentially 500,000
class members.

In a fee petition, filed in Washington's federal trial court on
Jan. 25, Mr. Gingold and the Kilpatrick attorneys, who joined the
litigation in 1999, asserted the $99.9 million fee.  Now the
lawyers argue that fee "is so far below" controlling law that it
would discourage plaintiffs' attorneys from getting involved down
the road to enforce the government's trust duties.  Ms. Cobell's
attorneys figure at least $223 million would be appropriate.

The petition strives to put a dollar amount on the cost of
success, providing a rare glimpse at legal strategy, the fee
structure of a law firm and lost business opportunities over the
course of the litigation.  The settlement leaves the final
decision on attorney fees to the presiding judge in the case.

"The results we achieved are substantial," said Mr. Gingold, a
banking lawyer by trade who was one of two attorneys who filed the
Cobell suit in 1996.  "What we are asking for is on the lowest end
of the scale for attorneys who take cases on contingency fee
basis.  We shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else."

INSIGHT INTO FIRM'S FINANCIALS

Among the highlights in the fee petition: Ms. Cobell's lawyers
said they invested nearly 141,000 hours -- about $90 million based
on hourly rates -- between 1995 and December 2009, when the
settlement was announced.  Kilpatrick Chairman William Dorris in
Atlanta, who bills at $690 an hour, revealed in court records the
hourly rates for nearly 100 current and former partners,
associates and counsel in Washington; Winston-Salem, N.C.; and
Atlanta, among other cities.

A fee award of $223 million would represent more than 90% of
Kilpatrick's gross revenue in 2009 of $245.5 million, according to
financial data provided by NLJ affiliate The American Lawyer.  The
firm reported profits per partner of $615,000 in 2009.

Mr. Dorris is now the chairman of Kilpatrick, a 415-lawyer
Atlanta-based firm that merged with the intellectual property shop
Townsend and Townsend and Crew on Jan. 1. Dorris said the combined
firm has more than 650 attorneys.  He could not be reached for
comment on the fee request.

In an affidavit, Mr. Dorris said the firm has committed
substantial resources to the litigation.  "At various times, it
has required the full-time attention of a number of attorneys, and
largely precluded their engaging in other work," he said.  "In
committing to work on this case, the firm was undertaking
significant risk, and we were aware that there was a substantial
chance our firm would never be compensated for the work performed
or the expenses advanced."

Ms. Cobell's lawyers had been working on a 14.75% contingency
basis prior to the execution of the settlement.  Mr. Gingold and
the Kilpatrick attorneys, including partner Keith Harper, urged
Senior Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia to account for the contingency arrangement in
determining attorney compensation.

The Justice Department, Mr. Gingold said, insisted on inserting a
fee range -- $50 million to $99.9 million -- in the settlement
agreement.  Ms. Cobell's lawyers described the so-called "clear
sailing clause" as standard language commonly included in
settlement agreements. The $99.9 million does not represent a cap
because the presiding judge has authority to award greater
compensation, Mr. Gingold said.

A lead attorney for the U.S. Justice Department, Robert Kirschman
Jr. of the Civil Division, said the department would respond to
the fee petition in February.  Mr. Kirschman and Associate
Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, who participated in settlement
negotiations, declined to comment about the position the
department will take.

Last year, Mr. Perrelli was the department's face man trumpeting
the deal on Capitol Hill, pitching the settlement to members of
Congress.  Mr. Perrelli said during one hearing that the
department "will make appropriate arguments in support of the
government's position that as much of the settlement funds as
possible should go to the class members."

Mr. Gingold expects the department to challenge the $223 million
attorney fee request, an amount he called fair given the duration,
complexity and risk involved in pursuit of a favorable judgment.

GIVING UP OTHER WORK

In court papers, Mr. Gingold called the Cobell case the "most
difficult, time-consuming and risky engagement" he's ever
undertaken.  He sank in nearly 49,000 hours, passing up other
engagements in the financial arena for which he bills clients $925
an hour.  He suspended his banking practice "because of the
urgency and compelling nature of the human issues at stake" in the
Cobell case.

During the past two years, he said, he declined to represent an
unidentified investment firm in a case that involved "several
global financial institutions."  Mr. Gingold also passed up an
opportunity to represent a commercial bank in an action against
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and has deferred academic
appointments and declined to teach a graduate-level business
administration course.

"I'm not embarrassed at all by the fee," Mr. Gingold said.  "If
somebody told a lawyer he would get an hourly rate when he
settled, I don't think a single competent lawyer would take a case
like this.  The risk is enormous."

Ms. Cobell's lawyers plan to meet with class members in the coming
weeks, answering questions about the settlement and convincing any
skeptics that the $223 million attorney fee award is not
excessive.

Potential class members will receive, at minimum, $1,800.  Taking
the contingency arrangement into account, Mr. Gingold said, that's
about $17 a year over the course of the litigation.  "Fewer than
two car washes a year," he said.


WACHOVIA CORP: Settles "Pick-a-Payment" Mortgage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Popken, writing for The Consumerist, reports that if you got a
"Pick-a-Payment" mortgage from Wachovia between August 1, 2003 and
December 31, 2008, you might be up for claiming some cash in a $50
million settlement.

The settlement alleges that the bank deceived customers by not
fully telling them that there could be negative amortization if
they opted to make a minimum payment during a limited time under
certain allowed conditions.  If they payment was under the
interest owed, the remaining interested was added to the
principal.

Two of the three settlement classes will automatically receive
payouts from the settlement.  If you sold off the property having
the Pick-A-Payment mortgage, refi'd, paid off the loan, or got a
loan mod, then you need to submit a claim by March 16, 2011.

For more info on the suit re Wachovia Corp. "Pick-A-Payment"
Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No.
M:09-CV-2015-JF and submitting a claim, check the settlement site
http://pickapaysettlement.com/


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Bank Account Freezing Policy
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses Wells Fargo Bank of fraud, conversion and abuse of
process.  The named plaintiff says the bank froze her bank account
after she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, denying her and her
child the money they need to eat, clothe themselves and pay rent.
And it did this though she "had no mortgage loans, credit cards or
other loan accounts with Wells Fargo and owed no debts whatsoever
to Wells Fargo."

Lead plaintiff Brooke Yarborough claims Wells Fargo has a national
policy of freezing and retaining the money in its customers'
accounts after they file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.  She
says the bank knows that its policy causes "severe financial
hardship" to its customers, and that the policy constitutes fraud,
deceit, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract and abuse of
process.

