CAR_Public/110218.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 18, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 35

                             Headlines

ARTHROCARE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
ATLAS AIR: Pre-Trial Discovery in NY Suit Stayed Until March 15
ATLAS AIR: Continues to Defend Two Class Suits in Canada
BP PLC: Ohio Attorney General Files Class Action
CHINA-BIOTICS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Class Suit

CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Dyer & Berens File Class Action in New York
CLEAR CHANNEL: Continues to Defend "Sherman Act" Suits in Calif.
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Awaits Court Okay of Class Suits Settlement
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
ENCORE CAPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of "Brent" Suit Settlement

ENCORE CAPITAL: Motions to Dismiss TCPA Violations Suits Pending
GROUP HEALTH: Sued for Illegally Asserting Reimbursement Rights
HYPERCOM CORP: Defends Class Action Lawsuits Over VeriFone Merger
IMAX CORP: Securities Class Action Set for Trial in Canada
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Still Defends Calif. Labor Violation Suit

INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Still Defends "Avery" Class Action Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Files Class Action
LIFE PARTNERS: Weiss & Lurie Investigates Securities Claims
LIVEDEAL INC: Plaintiff Seeks to Restart '08 Fraud Suit Litigation
LML PAYMENT: High Court Denies Review of Case vs. LML Subsidiary

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Profits Jump Following Class Action Settlement
MECOXLANE INC: Faces Investor Class Action Over U.S. IPO
MISSOURI SCHOOLS: Face Suit Over "Heroes' Act" Tuition Benefits
NURSES CHOICE: Recalls 4,700 Newborn Keepsake Mittens
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Awaits Ruling on Lead Plaintiff Motion

PERLE INDUSTRIES: Creditors Mull Class Action Over Liquidation
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Stays 2010 Washing Machine Class Action
SERVICE CORPORATION: FCA's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
SINGING MACHINE: Continues to Pursue Suit v. MGA Entertainment

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Gets Final Okay of Securities Suit Settlement
TENTERFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL: Emu Park Residents Mull Class Action
TOLEDO, OH: April 4 Trial Set for Flood Class Action
UNITED STATES: SWAN Supports Military Sexual Abuse Class Action
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Creswick Flood Dropped

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Breach of Warranty Lawsuits
WINN-DIXIE: Awaits Court Okay of FCRA Violations Suit Settlement
WOZO LLC: Sued Over Poster Club Monthly Membership Fees

* Australian Company Directors Worry Over Rising Class Actions


                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has $1.572B Long-Term Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor's Long-Term Liabilities at $66MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26T Claims Pending v. Maremont Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Records $17MM Rockwell Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Posts $2.5MM Liability Reserve

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Party to 1,435 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Has Two Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Facing 200 Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Zurn Unit Facing 7T Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Case v. 50 Firms Filed in Galveston County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found at Derby Council House Renovation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Urged to Act Fast on GBP5T Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Ruling Flipped in CertainTeed Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Various Rulings in Leonard Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow's Non-Current Liability at $663MM at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unitrin Posts $59.8MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $162MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Cannon Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Favors Holloran in Martin Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Deal in Cooper Action Reached Feb. 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $19.98MM Dec. 31 Pre-Tax Charge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Confirmation of Leslie Controls' Plan

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Subject to AO Respirator Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $11.2MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered in Plainsmen Arena in Airdrie
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed From School in Allendale

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matthiessen School in Ill. Set for Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berry Estates Fined for Disposal Breach in Kent
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Rock OKs $20T Bid for Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newstead Steel Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Summary Judgment in Steadman Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Favors MCIC in Cowley's Lawsuit



                             *********

ARTHROCARE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Southern District of Florida against
ArthroCare Corp. and certain of its former executive officers,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading financial statements and making material
misrepresentations regarding the Company's internal controls,
business, and financial results.  On October 28, 2008, the court
granted the Company's motion to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas. (McIlvaine v.
ArthroCare, et al).

On July 25, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Western District of Texas against the
Company, and certain of its current and former executive officers,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading financial statements and making material
misrepresentations regarding the Company's internal controls,
business, and financial results. (Strong v. ArthroCare, et al).

On August 7, 2008, a derivative action was filed in Federal court
in the Southern District of Florida against the Company and its
then-current directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on
the Company's alleged improper revenue recognition, improper
reporting of such revenue in SEC filings and press releases,
failure to maintain adequate internal controls, and failure to
supervise management. On October 14, 2008, the court granted the
Company's motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas. (Weil v. Baker, et al).

On March 4, 2009, a derivative action was filed in Federal court
in the Western District of Texas against the Company's current
directors, a former director, certain of its current and former
executive officers and other employees and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP alleging (i) disgorgement under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act; (ii) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) abuse of
control; (v) gross mismanagement of the Company; (vi) waste of
corporate assets; (vii) insider trading; and (viii) unjust
enrichment. (King v. Baker, et al).

On April 29, 2009, a derivative action was filed in Federal court
in the Western District of Texas against the Company's current
directors and a former director alleging breach of fiduciary duty
based on the Company's improper revenue recognition, improper
reporting of such revenue in SEC filings and press releases,
failure to maintain adequate internal controls, and failure to
supervise management. (Barron v. Baker, et al).

On October 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative securities
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions were
consolidated and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated)
in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.  On
Dec. 10, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel were
appointed in the putative consolidated securities class action.
The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on December 18, 2009, seeking unspecified monetary
damages and interest.  ArthroCare filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 16, 2010.
On July 20, 2010, the federal court issued a ruling granting in
part and denying in part ArthroCare's Motion to Dismiss,
permitting certain claims related to statements after December 11,
2007 to continue.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 14, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


ATLAS AIR: Pre-Trial Discovery in NY Suit Stayed Until March 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed
over Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc.'s alleged manipulation of
market price for air cargo services has been stayed until
March 15, 2011, due to intervention by the Department of Justice,
according to the Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2010, Polar LLC, formerly Polar Air Cargo, Inc., entered into a
plea agreement with the United States Department of Justice
relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning
alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and
other rate components for air cargo services.  Under the terms of
the agreement, Old Polar will pay a fine of $17.4 million, payable
in five annual installments. The fine relates to an alleged
agreement by Old Polar with respect to fuel surcharges on cargo
shipped from the United States to Australia during the time period
from January 2000 through April 2003.  During 2010, the Company
recorded a $17.4 million provision for this matter.  The United
States District Court for the District of Columbia held a hearing
on the plea on November 15, 2010.  The court accepted the plea and
judgment was entered the following day, finalizing the plea
agreement, in the amount of $17.4 million as agreed.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on
September 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who heard the motion to
dismiss issued a decision recommending that the Federal District
Court Judge grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiffs' claims based on the
United States antitrust laws be dismissed without prejudice so
that plaintiffs have an opportunity to cure the defects in their
complaint by pleading more specific facts, if they have any,
relevant to their federal claims.  The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the plaintiffs' claims based on state and
European Union laws be dismissed with prejudice.  Both plaintiffs
and defendants objected to portions of the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.  In 2009, the Federal District Court
Judge issued an opinion and order, accepting the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, except for the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed in its
entirety, instead maintaining the claims under the United States
antitrust laws on the grounds that the consolidated complaint was
sufficiently detailed to withstand a motion to dismiss.  Old Polar
and the other defendants moved for reconsideration of that portion
of the Federal District Court Judge's decision which motion was
denied on March 22, 2010.  Pre-trial discovery has begun; the
Magistrate Judge, however, recently granted a DOJ motion to
intervene and stay much of the pre-trial discovery until March 15,
2011.  By such time, the DOJ has indicated that it will have
concluded its investigation.  The Company says it is unable to
reasonably predict the outcome of this litigation.


ATLAS AIR: Continues to Defend Two Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc., and Polar LLC, formerly Polar
Air Cargo, Inc., along with a number of other cargo carriers,
continue to defend themselves in two civil class action suits in
the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, Canada, which are
substantially similar to the U.S. class action suits, according to
the Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The class actions in the United States arise from allegations
about the pricing practices of a number of air cargo carriers that
have now been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The
consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants, including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the
market price for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad
through the use of fuel and other surcharges, in violation of U.S.
Federal, state and EU antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief.

Moreover, the Company has submitted relevant information and
documentation to regulators in Australia, New Zealand and
Switzerland, among others, in connection with investigations
initiated by such authorities into pricing practices of certain
international air cargo carriers. These proceedings are
continuing, and additional investigations and proceedings may be
commenced and charges may be brought in these and other
jurisdictions. Other parties may be added to these proceedings,
and authorities may request additional information from us. If Old
Polar or the Company were to incur an unfavorable outcome in
connection with one or more of the related investigations or the
litigation, it could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations and financial condition.


BP PLC: Ohio Attorney General Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Business Courier reports that Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine
has filed a class-action lawsuit against British Petroleum on
behalf of Ohio's public pension funds.

Mr. DeWine authorized the filing on Feb. 14 in U.S. District Court
in Houston, alleging that BP Plc was unprepared to prevent and
deal with the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Lead plaintiffs
include the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, State
Teachers Retirement System, School Employees Retirement System,
and Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund.  Ohio joins Thomas P.
DiNapoli, comptroller of the state of New York, who represents the
New York State Common Retirement Fund for investors who bought
either BP common stock or American depositary receipts between
January 16, 2007, to May 28, 2010.

"In the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, in addition to the
tragic loss of life and environmental damage, pension systems
providing retirement benefits for current and future retirees who
invested in BP in good faith were adversely affected when stock
prices plummeted," Mr. DeWine said in a statement.

While no dollar amount is listed in the suit, officials say Ohio's
losses were more than $100 million.

The complaint alleges multiple BP executives had assured the
investing public that sound and adequate safety plans would be put
in place as a result of a series of safety issues BP had
experienced prior to the Deepwater Horizon spill, yet those
promised safety procedures never were put in place.

The misstatements made by BP regarding safety precautions and
procedures lowered the company's risk profile and inflated its
stock.  As a result, investors around the world, including Ohio's
pension funds, suffered tremendous financial losses when the truth
emerged following the massive oil spill in April of 2010, the
statement said.

            Former Official Resigned Over Safety Issues

The Associated Press reports that a former official with BP's
drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico resigned just months
before last year's oil spill because of disagreements with the oil
giant over its commitment to safety, according to a class-action
federal lawsuit related to the spill.

Documents filed on Feb. 14 in Houston claim Kevin Lacy, BP's
former senior vice president for drilling operations for the Gulf
of Mexico, reached a mutual agreement with the company to resign
in December 2009 because he believed the company was not
adequately committed to improving safety protocols in offshore
drilling operations to the level of its industry peers.  The
Deepwater Horizon rig explosion occurred on April 20, 2010,
killing 11 workers and causing the worst oil spill in U.S.
history.

The claims come in an amended version of the lawsuit, originally
filed last year, that alleges BP inflated its stock price by
hiding information and making false and misleading statements
about its safety practices before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
BP's stock value dropped roughly in half following the oil rig
explosion and spill.

BP spokesman Daren Beaudo declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Public pension funds in New York and Ohio are the lead plaintiffs
in the suit, which also includes individual investors and the
Oklahoma police pension system.  Similar lawsuits by the different
plaintiffs originally were filed in New Orleans but were
consolidated and moved to Houston federal court.

The amended complaint claims that a company reorganization that
began in 2007, which resulted in numerous layoffs and cuts to
safety budgets, "would materially affect the Company's ability to
drill safely in the Gulf of Mexico."

"Lacy's departure from the Gulf of Mexico drilling unit in
December 2009 coincided with other additional and extensive
reshuffling of personnel in the BP Gulf of Mexico drilling unit .
such that by the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, four out
of five of BP's senior drilling officials for the Gulf of Mexico
had only been in their posts for a few months," according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit cites a confidential witness for information about
cutbacks and layoffs in safety programs and budgets.

The suit said Mr. Lacy, an experienced drilling engineer who had
implemented a rigorous drilling safety program while at Chevron,
had been recruited to join BP in 2007 to improve and standardize
its drilling policies and protocols.

A telephone number was unlisted for Kevin Lacy in Houston.

The amended complaint also listed various accidents and safety
problems BP had before the oil spill, incidents which have been
previously detailed in other lawsuits and investigations of the
oil giant.

The oil rig blast led to more than 200 million gallons of oil
spewing from BP's well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico,
according to government estimates.

The Justice Department is conducting on ongoing criminal
investigation and already has sued some of the companies involved.
A presidential commission that investigated the spill said last
month that management failures at BP, rig owner Transocean Ltd.
and contractor Halliburton Co. led to the blowout and explosion.

BP's own investigation shared the blame among itself, Transocean
and Halliburton.

                BP Made Cutbacks Prior to Oil Spill

Steven Mufson, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
New York State comptroller, the Ohio state pension funds and other
large investors have alleged that BP made cost-saving cutbacks in
its safety operations prior to last year's major oil spill and
that it disregarded safety warnings from its own managers.