She claims Wells Fargo seized her personal account 4 days after
she filed for bankruptcy protection.

She wants access to her money, an injunction and compensatory and
punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Yarbrough v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00468 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/01/WellsFargo.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          ARBOGAST & BERNS LLP
          6303 Owensmouth Ave., 10th Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2263
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000

               - and -

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468


* Advisen Sees More Lawsuits in U.S. Financial Sector in 2011
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Mangiero, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports "Securities
Lawsuits Set New Record Despite Slowdown in Credit Crisis"
(Insurance Journal, January 21, 2011), is a new study about
securities litigation by Advisen, Ltd. and sponsored by Kaufman
Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP.  According to the study, 2010 saw
more action than the year before.  While class action suits
dropped "sharply" in 2010, a nevertheless higher number of filings
consisted of securities fraud suits (35% of the total) and
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties (33%).  The study
further asserts that plaintiff attorneys continue to "favor
financial institution defendants" with nearly one-third of
securities complaints naming "financial firms or their directors
and officers."

Given a plethora of new rules and regulations that directly impact
the financial sector, 2011 will likely see more complaints that
involve at least one financial sector party.  However, other
industries are still vulnerable.  As authors of "2010 A Record
Year for Securities Litigation: An Advisen Quarterly Report - 2010
Review" suggest, the Dodd-Frank Act extends to a non-financial
organization if it is deemed to be a "potentially significant
threat to the financial system should it fail."  Furthermore,
questions about executive compensation, a shareholder's right to
opine on pay and clawback provisions related to the filing of
incorrect financial information could potentially create trouble
for non-compliant businesses across the industry spectrum.

In a related commentary, uber-Director and Officer liability
insurance blogger Kevin LaCroix provides insights as to how the
Advisen report might be streamlined by starting with a separation
of civil fraud complaints from regulatory enforcement actions.  He
further adds that securities class actions, should they occur, are
often severe in nature and potentially impose a material burden on
companies and their D&O insurers.

What's the potential impact on investors?

    * Litigation consumes time, money and energy on the part of
      senior management that might otherwise be spent on moving
      wealth creation projects to the next stage.

    * Litigation can impact a company's reputation, potentially
      causing sales to drop which in turn can impact stock price.

    * A spate of industry-centric litigation can lead to new
      regulations which in turn necessitate that resources be
      spent on compliance.

Investors need to assess litigation risk for every company they
own.  Even when a company wins in court or settles what it deems a
nuisance suit, the cost to its shareholders and bondholders is far
from zero.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 4 Suits, Claims at Nov. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company settled four asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims during the year ended Nov. 27, 2010, compared with seven
lawsuits and claims during the year ended Nov. 27, 2010.

During the year ended Nov. 27, 2010, the Company recorded
US$458,000 settlements reached and US$366,000 insurance payments
received or expected to be received.  During the year ended Nov.
28, 2009, the Company recorded US$846,000 settlements reached and
US$595,000 insurance payments received or expected to be received.

As of Nov. 27, 2010, the Company's probable liabilities and
insurance recoveries related to asbestos claims were US$1.3
million and US$900,000 respectively.

The Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which
plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 25 years ago.  The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered
were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us.  The
Company is typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases
without payment.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company and a group of
other defendants entered into negotiations with certain law firms
to settle a number of asbestos-related lawsuits and claims over a
period of years.  In total, the Company had expected to contribute
up to US$4.1 million, based on a present value calculation,
towards the settlement amount to be paid to the claimants in
exchange for a full release of claims.

Of this amount, the Company's insurers had committed to pay US$2
million based on the probable liability of US$4.1 million.  From
the time of the settlement through the third quarter of 2010, the
Company contributed US$1.7 million toward settlements related to
this agreement and insurers paid US$900,000 of that amount.  The
Company's best estimate for the settlement amounts yet to be paid
related to this agreement is US$800,000 with insurers expected to
pay US$500,000 of that amount.

H.B. Fuller Company is a worldwide formulator, manufacturer and
marketer of adhesives, sealants, paints and other specialty
chemical products.  Sales operations span 39 countries in North
America, Europe, Latin America, the Asia Pacific region, India,
the Middle East, and Africa.  The Company is based in St. Paul,
Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Posts $578MM Current Settlement at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s current asbestos settlement amounted to
US$578 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$534 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to a
Company press release dated Jan. 20, 2011.

The Company's fourth quarter 2010 adjusted net income was
US$207 million, or US$1.25 per share.  Fourth quarter 2009
adjusted net income was US$144 million, or US$0.86 per share.

Both years include an aftertax charge of US$2 million, or US$0.01
per share, reflecting the net increase in the current value of the
Company's obligation under its proposed asbestos settlement, which
is pending court proceedings.

The Company recorded a net asbestos settlement of US$3 million
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

PPG Industries, Inc. serves customers in industrial,
transportation, consumer products, and construction markets and
aftermarkets.  The Company operates in more than 60 countries
around the globe. Sales in 2010 were US$13.4 billion.  The Company
is based in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered at Wellington Demolition Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New Zealand Department of Labour said that a demolition site
in central Wellington, New Zealand, to be unfit for work after
asbestos was found there, Radio New Zealand News reports.

On Jan. 20, 2011, a building dating back to the 1880s owned by the
property tycoons John and Michael Chow was demolished to make way
for a car park.  However, the owners could face legal action
because they had the building knocked down without an
archaeological assessment, which is a legal requirement for all
pre-1900s buildings.

The offense carries a possible NZD40,000 fine.  The owners must
now keep the site secure and stop the spread of asbestos.

The Wellington Civic Trust says the Historic Places Trust needs to
keep a closer eye on heritage buildings that fall into the hands
of developers after the demolition.  It was the latest of several
cases where the requirement has not been met.

Wellington City Council gave resource consent for the building to
be developed five years ago, but only recently approved its
demolition.

The Civic Trust says that given the time that had lapsed since the
consent was issued, the Historic Places Trust should have kept a
closer watch.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hissey's Widow Awarded Compensation for Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Hissey, the widow of Ted Hissey, a Pembrokeshire, Wales, man
who died from mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos at work,
has won compensation from his employers, WalesOnline.co.uk
reports.

Mr. Hissey, a former professional and technical officer, died in
November 2007 at the age of 75 after a year-long fight against the
disease.  He came into contact with asbestos during his work for
the Department for Environment at RAF Brawdy, near St Davids, and
at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Trecwn, near Fishguard
between 1990 and 1993.

Mr. Hissey was not warned about the dangers of asbestos or
provided with any protection.  Mrs. Hissey said he was always
active so it was a shock when he was diagnosed with a fatal
disease.

Mrs. Hissey's lawyers, Thompsons Solicitors, said an undisclosed
settlement had been made out of court after the Department for
Communities and Local Government admitted liability before the
case was due for trial later in January 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swadlincote Resident's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Derby Coroner's Court heard that the death of 79-year-old
William Paskin, of Swandlincote, Derbyshire, England, was related
to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Burton Mail reports.

Mr. Paskin died on Oct. 28, 2010.  Deputy coroner Louise Pinder
heard how Mr. Paskin had worked for Warren Brothers between 1961
and 1971 as a welder at various power stations, including
Drakelow.  In a statement written by Mr. Paskin himself describing
this period of employment, he said that he had been exposed to
asbestos "extensively."

In April 2009, Mr. Paskin went to his GP complaining of stomach
and chest pains.  On Dec. 4 2009, he went again to see his GP, who
sent him straight to hospital.  Shortly afterwards he was
diagnosed with cancer.

Consultant pathologist Ivan Robinson carried out a post-mortem
examination of Mr. Paskin's body following his death, which
included a histology examination.  Dr. Robinson found a white
tumor in his lung that was consistent with malignant mesothelioma,
as well as ferruginous bodies, which were likely to have been
caused by asbestos.

Ms. Pinder ruled that Mr. Paskin's death was caused by malignant
mesothelioma and concluded that it was the result of industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clarksville Fined $77,000 for Handling Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Tennessee ordered the City of Clarksville to pay a
US$77,000 penalty for its handling of the Ratchford Apartments
demolition in 2010, Mesothelioma.com reports.

The Tennessee Department of Environment Conservation's Division of
Air Pollution Control has accused the City of violating two state
water disposal regulations and four state air pollution
regulations regarding the handling of asbestos during said
demolition.

The TDEC informed Clarksville's then-Mayor Johnny Piper that
materials containing more than 1% asbestos should have been
removed before demolition began, yet materials that were as much
as 10% asbestos were found on-site by the TDEC during the second
week of demolition.

The City's legal representation has only conceded that proper
notice was not given as to the state of asbestos prior to
demolition.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing in Deleon Lawsuit Moved to March 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton, on Jan. 20, 2011,
moved Albania Deleon's sentencing hearing to March 23, 2011 -- two
years to the day Ms. Deleon was to be originally sentenced --
after she requested a new lawyer, the Eagle-Tribune reports.

Ms. Deleon, who faces up to 230 years in prison for 28 convictions
involving her asbestos removal training school, was scheduled to
be sentenced on Jan. 20, 2011 in federal court in Boston.
However, she filed a motion to switch her legal counsel because
she says she cannot afford to pay Boston attorney Carl Donaldson,
who has represented her throughout the case.

In a Dec. 15, 2010 letter to the court, Ms. Deleon requested the
appointment of a public defender.  Additionally, Mr. Donaldson
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, stating that Ms. Deleon
refused to discuss the case with him prior to the sentencing.

Judge Gorton granted the 41-year-old Ms. Deleon's request pending
proof to the court that she is indigent and unable to pay her
legal fees.

Formerly of North Andover, Mass., Ms. Deleon fled to the Dominican
Republic after her 2008 federal conviction on 28 counts involving
her Methuen-based asbestos removal training school.  She was
apprehended by Dominican officials on Oct. 31, 2010 and sent back
to Massachusetts.

Ms. Deleon owned the state's largest asbestos removal training
school, Environmental Compliance Training, based at 2 Charles St.
in Methuen.  Prosecutors said that with Ms. Deleon's knowledge and
approval, the school sold training certificates to hundreds of
illegal aliens who had not taken the mandatory courses and sent
them out to perform asbestos removal work, paying them under the
table.

A federal jury convicted Ms. Deleon on Nov. 19, 2008, and she was
free while awaiting sentencing.  She fled the country two days
before her scheduled March 23, 2009 sentencing hearing.

A U.S. District Court judge issued a warrant for Ms. Deleon's
arrest when she skipped the hearing and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency made her the first woman to be put on their
fugitive list.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goldenberg's Malpractice Lawsuit Gets New Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge will take over a
malpractice case brought against a number of Madison County, Ill.,
asbestos attorneys and the former Hopkins Goldenberg law firm, The
Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Judge Mudge will take over the case filed by Judy Buckles, a
former Hopkins Goldenberg client, who claims attorneys from that
firm and later attorney John Simmons botched the settlements of
her husband's mesothelioma lawsuit.

The suit was originally brought in 2001 before Mrs. Buckles
dropped it.  She refiled the case in 2006.  The Buckles suit has
been at the Fifth District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon since
2010.

Mrs. Buckles is appealing three orders issued by Madison County
Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder.  Those orders included one that
upheld the summary judgment granted to John Simmons, Esq., and his
law firm.

Mrs. Buckles is currently suing the firm of Goldenberg, Heller,
Antognoli, Rowland and Short - the successor to the Hopkins
Goldenberg Firm.  Judge Crowder also granted the Goldenberg
defendants summary judgment on several of Mrs. Buckles' claims in
2010.  The plaintiff is also appealing that decision.  Attorney
William Miller was also dropped from the suit.

The Jan. 11, 2011 order assigning Judge Mudge to the case notes
that there were no legal issues for Judge Crowder to decide that
would keep the suit from joining the rest of her former civil
docket under Judge Mudge's oversight.

Judge Crowder took over the Madison County asbestos docket after
the retirement of Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.

Roy Dripps, Esq., represents Mrs. Buckles.  John Papa, Esq., and
others represent the Goldenberg firm in Case No. 06-L-588.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weymouth School Seeks $6M State Aid for Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
School Administrators in Weymouth, Mass., will ask the school
committee for authorization to request US$6 million in state aid
from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to cover
the cost of removing asbestos that has a protective seal on it in
an outside wall at Chapman Middle School, the Wicked Local
Weymouth reports.

On Jan. 13, 2011, Assistant Superintendent of Schools Matthew
Ferron said, "This is a request we have submitted several times
during the MSBA's open enrollment period.  The school committee
and the town council have to authorize the superintendent (Mary Jo
Livingstone) to submit a request."