The new documents in a securities fraud class action suit allege
that the company "terminated" Curtis Jackson, then a senior
manager for Gulf of Mexico operations, and Phil Dziubinski, a
senior safety official at BP Alaska who warned of worker fatigue
from extensive overtime.

Mr. Dziubinski's quarrel with BP was described earlier in the Wall
Street Journal, which said he and BP had reached a confidential
settlement.

The new filing also says that Kevin Lacy, described as BP's senior
vice president for drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico,
resigned in late 2009 "because of disagreements with BP over its
lack of commitment to process safety."  The lawsuit says that Lacy
had been recruited from Chevron to improve BP's drilling
protocols.

BP spokesman Scott Dean said the company would not comment on
pending litigation.

The investors, represented by the firms Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll of Washington and Berman DeValerio of Boston, produced what
they said was an internal BP document that said: "It's become
apparent that process-safety major hazards and risks are not fully
understood by engineering or line operating personnel.
Insufficient awareness is leading to missed signals that precede
incidents and response after incidents, both of which increases
the potential for and severity of process-safety related
incidents."


CHINA-BIOTICS: Continues to Defend NY Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
China-Biotics Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
alleging misrepresentations in the issuance of certain securities,
the Company noted in its February 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

China Biotics and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, one in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California  (Mohapatra
v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al. No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), and the
other in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Hill v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al. No.
10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.)  After certain shareholders filed motions
for appointment as lead plaintiff in both lawsuits, the plaintiff
in the California Action voluntarily dismissed its case.  The
plaintiff in the New York Action, who seeks to represent a class
of those who bought China-Biotics securities between July 10, 2008
and August 30, 2010, alleges that the defendants violated Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to disclose certain material information
regarding, among other things, China-Biotics' financial condition,
operations, and future business prospects, and the quality,
nature, and quantity of China-Biotics' retail outlets and stores.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

China-Biotics says it intends to defend the remaining action
vigorously.


CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Dyer & Berens File Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Berens LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors who purchased China MediaExpress Holdings,
Inc. securities between November 8, 2010 and February 3, 2011,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased during the
Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must
request appointment by court no later than April 5, 2011.  If you
would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff process, or
have any questions concerning this notice, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-3362
(888) 300-3362 x302 or via email at jeff@dyerberens.com
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need
JavaScript enabled to view it.  Any member of the putative class
may request a lead plaintiff appointment through counsel of its
choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

What are the allegations in the complaint? China MediaExpress
provides television advertising network on inter-city express
buses in China.  The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendant's public statements were materially false and
misleading because they misrepresented and overstated the
financial condition of the Company.  On February 3, 2011, Muddy
Waters Research initiated coverage on China MediaExpress with a
strong sell rating on China MediaExpress stock.  In its report,
Muddy Waters questioned the accuracy of many of the Company's
statements and the quality of its earnings.  In response to the
report, the price of China MediaExpress securities fell from
$16.61/share to $11.09/share.  Based upon the foregoing, the
complaint charges China MediaExpress with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff is represented by several law firms, including Dyer
& Berens LLP which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions involving financial fraud.  The firm's extensive
experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has
contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for
aggrieved investors.


CLEAR CHANNEL: Continues to Defend "Sherman Act" Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc., continues to face class action
lawsuits arising from its alleged attempt to monopolize the market
for live rock concerts, according to the Company's Feb. 14, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Clear Channel Communications, Inc., is a co-defendant with Live
Nation (which was spun off as an independent company in December
2005) in 22 putative class actions filed beginning in May 2006 by
different named plaintiffs in various district courts throughout
the country.  These actions generally allege that the defendants
monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for "live rock
concerts" in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs claim that they paid higher ticket prices for
defendants' "rock concerts" as a result of defendants' conduct.
They seek damages in an undetermined amount.  On April 17, 2006,
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation centralized these
class action proceedings in the Central District of California.
On March 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
in five "template" cases involving five regional markets: Los
Angeles, Boston, New York, Chicago and Denver.  Defendants opposed
that motion and, on October 22, 2007, the district court issued
its decision certifying the class for each regional market.  On
February 20, 2008, defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the Class Certification Order, which is still pending.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of the Class Notice Plan on
September 25, 2009, but the Court denied the Motion as premature
and ordered the entire case stayed until the 9th Circuit issues
its en banc opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir.
2007), a case that may change the standard for granting class
certification in the 9th Circuit.  On April 26, 2010, the 9th
Circuit issued its opinion adopting a new class certification
standard, which will require district courts to resolve Rule 23
factual disputes that overlap with the merits of the case.  In
response, the defendants asked the court to set a hearing date for
argument on the Company's Motion for Reconsideration of the Class
Certification Order.  On July 30, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion
to lift the stay of proceedings in the case.  On October 13, 2010
the district court granted plaintiffs' request to lift the stay
and denied defendants' motion to reconsider the decision to grant
class certification.  The court also ordered the parties to meet
and confer on a joint stipulation for proceeding with class
notification and discovery.

On November 2, 2010, Live Nation filed a motion for leave to
appeal the court's Order Denying Reconsideration and Lifting the
Stay on the Case.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Nov. 8,
2010, and Live Nation filed its reply on November 12, 2010.  The
parties are in the process of negotiating a discovery schedule.
On January 4, 2011, the court denied the Company's request for
leave to file an appeal.  In the Master Separation and
Distribution Agreement between one of the Company's subsidiaries
and Live Nation that was entered into in connection with the spin-
off of Live Nation in December 2005, Live Nation agreed, among
other things, to assume responsibility for legal actions existing
at the time of, or initiated after, the spin-off in which the
Company is a defendant if the actions relate in any material
respect to the business of Live Nation.  Pursuant to the
Agreement, Live Nation also agreed to indemnify the Company with
respect to all liabilities assumed by Live Nation, including those
pertaining to the claims.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Awaits Court Okay of Class Suits Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., is awaiting court approval of an
agreement to resolve consolidated class action lawsuits in Georgia
and Delaware, according to the Company's February 14, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

In connection the October 2010 merger agreement between the
Company and The Coca-Cola Company, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, and five putative class action lawsuits were filed in
Delaware Chancery Court.  The lawsuits are similar and assert
claims on behalf of Legacy CCE's shareholders for various breaches
of fiduciary duty in connection with the Agreement. The lawsuits
name the Company, also known as Legacy CCE, the Legacy CCE Board
of Directors, and The Coca-Cola Company as defendants.  Plaintiffs
in each case sought to enjoin the transaction, to declare the deal
void and rescind the transaction, to require disgorgement of all
profits the defendants receive from the transaction, and to
recover damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses. The
Georgia cases were consolidated by orders entered March 25, 2010
and April 9, 2010, and the Delaware cases were consolidated on
March 16, 2010.

On September 3, 2010, the parties to the consolidated Georgia
action executed a Memorandum of Understanding containing the terms
for the parties' agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware
and Georgia actions. The MOU called for certain amendments to the
transaction agreements as well as certain revisions to the
disclosures relating to the transaction. The MOU also contemplates
that plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys' fees in an amount
not to exceed $7.5 million. Pursuant to the Agreement, the
liability for these attorney fees would be shared equally between
the Company and TCCC. In accordance with the MOU, the parties have
requested approval of the settlement from the Georgia court. If
approved, the Georgia action will be dismissed with prejudice, and
plaintiffs will thereafter dismiss the Delaware consolidated
action with prejudice.

Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. -- http://www.cokecce.com/-- markets,
distributes, and manufactures bottle and can liquid nonalcoholic
refreshment.  CCE sells approximately 80% of The Coca-Cola
Company's bottle and can volume in North America and is the sole
licensed bottler for products of The Coca-Cola Company in Belgium,
continental France, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Monaco, and the
Netherlands.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals of IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals of a court-approved settlement dismissing eGain
Communications Corporation from a class action lawsuit filed in
New York remain pending.

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against eGain Communications, and certain of
its then officers and directors and underwriters connected with
its initial public offering of common stock.  The class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus
under which the securities were sold contained false and
misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess
commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations of
"laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified
amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common
stock between September 23, 1999, and December 6, 2000.  Similar
complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300
other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000 actions
were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litig.  In 2003, eGain Communications and the other
issuer defendants, but not the underwriter defendants, reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to the
Company's liability and that of its officers and directors.  The
settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by
the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.  On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the
Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed
settlement.  Meanwhile the consolidated case against the
underwriters proceeded.  In October 2004, the Court certified a
class.  On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class
certified by the District Court could not be certified. In re
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006),
modified F 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007).  The Second Circuit's holding,
while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised doubt as to
whether the settlement class contemplated by the proposed issuer
settlement could be approved.  On June 25, 2007, the district
court entered a stipulated order terminating the proposed issuer
settlement.  Thereafter pretrial proceedings resumed.

In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of
the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as
issuers.  Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to eGain Communications, and
the Company would bear no financial liability.  eGain
Communications, as well as the officer and director defendants,
who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant to a
stipulation, would receive complete dismissals from the case.  On
June 10, 2009, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement.  On October 5, 2009, the Court
issued an order finally approving the settlement.  Starting on
October 23, 2009, some would-be objectors to the certification of
a settlement class (which occurred as part of the October 5, 2009
order) petitioned the Court for permission to appeal from the
order certifying the settlement class, and on October 29 and
November 2, 2009, several groups of objectors filed notices of
appeal seeking to challenge the Court's approval of the
settlement.  On November 24, 2009, the Court signed, and on,
December 4, 2009, the Court entered final judgment pursuant to
the settlement dismissing all claims involving the company.  The
appeals remain pending and briefing on the appeals is set to
begin in October 2010 and end in the spring of 2011.

On October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the
objectors filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors
withdrawing their appeals with prejudice.  The remaining two
objectors, however, are continuing to pursue their appeals and
have filed their opening briefs.  The Company says that if the
settlement and final judgment were to be overturned on appeal and
litigation were to proceed, it has meritorious defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the action vigorously.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Awaits Court Approval of "Brent" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
with plaintiffs of a class action counter-claim filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, according to the
Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company, along with others in its industry, is routinely
subject to legal actions based on the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, or FDCPA, comparable state statutes and common law
causes of action. The violations of law alleged in these actions
often include claims that the Company lacks specified licenses to
conduct its business, attempts to collect debts on which the
statute of limitations has run, or has made inaccurate assertions
of fact in support of its collection actions. A number of these
cases are styled as class actions and a class has been certified
in several of these cases. Many of these cases present novel
issues on which there is no clear legal precedent.

In an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
et al., filed on May 19, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio [Western Division], the plaintiff has
filed a class action counter-claim against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC.  The complaint alleges
that the Midland Defendants' business practices violated
consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act.  The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory
damages for the class of Ohio residents, plus attorney fees and
costs of class notice and class administration.  On August 11,
2009, the court issued an order partially granting plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment and entering findings adverse to the
Midland Defendants on certain of plaintiff's claims. The Midland
Defendants subsequently moved the court to reconsider the order
and were partially successful.  However, because the court did not
completely reverse the August 11 order, certain portions of the
order remain subject to reversal only on appeal. On February 22,
2010, the District Court denied Plaintiff's attempts to enlarge
the case to include a national class of consumers, and ordered the
parties to brief issues relating to whether a statewide class
should be certified.  On November 4, 2010, the court granted in
part, and denied in part, plaintiff's motion for class
certification of a statewide class.

On February 10, 2011, the parties reached an agreement in
principal to settle this lawsuit on a national class basis,
subject to entering into a definitive settlement agreement and
obtaining court approval after notice to the class.  The Company
has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it in this
matter, but has agreed to the proposed settlement to avoid the
burden and expense of continued litigation.  Subject to Court
approval, settlement awards to eligible class members, as well as
fees and costs, will be paid from a settlement fund of
approximately $5.2 million.  If the number of class members who
make claims exceeds a certain level, the total settlement could
increase to an amount not to exceed $5.7 million.  Of this,
approximately $3.5 million is expected to be paid with insurance
proceeds.  The Company has accrued its portion of the settlement,
which resulted in a decrease in net income of approximately $1.0
million and a decrease in fully diluted earnings per share of
$0.04 for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is defending a number of additional class action cases
which assert, among other things, affidavit claims similar to
those asserted in the Brent litigation.  Because of the
similarities of the claims, the proposed settlement of the Brent
case is expected to resolve the affidavit claims in these other
cases.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Motions to Dismiss TCPA Violations Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries are defending two
class actions alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's February 14, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 2, 2010, and December 17, 2010 two national class
actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v.
Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers' cellular
phones without their prior express consent.  The complaints seek
monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief and other
relief, including attorney fees.  The Company has filed motions to
dismiss or stay these cases.  Those motions are currently pending.


GROUP HEALTH: Sued for Illegally Asserting Reimbursement Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Group Health
Plan illegally asserts liens against personal injury settlements,
a man claims in a class action in St. Louis County Court.
Jodie Nevils claims GHP "routinely engages in a widespread pattern
and practice of unlawfully asserting reimbursement rights" that
are paid through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act.

The FEHBA provides federal employees and retirees and eligible
family members with subsidized health-care benefits.

"For instance, occasionally an individual is injured in an auto
accident and that individual's health care benefits are covered
through a FEHBA plan," the complaint states.  "If that individual
pursues legal action against the tortfeasor for his/her injuries,
the defendant unlawfully assert a lien for repayment of the health
care benefits paid for such treatment."

Mr. Nevils claims that Missouri law prohibits such reimbursement.

"Despite the fact that any reimbursement/subrogation rights are
controlled by Missouri state law that prohibits such subrogation,
defendant routinely asserts liens on personal injury recoveries of
Missouri citizens and subrogate for repayment of health benefits
paid out on personal injury claims on Missouri citizens," the
complaint states.

"Defendant pursues such course of conduct despite being informed
repeatedly that they are not entitled to reimbursement of such
funds under Missouri law."

The class consists of all Missourians who received coverage
through a FEHBA plan that is administered by GHP within the past 5
years, who have had a right to reimbursement asserted against a
personal injury claim.

They want GHP enjoined from seeking such reimbursements,
disgorgement, and damages for conversion, unjust enrichment and
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Nevils v. Group Health Plan, Inc.,
Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/15/GroupHealth.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
          Keith C. Lamb, Esq.
          BURGESS & LAMB, P.C.
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 471-1700

               - and -

          Don P. Saxton, Esq.
          SAXTON LAW FIRM, LLC
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 471-1700
          E-mail: don@saxtonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
          1000 Broadway, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 589-0753

               - and -

          John Campbell, Esq.
          Erich Vieth, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929


HYPERCOM CORP: Defends Class Action Lawsuits Over VeriFone Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hypercom Corporation disclosed in a February 14, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is
defending itself from several class action complaints over its
proposed merger with VeriFone Systems, Inc.

On or about January 14, 2011, Hypercom Corporation mailed a
definitive proxy statement and prospectus  relating to a special
meeting of stockholders of Hypercom scheduled to be held on
February 24, 2011 for the following purposes: (i) to approve and
adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 17,
2010, by and among Hypercom, VeriFone Systems, Inc., and Honey
Acquisition Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of VeriFone, and
approve the merger contemplated by the merger agreement, (2) to
approve the adjournment of the special meeting of stockholders of
Hypercom, if necessary, for any purpose, including to solicit
additional proxies if there are not sufficient votes to approve
and adopt the merger agreement and approve the merger at the time
of the special meeting of stockholders of Hypercom and (3) to
conduct any other business that properly comes before the special
meeting of stockholders of Hypercom or any adjournment or
postponement of such special meeting.

In connection with the proposed Merger, several purported class
action lawsuits were filed in Arizona and Delaware state courts
alleging variously, among other things, that the board of
directors of Hypercom breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger and that VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco,
LLC and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged
breach.  On January 4, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint in the Arizona action alleging that the preliminary
proxy statement should include various additional disclosures.
Hypercom and VeriFone strongly believe that their disclosures in
the Proxy Statement are appropriate and adequate under applicable
law.  Nevertheless, in order to lessen the risk of any delay of
the closing of the Merger as a result of the litigation, Hypercom
and VeriFone have decided to make available to Hypercom's
stockholders certain additional information in connection with the
proposed Merger.  The supplemental information available at:
http://is.gd/XO5gNhshould be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement.


IMAX CORP: Securities Class Action Set for Trial in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that 14
months after a Toronto judge certified the first securities class
action under Canada's six-year-old U.S.-style securities law, the
case appears headed for trial.

On Feb. 14, an Ontario Divisional Court judge issued a decision
denying defendant IMAX Corp. permission to appeal the earlier
ruling certifying the investor class and allowing the case to
proceed.

The class action is viewed by many as a key test for the 2005
Ontario Securities Act, which created U.S.-style civil liability
for misrepresentations that affect stock market values, as we
reported here.

"This is huge," Sutts Strosberg partner Jay Strosberg said in an
interview with the Financial Post on Feb. 15.  "It was well worth
the wait."  Mr. Strosberg's firm is one of two representing the
IMAX plaintiffs.

Depending on the outcome, the IMAX case could clear a path for a
number of similar claims percolating through Canada's provincial
courts, says A. Dimitri Lascaris, the lawyer at Siskinds who is
representing the Ontario plaintiffs along with Sutts Strosberg's
William Sasso.

Among the other cases in which class certification is being
sought: separate securities suits against Manulife Financial
Corporation and Canadian Solar Inc.  Like IMAX, the two companies
are cross-listed on publicly traded exchanges in Canada and the
United States.  Mr. Lascaris represents the lead plaintiffs in
both actions. "This decision," he says, referring to the IMAX
ruling, "should be of significant assistance to plaintiffs in
those cases."

Critically, the Ontario Superior Court judge certified a global,
not just a Canadian, class.  By doing so, he may have opened the
door in a way that allows foreign investors who feel they've been
harmed to sue companies that are located or publicly listed in
Canada.  Non-U.S. plaintiffs are finding it increasingly difficult
to make such claims in American courts following the U.S. Supreme
Court decision last June in Morrison v. National Australia Bank
Ltd. which restricted foreign investor claims.

The rate of putative securities class action filings in Canada is
increasing steadily.  As of January, there were a record 28 such
matters pending, representing about $15.9 billion in claims,
according to this report by NERA Economic Consulting, which also
saw the pace of such litigation picking up in 2011.

The plaintiffs in the case against IMAX claim that the
Mississauga, Ontario-based entertainment company and its outside
directors acted negligently in misrepresenting IMAX's 2005
financial results.  On August 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was
being investigated by the SEC.  The next day, its share price on
both the Nasdaq and the Toronto stock exchanges plunged 40
percent.  IMAX later restated its results, acknowledging that it
had incorrectly booked revenues for theater systems that had not
yet been installed.  The plaintiff investors are seeking $116
million, as sibling publication The American Lawyer reported.

Dana Peebles of McCarthy Tetrault argued the unsuccessful motion
for leave on behalf of IMAX; his colleague R. Paul Steep argued
the original motion commencing the claim.

The Ontario court's decision can be found at http://is.gd/jwgKzr


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Still Defends Calif. Labor Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., is still defending itself
from a lawsuit alleging violations of California's Labor Code.

On January 25, 2010, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., by Julie Ross.
Ms. Ross purports to represent all similarly-situated employees
and the complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the
California Labor Code and unfair competition law.  The parties are
currently exchanging discovery in the action.  At this early stage
in the proceedings, the Company is unable to determine the cost of
defending this lawsuit or the impact, if any, this action may have
on its results of operations.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010.


INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Still Defends "Avery" Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., is still defending itself
from a lawsuit filed by one of its hourly employees.

On June 5, 2009, a potential class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by Alexandra Avery.  Ms. Avery purports to
represent all 12-hourly employees and the complaint alleges causes
of action for restitution of unpaid wages as a result of unfair
business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business
practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties associated
therewith.  On December 23, 2009, the Company filed an answer to
the complaint, generally denying all of the plaintiff's
allegations.  The parties are currently exchanging discovery in
the action.  At this early stage, the Company is unable to
determine the cost of defending this lawsuit or the impact, if
any, this action may have on its results of operations.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 14, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2010.


LIFE PARTNERS: Howard G. Smith Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Life
Partners Holdings, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of Life Partners between May 29, 2007 and
January 20, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Life Partners, through its subsidiary, Life Partners, Inc.,
operates in the secondary market for life insurance generally
known as "life settlements."  The Complaint alleges that
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that, among
other things: (1) the Company routinely used life expectancy data
that produced inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which
were subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to
investors; (2) the Company concealed the historical rate at which
insured individuals had lived past the life expectancy data
previously provided to life settlement investors, such that the
Company's investors were unable to assess the accuracy or
reliability of such data; (3) as a result, the Company's financial
statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about
its financial performance and future business prospects were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased Life Partners securities between
May 29, 2007 and January 20, 2011, you have certain rights and
have until April 4, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To
be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


LIFE PARTNERS: Weiss & Lurie Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie, a national class action and shareholder rights law
firm with offices in New York City and Los Angeles, is
investigating possible violations of federal securities laws by
Life Partners Holdings, Inc. on behalf of all investors who
purchased Life Partners securities between May 29, 2007 and
January 20, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Weiss & Lurie is investigating whether Life Partners issued
materially false and misleading statements by: (1) routinely using
unrealistic life expectancy data that underestimated the life span
of its clients so that it could charge substantially higher fees
for its life settlement policies, and (2) concealing the
historical rate in which clients insured under Life Partners
policies had lived past the life expectancy rates previously
provided to investors.

Once this news was revealed on January 20, 2011, Life Partners
stock, which opened at $14.97 per share, declined $2.76 per share,
more than 18%, to close at $12.21 per share.  The shares have
since plummeted to $8.17 per share on February 14, 2011.

If you purchased Life Partners securities during the Class Period
and would like more information about our investigation or your
rights, or if you have any information that may be relevant to our
investigation, please contact:

          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          Telephone: (888) 593-4771
          E-mail: infony@weisslurie.com

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit
against Life Partners, you must file a motion with the Court by
April 4, 2011.  Any class member may move to serve as lead
plaintiff, or they can choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Weiss & Lurie has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.


LIVEDEAL INC: Plaintiff Seeks to Restart '08 Fraud Suit Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff of a temporarily suspended class action lawsuit
against LiveDeal, Inc., is seeking to restart litigation,
according to the Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc., filed a consumer
fraud class action lawsuit against the Company in King County
(Washington) Superior Court.  GES has alleged in its complaint
that the Company's use of activator checks violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.  GES seeks injunctive relief against the
Company's use of the checks, as well as judgment in an amount
equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES and the
members of the class.  LiveDeal has denied the allegations.  Early
in 2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions after
oral argument.  Active litigation is temporarily suspended, but
Plaintiff is seeking to restart the litigation.

LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com/-- delivers best of
breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium-
sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow
Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way
for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant
customers via the Internet.  Through its online property,
LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its
LiveAdvisor(TM) and LiveClicks(TM) products that combine best-of-
breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside
sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need
to create and optimize their Internet search advertising
campaigns.  Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK,
Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc., is
headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


LML PAYMENT: High Court Denies Review of Case vs. LML Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari appealing
the dismissal of a complaint filed against LML Payment Systems
Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the Company's February 14, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007, a subsidiary of the
Corporation received notification that it had been named in a
class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District, Marshall Division, Texas, alleging that numerous
defendants, including the subsidiary of the Corporation, violated
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act regulating the use of personal
information such as driver's license numbers and home addresses
contained in motor vehicle records held by motor vehicle
departments, by not having a permissible use in obtaining the
State of Texas' entire database of names, addresses and other
personal information.

During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009, the complaint was
dismissed with prejudice.  Also during the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2009, the plaintiffs appealed this decision.  On
November 4, 2009 oral arguments were heard by the Fifth Circuit of
appeals and on July 14, 2010, the Fifth Circuit of appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.  During the three months
ended December 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari
with the Supreme Court of the United States appealing the
dismissal of the complaint.  In January 2011, the Corporation
received notice that the Supreme Court had denied the writ of
certiorari, which means that the decisions of the lower courts
resolving the lawsuit in the Corporation's favor have become
final.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Profits Jump Following Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair Barr and John Spence, writing for MarketWatch, report
that Marsh & McLennan Cos. posted a jump in quarterly profit on
Feb. 15 as the insurance brokerage and consulting firm avoided big
class-action settlements that dented results in the year-earlier
period.

Organic revenue growth at the company's main insurance brokerage
business easily exceeded analyst expectations.

The results pushed shares of Marsh & McLennan up more than 5% to
their highest level since October 2008.

Retail sales rise

January retail sales inch higher by 0.3%, registering their
seventh straight monthly gain.

The company said fourth-quarter profit rose to $203 million, or 37
cents a share, from $23 million, or 4 cents a share, in the year-
earlier period.

In late 2009, Marsh & McLennan paid more than $400 million to
settle securities and ERISA class-action lawsuits that were filed
in 2004.

Adjusted earnings in the latest period came in at 41 cents a
share, the company reported.  That compares with 38 cents a share
in the year-earlier quarter.

Marsh & McLennan was expected to make 39 cents a share, according
to the average estimate of analysts surveyed by FactSet Research.

Total revenue rose to $2.8 billion from $2.6 billion in the year-
ago quarter.  The company's consulting business generated revenue
of $1.3 billion, up 6%, while revenue rose 11% to $1.5 billion at
the risk and insurance-services segment.

Organic revenue, which excludes acquisitions and divestitures,
climbed 5% at Marsh & McLennan's main insurance brokerage unit.

Insurance brokers struggled to generate revenue growth in recent
quarters because slow economic growth restrained demand for
insurance coverage from businesses.

However, the U.S. economic recovery has gained steam in recent
months, reawakening organic revenue growth at the largest
insurance brokers.