The committee will meet at the school department headquarters on
Middle Street to review the funding request and discuss budget
considerations for fiscal year 2012.  Administrators have until
Jan. 26 to submit a request to the MSBA.

A private painting firm found asbestos in an outside wall at the
Chapman School in 29 paint chips that were being tested in
preparation for a waterproofing project in April 2007.  The
affected chips were taken from a wall outside the cafeteria and a
courtyard.

Administrators canceled classes the day after the discovery, and a
private firm placed two coats of latex to seal the asbestos on all
the painted surfaces.  The workers also used a specialized High
Energy Particulate Air (or HEPA) vacuum cleaner to remove the
asbestos in some locations.

CBI Consulting Inc./American Environmental, an air quality firm,
reported that there were no dangerous levels of asbestos in the
air outside the school or in the building shortly after it was
discovered.

Committee Chairman Sean Guilfoyle said that the state Department
of Environmental Protection approved the encapsulation of the
asbestos after it was discovered.

The funding request would also have to be approved by Mayor Susan
Kay before it is submitted to the MSBA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: India Supreme Court Junks Plea for Asbestos Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Public Interest
Litigation filed by a non-government organization seeking ban on
the use of asbestos, Law et al. News reports.

The court held the petition lacked bona fides and observed "the
present petition lacks bona fide, is an abuse of the process of
the Court and has been filed as proxy litigation for the purpose
of achieving private interest.  This Court cannot permit such
practice to prevail and it needs to be deterred at the very
threshold."

The court referring to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in a
similar matter where Kalyaneshwari the present petitioner was
involved and the issue of ban on asbestos was already decided,
held that the "judgment of the Gujarat High Court for all intent
and purposes attained finality and we do not think that legality
or correctness of the judgment can now be questioned in these
proceedings."

Moreover, referring to the findings of the High Court that the PIL
was rather filed for the benefit of Electro Steel Castings
Limited, the largest manufacturer of iron and allied products, the
court held, "It is of no use and help to the petitioners now to
claim that no proof was produced before that Court to establish
the allegations that the petition was filed at the behest of ESCL.

They were writ petitioners and the Court, after hearing the
parties at length and perusing the record, has recorded the above
findings which, in any case, do not suffer from any infirmity,
much less, illegality so as to be disregarded by this Court."

The court dismissing the PIL has also issued show cause notice to
the petitioner asking it as to why a contempt of court proceeding
be not initiated against it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Oks UGL Summary Judgment in Travis Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
United Gilsonite Laboratories' motion for summary judgment in an
asbestos case filed by Francis Bruce Travis.

The case, which is part of MDL Docket No. 875, is styled Francis
Bruce Travis, Plaintiff v. 3M Co., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No. 09-
70104 on Nov. 29, 2010.

Mr. Travis filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, alleging that Mr. Travis developed mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to UGL asbestos-containing joint compound and
joint cement while employed as a maintenance worker at the
Pennbrook Apartment Complex in Pennsylvania.

The action was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875 on June 12, 2009.

Mr. Travis contended that he was exposed to UGL asbestos-
containing joint compound and joint cement while employed as a
maintenance worker at the Pennbrook Apartment Complex in
Pennsylvania for nine to 10 months.  He testified that his primary
duties at the Pennbrook Apartment Complex included wall repair and
painting.

According to Thomas White, a corporate representative for UGL, UGL
has never manufactured, sold, or supplied any drywall, wallboard
or sheetrock.

UGL moved for summary judgment.  Magistrate Angell issued her R &
R on Sept. 28, 2010, granting UGL's motion for summary judgment.

It was hereby ordered that Mr. Travis' Objections to Magistrate
Judge Angell's Memorandum Opinion filed on Oct. 12, 2010 were
overruled.

It was further ordered that United Gilsonite Laboratories' Motion
for Summary Judgment filed on June 10, 2010 was granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Globe Summary Judgment Granted in Travis Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
Globe Manufacturing Co., LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment in an
asbestos case filed by Francis Bruce Travis.

The case, which is part of MDL Docket No. 875, is styled Francis
Bruce Travis, Plaintiff v. 3M Co., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No.
09-70104 on Nov. 29, 2010.

Mr. Travis filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, alleging that he developed mesothelioma as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing materials while employed by the
U.S. Navy at Naval Air Station New York (NASNY) from 1957 until
1962.

The action was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL-875 on June 12, 2009.

Mr. Travis contended that he was exposed to Globe asbestos-
containing fire suits while serving as a firefighter at the NASNY.
He testified that part of his protective gear was a "turn-out
coat."  He wore two different coats as protective gear, one as
part of his crash gear and one as part of his structural
firefighting gear.  He testified that Globe was the manufacturer
of the structural firefighting gear.

Globe argued that it never sold aluminized crash gear turn-out
coats which contained asbestos and never sold any firefighter
protective gear containing asbestos.

Mr. Travis submitted two advertising sections from August 1959 and
July 1970 of Fire Engineering magazine, where Globe was listed as
a manufacturer of asbestos-containing coats.  In his deposition,
Mr. Trowle testified that this was likely an administrative error.

Globe moved for summary judgment, arguing that Globe never
incorporated asbestos into its aluminized crash coats and never
sold any firefighter protective gear containing asbestos.
Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell issued her R & R on Sept. 28,
2010 granting Globe's motion for summary judgment.

It was hereby ordered that Mr. Travis' Objections to Magistrate
Judge Angell's Memorandum Opinion filed on Oct. 12, 2010 were
overruled.

It was further ordered that Globe Manufacturing Co., LLC's Motion
for Summary Judgment filed on June 17, 2010 was granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Issues Ruling in Bohannon Case v. CSX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issues
rulings in the case, which is part of MDL Docket No. 875, styled
Dorsey L. Bohannon v. CSX Transportation.

Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 09-cv-74483 on Nov. 30, 2010.

In this case, it was undisputed that Dorsey L. Bohannon did not
provide expert opinions to Defendant Ford until after this
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Mr.
Bohannon had failed to produce any expert opinion on the issue of
causation.  Presently before this Court was Defendant Ford's
motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Arthur Frank and Dr.
Barry Castleman, and its motion for summary judgment based on upon
Mr. Bohannon's failure to timely produce expert opinion on
causation.

In support of its motion to exclude expert testimony, Defendant
Ford argued that the expert reports of Dr. Frank and Dr. Castleman
were untimely.