"The solid results indicate that the company is seeing the
benefits of exposure growth from the economic recovery,"
Brian Meredith, an analyst at UBS, wrote in a note to investors on
Feb. 15.  "The upside surprise involved better-than-expected
organic revenue growth and margins for both Risk & Insurance
Services (RIS) and Consulting."

Earlier this month, rival insurance broker Aon Corp. reported
organic revenue growth of 3%.

Willis Group, another rival, reported a 4% increase in organic
revenue.

Marsh & McLennan shares rose 5.1% to $30.35 on Feb. 15, while Aon
climbed 1.5% to $51.65 and Willis gained 9 cents to $38.59.


MECOXLANE INC: Faces Investor Class Action Over U.S. IPO
--------------------------------------------------------
MecoxLane Inc., China Agritech, Inc., ChinaCache International
Holdings Ltd. and some other U.S.-listed Chinese companies are
troubled in the class action.

On October 26, 2010, MecoxLane Inc. made debut on the NASDAQ Stock
Market, thus becoming the first publicly traded B2C enterprise of
China.  Currently, the business of the garment-related E-commerce
enterprise has covered 31 provinces, autonomous regions and
provincial-level cities across China's Mainland.

Now, those investors having bought the shares of MecoxLane from
October 26 to November 29, 2010 have filed a lawsuit against the
top management and directors of the company, having pointed out
that the company had made false and misleading statement during
the initial public offering (IPO).  However, MecoxLane responded
that the lawsuit will not have impact on the routine operation of
the company.

Actually, the investors and the market have the right to judge the
information disclosure of companies listed on the U.S. capital
market and the Securities and Exchange Commission requires the
listed companies to make related information disclosure.
Therefore, the Chinese companies have to make information
disclosure as required so that they might not lose a lawsuit.

Currently, the lower threshold on the New York Stock Exchange and
the NASDAQ Stock Market are attractive to those enterprises with
huge potential but urgent need for financing. Over 2010, 40
Chinese enterprises got listed in the U.S. stock market and they
achieved the IPO fundraising of US$3.5 billion.  Among them, 12
ones are engaged in the communication service, software, Internet,
or E-commence industry. Following the backdoor listing of Ku6.com,
Tudou also filed the listing application to the NASDAQ Stock
Market after several rounds of financing.

By December 19, 2010, 52 Chinese enterprises launched the overseas
IPO in the year, including one listed on the American Stock
Exchange; 22 ones listed on the New York Stock Exchange and 17
ones listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market.  Among these U.S.-listed
Chinese enterprises, Mingyang Electric, China Dangdang Inc. and
Youku.com achieved the highest fundraising of US$350 million,
US$272 million and US$233 million respectively.  In the near
future, more and more Chinese enterprises are going to get listed
in the United States, according to industry experts.

During the third quarter of 2010, these U.S.-listed Chinese
enterprises performed strongly in terms of the stock prices, as a
result of which, the average rate of return from IPO stood at 27%
in North American market.


MISSOURI SCHOOLS: Face Suit Over "Heroes' Act" Tuition Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that three state
school systems are taking advantage of veterans by misapplying
state "Heroes' Act" tuition benefits, according to a class action
in St. Louis County Court.  The class claims the schools -- the
University of Missouri, Southeast Missouri State University and
Moberly Area Community College -- "maximize" their own revenue
while increasing costs for combat veterans.

The Missouri Returning Heroes' Education Act, of 2008, limits
tuition at all state-funded public colleges to $50 a credit hour,
so long as the veteran maintains at least a 2.5 GPA on a 4.0
scale.  To qualify, the veteran must be a Missouri citizen when
entering the military, must have served in a combat zone since
Sept. 11, 2001 and must have been discharged honorably.

"This case challenges the defendants' policy of applying 100
percent of gift aid directly to tuition, rather than considering
the total 'cost of attendance,' resulting in a reduction, or
elimination, of the benefits that veterans are supposed to receive
under the Heroes' Act," the complaint states.

"By applying 'gift aid' in this manner, defendants effectively
eliminate the functionality and purpose of the Heroes' Act, and
combat veterans are required to pay substantially more to attend
MPIHEs [Missouri Public Institutions of Higher Education] than if
the 'gift aid' was allocated to other qualified costs of
attendance."

The five named plaintiffs claims the schools violated the letter
and the intent of the Act, which specifically mentions cost of
attendance.

"Diverting all 'grant aid' funds to pay only tuition damages
Missouri combat veterans because it strips them of aid to pay for
room and board, living expenses, books and supplies and
transportation. . . . By applying the gift aid directly to
tuition, defendants routinely collect tuition at a rate that
exceeds the rate allowed under the Heroes' Act," the complaint
states.  "This maximizes revenue to the defendants and increases
cost to combat veterans."

The class consists of all veterans who have or who may qualify for
tuition discounts under the Heroes' Act.  They seek damages for
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and an
injunction.

The University of Missouri includes the University of Missouri-
Columbia, University of Missouri Kansas City, University of
Missouri-St. Louis and Missouri University of Science and
Technology.  Moberly Area has campuses in Moberly, Columbia,
Edina, Hannibal, Kirksville, Mexico and Macon.

A copy of the Complaint in Dunn, et al. v. Board of Regents of
Southeast Missouri State University, et al., Case No. _____
(Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/15/MoColleges.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John G. Simon, Esq.
          John E. Campbell, Esq.
          Stephanie H. To, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-2029
          E-mail: jsimon@simonlawpc.com
                  jcampbell@simonlawpc.com
                  sto@simonlawpc.com


NURSES CHOICE: Recalls 4,700 Newborn Keepsake Mittens
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nurses Choice Corp. of Wilmington, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,700 Newborn Keepsake Mittens.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Decorations on the mittens can be pulled off, posing a choking
hazard.

The company has received one report of a decoration falling off a
mitten.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves infant mittens made of white cotton.  They
have candy cane, teddy bear and "2011" decorations glued on one
side.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11128.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
distributed by hospitals nationwide for free to newborns from
October 2010 to January 2011.

Consumers should immediately stop using the mittens and contact
Nurses Choice for a free replacement.  For more information,
contact Nurses Choice at (800) 747-7076 from Monday through Friday
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, by e-mail to info@nurses-
choice.com or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.nurses-choice.com/


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Awaits Ruling on Lead Plaintiff Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
shareholder class action suit in Idaho, according to the Company's
February 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

The Company, along with its current CEO and former CFO have been
named in a  class action lawsuit -- Niederklein v. PCS
Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD).  The class action was
brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock during the period between March 28, 2007
and August 15, 2007.   On January 14, 2011, the court heard
argument on a motion relating to the appointment of a  lead
plaintiff.  No response to the class action by the Company or any
of the other defendants is due until after resolution of the lead
plaintiff issue and the filing of an amended complaint.  Under its
bylaws, PCS is obligated, subject to certain exceptions and
conditions, to indemnify and advance expenses to current and
former officers and directors in connection with this suit.  The
costs incurred by PCS in addressing this suit may have a material
adverse effect on PCS' business, financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.


PERLE INDUSTRIES: Creditors Mull Class Action Over Liquidation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Deans, writing for Coffs Coast Advocate, reports that
creditors owed more than $1.6 million by failed construction
company Perle are seeking legal action in the hope of filing a
class action to recover their money.

At a meeting on Feb. 15, out-of-pocket Coffs Harbour
sub-contractors voted unanimously to have the financially troubled
Sydney company wound up in liquidation.  Their vote would go to a
meeting of statewide creditors on Feb. 16.

Local trade companies affected by the company's collapse also
expressed an interest in pursuing Housing NSW, and possibly the
government's primary project contractors Bovis Lend Lease through
the courts.

Legal advice has also been sought through Slater and Gordon Coffs
Harbour to see if the sub-contractors have the grounds for a class
action involving other creditors in the Illawarra and Sydney.

"I believe there is enough information there to join the players
in this debacle in a legal case," Member for Coffs Harbour Andrew
Fraser said.

The late-breaking development came after Housing Minister Frank
Terenzini confirmed the collapse of Perle Industries had been
referred to police for investigation 'to see if there had been any
breaches of the law'.

Statewide Perle has left debts of around $10 million after
commencing government stimulus package projects, three of which
involved Housing NSW unit developments in Coffs Harbour.

At the meeting, Mr. Fraser received copies of the contract
agreements that Perle signed with Housing NSW and that the
department signed with construction giant Bovis Lend Lease.

The paperwork was made available, after Mr. Fraser's recent
meeting with the minister in the presence of local creditor
Ernie Burnett, whose plumbing company is owed almost $300,000.

Mr. Fraser was, however, denied access to sensitive financial
audits, which two independent companies conducted into Perle on
behalf of the State Government department.

"The reason I believe I was denied access is because these reports
don't come up to scratch," Mr. Fraser said.

"I believe there could be grounds for a class action against the
Department of Housing, possible grounds against Bovis Lend Lease
and also the companies that undertook the financial assessment, I
may be wrong, but we won't know until we get that legal advice."

A report handed down by the administrator Rogers Reidy stated that
if creditors across NSW vote to liquidate the company that could
see returns of five cents in the dollar.

Another option on the table is for creditors to offer Perle a deed
of contract and allow the company to complete its building
projects.

This the administrators believe would offer returns of 27 cents in
the dollar, but after blockading the incomplete Harbour Drive
worksite, the sub-contractors have held firm.

Minister Terenzini said it had been agreed by some creditors that
if the State Government moved in and covered the debts of the
company it would set a dangerous precedent for the construction
industry.

"We reject outright the administrators 'opinion' that, in the
spirit of the economic stimulus package, clients such as Housing
NSW should pay in full the outstanding debt to creditors,"
Mr. Terenzini said.

"Our decision not to pay out the subbies has nothing to do with
stimulus -- it's based on long-standing and responsible Housing
NSW policy."


PROSPECT MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its merger
with Ivy Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp., according to the
Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 16, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Ivy Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp., an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ivy Holdings.

Following the announcement of the merger, two putative class
action complaints were filed against the Company, each of the
Rollover Investors, each of the special committee members, Ivy
Holdings, the Merger Sub, and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.
These complaints, which were consolidated into a single action,
allege generally that defendants breached their fiduciary duties,
or aided and abetted others' breaches of their fiduciary duties,
in connection with the transaction with the Company by, among
other things, authorizing the transaction for what plaintiffs
claim to be inadequate consideration and pursuant to what
plaintiffs claim to be an inadequate process and with inadequate
disclosures.  The complaint seeks, among other relief, an
injunction against the proposed merger, rescission of the merger
or recessionary damages to the putative class if the merger is
completed and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.  On December 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification which remains pending, and plaintiffs have
indicated that they are planning to amend and update the complaint
in light of the completion of the merger and to amend their motion
for class certification.

Defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the suits.

On December 15, 2010, the Company's stockholders approved the
Merger Agreement at a special meeting of stockholders.  With the
closing of the merger, shares of Prospect common stock ceased
trading in the Nasdaq Global Market and was delisted.  The
Company incurred approximately $13,300,000 of expenses related to
the merger.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Stays 2010 Washing Machine Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla has halted a 2010
class action brought against Sears Roebuck and Co. over
allegations its washing machines took too long to work and could
possibly explode.

Judge Hylla entered on Feb. 10 his order staying the class action
filed by lead plaintiff Therese Dalla Riva.

The Madison County suit is nearly identical to a federal class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California that is led by lead plaintiff Renee
Tietsworth.

In a four-page order Judge Hylla noted the similarities in the two
cases and dismissed the plaintiff's claims that they are distinct.

"[P]laintiff's counsel has not demonstrated a significant
difference between the theories of liability asserted in
California and those asserted here," Judge Hylla wrote.

"This Court finds that the claims of Ms. Dalla Riva and the
proposed Illinois class members who have already had problems with
their washers, arise out of the same set of operative facts as the
claims of the nationwide class currently proposed in California.
Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented no
evidence that the interests of these Illinois consumers are not
being protected in California."

Judge Hylla wrote that arguments about the harm of a stay were not
persuasive.

"Plaintiff's counsel has not demonstrated any real harm to
Illinois consumers by a stay of this action that would outweigh
the public policy against duplicative litigation," he wrote.

"If circumstances change and real harm is threatened due to this
stay, Plaintiffs can file pleadings demonstrating such conditions
and petition this court to lift its stay.  Because Plaintiff's
lead counsel is involved in the litigation in California and
Illinois, it will be in a position to know of any real harm or
threat of the same."

Ms. Dalla Riva, represented by California attorney Lori Andrus and
Edwardsville attorney Mark Goldenberg, proposes to lead a class of
Illinois consumers who bought Kenmore Elite Oasis washing machines
that allegedly had a defective electronic control boards.

The defects, according to the plaintiff, led the washing machine
to stop mid-cycle causing longer running times than advertised.

The suit also claims there are instances where the washing
machines have exploded.

The Tietsworth class action has dropped some of the claims
asserted in the younger Madison County suit including the
exploding washing machine claims.

Judge Hylla heard arguments from Sears in September asking the
judge to stay the Ms. Dalla Riva suit or to dismiss it.

"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," Sears's attorney Michael Williams said at that
hearing.

Ms. Andrus and Mr. Goldenberg argued at the same hearing that
there were enough differences and merits in the Dalla Riva class
action to warrant it continuing.

In his recent order, Judge Hylla wrote that the lead attorneys for
Ms. Tietsworth and Ms. Dalla Riva have not made efforts to exclude
an Illinois class from the nationwide class.

He wrote that he sees no reason why the California court would not
allow full discovery and that it was likely, if the Tietsworth
case is certified, that the Illinois claims would fall under its
resolution.

The plaintiff is also required in the order to inform the court
within 30 days of a resolution of class proceedings in the
Tietsworth case.

There has been little action in the Tietsworth case since November
2010.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel presides in California.

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

The case is Madison case number 10-L- 203.

The Tietsworth case is case number CV-09-288-JF/HRL.


SERVICE CORPORATION: FCA's Appeal on Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs in the matter Funeral Consumers Alliance,
Inc., v. Service Corporation International, et al., on the
dismissal of their lawsuit remains pending, according to the
Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Service Corporation was named as a defendant in an antitrust case
filed in 2005.  The case is Cause No 4:05-CV-03394; Funeral
Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et
al.; in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas - Houston.  This was a purported class action on behalf
of casket consumers throughout the United States alleging that
Service Corporation and several other companies involved in the
funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws and state
consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct
associated with the sale of caskets.  Based on the case proceeding
as a class action, the plaintiffs filed an expert report
indicating that the damages sought from all defendants range from
approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before trebling.
However, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
the case as a class action.  Service Corporation denies that it
engaged in anticompetitive practices related to its casket sales
and has filed reports of its experts, which vigorously dispute the
validity of the plaintiffs' damages theories and calculations.
The trial court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on September 24,
2010, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on October 19, 2010.


SINGING MACHINE: Continues to Pursue Suit v. MGA Entertainment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Singing Machine Company Inc.'s class action lawsuit against
MGA Entertainment Inc. remains pending, according to the Company's
February 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

MGA Entertainment, Inc., filed an action against the Company on
April 16, 2010, alleging breach of contract, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion claims
relating to two licensing agreements between the parties entered
into on May 10, 2006 and November 21, 2006.  The two licensing
agreements involved the manufacture, distribution and marketing of
"Bratz" branded merchandise.  The Company has responded to the
case and has removed the case to federal court, case no. CV
10-03761 DOC (RNBX).  Based upon legal opinion from outside
Counsel, the Company believes it has defenses to the claims raised
by MGA.  However, the case is still in early stages of discovery
and the outcome is unknown.

The Company has also filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
itself and all similarly situated licensees against MGA in the
Central District Court of California, case no. CV 10-4536-
DOC(RNBX).  The Company alleges breach of contract, failure of
consideration for the licensing agreements, and other claims based
on various state and federal laws.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Gets Final Okay of Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., obtained final court approval of a
settlement resolving a securities class action lawsuit filed
against it in California, according to the Company's Feb. 14, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 24, 2009, a purported class action complaint captioned
Shepardson v. Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc., et al. was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its
current Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief Financial
Officer, and investment banks that underwrote the Company's
initial public offering, on behalf of two classes of purchasers of
its securities.  On November 10, 2009, the District Court
appointed lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel, re-captioned the
action "In re Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. Securities
Litigation," and ordered that lead plaintiffs file an amended
class action complaint.

An amended class action complaint was filed on January 12, 2010,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Class A common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering and
purchasers between May 14, 2007, and June 9, 2009, inclusive,
against the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, its
President, its current Chief Financial Officer, its former Chief
Financial Officer, its largest stockholder and related entities,
and a director affiliated with that stockholder.  The amended
class action complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages
(including rescissory damages), and asserted claims under the
federal securities laws relating to the Company's June 9, 2009,
announcement that it would restate its financial statements for
the period from January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2009, and that the
restatement was likely to require cumulative charges against
after-tax earnings in the aggregate amount of between $8.0 million
and $9.0 million over the affected periods.  The complaint also
alleged that the Company's registration statement and prospectus,
financial statements, and public statements about its results of
operations contained material false and misleading statements.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint on
March 15, 2010.  In September 2010, the parties reached a
settlement in the amount of $3.0 million.  The Company contributed
the portion of its $1.0 million insurance retention that it had
not incurred in legal fees ($0.5 million), and its insurance
carriers contributed the balance of the $3.0 million.  The
District Court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement in January 2011.


TENTERFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL: Emu Park Residents Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Low, writing for Tenterfield Star, reports Tabulam residents
are preparing to take legal action against the council in their
fight to close motorbike and four-wheel-drive park Emu Creek
Extreme Retreat.

Spokeswoman for the Four Mile Action Group Christine Baker said a
group of residents were progressing with their plan to start a
class action against Tenterfield Shire Council.  Residents claim
their land values have dropped significantly since the park
re-opened.

Council's last full meeting was peppered with accusations and
alleged name-calling as Emu Creek again took center stage.

One neighbor voluntarily left the council chambers when Mayor Toby
Smith warned him following an outburst about the "utter rubbish"
that went on at the meetings.  Police were in attendance outside
the meeting.

As Mrs. Baker prepared to give a presentation, she accused a
councilor of calling her an obscene name as he left the council
chamber.

Mrs. Baker went on to tell council residents had "had enough".

"We -- residents/landowners from Paddy's Flat and Sugarbag roads,
Tabulam, cannot live with the emanating noise that is emitted from
Emu Creek Extreme Retreat."

Mrs. Baker said if council did not close Emu Park, residents would
be left with no option but to pursue a class action.

"The last six years have been hell," she said.  "Our complaints
could only be reported after the incommodious events, when
Tenterfield Shire Council resumed office hours.

"The residents were so elated when council finally closed Emu
Creek Extreme Retreat down -- we had peace again, and no more
Westpac choppers frequently hovering above our rooftops, the sound
of the urgency of the ambulance sirens screaming through our
valley stopped -- the 'doof doof doof' noises ceased.

"The trespassers and the litter all stopped."

Emu Creek Extreme Retreat reopened last year after council set a
number of conditions for park owner Blair Maxwell.

The park's Web site states it is "again a fully approved venue."

"Emu Creek Extreme Retreat is the only fully approved off-road
venue of its kind in northern NSW, offering four-by-four driving,
motorbike riding and more."


TOLEDO, OH: April 4 Trial Set for Flood Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
WTVG reports that more than 100 flood victims are taking the City
of Toledo to court. A trial date has been set in a class action
lawsuit filed several years ago by homeowners on Crawford Avenue.

The litigation is moving forward in the Lucas County Common Pleas
Court on April 4.  The plaintiffs claim the city is guilty of
gross negligence when it comes to the storm water sewer drainage
system in the Shanty Creek area.

There was extensive flooding in the area back in the summer of
2006.  In just seven hours, more than six inches of rain fell,
completely washing out roads and flooding basements in the
Crawford Avenue neighborhood.  The same neighborhood was also hit
hard with flooding in the summer of 2008.

Those summer storms and other smaller ones left many residents
without appliances, destroyed personal belongings, and even
shifted foundations.

In the class action lawsuit, more than 100 residents are pushing
for two things. First, they want the city to fix the storm water
drainage problems to prevent this from happening again. Second,
they want compensation for the damage to their private property.

One of the attorneys for the flood victims says, "These people
have been battered with repetitive water invasions, and the city
has done nothing to stop it."  The mayor's spokesperson says the
city does not comment on pending litigation.


UNITED STATES: SWAN Supports Military Sexual Abuse Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Domi, writing for The New Civil Rights Movement, reports
that Service Women's Action Network (SWAN), a national advocacy
organization devoted to eliminating sexual violence in the U.S.
military, led by executive director and former Marine Corps
Captain Anu Bhagwati, are joining in support of a lawsuit filed
against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for failure to make measurable progress
and marked improvement to the Pentagon's abysmal record that
appears to tolerate sexual abuse and rape.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of seventeen plaintiffs, including
two men, was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District in Virginia by Susan L. Burke, and announced at the
National Press Club in Washington, D.C. No stranger to
controversy, Burke is also litigating another major lawsuit
against Blackwater, LLC, in a whistleblower case on behalf of the
U.S. government.  Ms. Burke was joined on Feb. 15 by Ms. Bhagwati,
Ellie Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Fund, and some of
the plaintiffs participating in the lawsuit, including twenty-five
year-old Kori Cioca  who said she was hit in her face by a
superior in 2005 and later raped by the same man while serving in
the Coast Guard.

Also a plaintiff in the suit, Panayiota Bertzikis, twenty-nine, a
former Coast Guard member who was raped by a shipmate while on a
social hike off-duty in 2006.  Ms. Bertzikis, now the executive
director of the Military Rape Crisis Center in Somerville, Mass.,
spoke about the broader problem of not just the occurrence of
rape, which is vastly under reported -- even according to the
Department of Defense -- but about the larger issue, which is the
manner in which the military as a whole deals with rape, after it
is reported.

"The problem of rape in the military is not only service members
getting raped, but it's the entire way that the military as a
whole is dealing with it," said Ms. Bertzikis, who added, "From
survivors having to be involuntarily discharged from service, the
constant verbal abuse, once a survivor does come forward your
entire unit is known to turn their back on you.  The entire
culture needs to be changed."

The AP reported on Feb. 15, "Bertzikis complained to her
commanding officer, but she said authorities did not take
substantial steps to investigate the matter.  Instead, she said,
they forced her to live on the same floor as the man she had
accused and tolerated others calling her a "liar" and "whore."

"Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement that sexual
assault is a wider societal problem and that Gates has been
working to ensure the military is doing all it can to prevent and
respond to it.

"That means providing more money, personnel, training and
expertise, including reaching out to other large institutions such
as universities to learn best practices," Mr. Morrell said.  "This
is now a command priority, but we clearly still have more work to
do in order to ensure all of our service members are safe from
abuse."

Retaliation by hostile commanders is not an uncommon occurrence
according to a number of these plaintiffs.  Retaliation can
include constant verbal abuse, blackballing of a unit member if
she reports she was raped and command instigation that led to
compromised privacy of a survivor's allegations of rape or sexual
assault.

"I stand in solidarity with the courageous men and women who have
served in our nation's armed services," Ms. Bhagwati said.  "The
inspirational plaintiffs you see before you are a small handful of
the tens of thousands of troops and veterans who have been
sexually brutalized and physically and psychologically tortured by
their fellow servicemembers while defending our nation."

According to Ms. Bhagwati, in FY 2009, 3,230 servicemembers
reported rape or sexual assault through the military.  The DoD
itself acknowledges that 80 percent of sexual assault survivors do
not report the crime.  According to this mathematical formula,
16,150 servicemembers were sexually assaulted. Currently, the
DoD's small "Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office"
(SAPRO), which distributes posters, collects data, but has no
enforcement or investigative authority to stem the time of sexual
violence.

Ms. Bhagwati said "In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to
add that I recently joined SWAN's Board of Directors and jumped at
the opportunity to support this ground breaking work, because SWAN
is the first military veterans organization in the country to
focus on the elimination of military rape and sexual abuse.

"Along with its advocacy and policy work that includes working on
the repeal of DADT, SWAN continues addressing homelessness among
the veterans' population which is substantially higher among women
vets, who are also less likely to access the Veteran's
Administration for health care they maybe entitled to.  Why go to
a VA hospital or medical facility that caters to male diseases as
these facilities are woefully inadequate or not properly staffed
to treat women's diseases?  To add insult to injury, many women
who are suffering PTSD from combat or military sexual violence
related reasons, are many times sexually harassed in the hallways
and sitting rooms of many VA facilities.

"As a 15-year veteran of the U.S. Army, in which I began as a
private and left as a captain, I can attest to the viciousness of
many male colleagues.  I know that many women soldiers, straight
or lesbian, are vulnerable to a spectrum of harassment that begins
with name-calling, escalates to a hostile work environment, and
culminates in sexual assault.

"GAO reports have documented the abysmal conditions that women
cadets have endured at the military academies because of military
sexual violence.  In the most egregious cases, females have been
raped in their own beds.  The Pentagon leadership annually comes
before Congress to tell our elected representatives, who possess
oversight authority, that they will do better on the issue of
reducing military rape.  Many promises are made, nearly none
fulfilled. Congress has done a miserable job carrying out its
oversight function under both Democratic and Republican
leadership.

"Additionally, there has been little, if not neglible Presidential
leadership on the issue of military rape and sexual assault during
the history of our country, yet women have officially served in
the ranks since World War II and are now serving in combat
capacities in Afghanistan and Iraq, although not formally
recognized.

"If you are outraged by the epidemic of military rape and sexual
assault that continues with impunity, show your concern by going
to SWAN's Web site to sign a petition directed to Secretary Gates
and the leaders of the Pentagon to stop these crimes against some
of the most dedicated American citizens.