Although the Court concluded that Dr. Frank and Dr. Castleman's
expert testimony will not be excluded, it believed that Mr.
Bohannon did bear responsibility for the consequences of his late
expert disclosure.  Defendant Ford was fully justified in moving
for summary judgment based on the lack of expert testimony to
support causation, and in later filing a challenge to the late
disclosure of Mr. Bohannon's expert reports.

Under these circumstances, the Court will require Mr. Bohannon to
pay for reasonable fees and expenses incurred by Defendant Ford in
filing its motion for summary judgment and its motion to exclude
expert testimony.

Roger B. Lane, Esq., C. Darrell Gossett, Esq., of Lane & Gossett,
P.C. in Brunswick, Ga., represented Dorsey L. Bohannon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Mt. McKinley Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Mt. McKinley
Insurance Company, formerly known as Gibraltar Casualty Company, a
corporation; and Everest Reinsurance Company, formerly known as
Prudential Reinsurance Company, a corporation, Plaintiffs v. Swiss
Reinsurance America Corporation, a corporation, as successor in
interest to the policies issued by The Manhattan Fire & Marine
Insurance Company, Defendant.

District Judge Claudia Wilken entered judgment in Case No.
C 09-03857 CW on Dec. 1, 2010.

Plaintiffs Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance
Company asserted a claim for equitable contribution against Swiss
Reinsurance America Corporation.  Plaintiffs moved for summary
judgment.  Defendant opposed Plaintiffs' motion and cross-moved
for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs opposed Defendant's cross-
motion.

The parties are insurance companies with a common insured, The
Herrick Corporation.  Plaintiffs claimed they are entitled to
contribution from Defendant based on its failure to pay its share
of a settlement between Herrick and Terry and Karen Strachan.

On Aug. 1, 2007, the Strachans sued Herrick, alleging that Terry
Strachan suffered bodily injuries resulting from exposure to
asbestos.  In January 2008, Herrick notified its insurers of the
lawsuit, including Plaintiffs and Defendant.  The period of injury
alleged in the Strachans' suit implicated 10 of Herrick's extant
insurance policies.  These policies were issued by Plaintiffs,
Defendant, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance
Company and Industrial Underwriters Insurance Company.

On March 5, 2008, Herrick and the Strachans executed a settlement
agreement, under which Herrick promised to pay US$1,950,000 to the
Strachans.  On March 7, 2008, Herrick paid US$1,000,000 of the
settlement amount, of which US$700,000 was funded by Plaintiffs
and US$300,000 was funded by Fireman's Fund.  On April 15, 2008,
Herrick paid the remaining US$950,000, which was entirely funded
by Plaintiffs.  On June 8, 2008, Aetna and Industrial Underwriters
reimbursed Plaintiffs a total of US$500,000.  Thus, Plaintiffs'
net contribution to the settlement was US$1,150,000.  Defendant
did not cover any portion of the Strachan settlement.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
denied Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs
were awarded US$283,334 and pre-judgment interest paid thereon,
calculated at 7% per annum beginning on March 7, 2008.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Decision in McCann v. Foster Wheeler
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, upheld the
ruling of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, which
dismissed Terry and Lucille McCann's asbestos-related claims
against Foster Wheeler, LLC, as barred under Oklahoma's statute of
repose for claims against a designer of an improvement to real
property.

The case is styled Terry McCann et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Madeleine Flier, Laurence Rubin, and O'Connell entered
judgment in Case No. B189898 on Nov. 20, 2010.

Terry McCann alleged he was exposed to asbestos while working at
an oil refinery in Oklahoma in 1957.  The alleged source of the
asbestos was a refinery boiler designed and manufactured by Foster
Wheeler, LLC.  Almost 50 years later in 2005, Mr. McCann was
diagnosed with mesothelioma allegedly caused by his exposure to
asbestos.

The McCanns, who had lived in California since 1975, sued Foster
Wheeler and others in Los Angeles Superior Court for Mr. McCann's
asbestos injuries.

Foster Wheeler, LLC raised as an affirmative defense Oklahoma's
statute of repose for injuries arising from an improvement to real
property.  The Oklahoma statute cut off liability of designers and
other persons associated with the design or construction of an
improvement to real property 10 years after the improvement's
substantial completion.  Foster Wheeler moved for summary
judgment.

Foster Wheeler asserted Mr. McCann had no evidence that his
exposure to asbestos was from a product that respondent had made,
sold, or supplied.  Moreover, Mr. McCann filed his complaint more
than 10 years after his alleged asbestos exposure in Oklahoma in
1957.

The court entered judgment for Foster Wheeler.  Mr. McCann
appealed from the judgment.

Mr. McCann filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court.  The
Supreme Court granted review and held the Appeals Court was
mistaken in finding Oklahoma law did not apply.  The Supreme Court
remanded the matter to the Appeals Court with directions that it
address Mr. McCann's alternative contentions that, even if
Oklahoma law applied under choice of law provisions, the statute
of repose did not apply because respondent had not designed an
improvement to real property.

Reversing its earlier decision, the Appeals Court now affirmed the
trial court's judgment for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Posts $8MM Litigation Credit at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded a net credit of US$8 million
(US$5 million after-tax) in the fourth quarter of 2010 to adjust
the asbestos litigation liability for the change in value of the
components of the modified Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC)
Plan, according to a Company press release dated Jan. 25, 2011.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future asbestos claims against the
Company and PCC, which might arise from PCC products or operations
(the 2003 Plan).

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan.  On Jan. 29, 2009, a proposed plan
of reorganization (the Amended PCC Plan) resolving issues raised
by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003 Plan was
filed with the Bankruptcy Court.

As a result, the Company said it believes the Amended PCC Plan now
represents the most probable outcome of this matter and expects
that the Amended PCC Plan will be confirmed by the Court.  The
Company said it believes the 2003 Plan no longer serves as the
basis for the Company's best estimate of liability.

The proposed arrangement under the Amended PCC Plan requires the
Company to contribute its equity interest in PCC and Pittsburgh
Corning Europe, N.V. (PCE) and to contribute a fixed series of
cash payments recorded at present value.  The Amended PCC Plan
does not include certain non-PCC asbestos claims that may be or
have been raised against the Company.