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Creswick Flood Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Afflick, writing for The Advocate, reports that a potential
class action by up to 30 flood-affected Creswick residents was
dropped last week because proper flood mitigation measures were
now taking place, their spokesperson said.

Cambridge Street resident Dorothy Leishman, who was forced out of
her home by floodwaters twice in four months, recently told The
Advocate she had a list of about 30 people who supported her
proposal to form a class action against the North Central
Catchment Management Authority.

She said the aim of a class action suit was to ensure water
authorities enacted a proper clean-up of Creswick Creek, which
many residents blame for the floods.

"We felt it was needed to make people start and do something about
it," she said.

"The fact is nothing had been done to clean the creek up between
the first and second flood."

But after AU$250,000 was last week set aside for flood mitigation
action in the town, Ms. Leishman said she would no longer be
taking legal action.

"If they continue in the right direction, all is well and good,"
she said.

"Some of them may still go ahead with action later on if their
insurance companies don't cover them.

"The main reason we were doing it was to get the creek cleaned
out."

Ms. Leishman and her husband Ron had to evacuate their Cambridge
Street house a week after moving in when it was inundated by
floodwaters in September.

They had the house repaired, spent Christmas there and were
flooded again in January.

"We've gone and put our furniture up on bricks because we've been
told we could get more rain this weekend," she said.  "One lady
doesn't want to go back to her house.

"Another lady has two kids and she worries every time she hears a
drop of rain."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation continues to remain a defendant in numerous
related antitrust lawsuits in connection with the pricing of
compressors from 1996 to 2009.

Government authorities in various jurisdictions are conducting
antitrust investigations of the global compressor industry,
including the Company's compressor business headquartered in
Brazil. In 2010, Embraco sales represented approximately 8% of its
global net sales.  In February 2009, competition authorities in
Brazil, the United States and Europe began to seek documents from
the Company in connection with their investigations. A grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice requested
documents for the time period from 2003 to 2009. Competition
authorities in other jurisdictions have sought similar
information.

Since the government investigations became public in February
2009, the company has been named as a defendant in numerous
related antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking
damages in connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to
2009.  Several other compressor manufacturers who are the
subject of the government investigations have also been named as
defendants in the litigation.  United States federal lawsuits
instituted on behalf of purported purchasers and containing class
action allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The Company says that it continues to cooperate with ongoing
government investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the
related antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize
its potential exposure.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
February 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/--
manufactures and markets major home appliances, with annual sales
of approximately $17 billion in 2009, 67,000 employees, and 67
manufacturing and technology research centers around the world.
The company markets Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, Jenn-Air,
Amana, Brastemp, Consul, Bauknecht and other major brand names to
consumers in nearly every country around the world.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Breach of Warranty Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending a number of class
action suits in federal and state courts related to the
manufacturing and sale of its products and alleging claims which
include breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer
protection acts and negligence.

The Company believes that the suits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend the actions.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
February 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


WINN-DIXIE: Awaits Court Okay of FCRA Violations Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
agreement to resolve a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to
the Company's February 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 12, 2011.

On August 21, 2009, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-
Dixie Stores, Inc., alleging company-wide violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act related to the Company's
background check procedures.  The Company denied all allegations
raised in the lawsuit, answered the complaint and filed motions
asserting various defenses to the claims.  On October 21, 2010,
the parties reached a mutually agreed upon resolution of the case.
The resolution of this claim will not result in a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.


WOZO LLC: Sued Over Poster Club Monthly Membership Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Wozo, Tatto (sic), and Adknowledge offer "free" posters online,
then charge suckers $29.99 a month for a "poster club" without
adequate disclosure.

A copy of the Complaint in Chang v. Wozo, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-10245 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/15/OnlineCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd S. Heyman, Esq.
          Robert E. Ditzion, Esq.
          SHAPIRO, HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: theyman@shulaw.com
                  rditzion@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          E-mail: karl@kbinternetlaw.com


* Australian Company Directors Worry Over Rising Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Schneider, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that tighter
regulations and a rise in class-action lawsuits are among the
biggest concerns of Australian company directors this year,
according to a report commissioned by the law firm Mallesons
Stephen Jaques.

An online survey in December of 125 directors representing more
than 300 organizations found that 79% of respondents said
financial reporting compliance and disclosure was of greatest
concern and that regulatory reform has been carried out in a
piecemeal fashion.

"Ridiculous and meaningless governance and reporting
requirements," were the types of comments received that captured
the frustration expressed by directors, according to the study's
authors, Meredith Paynter and Tim Bednall, Sydney-based partners
at Mallesons.

Australian regulators and politicians, like their counterparts in
the U.S. and Europe, are pressing for tighter controls and
overhauls of rules governing the financial system in a bid to
prevent a repeat of the 2008 global recession, when credit markets
were paralyzed following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc. in the U.S.

The Australian Securities & Investment Commission, the country's
stock market regulator, didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment.

Inadequate, or misleading disclosure of material information is
often cited as the reason for filing a class action, or a group,
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders, who claim they suffered losses
because a stock declined in value, according to the report.
Class-Action Lawsuits

Nufarm Ltd., Australia's biggest supplier of farm chemicals, was
accused last month in two lawsuits filed on behalf of shareholders
of providing misleading profit forecasts and debt levels.

More than a third of the respondents in the survey said they have
been involved in an organization that has given attention to
class-action issues in the previous 12 months.

"Directors are having to turn their minds to addressing actual and
potential class-action risks," the report's authors said.  "We
expect that this is a trend that will continue to accelerate."

Mallesons said it commissioned the survey to gain a better
understanding of the issues and challenges facing directors.  The
law firm hired Lewers Research, an Australian company, to conduct
the survey.  Survey recipients were asked to respond to a variety
of multiple-choice and free-form questions.  Neither the directors
nor the companies who responded to the survey are named in the
report.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has $1.572B Long-Term Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$1.572 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$867 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
Feb. 3, 2011.

Long-term asbestos-related assets were US$943 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$604 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded asbestos-related costs of US$17 million
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$14 million during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded asbestos-related costs of US$385 million
during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$238 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

ITT Corporation is a high-technology engineering and manufacturing
company operating on all seven continents in three vital markets:
water and fluids management, global defense and security, and
motion and flow control.  The Company is based in White Plains,
N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor's Long-Term Liabilities at $66MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$66 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2011.

Current asbestos-related liabilities were US$18 million as of both
Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$55 million as of
both Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010.  Current asbestos-related
recoveries were US$11 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept.
30, 2010.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and
components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the
aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors.  The Company serves commercial truck, trailer,
off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and
certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs.  The Company is
based in Troy, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26T Claims Pending v. Maremont Corp. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, faced
about 26,000 pending asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2010 and
Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2011.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.  Maremont and many other companies are
defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal
injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Maremont reserved US$67 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and
Sept. 30, 2010 for pending and future asbestos claims.  Its
corresponding asbestos-related recoveries were US$57 million as of
both Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and
components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the
aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors.  The Company serves commercial truck, trailer,
off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and
certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs.  The Company is
based in Troy, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Records $17MM Rockwell Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. recorded US$17 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and
Sept. 30, 2010 as probable liability for pending and future
Rockwell International asbestos claims over the next four years,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2011.

The Company has recorded an insurance receivable related to
Rockwell legacy asbestos-related liabilities of US$9 million at
Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company, along with many other companies, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred to the Company at the time of the spin-off of the
automotive business to Meritor from Rockwell in 1997.

Currently there are thousands of claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company, together with many other companies, as defendants.
However, the Company does not consider the number of claims filed
or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in determining
asbestos-related liabilities.

Historically, the Company has been dismissed from the vast
majority of similar claims filed in the past with no payment to
claimants.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. supplies integrated systems, modules and
components to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and the
aftermarket for the commercial vehicle, transportation and
industrial sectors.  The Company serves commercial truck, trailer,
off-highway, military, bus and coach and other industrial OEMs and
certain aftermarkets, and light vehicle OEMs.  The Company is
based in Troy, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Todd Shipyards Posts $2.5MM Liability Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corporation, as of Jan. 2, 2011, has recorded an
asbestos-related bodily injury liability reserve of US$2.5 million
and a bodily injury insurance receivable of US$1.7 million,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2011.

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

As of Oct. 3, 2010, the Company had recorded an asbestos-related
bodily injury liability reserve of US$2.7 million and a bodily
injury insurance receivable of US$1.9 million.  (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 12, 2010)

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

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

The Company assesses claims as they are filed and as the cases
develop, dividing them into three different categories based on
severity of illness and whether the claim is considered to be
active or inactive litigation.

Based on current fact patterns, the Company categorizes certain
active claims for diseases including mesothelioma, lung cancer and
fully developed asbestosis as "malignant" claims.  The Company
categorizes claims of a less medically serious nature as "non-
malignant."

The Company is currently defending seven "malignant" claims and
166 "non-malignant" claims.  The Company also includes in its
reserves acknowledgement of 352 "inactive" claims that could
become active upon the presentation of additional evidence of
disease and/or exposure by those claimants and/or renewed
prosecution of their claims.

Todd Shipyards Corporation is a private shipyard operator in the
Pacific Northwest.  A substantial amount of its business is repair
and maintenance work on commercial and federal government vessels
engaged in various maritime activities in the Pacific Northwest.
The Company also provides new construction and industrial
fabrication services for a wide variety of customers.  The Company
is based in Seattle, Wash.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Party to 1,435 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple lawsuits (with about 1,435 claimants) are pending in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by RBS Global, Inc.'s Stearns division
and/or its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Has Two Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 3, 2011.

Additionally, there are about 3,700 individuals who have filed
asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are
currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.

To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Facing 200 Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s subsidiary, Falk Corporation, through its
successor entity, is a defendant in about 200 lawsuits pending in
state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk.

There are about 570 claimants in these suits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 3, 2011.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits
under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100% of the costs to
date.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Zurn Unit Facing 7T Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn unit and an average of about 80 other
unrelated companies, as of Jan. 1, 2011, were defendants in about
7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing about 28,500 claims.

Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn, which did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled under a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

As of Jan. 1, 2011, the Company estimates the potential liability
for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be about US$86
million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$67 million in the
next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated
liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of Jan. 1, 2011, is about
US$267.5 million, and believes that all current claims are covered
by this insurance.  However, principally as a result of the past
insolvency of certain of the Company's insurance carriers, certain
coverage gaps will exist if and after the Company's other carriers
have paid the first US$191.5 million of aggregate liabilities.

In order for the next US$51 million of insurance coverage from
solvent carriers to apply, management estimates that it would need
to satisfy US$14 million of asbestos claims.  Layered within the
final US$25 million of the total US$267.5 million of coverage,
management estimates that it would need to satisfy an additional
US$80 million of asbestos claims.

As of Jan. 1, 2011, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$86 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance that US$267.5 million of
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's
asbestos liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$267.5 million.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., or its subsidiaries has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its
products many years ago, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 3, 2011.

Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies.  In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by its former
Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair
services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company,
which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow
control business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it said it
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-
insured retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-
Bradley subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance carriers
to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future coverage
of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide administers the Kemper
buy-out funds and has entered into a cost share agreement with the
Company to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims once the Kemper
buy-out funds are depleted.

The Company said it believes that these arrangements will continue
to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout
the remaining life of the asbestos liability.

Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an industrial automation company that
serves automotive, food and beverage (including dairy), personal
care, life sciences, oil and gas, mining, and paper and pulp
markets.  The Company is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Case v. 50 Firms Filed in Galveston County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ray Cook and his wife, on Jan. 28, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 50 defendant corporations in Galveston County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Cook says he came into contact with
asbestos and asbestos-containing products and machinery while
working as a laborer.  Among the named defendants in the case are
Union Carbide Co., BP Amoco Chemical Co., Marathon Oil Co.,
Ingersoll-Rand Co. and A.W. Chesterton.

According to the original petition, Mr. Cook labored in various
shipyards, steel mills, refineries, paper mills and even military
installations across the country.  He allegedly inhaled "great
quantities of asbestos fibers" during his numerous assignments,
notably those at the Union Carbide facility in Beaumont.

The suit states that Mr. Cook's asbestos exposure aboard the U.S.
Navy vessels has nothing to do with the theory of negative design,
but rather on the theory of failure to warn.

The suit lists nine counts of purported wrongdoing against the
defendants.  Consequently, the Cooks seek unspecified monetary
damages and a jury trial.

Brent Coon & Associates represents the plaintiffs, and Galveston
County 10th District Court Judge David Cook is presiding over Case
No. 11-cv-0149.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found at Derby Council House Renovation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A "substantial" amount of asbestos has been found during
refurbishment work at the headquarters of the Derby City Council
in Derby, England, BBC News reports.

The Council House on Corporation Street closed in December 2010
ahead of the redevelopment estimated at GBP34 million.  The Tory-
led authority said it was confident it could meet the cost of
clearing the asbestos within the project's budget.

Inspections are ongoing to establish how much extra work will be
required.  The refurbishment involves stripping out the building's
interior to create open-plan spaces with a new council chamber at
the center.

Earlier in February 2011, it emerged that the Council could have
to repay as much as GBP90 million on a loan taken out to pay for
the work.  However, the authority has claimed the savings made by
using a modern building will make the new headquarters cheaper for
taxpayers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Urged to Act Fast on GBP5T Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of asbestos-related pleural plaques in York, England, and
North Yorkshire, England, are being urged to act fast to claim
GBP5,000 compensation under a United Kingdom government scheme,
The Press reports.

Some people with pleural plaques can now claim the money up until
Aug. 1, 2011.  However, the cash is only there for those who
issued proceedings against former employers for negligence or sent
a formal letter of claim before Oct. 17, 2007.

That is when the House of Lords decided that because pleural
plaques were typically symptom-free, victims could not claim
compensation.  However, a started by asbestos support groups,
trade unions and lawyers led to the Ministry of Justice last
August 2010 introducing a compensation scheme for former pleural
plaques claimants.

The news came as a relief to many in this area, particularly those
who had worked at York's carriageworks, and those who worked at
power stations such as Eggborough and Ferrybridge before use of
asbestos for fireproofing was ended.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Ruling Flipped in CertainTeed Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the ruling of the Court of
Appeals in a case involving asbestos styled CertainTeed
Corporation, Appellant v. Ava Nell Dexter, Individually; and James
M. Dexter, Executor of the Estate of James G. Dexter, Appellees.

Judges Noble, Cunningham, Schroder, Scott, Venters and Minton
entered judgment in Case No. 2008-SC-000886-DG on Dec. 16, 2010.

This case involved an asbestos-related products liability and
negligence suit against 19 corporate defendants.  Only two
defendants proceeded to trial; the others either settled or won
summary judgment motions, and thus had become empty-chair
defendants when the case went to trial.

At the first trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff, but apportioned no fault to any of the empty-chair
defendants.  The trial court then granted a new trial because the
jury's failure to apportion fault to the empty-chair defendants
was "manifestly unsupported by the evidence and manifestly a
product of jury passion and prejudice."

The Court of Appeals reversed.  This Court granted discretionary
review to determine whether the trial court erred in granting a
new trial, which in turn required the court to decide what quantum
of proof is necessary to justify apportionment against empty-chair
defendants.  The Court of Appeals ruling was reversed.

James G. Dexter worked as a pipefitter from 1946 until 1984.  As a
result, he was exposed to asbestos-containing pipes, gaskets, and
insulation at many different jobsites.  His exposure involved
products made by many different companies.  Mr. Dexter was also a
long-term cigarette smoker.

Mr. Dexter was diagnosed with lung cancer.  His lungs were found
to contain a substantial amount of asbestos fibers.  It was
undisputed that his lung cancer was caused by both his on-the-job
exposure to asbestos and by his long-term smoking habit.

On July 8, 2002, Mr. Dexter filed suit in Marshall Circuit Court
against 19 corporate defendants, including CertainTeed Corp.  All
the defendants either made asbestos-containing products, which
were used in Mr. Dexter's work, or owned the premises where Mr.
Dexter worked and was exposed to asbestos-containing products.
The defendants later impleaded 11 additional corporate defendants.

In 2004, prior to trial, Mr. Dexter died from his cancer.  He was
79 years old.  His son, James M. Dexter, was substituted as a
party, as executor of the estate.

Eventually, some of the defendants were granted summary judgment,
and many others settled before trial.  This left only Garlock
Sealing Technologies, LLC and CertainTeed as defendants; the rest
became empty-chair defendants against whom Garlock and CertainTeed
tried to show fault.

The trial began on May 11, 2005.  On May 25, 2005, the trial
concluded and the case was submitted to the jury, with the empty-
chair defendants appearing on the verdict forms for purposes of
apportionment of fault.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on the products
liability claims, but in favor of the defendants on the common-law
negligence claims.  They returned a verdict awarding Mr. Dexter's
estate US$66,376 for past medical expenses, US$5 million for pain
and suffering, and US$6,750 for funeral expenses, for a total
award of US$5,073,126.

They apportioned 35 percent fault to Mr. Dexter, 35 percent fault
to Garlock, and 30 percent fault to CertainTeed.  The jury
allocated no fault to any of the empty-chair defendants.  On June
10, 2005, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the
verdict.

Garlock and CertainTeed moved for a new trial, arguing the jury's
failure to allocate any fault to any of the empty-chair defendants
could not be "sustained by sufficient evidence."  The trial court
agreed, and granted a new trial.

The case was re-tried in January and February 2006.  The second
jury found in favor of the plaintiff on both the products
liability and common-law negligence claims, and awarded damages of
US$93,005 for past medical expenses, US$1.5 million for pain and
suffering, and US$6,744 in funeral expenses, for a total award of
US$1,599,749 in compensatory damages.

This time, however, the jury apportioned some fault against the
empty-chair defendants in addition to the participating parties;
specifically, the jury assigned 60 percent fault to Mr. Dexter,
two percent fault to CertainTeed, 17 percent fault to Garlock, and
21 percent to various empty-chair defendants.  On Feb. 22, 2006,
the court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict.

The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and this case
was remanded to that court to consider CertainTeed's cross-appeal
of the judgment from the second trial and any other remaining
issues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Various Rulings in Leonard Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, issued various rulings in cases involving asbestos filed
by Ronald D. Leonard against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction, Ernie Moore, and others.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King entered judgment in Case
Nos. 2:09-CV-961, 2:10-CV-347, and 2:10-CV-951 on Dec. 10, 2010.

Plaintiffs Mr. Leonard and Mr. Worthington complained of exposure
to asbestos and mold while incarcerated in the Chillicothe
Correctional Institution.  Mr. Leonard complained that he has been
retaliated against because of his pursuit of the other two
actions.  All three cases were assigned to
the same judicial officers.  Under these circumstances, the
unopposed motions to consolidate were granted.

On Nov. 18, 2010, Mr. Leonard filed a Motion for Default Judgment,
claiming that Defendants Knab and Collins "have failed to timely
or otherwise ever file an Answer."  Defendants did in fact file an
Answer on Dec. 22, 2009.  Thus, it was recommended that Mr.
Leonard's Motion for Default Judgment be denied.

On Nov. 18, 2010, Mr. Leonard also filed a Motion for Appointment
of Counsel/Motion for Injunctive Relief and Motion to Amend Case.
His request to amend in order to assert the claims already
asserted was denied.

Defendants filed a Motion to Strike the request for injunctive
relief because the motion does not include co-Plaintiff Cole
Worthington's signature.  However, it was apparent that the
request for injunctive relief applies only to Mr. Leonard's
assignment to segregation; no claim was asserted by or on behalf
of Mr. Worthington.  Under these circumstances, Defendants' Motion
to Strike was denied.

Mr. Leonard's motion for the appointment of counsel was denied
without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings.
Defendant's motion to strike was denied.  It was recommended that
the Motion for Default Judgment was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow's Non-Current Liability at $663MM at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's non-current asbestos-related
liabilities were US$663 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$734 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's non-current asbestos-related insurance receivables
were US$220 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$330
million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Dow Chemical Company's industry-leading portfolio of specialty
chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics businesses
deliver a broad range of technology-based products and solutions
to customers in about 160 countries and in high growth sectors
such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture.  The
Company is based in Midland, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Unitrin Posts $59.8MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Property and Casualty Insurance Reserves related to Unitrin,
Inc.'s Discontinued Operations are predominantly long-tailed
exposures, of which US$59.8 million was related to asbestos,
environmental matters and construction defect exposures at
Dec. 31, 2010.

Unitrin, Inc. is a diversified insurance holding company, with
subsidiaries that provide automobile, homeowners, life, health,
and other insurance products for individuals and small businesses.
The Company is engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the property
and casualty insurance, life and health insurance and automobile
finance businesses.  The Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Posts $162MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$162 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$174 million at
Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 4, 2011.

Of the liability, about US$12 million was current at Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$13 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos.

About 22% of the recorded liability related to asserted claims and
about 78% related to unasserted claims at Dec. 31, 2010.  It is
reasonably possible that future costs to settle these claims may
range from about US$162 million to US$178 million.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 216 new claims, 449 settled
or dismissed claims and 1,437 open claims.  At Dec. 31, 2009, the
Company recorded 249 new claims, 446 settled or dismissed claims
and 1,670 open claims.

Union Pacific Corporation's principal operating company, Union
Pacific Railroad Company, links 23 states in the western two-
thirds of the country.  Union Pacific Railroad Company's
diversified business mix includes Agricultural Products,
Automotive, Chemicals, Energy, Industrial Products and Intermodal.
The Company is based in Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tidewater Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that
relate to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 4, 2011.

In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to these proceedings is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.

Tidewater Inc. provides offshore service vessels and marine
support services to the global offshore energy industry through
the operation of a diversified fleet of marine service vessels.
The Company operates in two reportable segments: International and
the United States, and the Company has one of the broadest global
operating footprints in the offshore energy industry.  The Company
is based in New Orleans, La.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Cannon Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the ruling
of the Board of Veterans' Appeal, which denied Bobby Cannon
entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, hypertension, a
dental condition for compensation purposes, and a respiratory
disorder to include as a residual of asbestos exposure during
service.

The case is styled Bobby Cannon, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 08-2223 on Dec. 15, 2010.

Mr. Cannon, a U.S. Navy veteran, appeals through counsel from the
May 6, 2008 Board decision.

The Court affirmed the May 6, 2008 Board determination that Mr.
Cannon was not entitled to service connection for his dental
condition or his lung condition, but set aside the Board's
determination that Mr. Cannon was not entitled to service
connection for tinnitus or hypertension and remanded these claims
for further proceedings consistent with this decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Favors Holloran in Martin Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, entered judgment in favor of the defendants in a case
involving asbestos styled Edwin C. Martin, Jr., a law corporation
and as an individual, Plaintiffs v. James P. Holloran, a
professional corporation, and James P. Holloran, an individual,
Defendants.

District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered judgment in Case No.
4:05CV01857 AGF on Dec. 20, 2010.

A bench trial was held in this diversity case on Sept. 13 through
17, 2010.  The central issue at trial was whether the parties, who
are lawyers and their affiliated law firms, entered into a written
fee-sharing agreement in the late 1980s, with respect to certain
asbestos lawsuits.

Based on all the of the Court's findings and conclusions,
Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor.

It was hereby ordered that judgment is entered in favor of
Defendants and against Plaintiffs.  It was further ordered that
all pending motions were denied as moot.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Settlement Deal in Cooper Action Reached Feb. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries LLC, together with certain other subsidiaries of
the Company, entered into a settlement agreement on Feb. 1, 2011
with Pneumo Abex LLC and certain of its affiliates in connection
with a lawsuit filed in the New York State Supreme Court,
Commercial Division.

The lawsuit was filed by Pneumo Abex challenging the joint venture
transaction between the Company and Danaher Corporation announced
in July 2010 and involved the parties' respective rights and
obligations under a Mutual Guaranty Agreement, dated as of Dec.
30, 1994 (Mutual Guaranty), under which a subsidiary of the
Company guaranteed certain indemnification obligations to Pneumo
Abex in connection with certain asbestos-related personal injury
claims.

Pneumo Abex asserted that the joint venture transaction and
certain prior transactions engaged in by the Company diminished
the ability of the obligated party to perform its agreements under
the Mutual Guaranty.  The settlement resolves all of Pneumo Abex's
claims against the Company and its subsidiaries as well as claims
that the Company and its subsidiaries alleged against Pneumo Abex.

The settlement contemplates termination of the Mutual Guaranty and
the creation of a Settlement Trust upon consummation of the
closing.

If the settlement is approved by the court and upon closing of the
transactions contemplated by the settlement agreement, the parties
will make the following contributions to the Settlement Trust:

-- A subsidiary of the Company will pay, subject to certain
   payment adjustments, US$307.5 million (US$250 million upon
   closing and the remainder over the next four years);

-- Pneumo Abex's parent and one of its affiliates will
   collectively contribute US$5 million to the Settlement Trust
   and US$15 million to Pneumo Abex; and

-- Ownership of Pneumo Abex will be contributed to the
   Settlement Trust.

Thereafter, Pneumo Abex will continue to resolve asbestos-related
claims asserted against it and the Settlement Trust will indemnify
Pneumo Abex and the Company with respect to asbestos-related
personal injury claims and the Company and its subsidiaries will
have no further obligations under the Mutual Guaranty.

Pneumo Abex will continue to have access to its asbestos-related
insurance following its contribution to the Settlement Trust.

Consummation of the settlement is expected around the second
quarter of 2011 and is subject to court approval and a favorable
ruling regarding the tax treatment of the Settlement Trust from
the Internal Revenue Service.

Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit
protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring
devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for
residential, commercial, and industrial use.  The Company, which
is based in Houston, gets about two-thirds of its sales in the
United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Records $19.98MM Dec. 31 Pre-Tax Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's loss from operations for the three
months ended Dec. 31, 2010 equaled US$(12,399,000) and includes a
pre-tax charge of US$19,980,000 for additional net asbestos
litigation costs through 2020 associated with products
manufactured decades ago by the Air and Liquid Processing group.

The Company announces sales for the fourth quarter of 2010 of
US$82,165,000 compared with sales of US$66,482,000 for the same
quarter of 2009, according to a Company press release dated Feb.
4, 2011.

Income from operations for 2010 equaled US$24,727,000 and includes
a pre-tax charge of US$19,980,000 for additional net asbestos
litigation costs through 2020.

The improvement in sales for quarter and year is principally
attributable to the Forged and Cast Rolls group as a result of
increased demand.  While escalating costs for raw materials
continue to impact earnings of the segment negatively, operating
income improved when compared to the prior year as a result of the
additional volume.

Notwithstanding the asbestos charge of US$19,980,000, sales and
operating income for the year for the Air and Liquid Processing
group were lower than the prior year due to the slower recovery in
the construction and energy sectors.

Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation divides its work in two segments.
The forged and cast steel roll arm, comprising subsidiaries Union
Electric Steel and Davy Roll, makes forged hardened-steel rolling
mill rolls and cast rolls for steel and aluminum manufacturers.
The Company is based in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
on Feb. 8, 2011.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs.

Graham Corporation designs and manufactures custom-engineered
ejectors, vacuum systems, condensers, liquid ring pump packages
and heat exchangers to the refining and petrochemical industries,
and a supplier of components and raw materials to the nuclear
power generating market.  The Company is based in Batavia, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Confirmation of Leslie Controls' Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, on Feb. 7, 2011, announced that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware has affirmed the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the amended pre-negotiated
Chapter 11 reorganization plan filed by its wholly owned
subsidiary, Leslie Controls, Inc.

The Company also announced that, in connection with the Bankruptcy
and District Court review and approval, all appeals previously
lodged by certain of Leslie's insurers have been resolved, and the
amended plan was unopposed.

Company Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Bill
Higgins, said, "This is a great day for Leslie Controls and
CIRCOR.  With District Court affirmation of Leslie's
reorganization plan and resolution of all pending appeals, we have
now achieved the last major milestones in our effort to
permanently resolve Leslie's asbestos liability.

"We are now completing the formalities necessary for Leslie to
legally emerge from bankruptcy.  Leslie is a strong business, key
to our strategy in the global power markets and a critical
supplier to the U.S. Navy."

Leslie and the Company will fund the Section 524(g) asbestos trust
established under the reorganization plan once various closing
mechanics are satisfied and the plan becomes effective, whereupon
Leslie will emerge from Chapter 11 protection.

Leslie and the Company expect these steps to be completed within
the next 60 days.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.  The Company is based in
Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Water Units Still Face Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 9, 2011.

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


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

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

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

As of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010, there were about
45,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims against AO in
connection with respiratory products.  The Company has a reserve
to cover its expected share of liability for existing and future
respirator liability claims.

The book value of the reserve is being accreted up to the
undiscounted liability through interest expense over the expected
cash flow period, which is through 2062.

At Dec. 31, 2010 and Sept. 30, 2010, the reserve was
US$14 million and US$15 million, respectively, on a discounted
basis (US$19 million and US$20 million on an undiscounted basis,
respectively).

Cash payments related to this liability were US$1 million and less
than US$1 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2011 and 2010,
respectively.

Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and
pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings.  It
has about 25 percent of the world market for the product.  The
Company is based in Boston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $11.2MM Chapter 11, Asbestos Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. recorded US$11.2 million net Chapter 11- and
asbestos-related costs during the three months ended Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$15.4 million during the three months ended
Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated Feb. 10,
2011.

The Company recorded US$35.5 million net Chapter 11- and asbestos-
related costs during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared
with US$109.9 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to
resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Jan. 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming
the Company's Joint Plan of Reorganization.  The confirmation
order must next be confirmed by the U.S. District Court.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was
US$500 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.  Its
long-term asbestos-related contingencies were US$1.7 billion as of
both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

W. R. Grace & Co. supplies catalysts and other products to
petroleum refiners; catalysts for the manufacture of plastics;
silica-based engineered and specialty materials for a wide range
of industrial applications; sealants and coatings for food and
beverage packaging, and specialty chemicals, additives and
building materials for commercial and residential construction.
The Company is based in Columbia, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Uncovered in Plainsmen Arena in Airdrie
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 10, 2011 hazardous materials assessment revealed that
asbestos is present in the Plainsmen Arena in Airdrie, Alberta,
Canada, Mesothelioma.com reports.

Despite finding asbestos in the arena, Director of Community
Services Michelle Lock has said that the asbestos will not impede
phase one or two of renovations that should be completed by fall
2011.  However, the asbestos could impact plans for phase three of
the project.

Ms. Lock said, "We will not disturb these materials, but
containing and disposing of them will be more costly.  The cost of
the hazardous materials abatement and disposal are being
investigated and will have an impact on the project cost."

Phase one and two involve construction of new changing rooms, an
ice plant and new arena floor, while phase three is the addition
of a multi-use space in the area where the old lobby and changing
rooms used to be.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed From School in Allendale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous asbestos will be removed from a crawl space in the
Brookside School basement in Allendale, N.J. and the HVAC at the
Hillside School all-purpose room will be replaced,
Mesothelioma.com reports.

According to the New Jersey Schools Development Authority (SDA),
the asbestos removal will be covered by a US$69,530 state grant.

The district's architect, Environetics Group Architects, and its
environmental company, Karl & Associates, have developed bid
specifications for the asbestos removal project.

The project is expected to go to bid around the beginning of March
2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matthiessen School in Ill. Set for Demolition
--------------------------------------------------------------
A school in La Salle, Ill., Matthiessen School, which has been
vacant for years, is now slated for demolition, Mesothelioma.com
reports.

Before the building comes down, hazardous materials must first be
abated.  The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is using
money from its hazardous waste fund to clear out asbestos and
other environmental and health threats.

The project is being overseen by certified asbestos removal
contractors APEX and Valor Technologies and has an estimated
budget of US$158,000.

Illinois EPA project manager Jody Kershaw said, "It's going to
work out nice because our crew will go in and remove the asbestos
containing materials and it will take about three weeks depending
on how the weather treats us."

Ms. Kershaw says that the project has been on IEPA's to do list
since receiving complaints from the community a few years back,
but funding was not available until now.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berry Estates Fined for Disposal Breach in Kent
----------------------------------------------------------------
A construction company, Berry Estates Development Limited, of Red
Hill, Wateringbury, Maidstone, Kent, England, has been fined after
failing to carry out work correctly or properly manage asbestos
while demolishing an old church in Snodland, Kent, according to a
Health and Safety Executive press release dated Feb. 8, 2011.

Maidstone Magistrates' Court heard the HSE received a complaint
from a member of the public about demolition works taking place on
the corner of Holborough Road in the town.

The site was owned by Bernard Berry of Berry Estates that was also
carrying out the demolition of the building.

On April 23, 2010, two HSE inspectors attended the site and
discovered the majority of the building had already been
demolished but debris containing asbestos was blocking the
pavement on one side and had also spilled out onto the pavement on
the other side.

Principal contractor, Mr. Berry, could not provide paperwork such
as a demolition plan, method statements or risk assessments when
asked. No asbestos survey had been completed prior to the
demolition and site security was very poor.  A Prohibition Notice
was served preventing any further work onsite.

After the notice was served, Mr. Berry commissioned a pre-
demolition asbestos survey, which highlighted a number of asbestos
containing materials across the site.

An HSE investigation showed that the building was being knocked
into pedestrian areas and broken up with an excavator.  It showed
no evidence of employee training, no personal protection or
respiratory equipment and no plan of work on site.  It also
revealed no provision to prevent dust spreading during demolition
and crushing.

David Fussell, HSE Inspector, said, "The company failed to take
any measures aimed at controlling the workers' exposure to
asbestos and reduce any future incidence of related diseases.

"This is a shocking case as it was foreseeable that a building of
this age may have had asbestos-containing materials in the
building fabric, as the subsequent survey highlighted.

"If the company had carried out a survey and prepared a plan of
work prior to demolition, the risk of exposure to the workers
onsite or the general public could have been avoided."

Berry Estates pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 7 and 16
of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, at Maidstone
Magistrates' Court on Feb. 8, 2011.  It was fined GBP10,000 and
ordered to pay costs of GBP3,391.

Mr. Berry, director of the company also pleaded guilty to
breaching the same regulations at Maidstone Magistrates' Court on
Feb. 8, 2011.  He was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to pay costs of
GBP3,391.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Rock OKs $20T Bid for Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Council Rock School District in Pennsylvania has approved
Sargent Enterprises' bid of just under US$20,000 bid to remove
asbestos from the Churchville Elementary School in Northampton,
Pa., Asbestos.Net reports.

The abatement is part of a US$13 million building renovation to
the school.  The asbestos in the school was found behind
chalkboards in the older areas of the building that had been
affixed to the wall with asbestos-containing mastic.

Removal of the chalkboards revealed large black glue spots
containing the asbestos fibers, forcing the school to comply with
Environmental Protection Agency regulations regarding its removal.

The work will be completed in school off-hours when children are
not present and the appropriate air tests will be conducted before
they are allowed to return.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newstead Steel Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 89-year-old Thomas Eaton, a
former steel worker from Newstead, Staffordshire, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Sentinel reports.

Mr. Eaton was a retired steel erector.  During his career, he used
to install asbestos in roofs and worked without wearing a mask.
He died on Dec. 18, 2010 following a fall at his home.

The Court heard Mr. Eaton had considered getting compensation for
his asbestosis in the years before his death but the process of
applying was too much for him and he decided against it.

A post mortem examination showed Mr. Eaton had thickening on the
membranes in the lungs and an enlarged heart.  His death would
have been sudden, the combination of the heart and lung disease
would have caused his heart to stop.

North Staffordshire coroner Ian Smith recorded death as a result
of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Flips Summary Judgment in Steadman Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals on Oregon reversed the ruling of the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Union Carbide, in an asbestos case filed on behalf of
Craig Steadman.

Judges Schuman, Armstrong, and Rosenblum entered judgment in the
case on Dec. 29, 2010.

Plaintiff brought a products liability and negligence action
against 52 defendants, claiming that, as suppliers or producers of
raw asbestos or asbestos-containing products to which he was
exposed, defendants were responsible for his development of
mesothelioma.  This appeal involved one of those defendants, Union
Carbide Corporation.

Plaintiff alleged that Union Carbide supplied raw asbestos to U.S.
Gypsum at USG's manufacturing plant in Southgate, Calif., and that
plaintiff, a truck driver, was exposed to the asbestos when he was
at the facility to load finished products.

Plaintiff's theory was that the raw asbestos fibers were released
into the air during the manufacturing process and that he inhaled
enough of them to cause his disease.  Union Carbide moved for
summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not present
evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that asbestos
fibers supplied by Union Carbide were present in the USG facility
on any of the occasions when plaintiff was there and that, in any
event, Union Carbide could not be liable for damage caused by its
asbestos because it was raw material incorporated by USG into a
finished product.

The trial court granted Union Carbide's motion without
explanation.  Plaintiff appealed.  The Appeals Court reversed and
remanded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Favors MCIC in Cowley's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted
MCIC, Inc.'s (f/k/a McCormick Asbestos Co.) motion for summary
judgment in an asbestos case filed by Andrew Cowley.

The case is styled Andrew Cowley, et al., Plaintiffs v. ACandS,
Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action
No. No. 07-62831 on Dec. 23, 2010.

It was further ordered that judgment is entered in favor of MCIC
and against Plaintiffs.

Mr. Cowley brought suit against various defendants, including
MCIC, alleging occupational asbestos exposure.  MCIC was primarily
an insulation contractor.  This case was transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of MDL 875 on Feb. 13,
2007.  Mr. Cowley was deposed on Jan. 9, 1986 and on Aug. 4, 1998,
but MCIC was not present at either deposition.

Both depositions were taken in a prior unrelated asbestos case
where Mr. Cowley was testifying as a coworker of another asbestos
plaintiff.  He began working at the Bethlehem Steel Key Highway
Shipyard on Jan. 21, 1941 as a welder and burner.

From 1942 until 1945, Mr. Cowley served in the U.S. Army.  He then
resumed working as a welder and burner at the Bethlehem Steel Key
Highway Shipyard until he retired in 1982.  He spent about 85
percent of his time working aboard the ships and the remaining 15
percent of the time working in the shipyard's shop.

MCIC's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted since without Mr.
Cowley's deposition, Plaintiff has presented no evidence
establishing that Mr. Cowley worked in proximity to MCIC employees
working with asbestos-containing products at the Bethlehem Steel
Key Highway Shipyard.

                             *********

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  * * *