The Company recorded an asbestos litigation credit of
US$49 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.  The Company
recorded an asbestos litigation charge of US$20 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

Corning Incorporated's products include glass substrates for LCD
televisions, computer monitors and laptops; ceramic substrates and
filters for mobile emission control systems; optical fiber, cable,
hardware & equipment for telecommunications networks; optical
biosensors for drug discovery; and other advanced optics and
specialty glass solutions for industries like semiconductor,
aerospace, defense, astronomy and metrology.  The Company is based
in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Facing 64,839 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 64,839 open asbestos-related claims during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$66,341 claims during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on
Form 8-K, filed on Jan. 25, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company faced 65,441 asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended Sept. 30, 2010, compared with 70,282 claims during
the three months ended Sept. 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 29, 2010)

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 5,032
new claims; 1,127 settlements; 6,363 dismissals; and 956 MARDOC
claims.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded
3,664 new claims; 1,024 settlements; and 11,171 dismissals.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 64,839 pending claims as of Dec. 31, 2010, about 21,300
claims were pending in New York, about 13,800 claims were pending
in Mississippi, about 10,000 claims were pending in Texas and
about 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in
which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims
that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements.  To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters.

The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54 million, was made on
July 14, 2008, about two years after the adverse verdict, in the
Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

The second payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June
2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los
Angeles on April 21, 2009.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Neil Claim v. Crane Still Subject to Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says the Patrick O'Neil asbestos claim in Los Angeles,
which was reversed on appeal, is currently the subject of further
appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court of California.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court.

The Supreme Court of California accepted review of the O'Neil
matter by order dated Dec. 23, 2009.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baccus Case v. Crane Settled During Q4 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
James Baccus' asbestos claim filed against Crane Co. was concluded
by settlement in the fourth quarter of 2010, during the pendency
of the Company's appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia with compensatory damages of
US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million.  The
Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan. 5,
2009.

The settlement is reflected in the settled claims for 2010.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Still Pursuing Appeal in Brewer Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. continues to pursue an appeal in the Chief Brewer
asbestos claim, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Jan. 25, 2011.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles.  The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Woodard Action v. Crane Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says plaintiffs' appeal of a decision in the Dennis
Woodard asbestos lawsuit is still pending.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for one-half of 1% (0.5%) of plaintiffs'
damages of US$16.93 million; however, based on California court
rules regarding allocation and damages, judgment was entered
against the Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, plus costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009 the court
advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment was
entered in favor of the Company.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Mulls Appeal in Bell & Nelson Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. may pursue all available rights to appeal the verdicts
in the James Nelson and Larry Bell asbestos claims, according to a
Company report, on Form 8-K, filed on Jan. 25, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County, Pa., state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

Both the Company and the plaintiffs have filed post-trial motions,
and judgment will be entered after those motions are resolved.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Incurs $106MM for Settlement, Defense Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled US$106.6 million
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010 and US$110.1 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended
Dec. 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 totaled a US$66.7 million net
payment, a US$55.8 million net payment, (reflecting the receipt of
US$14.5 million in 2009 for full policy buyout from Highlands
Insurance Company), and a US$58.1 million net payment,
respectively.

Cumulatively through Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) about 70,000 claims, not including the
MARDOC claims.  The related settlement cost incurred by the
Company and its insurance carriers is about US$280 million, for an
average settlement cost per resolved claim of US$4,000.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Records $619.7M Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$619,666,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$720,713,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed on Jan. 25, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$651,476,000 as of Sept. 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 29, 2010)

The Company's current asbestos liability amounted to US$100
million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$100.3 million as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$180,689,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$213,004,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$33 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$35.3 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Crane Co. manufactures highly engineered industrial products.  The
Company provides products and solutions to customers in the
aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon processing, petrochemical,
chemical, power generation, automated merchandising,
transportation and other markets.  The Company is based in
Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Posts $2.548BB A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s asbestos and environmental
reserves amounted to US$2.548 billion during the quarter and year
ended Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company report on Form 8-K,
filed on Jan. 25, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. offers personal auto and homeowners
insurance and its largest segment is commercial property/casualty
insurance.  It is one of the largest business insurers in the
United States, providing commercial auto, property, workers'
compensation, marine, and general and financial liability coverage
to companies in North America and the UK.  The Company is based in
New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Reserves $826MM for Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s non-current asbestos litigation reserve was
US$826 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$841 million
as of Sept. 30, 2010, according to a Company press release dated
Jan. 26, 2011.

The Company's non-current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$452 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$439 million
as of Sept. 30, 2010.

Ashland Inc. provides specialty chemicals and technologies.  Its
products are used in markets and applications, including
architectural coatings, automotive, construction, energy, personal
care, pharmaceutical, tissue and towel, and water treatment.  The
Company is based in Covington, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barrington OKs $25.8T Abatement Deal With Angel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials at Barrington, Ill., affirmed a US$25,800 deal with
Angel Abatement to remove asbestos in a property formerly owned by
ADCO Van & Storage, Seedol.com reports.

The village recently held a board meeting to vote for the asbestos
removal.  The fund for the asbestos remediation came from a
US$75,000 Brownfield grant from the Lake County Planning
Department.  Officials said that the residual portion will be used
for a similar project, but on a different deal.

Demolition is ongoing at the site on Hough Street, Barrington.
The building was 28,000-square foot high, which was brought for
about US$1 million in 2001 from ADCO, the former occupant and
owner of the place.  However, it already moved out on May 31,
2010.

Ten years ago, reports said that high levels of asbestos were
found in the building, which was linked to a number of asbestos
cancer cases in the village.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opposition Seeks Explanation on Maningrida Dump
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Scullion, an Australian Opposition Indigenous Affairs
spokesman, is calling on the Northern Territory government to
explain how it allowed dangerous asbestos to be dumped in the
community of Maningrida, Australia, ABC News Reports.

Existing houses deemed beyond repair have to be demolished in the
community of Maningrida to make way for 109 new houses under the
program.  During the demolition of one house, the West Arnhem
Shire raised concerns about asbestos.

The ABC has been told the asbestos was dumped at the local tip.
The Northern Territory Department of Housing has confirmed
asbestos was not disposed of correctly.

Two senior staff from the building consortium in charge of the
program, Territory Alliance, have been sacked and NT Worksafe is
investigating.

Mr. Scullion said he was struggling to believe the highly paid
staff could have been so incompetent.  He said money was being
spent on highly paid supervisors and inspectors but basic things
are being missed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Adkins Case v. 80 Firms Filed in Kanawha County
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Darrell Adkins and his wife Anna Adkins, of Parkersburg,
W.Va., on Jan. 12, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
80 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The
West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on Sept. 16, 2010, Mr. Adkins was
diagnosed with lung cancer.  He claims he smoked from 1937 until
1968, but has not smoked since.  He claims he was employed by
Columbia Gas from 1948 until 1990.

The Adkinses seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represent
the Adkinses.

Case No. 11-C-59 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Violations on Troy City Hall Demolition Issued
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Troy, N.Y., has been issued three asbestos-related
violations by the New York State Department of Labor for the
demolition of the former City Hall in Monument Square, The Record
reports.

Leo Rosales, DOL spokesman, said that the violations are the
result of the City starting demolition prior to removing asbestos
from the building.

Mr. Rosales said, "There are three violations that are essentially
the same, in that they are related to the same section of code
regarding asbestos and demolition."

Fines have not yet been issued and the City would have an
opportunity to appeal the violations.  Mr. Rosales said that fines
vary depending on the project and situation, adding "it would be
tough to put a range at this point."

Mr. Rosales did say that at no point were workers at the site or
the public in danger of exposure to asbestos.  He also said the
DOL had received multiple calls from the community notifying the
agency that demolition at the site had begun.

Earlier in January 2011, City Engineer Russ Reeves said he did not
consider work done at the site beginning Dec. 31 was demolition,
but rather investigatory work done to establish a plan for
demolition.  However, according to Mr. Rosales, the DOL felt
otherwise.

On Jan. 24, 2011, Mayor Harry Tutunjian issued a statement
regarding e-mails sent by Councilman Bill Dunne, D-District 4,
looking into the possibility of a DOL fine for the city hall
demolition.

In the statement, Mayor Tutunjian questioned Mr. Dunne's motives,
saying he was not acting "in the best interest of the city" and
trying to get the city fined by the DOL.

Mr. Dunne said on Jan. 25, 2011 that the violations were "clearly
avoidable," and suggested that, if the city is fined, that Mayor
Tutunjian pay the costs out of his pocket.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Middleboro Contractors Fined $45,412 by MassDEP
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
assessed a US$45,412.50 penalty jointly to J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc.
of Cumberland, R.I. and Costello Dismantling Company, Inc. of
Middleboro for violations of MassDEP's asbestos regulations that
occurred during work that the companies conducted in Worcester,
according to a MassDEP press release dated Jan. 24, 2011.

MassDEP personnel observed the violations during a November 2008
inspection of the work site located at 25 Tobias Boland Way.
During the inspection, MassDEP asbestos program personnel observed
significant quantities of concrete duct bank containing asbestos
transite pipe that had been excavated, broken up, and stockpiled
in an uncontained manner at the site.

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

In the consent order, the companies were cited for failing to
notify MassDEP of a demolition/renovation operation involving
asbestos-containing materials; for improper handling, packaging
and storage of asbestos-containing waste materials; and for
allowing asbestos-containing materials to be handled in a manner
that caused or contributed to a condition of air pollution.

Under the terms of the order, the companies agreed to remain in
compliance with applicable regulations in the future, and pay the
penalty.

Martin Suuberg, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office in
Worcester, "Contractors doing demolition and construction site
work in Massachusetts must be fully aware of their
responsibilities under the regulations to identify asbestos-
containing materials which they encounter in the course of their
work, and then take appropriate response actions.

"Failing to identify asbestos materials and immediately take
measures to have them removed, handled, packaged and stored in
accordance with the regulations is an extremely serious oversight
that potentially exposes workers and the general public to a known
carcinogen.

"Noncompliance inevitably results in significant penalty exposure,
as well as escalated cleanup, decontamination, disposal and
monitoring costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Packer Case v. 91 Firms Filed Dec. 12 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard and Janet Packer on Dec. 17, 2010, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 91 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Packer worked with and/or around
products containing asbestos during his working years.

The Packers seek compensatory and punitive damages.  Browyn I.
Rinehart, Esq., and Patrick J. Timmins, Esq., represent the
Packers.

Case No. 10-C-2267 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Astin Wife's Death Linked to Secondary Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Bradford, West Yorkshire, England, heard that the
death of Frances Astin was related to secondary exposure to
asbestos while washing her husband's dusty overalls, Telegraph &
Argus reports.

Coroner Roger Whittaker said on the balance of probabilities the
83-year-old Mrs. Astin would have been exposed to the substance
that was on her husband's work clothes when he was a GPO telephone
engineer.

The inquest, held on Jan. 25, 2011, heard that Mrs. Astin was
diagnosed with malignant meseothilioma in 2009.  Although tests
after her death in November 2009 showed no clear evidence her
disease had been caused by her coming into contact with asbestos,
Coroner Roger Whittaker said there was no other known cause of a
than asbestos exposure.

The inquest heard how Mrs. Astin, who had worked as a secretary at
various mills, and also worked behind bars, and there was a
possibility she could have come into contact with asbestos while
working in a mill damaged by bombs during the war or at St Luke's
Hospital where blue asbestos was found while she was working
there.

However, Mr. Whittaker also heard how Mrs. Astin had regularly
washed her husband's overalls and would have to shake out the dust
and dirt first.  As part of Mr. Astin's work for the GPO, he had
to dismantle the blue police phone boxes made out of asbestos
boards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Case v. 76 Firms Filed Jan. 12 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Lee Little and Janet L. Little on Jan. 12, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 76 defendant corporations in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, on Aug. 3, 2009, Mr. Little was diagnosed
with lung cancer.  He was employed by Corning Glass Works from
1957 until 1994.  He claims he smoked from 1955 until 1970, but
has not since.

The Littles seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represent
the Littles.

Case No. 11-C-56 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hill Action v. 58 Firms Filed Jan. 12 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Nicole Cummings of Carthage, N.C., on behalf of her late
grandfather Charles Edward Hill, on Jan. 12, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 58 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Hill was diagnosed with lung cancer on
Dec. 23, 2009 and died Jan. 9, 2010.  Ms. Cummings claims her
grandfather was exposed to asbestos during his employment at FMC
Corporation from 1943 until 1985.

Ms. Cummings seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represent
Ms. Cummings.

Case No. 11-C-58 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Street Case v. 80 Firms Filed Jan. 12 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Annetta J. Street, on behalf of her late husband Harless Street,
on Jan. 12, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 80 defendant
corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia
Record reports.

According to the suit, in September 2010, Mr. Street was diagnosed
with lung cancer, of which he died on Oct. 12, 2010.  Mrs. Street
claims the defendants exposed her husband to asbestos during his
working career from 1953 until 1989.

Mrs. Street seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represent
Mrs. Street.

Case No. 11-C-60 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Choat Seeks to Enforce $25T Asbestos Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Frances Choat, the special administrator of the estate
of Marlin Choat, on Dec. 6, 2010, filed a motion to enforce a
US$25,000 asbestos settlement reached in 2009, The Madison/St.
Clair Record reports.

Mrs. Choat sued the former Hopkins Goldenberg Law Firm, its
current incarnation, and a number of Goldenberg attorneys.

Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian is set to hear
arguments on the matter on Feb. 4, 2011.

Mrs. Choat alleges that the Hopkins Goldenberg firm -- now known
and named in the suit as Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland and
Short -- and attorneys John Hopkins, Esq., Elizabeth Heller, Esq.,
David Antognoli, Esq., William Miller, Esq., and Mark Goldenberg,
Esq., were negligent in handling her husband's asbestos claims.

Mr. Choat, his widow alleges, died as a result of his exposure to
abesstos in the 1960s.  Mrs. Choat claims that the defendants
failed to properly pursue her husband's claims and allowed
statutes of limitations to lapse.  The settlement was reached in
July 2009.

There had been no updates in the case file since then until the
Dec. 6, 2010 motion to enforce.  William Schooley, Esq.,
represents Mrs. Choat.  John Papa, Esq., represents the
defendants.

Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge now presides in Case
No. 05-L-718.  Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder
oversaw it before Judge Mudge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Orange Residents "Angry" Over Approval of Quarry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Despite concerns about asbestos, an AU$5 million quarry has been
approved near Orange, Australia, ABC News reports.

The Department of Planning has given the nod for plans by Hanson
Construction Materials' to extract thousands of tons of basalt at
East Guyong during the next 30 years.

More than 70 conditions have been placed on the approval to ensure
asbestos is not disturbed and does not become airborne.

The Planning Department's Deputy Director General, Richard
Pearson, says strict rules have been placed on the development
application.  He said, "It was only approved following a major
re-think of the plans for the quarry including relocating
infrastructure away from the area that contained the tremolite and
ensuring that it was located in an area where tremolite is only
occurring at depths of five meters or greater."

However, local resident Robert Munro says it is a devastating
outcome for neighboring landowners.  The project will create up to
35 jobs for the next 30 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-RAF Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 67-year-old Carroll Jerome De
Castellnou Trilles, a former RAF worker, was due to a combined
result of asbestosis and heavy smoking, This is Wiltshire reports.

Mr. Trilles, of Queens Drive, worked for some of his life in the
plating and foundry trade and as an air frame fitter at RAF
Fairford between 1969 and 1973.  At the inquest, the assistant
deputy coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon Ian Singleton concluded
Mr. Trilles had died of lung cancer contributed to by the
industrial disease of asbestosis.

Mr. Trilles, who was born in Malmesbury, was diagnosed with non-
operable cancer in July 2010 and he was recommended to take a
course of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.  He had attended his GP's
surgery in Park North on Nov. 9, 2009, complaining of a cough
which he had had for a month and had experienced coughing some
blood but no chest pain.

Mr. Trilles was a heavy smoker having smoked 50 cigarettes a day
over the last 50 years.  In January 2010, his cough seemed better
and there was no blood.  He was advised to attend a weekly chest
clinic but had not been keen on attending.

Mr. Trilles' cough returned in March 2010 when he again had
similar symptoms involving coughing blood and a chest infection
which was treated by antibiotics.  Evidence presented to the court
revealed he had a wheezy chest in May and was seen by the doctor
again on May 15, 2010.  He attended a chest clinic and further
medical tests followed before Mr. Trilles was diagnosed with
cancer.

In a letter from his brother Jerome Trilles, he said Mr. Trilles
had worked as an air frame fitter at RAF Fairford between 1969 and
1973 and that after that date he had had a variety of jobs which
had led to the exposure to asbestos.

Delivering his verdict of accidental death, Mr. Singleton said,
"It is clear on the balance of probability that death was due to
industrial disease.  Asbestos contributed to his death."  He added
that his death was accidental caused by tobacco usage combined
with asbestos exposure, which contributed to lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abbotsford to Resume Dredging at Sumas in 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, will continue
dredging asbestos out of the Sumas River in 2011, the Abbotsford
News reports.

Asbestos is carried from a watercourse in the United States and
settles in the river sediment.  The river has been dredged
annually for flood control, but the presence of asbestos means
city workers must take special measures, including protective gear
for workers.

Jim Gordon, city general manager of engineering, said, "WCB
commended us on the job we did (last year).  There's a chance it
could be dangerous.  If there's a chance, we have to take the
proper measures."

In 2009, officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
warned the City about the asbestos.  There is a Sumas Mountain in
Washington State, and a slide on the mountain has exposed
asbestos.  It is picked up by Swift Creek, which drains into the
Sumas River and ultimately the Fraser River.

Asbestos levels were actually higher in the Sumas River than in
Swift Creek in 2010.  The dredged asbestos is taken to the Valley
Road landfill, and covered with soil.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Posts $179MM Payments in Q4 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s asbestos-related cash payments during the
full year and fourth quarter of 2010 were US$179 million and
US$65 million, respectively, according to a Company press release
dated Jan. 26, 2011.

These payments compare with US$190 million and US$68 million for
the same periods last year.  New lawsuits and claims filed during
full year 2010 were about 45% lower than in 2009.

The number of pending asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were
about 5,900 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with about 6,900 at year
end 2009.

The Company conducted its annual comprehensive review of asbestos-
related liabilities in the fourth quarter.  As a result of that
review, the Company recorded a non-cash charge of US$170 million
(before and after tax amount) compared to the 2009 charge of
US$180 million (before and after tax amount).  The accrued balance
for future asbestos-related costs as of Dec. 31, 2010, was US$476
million.

Current portion of asbestos-related liabilities was US$170 million
as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$175 million as of Dec. 31,
2009.  Long-term asbestos-related liabilities were US$306 million
as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$310 million as of Dec. 31,
2009.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer.  With
revenues of US$6.6 billion in 2010, the Company employs more than
24,000 people at 81 plants in 21 countries.  The Company delivers
safe, effective and sustainable glass packaging solutions to a
growing global marketplace.  The Company is based in Perrysburg,
Ohio.

                             *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *