CAR_Public/110304.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 4, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 45

                             Headlines

ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA: Food Poisoning Victims Mull Class Action
ALTRIA GROUP: Motion for Summary Judgment in Kraft Suit Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Phillip Morris Continues to Defend Int'l. Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7,223 Engle Progeny Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending in Scott

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Set This Year for Two Medical Monitoring Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 27 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Price" Suit Remains Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on State Trial Court Class Certifications
ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for May in California
AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Litigation
AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend 2008 ERISA Litigation
AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Canadian Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Awaits Preliminary Okay of Settlement in 2004 Suit

AMERICAN INT'L: Awaits Preliminary Okay on $450MM Suit Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L: Class Action Discovery Ongoing in Caremark Suit
ANSWERS CORP: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to AFCV Holdings
ATLAS PIPELINE: Claims Dropped in Amended Complaint in Delaware
AVIS BUDGET: Continues to Defend "Shames" Suit in California

AVIS BUDGET: No Reconsideration Motion Filed in Tourism Fee Suit
AVALON PARTNERS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Compensation
AXA ROSENBURG: Sued For Covering up Errors in Trading System
BABY JOGGER: Recalls 1995 Baby Jogger Jump Seats
BANK OF AMERICA: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

BAYER CORP: Calif. Court Reinstates Baycol Class Action Appeal
CAPELLA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Minn.
CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend IPO Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Trial in Class Action Over Boundaries Begins
COINSTAR INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New Mexico
CONVERGYS CORP: Continues to Negotiate Settlement of Texas Suit
COVENTRY HEALTHCARE: Unit Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
COVENTRY HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
COVENTRY HEALTHCARE: Awaits Filing of Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit

CROCS INC: Colorado Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
DALPS & LEISURE: Recalls 229,000 Resistance Tubes and Kits
ELAN CORP: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Litigation in NY
ELAN CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in NY over J&J Transaction
EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over IPO

FAB/STARPOINT: Recalls 79,000 Circo Beaded Door Curtains
FORD MOTOR: Sued for Selling Vehicles with Defective Tailgates
FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
GAMESTOP: Faces Class Action for Recording Personal Information
GOLD'S GYM: Faces Class Action in Calif. for Invasion of Privacy

GREENWICH HOSPITAL: Judge John Blawie Rejects Class Action
GROUPON: Sued Over Illegal Expiration Dates in Coupons
HALLMARK INVESTMENTS: Accused of New York Labor Law Violations
INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From Settlement Order Remains Pending
J CREW GROUP: Court Denies Request to Vacate Stay on Class Suits

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Motions to Dismiss Appeals in IPO Suit Pending
LENNOX HEARTH: Recalls 3,200 Log Set Burner Assemblies
LIGHTS OF AMERICA: Sued for False Advertising on LED Lamps
MATTEL INC: 2007 Product Recall Class Litigation in US Concluded
MATTEL INC: Canadian Suits Over Defective Products Remain Pending

MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Drop-Side Crib Suits in Canada
METLIFE INC: Unit Defending Suit Over Clean Air Act Violation
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Clark" Suit Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Faber" Suit Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Motion to Dismiss "Keife" Suit Still Pending

METLIFE INC: 10th Circuit Affirms Judgment in "Thomas" Suit
METLIFE INC: May Have to Indemnify Sun Life in "Kang" Class Suit
NICOR INC: Four Shareholder Suits Over AGL Merger Now Consolidated
NOTEWORLD SERVICING: Sued Over "Exorbitant" Debt Adjusting Fees
NYSE EURONEXT: D&Os Face Third Suit Over Sale of Company to DB

OFFICE DEPOT: Removes "Provine" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
OILSANDS QUEST: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Gobel Class Suit Remains Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Statewide Class Actions
PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend "Chiste" Suit in New York

PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal Still Pending in Securities Suit
PRINCETON PARK: Sued for Violations of the Chicago RLTO
SAFEWAY: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Food Items
SHOPPER DISCOUNTS: Faces Class Action Over "Coupon Click Fraud"
SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Malpractice Suit Denied Class Action Status

TOMMY BAHAMA: Recalls 1,800 Mini-Candle Travel Sets
WADDELL & REED: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in California
WAL-MART STORES: ACLU Supports Discrimination Class Action
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Awaits Trial in Royalty Suit
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Suit Against Retirement Plan Still Pending

YORK INT'L: Sued Over Defective Coleman DGU Series Furnaces

* Tenn. Governor Proposes Ban on Class Action Over Consumer Act


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GNS II Posts $30M Retirement Obligation in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. PPG Industries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Posts $350MM Net Losses Paid in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Continues to Defend W.Va. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Records Dec. 31 Liabilities of $21.16MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Pays $25M in Dec. 2010 for CE PI Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Facing Actions as "Premises Defendant"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Arguments in AMSF Case Set for April 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural, Units Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Empire District Records $3.76MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DTE Energy Company Has $1.514BB AROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunswick Unit Still Has 2,500 Cases From Vapor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Posts $46.4MM Adjustment at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Posts $118.4MM Dec. 31 Current Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Pending Against Alcoa Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Holdings Has $493MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Records $44.2MM A&E Long-Term Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 194 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boardwalk Records $18.7MM Obligations in 2010

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Records 9 Filter Cases set for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62,582 Claims Pending v. Union Carbide in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $50MM Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Records $87MM 2010 Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Insurance Action Ongoing in N.Y.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $48.63MM AROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Posts $16.75MM Net Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp.'s Total Liability at $81MM at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Occupational Claims Pending v. Norfolk Southern

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leget Claim v. 78 Firms Filed Feb. 4 in Kanawha
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Case v. 37 Firms Filed Feb. 1 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libra Fined for Asbestos Management Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrogate Farmer Fined for Disposal Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Llangollen Ex-Marine's Death Linked to Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. PC Industry Sees Sharp Swing in A&E Losses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairford Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22 Korean Injury Actions Recognized for Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Opposition Disputes Asbestos Management
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Local Sentenced for Disposal Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Govt. Junks Proposed Settlements in Osaka Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wigan Resident Set to File Compensation Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Steel Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons, Bifferato Still Filing Actions in Del.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Jackson's Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DPL Inc. Still a Defendant in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal USA Records $213MM for A&E in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Belgium Has $83MM for A&E in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Has 397 Exposure Claims in France
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Still Involved in Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Facing 413 Injury Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transatlantic Records $212MM Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Accrues $1.6MM Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Temple-Inland Inc.



                             *********


ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA: Food Poisoning Victims Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Adelaide lawyers say they are preparing a
class action over a salmonella outbreak which has affected more
than 100 people.

Among the food poisoning victims was Luke Potter, 26, who spent
nearly a week in hospital.

He said he lost six kilograms after becoming ill in late January.

"[I was] going to the toilet probably 15 times a day, very bad
stomach pains, my temperature was over 40," he said.

Lawyer Tim White says Mr. Potter is among 40 people planning legal
action.

"I would expect, from the people we've spoken with, it's pretty
clear that a group of people are affected, so we'll be instituting
a class action in the Federal Court in the near future," he said.

"A lot of people have lost time at work, they've been in hospital
and incurred fees and also had costs of medication, seeing their
GP, so they would all be aspects that would be taken into account
with a compensation claim."

SA Health is investigating the source of the salmonella
contamination, which could be linked to custard buns, cannolis and
eclairs.


ALTRIA GROUP: Motion for Summary Judgment in Kraft Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc.'s affiliate, Altria Client Services Inc., has a
pending motion for summary judgment in the Kraft Thrift Plan Case
in Illinois, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Thrift Plan, a
defined contribution plan, filed a class action complaint on
behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift
Plan in July 2008 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Named
defendants in this action include Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
(now Altria Client Services Inc.) and certain company committees
that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan.
Plaintiffs request, among other remedies, that defendants restore
to the Kraft Thrift Plan all losses improperly incurred. The
Altria Group, Inc., defendants deny any violation of ERISA or
other unlawful conduct and are defending the case vigorously.

In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. In addition
to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable
relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed
claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of
company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants. In February 2010, the court granted a joint
stipulation dismissing the fee and stock fund claims without
prejudice as to the remaining defendants, including Altria
Corporate Services, Inc.  Accordingly, the only claim remaining at
this time relates to the alleged negligence of plan fiduciaries
for including the Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund as Kraft
Thrift Plan investment options. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in March 2010, which the court granted in
August 2010. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
January 21, 2011.

Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement between Altria Group,
Inc. and Kraft, the Altria Group, Inc., defendants may be entitled
to indemnity against any liabilities incurred in connection with
this case.


ALTRIA GROUP: Phillip Morris Continues to Defend Int'l. Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of February 18, 2011, Philip Morris USA Inc. is a named
defendant in Israel in one "Lights" class action and one health
care cost recovery action. PM USA is a named defendant in three
health care cost recovery actions in Canada, two of which also
name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc. are also named defendants in six smoking and health class
actions filed in various Canadian provinces.  The Distribution
Agreement between Altria Group, Inc., and PMI provides for
indemnities for certain liabilities concerning tobacco products,
according to Altria Group's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 7,223 Engle Progeny Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from approximately
7,223 Engle Progeny cases (3,284 state court cases and 3,939
federal court cases) pending as of February 18, 2011, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

As of February 24, 2011, 49 Engle progeny cases and 10 individual
smoking and health cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. are set
for trial in 2011. Cases against other companies in the tobacco
industry are also scheduled for trial in 2011. Trial dates are
subject to change.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of
$100 million and appealed.  In May 2001, the trial court approved
a stipulation providing that execution of the punitive damages
component of the Engle judgment will remain stayed against PM USA
and the other participating defendants through the completion of
all judicial review. As a result of the stipulation, PM USA placed
$500 million into a separate interest-bearing escrow account that,
regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, will be paid to
the court and the court will determine how to allocate or
distribute it consistent with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In
July 2001, PM USA also placed $1.2 billion into an interest-
bearing escrow account, which was returned to PM USA in December
2007. In addition, the $100 million bond related to the case has
been discharged. In connection with the stipulation, PM USA
recorded a $500 million pre-tax charge in its consolidated
statement of earnings for the quarter ended March 31, 2001. In May
2003, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the
judgment entered by the trial court and instructed the trial court
to order the decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned
the Florida Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified, and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685,
which represents its share of compensatory damages and interest to
the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme
Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors
that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006
ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings
entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) (relating
to agreement to misrepresent information), and added the finding
that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of
sale or supply, did not conform to the representations of fact
made by defendants. In January 2007, the Florida Supreme Court
issued the mandate from its revised opinion. Defendants then filed
a motion with the Florida Third District Court of Appeal
requesting that the court address legal errors that were
previously raised by defendants but have not yet been addressed
either by the Third District Court of Appeal or by the Florida
Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Third District Court of
Appeal denied defendants' motion. In May 2007, defendants' motion
for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of
appellate review was denied by the Third District Court of Appeal.
In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court. In October 2007, the United
States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition. In November
2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition
for rehearing from the denial of their petition for writ of
certiorari.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's decision, expired in January 2008.  As of
February 18, 2011, approximately 7,223 cases (3,284 state court
cases and 3,939 federal court cases) were pending against PM USA
or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf
of approximately 8,890 plaintiffs (4,952 state court plaintiffs
and 3,938 federal court plaintiffs). It is possible that some of
these cases are duplicates. Some of these cases have been removed
from various Florida state courts to the federal district courts
in Florida, while others were filed in federal court. In July
2007, PM USA and other defendants requested that the multi-
district litigation panel order the transfer of all such cases
pending in the federal courts, as well as any other Engle progeny
cases that may be filed, to the Middle District of Florida for
pretrial coordination. The panel denied this request in December
2007. In October 2007, attorneys for plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate all pending and future cases filed in the state trial
court in Hillsborough County. The court denied this motion in
November 2007. In February 2008, the trial court decertified the
class except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and
formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the
Florida Supreme Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court
ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing
with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May
2001 bond stipulation and will receive no credit at this time from
the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive
damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.

In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice. In July 2008, attorneys for a putative
former Engle class member petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to
permit members of the Engle class additional time to file
individual lawsuits. The Florida Supreme Court denied this
petition in January 2009.


ALTRIA GROUP: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending in Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc., has a
petition for a writ of certiorari pending with the Supreme Court
in the Scott Class Action, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the Scott
class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a fund to pay
for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs, a Louisiana
jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants, including Philip
Morris USA Inc., in connection with plaintiffs' medical monitoring
claims, but also found that plaintiffs could benefit from smoking
cessation assistance. The jury also found that cigarettes as
designed are not defective but that the defendants failed to
disclose all they knew about smoking and diseases and marketed
their products to minors. In May 2004, in the second phase of the
trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $590 million
against all defendants, jointly and severally, to fund a 10-year
smoking cessation program.

In June 2004, the court entered judgment, which awarded plaintiffs
the approximately $590 million jury award plus prejudgment
interest accruing from the date the suit commenced. PM USA's share
of the jury award and prejudgment interest has not been allocated.
Defendants, including PM USA, appealed. Pursuant to a stipulation
of the parties, the trial court entered an order setting the
amount of the bond at $50 million for all defendants in accordance
with an article of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and a
Louisiana statute (the "bond cap law"), fixing the amount of
security in civil cases involving a signatory to the MSA. Under
the terms of the stipulation, plaintiffs reserve the right to
contest, at a later date, the sufficiency or amount of the bond on
any grounds including the applicability or constitutionality of
the bond cap law. In September 2004, defendants collectively
posted a bond in the amount of $50 million ($12.5 million of which
was posted by PM USA).

In February 2007, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal
issued a ruling on defendants' appeal that, among other things:
affirmed class certification but limited the scope of the class;
struck certain of the categories of damages included in the
judgment, reducing the amount of the award by approximately $312
million; vacated the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled
approximately $444 million as of February 15, 2007; and ruled that
the only class members who are eligible to participate in the
smoking cessation program are those who began smoking before, and
whose claims accrued by, September 1, 1988. As a result, the
Louisiana Court of Appeal remanded the case for proceedings
consistent with its opinion, including further reduction of the
amount of the award based on the size of the new class. In March
2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal rejected defendants' motion
for rehearing and clarification. In January 2008, the Louisiana
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' and defendants' petitions for
writ of certiorari. In March 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to
execute the approximately $279 million judgment plus post-judgment
interest or, in the alternative, for an order to the parties to
submit revised damages figures. Defendants filed a motion to have
judgment entered in favor of defendants based on accrual of all
class member claims after September 1, 1988 or, in the
alternative, for the entry of a case management order. In April
2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied defendants' motion to
stay proceedings and the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In June 2008, the
United States Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to enter judgment in the amount of
approximately $280 million (subsequently changed to approximately
$264 million) and defendants filed a motion to enter judgment in
their favor dismissing the case entirely or, alternatively, to
enter a case management order for a new trial. In July 2008, the
trial court entered an Amended Judgment and Reasons for Judgment
denying both motions, but ordering defendants to deposit into the
registry of the court the sum of $263,532,762 plus post-judgment
interest.

In September 2008, defendants filed an application for writ of
mandamus or supervisory writ to secure the right to appeal with
the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and in December
2008, the trial court entered an order permitting the appeal and
approving a $50 million bond for all defendants in accordance with
the Louisiana bond cap law. In April 2009, plaintiffs filed a
cross-appeal seeking to reinstate the June 2004 judgment and to
award the medical monitoring rejected by the jury.

In April 2010, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued
a decision that affirmed in part prior decisions ordering the
defendants to fund a statewide 10-year smoking cessation program.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal amended and, as amended,
affirmed the amended 2008 trial court judgment and ruled that,
although the trial court erred, the defendants have no right to a
trial to determine, among other things, those class members with
valid claims not barred by Louisiana law. After conducting its own
independent review of the record, the Court of Appeal made its own
factual findings with respect to liability and the amount owed,
lowering the amount of the judgment to approximately $241 million,
plus interest commencing July 21, 2008, the date of entry of the
amended judgment (which as of December 31, 2010 is approximately
$32 million). In its decision, the Court of Appeal disallowed
approximately $80 million in post-judgment interest. In addition,
the Court of Appeal declined plaintiffs' cross appeal requests for
a medical monitoring program and reinstatement of other components
of the smoking cessation program. The Court of Appeal specifically
reserved to the defendants the right to assert claims to any
unspent or unused surplus funds at the termination of the smoking
cessation program. In June 2010, defendants and plaintiffs filed
separate writ of certiorari applications with the Louisiana
Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both sides'
applications. In September 2010, upon defendants' application, the
United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the judgment pending
the defendants' filing and the Court's disposition of the
defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari. The defendants'
filed their petition for a writ of certiorari on December 2, 2010.
As of December 31, 2010, PM USA has recorded a provision of $26
million in connection with the case and has recorded additional
provisions of approximately $3.4 million related to accrued
interest.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Set This Year for Two Medical Monitoring Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc., continues
to defend itself from four pending medical monitoring class
actions, aside from the Scott Class Action, and trial has been set
for two of those cases, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

These cases have been brought in New York (Caronia, filed in
January 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York), Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in December
2006 in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts), California (Xavier, filed in May 2010 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California), and Florida (Gargano, filed on November 9, 2010 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida) on behalf of each state's respective residents who: are
age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years
or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are
under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under various
product-based causes of action and the creation of a court-
supervised program providing members of the purported class Low
Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung cancer.
Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim. In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims. On January 13, 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared
plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light of the
dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate
review of the class certification decision. The petition was
denied in September 2010. Trial has been set for August 1, 2011.

In Xavier, in October 2010, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' unfair competition claim and
independent medical monitoring cause of action. On February 10,
2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Argument
on this motion is set for March 31, 2011. Although a class has not
yet been certified, trial has been set for November 14, 2011.

In Gargano, PM USA filed a motion to dismiss on December 20, 2010.
On January 18, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint with the
trial court's permission. On February 14, 2011, PM USA filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Another purported class action (Calistro) was filed in July 2010
in the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin
Islands, Division of St. Thomas & St. John. Altria Group, Inc. was
voluntarily dismissed from the case by the plaintiffs in August
2010. In September 2010, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice their claims against all defendants except PM USA.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay and transfer the case to the
"Lights" multidistrict litigation proceeding. Following the
plaintiffs' amendment of their complaint to assert only "Lights"
economic loss claims and to eliminate all medical monitoring
claims, the case was transferred to the multidistrict "Lights"
proceedings.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend 27 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., and its subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc.,
continue to defend themselves in 27 pending cases, as of
February 18, 2011, alleging that the use of the terms "Lights" or
"Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices,
among others, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class
actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain
instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by
the policies and directives of the FTC, non-liability under state
statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal
regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of February 18,
2011, a total of twenty-seven such cases were pending in the
United States. Seventeen of these cases were pending in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in a single U.S. federal
court. The other cases were pending in various U.S. state courts.

                          The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the FCLAA and dismissed the case. In August 2007, the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district
court's grant of PM USA's motion for summary judgment on federal
preemption grounds and remanded the case to district court. The
district court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme
Court's ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in January
2008. The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme
Court's decision. In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the
FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors
that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law,
the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate
merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a
class action, or other state law issues. The case has been
returned to the federal court in Maine for further proceedings and
has been consolidated with other federal cases in the
multidistrict litigation proceeding.

      Certain Developments Since December 2008 Good Decision

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through February 18, 2011, twenty-four purported
"Lights" class actions were served upon PM USA and Altria Group,
Inc. These cases were filed in 14 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands
and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed
in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA.

A number of purported "Lights" class actions have been transferred
and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
before the United States District Court for the District of Maine
for pretrial proceedings. As of February 18, 2011, seventeen cases
against Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA were pending in or
awaiting transfer to the MDL proceeding. These cases, and the
states in which each originated, are: Biundo (Illinois), Calistro
(U.S. Virgin Islands), Corse (Tennessee), Domaingue (New York),
Good (Maine), Haubrich (Pennsylvania), McClure (Tennessee), Mirick
(Mississippi), Mulford (New Mexico), Parsons (District of
Columbia), Phillips (Ohio), Slater (District of Columbia), Tang
(New York), Tyrer (California), Williams (Arkansas) and Wyatt
(Wisconsin). On November 22, 2010, the district court in the MDL
proceeding remanded the Watson case to Arkansas state court.

In November 2009, plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a motion
seeking collateral estoppel effect from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice, which motion was denied in
March 2010. In May 2010, July 2010 and September 2010, the
district court denied all of PM USA's summary judgment motions. On
November 24, 2010, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in four cases, covering the jurisdictions
of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These
jurisdictions were selected by the parties as sample cases, with
two selected by plaintiffs and two selected by defendants.
Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but on
February 22, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
               Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding,
15 courts in 16 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM
USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified
class in the Price case. In Louisiana, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class
action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In
New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab
that denied defendants' summary judgment motions and granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all
United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010,
plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed both cases in August 2009. The Supreme Court
of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by
the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order
by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs
subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs in the New Mexico case (Mulford) renewed their motion
for class certification, which motion was denied by the federal
district court in March 2009, with leave to file a new motion for
class certification.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010.

In Cleary, which was pending in an Illinois federal court, the
district court dismissed plaintiffs' "Lights" claims against one
defendant and denied plaintiffs' request to remand the case to
state court. In September 2009, the court issued its ruling on PM
USA's and the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment as
to all "Lights" claims. The court granted the motion as to all
defendants except PM USA. As to PM USA, the court granted the
motion as to all "Lights" and other low tar brands other than
Marlboro Lights. As to Marlboro Lights, the court ordered briefing
on why the 2002 state court order dismissing the Marlboro Lights
claims should not be vacated based upon Good. In January 2010, the
court vacated the previous dismissal. In February 2010, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all claims
except for the Marlboro Lights claims, based on the statute of
limitations and deficiencies relating to the named plaintiffs. In
June 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of all
defendants on all remaining claims, dismissing the case. In July
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the
district court, which was denied. In August 2010, plaintiffs filed
an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.


ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Price" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the Price plaintiffs' petition for
relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of Philip
Morris USA, Inc., remains pending in Illinois.

The Price plaintiffs had alleged, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.  The suit was
against PM USA on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed
various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro
Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights
and Cambridge Lights.

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In connection
with the judgment, PM USA deposited into escrow various forms of
collateral, including cash and negotiable instruments. In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its judgment, reversing
the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
directing the trial court to dismiss the case. In May 2006, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for re-hearing;
in November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006,
the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme
Court's mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In January
2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate or withhold judgment
based upon the United States Supreme Court's grant of the petition
for writ of certiorari in Watson. In May 2007, PM USA filed
applications for a writ of mandamus or a supervisory order with
the Illinois Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the lower
courts to deny plaintiffs' motion to vacate and/or withhold
judgment. In August 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM
USA's motion for supervisory order and the trial court dismissed
plaintiffs' motion to vacate or withhold judgment. The collateral
that PM USA deposited into escrow after the initial 2003 judgment
was released and returned to PM USA.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court judgment, contending that the United States Supreme
Court's December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the
Illinois Supreme Court's decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the
trial court granted PM USA's motion. In March 2009, the Price
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial
District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. Argument was held in
February 2010.

No updates were reported in Altria Group, Inc.'s February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


ALTRIA GROUP: Updates on State Trial Court Class Certifications
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed significant developments in state
trial court class certifications in cases alleging that the use of
the terms "Lights" or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and
unfair trade practices, among others, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

State trial courts have certified classes against Philip Morris
USA, Inc., in Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis),
Missouri (Larsen) and New Hampshire (Lawrence). Significant
developments in these cases include:

   * Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
     Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006,
     the trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment
     and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the
     defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to
     Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the
     parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision
     to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and
     stayed further proceedings pending completion of the
     appellate review. In December 2008, subsequent to the United
     States Supreme Court's decision in Good, the Massachusetts
     Supreme Judicial Court issued an order requesting that the
     parties advise the court within 30 days whether the Good
     decision is dispositive of federal preemption issues pending
     on appeal. In January 2009, PM USA notified the Massachusetts
     Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of the
     federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further
     briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue. In March
     2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the
     order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
     plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved
     for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming
     collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by
     the Department of Justice.

   * Curtis: In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM
     USA's petition for interlocutory review of the trial court's
     class certification order. In October 2009, the trial court
     denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed
     in February 2009, claiming collateral estoppel from the
     findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In
     October 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for
     partial summary judgment, filed in August 2009, as to all
     consumer protection counts and, in December 2009, dismissed
     the case in its entirety. On December 28, 2010, the Minnesota
     Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the
     case and affirmed the trial court's prior certification of
     the class under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes. The
     Court of Appeals also reversed the trial court's denial of
     Altria Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
     jurisdiction, thereby removing Altria Group, Inc. from the
     case, and affirmed the trial court's denial of
     the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment claiming
     collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by
     the Department of Justice. PM USA filed its petition for
     review with the Minnesota Supreme Court on January 27, 2011.

   * Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
     the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial
     court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the
     period during which potential class members can qualify to
     become part of the class. The class period remains 1995 --
     2003. In June 2010, PM USA's motion for partial summary
     judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages
     was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
     summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case,
     claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
     brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion
     was denied on December 28, 2010. In July 2010, the parties
     stipulated to the dismissal of Altria Group, Inc., as a
     defendant in the case. PM USA remains a defendant. The case
     is tentatively set for trial in September 2011.

   * Lawrence: On November 22, 2010, the trial court certified a
     class consisting of all persons who purchased Marlboro Lights
     cigarettes in the state of New Hampshire at any time from the
     date the brand was introduced into commerce until the date
     trial in the case begins. PM USA's motion for reconsideration
     of this decision was denied on January 12, 2011. PM USA is
     seeking further review before the New Hampshire Supreme
     Court.


ALTRIA GROUP: Continues to Defend "Smith" Suit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------
As of February 18, 2011, one case remains pending in Kansas
(Smith) in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including
Philip Morris USA, Inc., and Altria Group, Inc., conspired to fix
cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification has been granted. No trial date has
been set, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Suit Set for May in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case under the California Business and Professions Code against
Philip Morris USA, Inc., is scheduled for trial in May 2011,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In June 1997, a lawsuit (Brown) was filed in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM
USA and others, have violated California Business and Professions
Code Sections 17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and
fraudulent business practices. Class certification was granted as
to plaintiffs' claims that class members are entitled to
reimbursement of the costs of cigarettes purchased during the
class periods and injunctive relief. In September 2004, the trial
court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiffs' claims attacking defendants' cigarette advertising and
promotion and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' claims based on allegedly false affirmative
statements. Plaintiffs' motion for rehearing was denied. In March
2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class
based on a California law, which inter alia limits the ability to
bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who have "suffered injury
in fact" and "lost money or property" as a result of defendant's
alleged statutory violations ("Proposition 64"). In two July 2006
opinions, the California Supreme Court held Proposition 64
applicable to pending cases. Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order that decertified the class was
denied, and plaintiffs appealed.

In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order decertifying the class. In May 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision that
was affirmed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the
trial court. Defendants filed a rehearing petition in June 2009.
In August 2009, the California Supreme Court denied defendants'
rehearing petition and issued its mandate. In March 2010, the
trial court granted reconsideration of its September 2004 order
granting partial summary judgment to defendants with respect to
plaintiffs' "Lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions
issued since its order was issued, including the United States
Supreme Court's ruling in Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs'
"Lights" claims. Since the trial court's prior ruling decertifying
the class was reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court,
the parties and the court are treating all claims currently being
asserted by the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to
defendants' challenge to the class representatives' standing to
assert their claims. The class is defined as people who, at the
time they were residents of California, smoked in California one
or more cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001, and
who were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising
activities in California. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking collateral estoppel effect from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice. In September 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary resolution of legal
issues regarding restitutionary relief. The trial court denied
both of plaintiffs' motions on November 3, 2010. On November 5,
2010, defendants filed a motion seeking a determination that Brown
class members who were also part of the class in Daniels (a
previously disclosed consumer fraud case in which the California
Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in PM USA's favor based on
preemption and First Amendment grounds) are precluded by the
Daniels judgment from recovering in Brown. This motion was denied
on December 15, 2010. On December 15, 2010, defendants filed a
motion for a determination that the class representatives lack
standing and are not typical or adequate to represent the class.
Argument on this motion was heard on February 23, 2011. The case
is scheduled for trial in May 2011.


AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in
a consolidated securities class complaint initiated in 2008,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and
AIG Trading Group Inc. and their subsidiaries, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  On March 20, 2009, the
Court consolidated all eight of the purported securities class
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. 2008
Securities Litigation.

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG stock during the alleged class period of March
16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of purchasers
of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's shelf
registration statements.  The consolidated complaint alleges that
defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG's
stock.  The alleged false and misleading statements relate to,
among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On November 24, 2010, and December 10,2010, AIG and all other
defendants filed answers to the consolidated complaint denying
the material allegations therein and asserting their defenses.

As of February 16, 2011, plaintiffs have not specified an amount
of alleged damages, discovery has only recently commenced, and
the Court has not determined if a class action is appropriate or
the size or scope of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation, the Company noted in its latest SEC
filing.


AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend 2008 ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in
a consolidated class complaint alleging violations under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain AIG
directors and officers, and members of AIG's Retirement Board and
Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight purported
class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants
in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries.  On
March 19, 2009, the Court consolidated these eight actions as In
re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II.  On
June  26, 2009, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a consolidated
amended complaint.  The action purports to be brought as a class
action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended, on behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of
certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered
shares of AIG's common stock.  In the consolidated amended
complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan
participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to
offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans
after it allegedly became imprudent to do so.  The alleged ERISA
violations relate to, among other things, the defendants'
purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters,
including the Subprime Exposure Issues.  On September 18, 2009,
defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, and those motions are pending.

As of February 16, 2011, plaintiffs have not specified an amount
of alleged damages and the Court has not decided defendants '
motions to dismiss, or determined if a class action is appropriate
or the size or scope of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.


AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Canadian Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend itself in
a securities class action commenced in Canada, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading
Group Inc. and their subsidiaries, certain directors and officers
of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of
AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act.  If the Court
grants the application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to
file a statement of claim against defendants.  The proposed
statement of claim would assert a class period of November 10,
2006 through September 16, 2008 (later amended to March 16, 2006
through September 16, 2008) and would allege that during this
period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral
presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non-conveniens.  On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing
on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in
another action with respect to similar issues raised in the action
pending against AIG.

As of February 16, 2011, plaintiff has not specified an amount of
alleged damages and the Court has not determined whether it has
jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's application to file a
statement of claim.  As a result, AIG is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from the litigation.


AMERICAN INT'L: Awaits Preliminary Okay of Settlement in 2004 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to await preliminary
court approval of a settlement in a consolidated 2004 securities
litigation, according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class action suits were filed in the Southern District of New York
against AIG and consolidated as In re American International
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation.  Subsequently, a separate,
though similar, securities fraud action was also brought against
AIG by certain Florida pension funds.  The lead plaintiff in the
Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation is a group of public
retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio state
employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all purchasers of
AIG's publicly traded securities between October 28, 1999 and
April 1, 2005.  The named defendants are AIG and a number of
present and former AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V.
Starr & Company, Inc., Starr International Company, Inc. or SICO,
General Reinsurance Corporation, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
among others.  The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things,
that AIG: (1) concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive
conduct through alleged payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and participation in illegal bid rigging; (2) concealed
that it used "income smoothing" products and other techniques to
inflate its earnings ; (3) concealed that it marketed and sold
"income smoothing" insurance products to other companies; and (4)
misled investors about the scope of government investigations.  In
addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that Greenberg manipulated
AIG's stock price.  The lead plaintiff asserts claims for
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and Section 20A of the Exchange
Act.

In October 2009, the lead plaintiff advised the Court that it had
entered into a settlement agreement with former AIG Chief
Executive Officer Maurice R. Greenberg, former AIG Chief Financial
Officer Howard I. Smith, Christian M. Milton, Michael J. Castelli,
SICO and Starr.  At the lead plaintiff's request, the Court has
entered an order dismissing all of the lead plaintiff's claims
against these defendants "without prejudice" to any party.  The
settlement agreement between lead plaintiff and these defendants
was filed with the Court on January 6, 2011.

On February 22, 2010, the Court issued an opinion granting, in
part, lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Court
rejected lead plaintiffs' request to include in the class
purchasers of certain AIG bonds and declined to certify a class
with respect to certain counts of the complaint and dismissed
those claims for lack of standing.  With respect to the remaining
claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of putative class members
who had purchased AIG Common Stock, the Court declined to certify
a class as to certain defendants other than AIG and rejected lead
plaintiffs' claims that class members could establish injury based
on disclosures on two of the six dates lead plaintiffs had
proposed, but certified a class consisting of all shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired AIG Common Stock during the class
period of October 28,1999 to April 1, 2005, and who possessed that
stock over one or more of the dates October 14, 2004, October 15,
2004, March 17, 2005 or April 1, 2005, as well as persons who held
AIG Common Stock in two companies at the time they were acquired
by AIG in exchange for AIG Common Stock, and were allegedly
damaged thereby.  In light of the class certification decision, on
March 5, 2010, the Court denied as moot General Re's and lead
plaintiffs' motion to certify their proposed settlement, and on
March 18, 2010, PwC withdrew its motion to approve its proposed
settlement with lead plaintiffs.  Lead plaintiffs and AIG each
filed petitions requesting permission to file an interlocutory
appeal of the class certification decision.  AIG, General Re,
Richard Napier and Ronald Ferguson each filed opposition briefs to
lead plaintiffs' petition.

On May 17, 2010, PwC and lead plaintiffs jointly moved for final
approval of their settlement as proposed prior to class
certification.  On November 30, 2010, the Court approved the
settlement between lead plaintiffs and PwC.  On December 13, 2010,
four shareholders filed a notice of appeal of the final judgment.
The appeal is currently pending in the Second Circuit.

On June 23, 2010, General Re and lead plaintiffs jointly moved for
preliminary approval of their settlement.  On September 10, 2010,
the Court issued an opinion denying the motion for preliminary
approval and, on September 23, 2010, the Court dismissed the lead
plaintiffs' causes of action with respect to General Re.  On
October 21, 2010, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's September 23, 2010 order dismissing the claims against the
Gen Re defendants, as well as the March 4, 2010 order refusing to
preliminarily approve a settlement with the Gen Re defendants, and
the February 22, 2010 class certification order to the extent it
denied class certification for the claims against the Gen Re
defendants .

On June 28, 2010, the Second Circuit granted AIG's petition
seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification decision, and denied the petition by lead
plaintiffs.  On September 1, 2010, AIG and lead plaintiffs entered
into a stipulation to withdraw AIG's interlocutory appeal without
prejudice to reinstate the appeal in the future, which has been
endorsed by the Second Circuit.  On February 4, 2011, AIG and lead
plaintiffs entered into a stipulation to extend the time by which
the appeal must be reinstated, which has been endorsed by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On July 14, 2010, AIG approved the terms of a settlement with lead
plaintiffs.  The Settlement is conditioned on, among other things,
court approval and a minimum level of shareholder participation.
Under the terms of the Settlement, if consummated, AIG will pay an
aggregate of $725 million, $175million of which is to be paid into
escrow within 10 days of preliminary court approval.  AIG's
obligation to fund the remainder of the settlement amount is
conditioned on its having consummated one or more common stock
offerings raising net proceeds of at least $550 million prior to
final court approval (Qualified Offering).  AIG has agreed to use
best efforts, consistent with the fiduciary duties of AIG's
management and Board of Directors, to effect a Qualified Offering,
but the decision as to whether market conditions or pending or
contemplated corporate transactions make it commercially
reasonable to proceed with such an offering will be within AIG's
unilateral discretion.  In the event that AIG effects a registered
secondary offering of common stock on behalf of the Department of
the Treasury resulting in the Department of the Treasury receiving
proceeds of at least $550 million, then market access will be
deemed to have been demonstrated and AIG shall be deemed to have
consummated a Qualified Offering.  AIG, in its sole discretion,
also may fund the $550 million from other sources.  If AIG does
not fund the $550 million before final court approval of the
Settlement, lead plaintiffs may terminate the agreement, elect
to acquire freely transferable shares of AIG Common Stock with a
market value of $550 million provided AIG is able to obtain all
necessary approvals, or extend the period for AIG to complete a
Qualified Offering.

On July 20, 2010, at the joint request of AIG and lead plaintiffs,
the District Court entered an order staying all deadlines in the
case.  On November 30, 2010, AIG and lead plaintiffs executed
their agreement of settlement and compromise.  On November 30,
2010, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement with AIG, which is currently pending.

As of December 31, 2010, AIG has an accrued liability for the full
amount of the Settlement.


AMERICAN INT'L: Awaits Preliminary Okay on $450MM Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., is awaiting preliminary court
approval of its $450 million settlement to resolve complaints that
allege discrepancies in the Company's reporting of its workers'
compensation insurance premiums, the Company disclosed in its
February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 24, 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance or
NCCI, on behalf of the participating members of the National
Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool or NWCRP, filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against AIG with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its
residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance.
The complaint alleged claims for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO, breach of
contract, fraud and related state law claims arising out of AIG's
alleged underpayment of these assessments between 1970 and the
present and sought damages purportedly in excess of $1 billion.
On August 6, 2007, the Court denied AIG's motion seeking to
dismiss or stay the complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer
to the Southern District of New York.  On December 26, 2007, the
Court denied AIG's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 17, 2008, AIG filed an amended answer, counterclaims and
third-party claims against NCCI (in its capacity as attorney-in-
fact for the NWCRP), the NWCRP, its board members, and certain of
the other insurance companies that are members of the NWCRP,
alleging violations of RICO, as well as claims for conspiracy,
fraud, and other state law claims.  The counterclaim-defendants
and third-party defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 9,
2008.  On January 26, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
On February 23,2009, the Court issued a decision and order
sustaining AIG's counterclaims and sustaining, in part, AIG's
third-party claims.  The Court also dismissed certain of AIG's
third-party claims without prejudice.

On April 13, 2009, third-party defendant Liberty Mutual Group
filed third-party counterclaims against AIG, certain of its
subsidiaries, and former AIG executives.  On August 23, 2009, the
Court granted AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI complaint for lack
of standing.  On September 25, 2009, AIG filed its First Amended
Complaint, reasserting its RICO claims against certain insurance
companies that both underreported their workers' compensation
premium and served on the NWCRP Board, and repleading its fraud
and other state law claims.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint on October 30, 2009.  On October 8,
2009, Liberty Mutual filed an amended counterclaim against AIG.
The amended counterclaim is substantially similar to the complaint
initially filed by NCCI, but also seeks damages related to non-
NWCRP states, guaranty funds, and special assessments, in addition
to asserting claims for other violations of state law.  The
amended counterclaim also removes as defendants the former AIG
executives.  On October 30, 2009, AIG filed a motion to dismiss
the Liberty amended counterclaim.

On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America and Ohio
Casualty Insurance Company filed a complaint in the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported class of all NWCRP
participant members, against AIG and certain of its subsidiaries
with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market
assessments for workers' compensation insurance.  The complaint
was styled as an "alternative complaint," should the Court grant
AIG's motion to dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.  The allegations in the class action
complaint are substantially similar to those filed by the NWCRP,
but the complaint names former AIG executives as defendants and
asserts a RICO claim against those executives.  On August 28,
2009, the class action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
removing the AIG executives as defendants.  On October 30, 2009,
AIG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 16,
2010, Safeco Insurance Company and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company
filed their motion for class certification, which AIG opposed on
October 8, 2010.

On July 1, 2010, the Court ruled on the pending motions to dismiss
that were directed at all parties' claims.  With respect to the
underreporting NWCRP companies' and board members' motion to
dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied the
motion to dismiss all counts except AIG's claim for unjust
enrichment, which it found to be precluded by the surviving claims
for breach of contract.  With respect to NCCI and the NWCRP's
motion to dismiss AIG's first amended complaint, the Court denied
the NCCI and the NWCRP's motions to dismiss AIG's claims for an
equitable accounting and an action on an open, mutual, and current
account.  With respect to AIG's motions to dismiss Liberty's
counterclaims and the class action complaint, the Court denied
both motions, except that it dismissed the class claim for
promissory estoppel.  On July 30, 2010, the NWCRP filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Court's ruling denying its motion to
dismiss AIG's claims for an equitable accounting and an action on
an open, mutual, and current account.  The Court denied the
NWCRP's motion for reconsideration on September 16, 2010.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 16,
2010.  AIG opposed the motion.

On January 5, 2011, AIG executed a term sheet with a group of
intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven participating members of
the NWCRP that filed a motion to intervene in the class action for
the purpose of settling the claims at issue on behalf of a
settlement class.  The proposed class-action settlement would
require AIG to pay $450 million to satisfy all liabilities to the
class members arising out of the workers' compensation premium
reporting issues, a portion of which would be funded out of the
remaining amount held in the Workers' Compensation Fund less any
amounts previously withdrawn to satisfy AIG's regulatory
settlement obligations.

On January 13, 2011, their motion to intervene was granted.  On
January 19, 2011, the intervening class plaintiffs filed their
Complaint in Intervention.  On January 28, 2011, AIG and the
intervening class plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement
embodying the terms set forth in the January 5, 2011 term sheet
and filed a joint motion for certification of the settlement class
and preliminary approval of the settlement.  If approved by the
Court (and such approval becomes final), the settlement agreement
will resolve and dismiss with prejudice all claims that have been
made or that could have been made in the consolidated litigations
pending in the Northern District of Illinois arising out of
workers' compensation premium reporting, including the class
action, other than claims that are brought by any class member
that opts out of the settlement.  The $450 million settlement
amount, along with $146.5 million in fines, penalties, and premium
taxes under the National Association of Insurance Commissioners or
NAIC's examination of Workers' Compensation Premium Reporting,
may be funded in part from the $338 million held in the Workers'
Compensation Fund.  In the event that the proposed class action
settlement is not approved, or that certain class members opt out
of the settlement and continue to pursue their claims against AIG,
the litigation will resume.

AIG has an accrued liability equal to the amounts payable under
the settlement.  Amounts held in escrow totaling approximately
$338 million, including interest, are specifically designated to
satisfy liabilities related to workers' compensation premium
reporting issues, AIG noted in its latest SEC filing.


AMERICAN INT'L: Class Action Discovery Ongoing in Caremark Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action discovery continues to be underway in the Caremark-
related class action lawsuits commenced against American
International Group, Inc., according to the Company's February 24,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc.  The plaintiffs in the second-filed
action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed
action was dismissed.  An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of
AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be
without limit of liability.  In the current actions, plaintiffs
allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as
to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have
approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or
unlimited nature of the excess policy.  They further allege
that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and
suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and
extent of coverage.  In addition, the intervenors originally
alleged that various lawyers and law firms who represented parties
in the underlying class and derivative litigation were also liable
for fraud and suppression, misrepresentation, and breach of
fiduciary duty.  The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the
intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the
amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages.  AIG and its
subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert
that information concerning the excess policy was publicly
disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the
claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the
statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the
excess coverage.  The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have
asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of
the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the
statute of limitations.

In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the intervenors'
complaint against the Lawyer Defendants, and the Alabama Supreme
Court affirmed that dismissal in September 2008.  After the case
was sent back down to the trial court, the intervenors retained
additional counsel and filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention
that named only Caremark and AIG and various subsidiaries as
defendants, purported to bring claims against all defendants for
deceit and conspiracy to deceive, and purported to bring a claim
against AIG and its subsidiaries for aiding and abetting
Caremark's alleged deception.  The defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in Intervention, and the plaintiffs moved to
disqualify all of the lawyers for the intervenors because, among
other things, the newly retained firm had previously represented
Caremark.  The intervenors, in turn, moved to disqualify the
lawyers for the plaintiffs in the first-filed action.  The cross-
motions to disqualify were withdrawn after the two sets of
plaintiffs agreed that counsel for the original plaintiffs would
act as lead counsel, and intervenors also withdrew their Amended
Complaint in Intervention.  The trial Court approved all of the
foregoing steps and, in April 2009, established a schedule for
class action discovery that was to lead to a hearing on class
certification in March 2010.  The Court has since appointed a
specialmaster to oversee class action discovery and has directed
the parties to submit a new discovery schedule after certain
discovery disputes are resolved.  Class discovery is ongoing, and
no schedule for the class certification hearing has been set.

As of February 16, 2011, the parties have not completed class
action discovery, general discovery has not commenced, and the
court has not determined if a class action is appropriate or the
size or scope of any class.  As a result, AIG is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.


ANSWERS CORP: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to AFCV Holdings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Fruchter, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Answers Corporation, et al., Case No. 650532/2011
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 25, 2011), accuses the
members of Answers Corporation's Board of Directors of breaching
their fiduciary duties to the Company's public shareholders, aided
and abetted by Answers, Redpoint Ventures, and AFCV Holdings, LLC,
arising out of the proposed all cash sale of the Company to AFCV
Holdings, A-Team Acquisition sub, Inc., and Summit Partners --
AFCV Defendants -- for $10.50 per share, for a total of
$127 million.

The Plaintiff says each of the defendants breached or abetted the
other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties by failing to
fully disclose all material facts necessary for Answer
shareholders to render their decision whether to vote in favor of
the proposed transaction or against it.  Additionally, the
Plaintiff says the individual defendants failed to initiate a
formal process to identify a potential buyer until just before the
proposed transaction agreements were signed and that they also
obtained benefits for themselves or the entities to which they are
beholden that are not shared equally by the Plaintiff and the
Class.

The Complaint alleges that by entering into the proposed
transaction the individual defendants "have effectively placed a
cap on Answers' corporate value when it was poised to capitalize
its recent search engine optimization efforts and growth into
mobile user activity."

The Complaint avers that the acquisition price of $10.50 per share
represents a mere 15.24% over the Company's closing price of $8.90
on Feb. 2, 2011, the day immediately preceding the announcement of
the proposed merger.

The transaction has been unanimously approved by the Board of
Answers and is expected to close in the second quarter of 2011.

The Plaintiff goes on to say to assure that Chairman and CEO
Robert S. Rosenschein, the AFCV Defendants, and Redpoint "would
reap the windfall benefits of the proposed transaction and that no
competing bidders would emerge, the individual defendants: (a)
failed to engage in a timely-initiated, sustained sales process
overseen by a qualified financial advisor through which
alternative bidders could be identified and leveraged in a
competitive bidding or auction process; (b) agreed to preclusive
deal protection measures, including a strict no-shop provision and
a harsh termination fee, designed to guard against the possibility
that the proposed transaction could be scuttled through the
arrival of a competing suitor that would present a better deal for
Answers' shareholders; (c) secured voting rights agreements to
proactively lock up a large percentage of share votes in favor of
the proposed transaction less than two months after the Company
had finally engaged a financial advisor to formally attempt to
identify potential buyers of the Company, and (d) so thoroughly
restrained the scope of UBS's analysis, while financially
incentivizing UBS to promote the proposed transaction's
consummation, as to render UBS's 'fairness opinion' nearly
meaningless."  UBS Investment Bank is the Company's exclusive
financial advisor for the transaction.

Answers owns and operates Answers.com, which the Company self-
describes as "a community-generated social knowledge Q&A platform,
leveraging wiki-based technologies" through its WikiAnswers
property that "also includes content on millions of topics from
over 250 licensed dictionaries and encyclopedias from leading
publishers" through its ReferenceAnswers property.

Defendant Redpoint Ventures, the beneficial owner of approximately
32.59% of Answers common stock, is a venture capital firm which
maintains investments in areas such as broadband infrastructure,
enterprise software and cloud computing, and interactive
media, content and advertising.  Redpoint is named in this lawsuit
because it aided and abetted the Answers Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties by controlling the actions of Answers' directors
W. Allen Beasley and R. Thomas Dyal, who are both Redpoint
partners.

Defendant AFCV Holdings is a private holding company that develops
and operates a broad range of consumer Internet technologies.
AFCV is a portfolio company owned by Defendant Summit Partners.

Summit Partners is an asset management company which has raised
more than $11 billion in growth capital and invested in
more than 320 companies.  Summit invests in companies directly
and through portfolio companies such as AFCV.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jscowart@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, Illinois 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ATLAS PIPELINE: Claims Dropped in Amended Complaint in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed in Delaware dropped
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., and Atlas Energy, L.P., as
defendants in their amended complaint, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Following the November 9, 2010 announcement that Atlas Energy,
Inc. had entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by
Chevron Corporation and that Atlas Energy, L.P., formerly known as
Atlas Pipeline Holdings L.P., or AHD and the Company agreed to
enter into separate transactions with ATLS relating to certain
ATLS natural gas reserves and other assets and fee revenues, and
the Company's interest in Laurel Mountain (the "Transactions"),
with each of the Transactions and the Merger to be cross-
conditioned on the completion of the others, a purported class
action was filed on November 15, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court
on behalf of a class of ATLS shareholders, Katsman v. ATLS, et
al., C.A. No. 5990-VCL.  The complaint named AHD and the Company
and alleges that the ATLS directors violated their fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed Merger and that AHD, the
Company and Chevron aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty, and requested, among other relief, injunctive
relief and damages.  This lawsuit was consolidated in Delaware
Chancery with other class actions that have been filed against
ATLS and its directors, among others.

On December 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
which all claims against the Company and AHD were dropped.


AVIS BUDGET: Continues to Defend "Shames" Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Budget Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action complaint commenced by Michael Shames for alleged improper
imposition of fees to car rental consumers, according to the
Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 14, 2007, two California residents filed a putative
class action lawsuit, captioned Michael Shames et al. v. The Hertz
Corp. et al., No. 07 CV 2174H (S.D. Cal.), against the Company,
six other rental car companies, the California Travel and Tourism
Commission and the CTTC's Executive Director, alleging that the
defendants violated federal antitrust law and California's Unfair
Competition Law and False Advertising Law by allegedly agreeing to
pass on airport concession fees and a state tourism commission
assessment to passenger car renters in California.  The plaintiffs
are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Shames suit,
and on April 8, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the motions to dismiss the putative
class action lawsuit, on the ground that plaintiffs failed to
state claims for which relief could be granted.  An amended
complaint was filed in May 2008 against the Company and six other
rental car companies, as well as the CTTC, and contained claims
that the defendants had violated federal antitrust law and
California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law by
allegedly agreeing to pass on airport concession fees and a state
tourism commission assessment to passenger car renters in
California.  In July 2008, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the CTTC's motion to
dismiss all claims asserted against it, granted the Company's
motions to dismiss with respect to the state law claims and denied
our motion to dismiss with respect to the federal antitrust claim.
The Company is currently undergoing discovery.  In June 2010, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the
CTTC.  In August 2010, the Company and the other rental car
companies named in the suit filed a motion to dismiss in district
court.  In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior
dismissal of all claims against the CTTC, and replaced its June
2010 opinion with a superseding opinion reversing the district
court's dismissal of claims against the CTTC, making the CTTC
again a party to the district court proceedings.

The Company has denied the allegations and intends to continue to
defend the case.


AVIS BUDGET: No Reconsideration Motion Filed in Tourism Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
No request for reconsideration has been filed from an appellate
ruling dismissing the action In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation, against Avis Budget Group, Inc. and other defendants,
the Company noted in its February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2007, class action lawsuits, now known as In re
Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation, were filed against the Company,
12 other rental car companies, the California Travel and Tourism
Commission and California's Secretary of Business, Transportation
and Housing.  The action challenged the tourism commission
assessment fees imposed on certain renters in California as of
January 1, 2007.  The action sought declaratory and injunctive
relief, a refund of all California tourism commission assessment
fees collected by the rental car defendants, attorneys' fees and
costs, and unspecified damages.  The defendants moved to dismiss
and transfer the action to the Southern District of California.
In September 2008, the transfer motion was granted and the action
was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of
California.  In February 2009, the court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss plaintiffs' federal law claims, declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
claims, and dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint with
prejudice.  In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to file a motion for relief from the judgment and/or for
leave to file a second amended complaint; the court denied such
motion; and plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the final judgment and from
the denial of their motion.  The plaintiffs' appeal was denied in
August 2010.  The plaintiffs have not moved for reconsideration of
the opinion.


AVALON PARTNERS: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Bonito and Brian Cespedes, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Avalon Partners, Inc., et al., Case
No. 650541/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 28, 2011),
accuse Avalon of non-payment of overtime compensation, in
violation of 12 NYCRR Section 142-2.2, and illegal retention of
wages, in violation of New York Labor Law Sections 193 and 198b.

Avalon Partners, Inc., operates as a broker dealer.  Plaintiffs
Randy Bonito and Brian Cespedes both worked for defendants in
Manhattan from March 2006 until March 2009.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          E-mail: matthew@jhllp.com
                  charles@jhllp.com
                  mpalmer@jhllp.com
                  maimon@jhllp.com


AXA ROSENBURG: Sued For Covering up Errors in Trading System
------------------------------------------------------------
The Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health
Benefit Fund v. Axa Rosenburg Group, LLC et al., Case No.
11-cv-00897 (N.D. Calif. February 24, 2011), brings claims for
defendants' failure to discover a significant computer error in
their proprietary quantitative trading system due to lack of
adequate internal controls, defendants' cover-up of the error
when it was finally discovered, and defendant's material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the error, in
violation of ERISA Sections 404 breach of the duty of loyalty and
the duty of prudence), 405 (co-fiduciary breach), and 406 (self-
dealing).

Specifically, the plaintiff explains, defendants breached the duty
of loyalty by failing to disclose (and in fact explicitly
covering-up) the computer error to Plaintiff and the Class or
misrepresenting the reasons for defendants' underperformance and
material facts about their compliance policies.

Defendants are fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 14 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, et seq. ("ERISA"),
in that they exercised discretion over the 15 management of ERISA
plan assets.

Plaintiff relates that it and the Class Members invested, or had
investments, in AXA-managed funds or separately-managed accounts
between the time the error was in effect, as of April 20 2007, to
defendants' disclosure of the error, on April 15,2010.  According
to the plaintiff, this was months after defendants fixed the error
in fall 2009, nearly a year after they discovered it in June 2009,
and three years from the time the coding error first occurred.

As a result of defendant's violations, plaintiff says defendants
must restore to it and the Class Members defendants' profits made
through use of ERISA plan assets, in particular the investment
management fees that plaintiff and Class Members paid to
defendants.  In addition defendants must repay to plaintiff and
the Class Members losses caused by the error, including lost
investment earnings.

Plaintiff is a Taft-Hartley plan that was established in 1962 and
is located in Newtown Square, Pa.  The plan currently has more
than 81,000 participants or beneficiaries, and has approximately
$600 million in assets under management.  Plaintiff is the named
fiduciary of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Fund.

AXA Rosenberg Group, LLC, a holding company formed in 1998, is a
"specialist active global equity investment management firm within
the AXA 11 Investment Managers (AXA IM) group."  AXA Rosenberg
managed over $70 billion in assets as of December 31, 2009, and
had more than $37 billion in assets under 15 management as of June
2010.  Upon information and belief, AXA Rosenberg presently has
approximately $30 billion in assets under management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Alison M. Stocking, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: 415-956-1000
          E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
                  astocking@lchb.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Rachel Geman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: 212-355-9500
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
                  rgeman@lchb.com

               - and -

          Louis P. Malone, III, Esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          4748 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-362-0041


BABY JOGGER: Recalls 1995 Baby Jogger Jump Seats
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baby Jogger LLC, of Richmond, Va., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,545 Baby Jogger Jump Seats in the United States and 450
(Canada).  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

If the Jump Seat does not properly lock into place, the Jump Seat
could disengage from the stroller allowing the child to fall out.

Baby Jogger has received four reports of children falling from the
seat, including reports of scrapes, bruises, cuts and one broken
nose.

This recall involves the Baby Jogger Jump Seat.  The Jump Seat is
a fabric seat accessory with the name "Baby Jogger" on the front
that is attached to the mounting bracket on the frame of a Baby
Jogger City Elite, Baby Jogger City Classic or Baby Jogger Summit
stroller and allows a toddler and baby to ride together in the
same stroller at the same time.

              Item Numbers        Sold
              ------------        ----
                J7J50        Beginning January 2008

The item number is printed on the product packaging.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11145.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Juvenile products stores, mass merchandisers, and department
stores nationwide and on the Web from January 2008 through July
2010 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Jump Seat and contact
Baby Jogger to receive Jump Seat safety straps and assembly
instructions.  For additional information, contact Baby Jogger
toll-free at (877) 506-2213 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, e-mail the firm at recall@babyjogger.com, or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.babyjogger.com/


BANK OF AMERICA: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP disclosed that on Feb. 28, 2011,
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, a class action
complaint that had been filed on Feb. 24, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case
No. 11 Civ. 1280).  The dismissed complaint had been filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased Bank of America Corporation
publicly traded common stock and options during the period between
May 9, 2007 and October 19, 2010, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


BAYER CORP: Calif. Court Reinstates Baycol Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 28, 2011, the California Supreme Court reinstated claims
on behalf of California consumers who purchased the cholesterol
drug marketed under the name Baycol.  The drug was marketed by
Bayer Corporation from 1997 until 2001, when it withdrew Baycol
from the market after data showing that the drug may be linked to
serious muscle debilitating illnesses like Rhabdomyolysis,
possibly leading to death.  Any California resident who purchased
Baycol should contact Green Welling P.C. to discuss their rights
in the matter.

The claims addressed by the California Supreme Court were asserted
on behalf of California consumers who purchased or paid for the
drug Baycol between February 1998 and August 2001.  In earlier
proceedings, the trial court dismissed all of the claims asserted
against Bayer.  Subsequently, the Court of Appeal reversed
dismissal of the individual plaintiff's claims on the ground that
he had stated a viable claim for relief in the trial court, but
dismissed the appeal with regard to the class claims brought on
behalf of all similarly situated California consumers based on a
finding that the appeal of those class claims was not timely made.
The sum of the appellate decision was to allow the individual
plaintiff's claims, but not the class claims, to proceed.

The California Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of
Appeal decision and held that the Notice of Appeal of the claims
of the class was indeed timely and should go forward.  The Supreme
Court's decision clarifies an important point of law in class
action cases for the lower courts and other litigants.  The
Supreme Court case is entitled, In re Baycol Cases I and II, Case
No. S178320.  A copy of the opinion may be downloaded from our
Web site at http://www.classcounsel.com/

The case against Bayer is being prosecuted by Green Welling, P.C.,
with offices in San Francisco and Long Beach.  Green Welling is a
national class action law firm that represents plaintiffs in
health care actions, antitrust cases and other consumer and
securities matters.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning a potential class action, please contact
us by phone at (415) 477-6700, by email at GW@classcounsel.com or
visit our Web site at http://www.classcounsel.com/


CAPELLA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Minn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capella Education Company continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit pending in Minnesota, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On November 5, 2010, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Police Pension Fund of Peoria, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Capella Education
Company, J. Kevin Gilligan and Lois M. Martin, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaint
names the Company and certain senior executives as defendants, and
alleges that the Company and the named defendants made false or
misleading public statements about its business and prospects
during the time period from February 16, 2010 through August 13,
2010 in violation of federal securities laws, and that these
statements artificially inflated the trading price of the
Company's common stock to the detriment of shareholders who
purchased shares during that time.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages for the purported class.  Since that time,
substantially similar complaints making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period
have been filed with the federal court.  The Company has not yet
responded to these complaints and anticipates that pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court will
appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the
provisions of that law, and eventually a consolidated amended
complaint will be filed.  The Company anticipates that the
plaintiffs will seek substantial damages.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point, the Company says.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, have not accrued any liability associated with this
action.


CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------
CardioNet, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit relating to its initial public offering, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On March 5, 2010, West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, San
Diego County asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against
CardioNet, nine current and former officers and directors of
CardioNet and six underwriters of CardioNet's initial public
offering (IPO) consummated March 25, 2008 and/or Secondary
Offering on August 6, 2008.  The complaint filed March 5, 2010
also asserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 25401 and
25501 of the California Corporations Code against defendants James
M. Sweeney and Fred Middleton.  The plaintiff seeks to bring
claims on behalf of all those who acquired the common stock of
CardioNet pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and/or
Secondary Offering.

On March 10, 2010, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that
deleted the claims for violations of the California Corporations
Code.  The claims are based on purported misrepresentations and
omissions in the Registration Statements for the Offerings
relating to alleged business decisions made by CardioNet that were
supposedly not disclosed to investors and alleged misstatements
concerning CardioNet's business.  On April 5, 2010, all defendants
removed the case to the Southern District of California, where it
is pending.  On April 7, 2010, defendants filed a Motion to
Transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which
Motion to Transfer is noticed for hearing on June 28, 2010.  On
April 23, 2010, the plaintiff moved to remand the case to state
court.  On May 28, 2010, defendants filed their opposition to the
Motion to Remand, and plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion
to Transfer.  On June 14, 2010, plaintiff filed its reply in
support of the Motion to Remand, and on June 18, 2010, defendants'
reply in support of the Motion to Transfer was filed.

Consistent with the accounting for contingent liabilities, the
Company says, no accrual has been recorded in the financial
statements.  The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


CHICAGO, IL: Trial in Class Action Over Boundaries Begins
---------------------------------------------------------
Joel Hood, writing for Tribune Reporter, reports that the two
sides in a long, bitter fight over boundary lines in an Elgin-area
school district met in federal District Court in Chicago on
Feb. 28, six years after a class-action suit sought to improve
learning conditions for minority students.

The students and the families who were part of the original case
filed in 2005 have long since left School District U-46, a
racially and culturally diverse district of 40,000 students in the
northwest suburbs.  But the conditions that sparked that initial
outrage -- overcrowding and poor classroom conditions -- continue
to persist and are putting minority students at a disadvantage,
attorney Stewart Weltman told the judge in his opening remarks.

"U-46 served the needs of white students first, and the needs of
minority students second," Mr. Weltman told U.S. District Judge
Robert W. Gettleman.  "The district knew it had thousands of empty
seats in white schools, and yet it forced more and more minority
students into overcrowded schools and portable classrooms without
running water."

Attorneys for the school district say race never played a role in
the redrawing of attendance boundaries for the district's 55
elementary, middle and high schools.  Instead, they say, the
changes were part of a reorganization plan by the district in 2004
to allow more students to attend schools closer to home.

With school district personnel looking on, defense attorney
Michael Hernandez told Judge Gettleman that "every aspect of the
community" had input in where the new school boundary lines would
be drawn.  He said the goal was to create a more stable learning
environment by allowing students to attend neighborhood schools.

The first of three phases of the case will likely continue into
next week, with testimony focusing on whether the district
intentionally put Hispanic and African-American students in older,
overcrowded schools and dozens of portable classrooms, while
reserving newer, roomier schools for white students.  Dates have
yet to be set for later phases of the trial.

The plaintiffs are asking Gettleman to declare that the school
district did, indeed, break the law, a step toward a possible
redrawing of school attendance boundaries and a more equitable
restructuring of district policies.


COINSTAR INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Coinstar, Inc.
publicly traded securities during the period October 28, 2010
through January 13, 2011.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the Court
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class on or before March 25,
2011.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to share in
any recovery that may be obtained.

The Complaint alleges that Coinstar failed to disclose a series of
adverse factors which were negatively impacting its business and
which would cause it to report declining financial results, well
below the market expectations defendants had set, including: 1)
declining sales as customers purchased fewer DVDs, and as poor
inventory management and controls resulted in the Company removing
material amounts of old inventory early in the fourth quarter; 2)
lower sales of more expensive "Blue-ray" DVDs and poor title
selection were resulting in lower overall sales; 3) the 28-day
delay movie studios imposed on Coinstar was adversely affecting
the Company, well before the 2010 fourth quarter; and 4)
competition from online video streaming providers such as Netflix
was adversely impacting the Company more acutely than it had
revealed.

The truth was revealed on January 13, 2011, when investors learned
that Coinstar would earn only $0.65 per share for the fourth
quarter 2010 on revenues of only $391 million, well below the
consensus analyst estimate of $0.84 per share on revenues of $427
million.  The Defendants also explained that these factors would
continue to have a materially adverse impact on the Company's
business, earnings and gross margins throughout fiscal year 2011.
On this news, the Company stock price suffered an immediate and
adverse impact as it collapsed over 27% in a single trading day,
or $15.46 per share in a single day, to close at $41.50.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held March 1, 2011, to assess the sufficiency of the
methodology used to determine class damages in a class action
lawsuit in New Mexico against Community Health Systems, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On April 19, 2009, the Company was served in Roswell, New Mexico,
with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros).  The case
was originally filed as a collection matter.  The counterclaim was
filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort,
Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO
statute.

On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal to federal
court.  On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to state court
for lack of a federal question.  A motion to dismiss and a motion
to dismiss misjoined counterclaim plaintiffs were filed on
October 20, 2009.  These motions were denied.  Extensive discovery
has been conducted.  A motion for class certification for all
uninsured patients was heard on March 3 through March 5, 2010 and
on April 13, 2010, the state district court judge certified the
case as a class action.  Discovery is ongoing.

A hearing was held March 1, 2011, to assess the sufficiency of the
methodology used to determine class damages.  The Company says it
will vigorously defend this action.


CONVERGYS CORP: Continues to Negotiate Settlement of Texas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation continues to negotiate a mutually acceptable
settlement and release agreement relating to a consolidated class
action pending in Texas against its subsidiary, Intervoice, Inc.,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

Several related class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 2001
on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice, Inc.
(Intervoice) during the period from October 12, 1999 through
June 6, 2000 (the Class Period).  Plaintiffs filed claims, which
were consolidated into one proceeding under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice (a
subsidiary of the Company since 2008) as well as certain named
former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the
alleged class members.  In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that
Intervoice and the named former officers and directors issued
false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning
the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of a merger
with another company and the alleged future business projections
of Intervoice.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged
statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint because it
lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the
pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reserved in part.  The
Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further
proceedings in the District Court.  In 2006, the District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of purchasers of
Intervoice stock during the Class Period.  Intervoice appealed and
in 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-
certification order and remanded the case to the District Court
for further consideration.  In October 2009, the District Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.  In January
2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification.  The
District Court stayed the case pending the Fifth Circuit's
decision on the plaintiffs' appeal.  The Company and the
plaintiffs have signed a term sheet to settle and terminate the
lawsuit.  The parties continue to negotiate a mutually acceptable
settlement and release agreement consistent with the term sheet,
which will be subject to approval by the District Court.  The
Company expects that the settlement will not have a material
adverse impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition.


COVENTRY HEALTHCARE: Unit Awaits Court Approval of Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
First Health Group Corporation, a subsidiary of Coventry
Healthcare, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
a class action lawsuit pending in Louisiana, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Four providers who have contracts with First Health Group
Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company, filed a state court
class action lawsuit against FHGC and certain payors alleging that
FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act, which requires
a payor accessing a preferred provider network contract to give a
one time notice 30 days before that payor uses the discounted rate
in the preferred provider network contract to pay the provider for
services rendered to a member insured under that payor's health
benefit plan.  These provider plaintiffs allege that the Act
applies to medical bills for treatment rendered to injured workers
and that the Act requires point of service written notice in the
form of a benefit identification card.  If a payor is found to
have violated the Act's notice provision, the court may assess up
to $2,000 in damages for each instance when the provider was not
given proper notice that a discounted rate would be used to pay
for the services rendered.  In response to the state court class
action, FHGC and certain payors filed a suit in federal court
against the same four provider plaintiffs in the state court class
action seeking a declaratory judgment that FHGC's contracts are
valid and enforceable, that its contracts are not subject to the
Act since that Act does not apply to medical services rendered to
injured workers and that FHGC is exempt from the notice
requirements of the Act because it has contracted directly with
each provider in its network.  The federal district court ruled in
favor of FHGC and declared that its contracts are not subject to
the Act, that FHGC was exempt from the Act's notice provision
because it contracted directly with the providers, and that FHGC's
contracts were valid and enforceable, i.e., the four provider
plaintiffs were required to accept the discounted rate in
accordance with the terms of their written contracts with FHGC.

Despite the federal court's decision, the provider plaintiffs
continued to pursue their state court class action against FHGC
and filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages of
$2,000 for each provider visit where the provider was not given a
benefit identification card at the time the service was performed.
In response to the motion for partial summary judgment filed in
the state court action, FHGC obtained an order from the federal
court which enjoined, barred and prevented any of the four
provider plaintiffs or their counsel from pursuing any claim
against FHGC before any court or tribunal arising under the Act.
Despite the issuance of this federal court injunction, the
provider plaintiffs and their counsel pursued their motion for
partial summary judgment in the state court action.  Before the
state court held a hearing on the motion for partial summary
judgment, FHGC moved to decertify the class on the basis that the
four named provider plaintiffs had been enjoined by the federal
court from pursuing their claims against FHGC.  The state court
denied the motion to decertify the class but did enter an order
permitting FHGC to file an immediate appeal of the state court's
denial of the motion.  Even though FHGC had filed its appeal and
there were no class representatives since all four named
plaintiffs had been enjoined from pursuing their claims against
FHGC, the state court held a hearing and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.  The amount of the partial
summary judgment was $262 million.  FHGC appealed both the partial
summary judgment order and the denial of class decertification
order to the state's intermediate appellate court.  Both appeals
were denied by the intermediate appellate court.  FHGC has filed
an application for a writ of appeal with the Louisiana Supreme
Court with respect to the class decertification order and the
partial summary judgment order.  The decision to grant or deny the
application for a writ of appeal is at the discretion of the
Louisiana Supreme Court.  The Louisiana Supreme Court has not yet
issued a decision on either of these applications.  FHGC also
filed a motion with the federal court to enforce the federal
court's prior judgments and for sanctions against the provider
plaintiffs for violating those judgments which barred and enjoined
them from pursuing their claims against FHGC in the state courts.
That motion also sought to enjoin the state courts from proceeding
in order to protect and effectuate the federal court's judgments.
FHGC's motion was denied by the federal court.

As a result of the Louisiana appellate court's decision on July 1,
2010, to affirm the state trial court's summary judgment order,
the Company recorded a $278 million pre-tax charge to earnings and
a corresponding accrued liability during the quarter ended June
30, 2010.  This amount represents the $262 million judgment amount
plus post judgment interest and is included in "accounts payable
and other accrued liabilities" in the accompanying balance sheets.
The Company has accrued for legal fees expected to be incurred
related to this case as well as post judgment interest subsequent
to the second quarter charge, which are included in "accounts
payable and other accrued liabilities" in the accompanying balance
sheets.

On December 6, 2010, FHGC entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with attorneys representing the four plaintiffs and
the class setting forth the settlement terms of the $262 million
partial summary judgment entered in the class action lawsuit.  The
Memorandum of Understanding provides that subject to the execution
of a settlement agreement acceptable to FHGC and final non-
appealable approval of such settlement by the Louisiana state
court, FHGC will pay $150.5 million to satisfy in full the amount
of the partial summary judgment and to resolve and settle all
claims of the class, including claims for pre and post judgment
interest, attorneys fees and costs.  In addition, Coventry will
assign to the class certain rights it has to the proceeds of
FHGC's insurance policies relating to the claims asserted by the
class.  Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties
have also agreed to request that the appropriate courts stay all
related proceedings and consideration of any pending appellate
writ applications, and to stay the effect of any outstanding
judgments until the settlement agreement is prepared, executed and
receives final court approval.

In exchange for the settlement payment by FHGC, class members will
release FHGC and all of its affiliates and clients for any claims
relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement
of a workers' compensation bill, including but not limited to
claims under the Act.  Plaintiffs have also agreed to a notice
procedure that FHGC may follow in the future to comply with the
Act.  As noted, the Memorandum of Understanding is contingent upon
the execution of a definitive settlement agreement acceptable to
FHGC.  Under Louisiana law, once the parties have executed such a
settlement agreement, they must apply to the court for approval of
the settlement following a court-supervised process of notice to
the class and an opportunity for the class to be heard about the
fairness of the settlement or exclude themselves from the
settlement.

On February 2, 2011, FHGC, counsel for the class representatives
and the class representatives executed a definitive settlement
agreement which was acceptable to FHGC.  The settlement agreement
contains the same terms and conditions as was set forth in the
Memorandum of Understanding.  Certain contingencies (preliminary
court approval; resolutions of objections filed by class members
challenging the fairness of the settlement; class members excluded
from the settlement not exceeding a materiality threshold; and,
final court approval) must be satisfied before the settlement
becomes final.  Given these various contingencies which must be
satisfied before the settlement becomes final, no changes have
been made to the previously recorded amounts.


COVENTRY HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Healthcare, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a securities class
action lawsuit in Maryland remains pending, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On September 3, 2009, a shareholder, who owned less than 5,000
shares, filed a putative securities class action against the
Company and three of its current and former officers in the
federal district court of Maryland.  Subsequent to the filing of
the complaint, three other shareholders and/or investor groups
filed motions with the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of selection of lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement,
the four shareholders submitted a stipulation to the court
regarding appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection
of lead and liaison counsel.  In December, 2009, the court
approved the stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated and amended complaint.  To date, no consolidated and
amended complaint has been filed.  The purported class period is
February 9, 2007 to October 22, 2008.  The complaint alleges that
the Company's public statements contained false, misleading and
incomplete information regarding the Company's profitability,
particularly the profit margins for its Medicare PFFS products.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against the allegations
in the lawsuit and has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
which is pending before the court.  Although it cannot predict the
outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


COVENTRY HEALTHCARE: Awaits Filing of Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Healthcare, Inc., still awaiting the filing of a
consolidated class action lawsuit that alleges breach of fiduciary
duties under ERISA, according to the Company's February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
ERISA class action lawsuit against the Company and several of its
current and former officers, directors and employees in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering and maintaining Company stock in the Plan after it
allegedly became imprudent to do so and by allegedly failing to
provide complete and accurate information about the Company's
financial condition to plan participants in SEC filings and public
statements.  Three similar actions by different plaintiffs were
later filed in the same court and were consolidated on December 9,
2009.  A consolidated complaint has not yet been filed.


CROCS INC: Colorado Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crocs, Inc. disclosed that the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on Feb. 28 entered an Order granting
Crocs' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Corrected Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in In re Crocs, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02351-PAB.  This
litigation started in 2007, when various plaintiffs filed federal
securities class action claims against the company and some of the
company's current and former officers and directors.  The Order
dismissed all claims and ends the consolidated class action
litigation that had been pending in the federal court.

"We are gratified that the Court granted our motion to dismiss in
its thorough opinion.  Crocs is moving forward with a focus on our
business," said Daniel Hart, Crocs' Executive Vice President,
Chief Legal & Administrative Officer.

A copy of the Order is available on the Court's Web site.
Following entry of a judgment, plaintiffs will have the right to
file an appeal.

Terry Baynes, writing for Reuters Legal, reports that the judge
ruled that the plastic footwear maker's inventory and data
mismanagement did not amount to fraud.

According to the lawsuit, dismissed on Feb. 28, the mismanagement
by Crocs included ordering large quantities of unpopular shoes in
men's sizes but women's colors and leasing jets to meet retailers'
deliver-by dates.  The suit pointed to a "huge shipment of size 12
pink Crocs" found in a warehouse in China.  Crocs did not disclose
such "crisis-level" problems to investors in a timely fashion, the
suit alleged.

"We're extremely disappointed with the court's decision," said
David Brower, an attorney for the shareholders, who are
considering an appeal to the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The case began in 2007 when investors filed five separate class
actions in Colorado federal court following a fall in the
company's share price.  They claimed that Crocs failed to manage
its dramatic expansion from selling only one shoe model in 2002 to
over 5,800 different products by 2006.  The mismanagement and
reliance on outdated software resulted in a massive inventory
buildup, which motivated the defendants to mislead investors about
the company's financial condition, the suit alleged.

The lawsuits accused the company, its auditor Deloitte & Touche
and several directors and officers of certifying SEC filings and
press releases that contained false and misleading statements and
omissions.

The judge ruled that the alleged misstatements were not false or
misleading and that plaintiffs failed to show strong evidence of
any intent to deceive on the part of the defendants.  "While the
180-page Complaint is detailed," the judge wrote, "those details
almost exclusively reveal mismanagement by Crocs, not fraud."

"Obviously, we're very gratified that the court granted our motion
and found that the plaintiffs stated no claim sufficient to prove
securities fraud," said Erik Olson, a lawyer for Crocs.

The consolidated case is In re Crocs Inc Securities Litigation,
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, No. 07-02351.

For the plaintiff shareholders: Charles Piven and David Brower of
Brower Piven; Albert Wolf of Wolf Slatkin & Madison; and Cyril
Smith of Zuckerman Spaeder.

For Crocs: Paul Friedman and Erik Olson of Morrison & Foerster.

Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ: CROX) -- http://www.crocs.com/--
manufactures casual footwear for men, women and children.  Crocs'
products are sold in 125 countries.


DALPS & LEISURE: Recalls 229,000 Resistance Tubes and Kits
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dalps & Leisure Products Supply Corp., Taipei, Taiwan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 229,000 Resistance Tubes and Resistance
Tube Kits.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The plastic clip that attaches the resistance tube to the handle
can break during use causing the tubing, handle or fragments of
the plastic clip to strike the user.  This poses a contusion and
laceration hazard.

Dick's Sporting Goods has received four reports of contusions,
abrasions and lacerations.

This recall involves Fitness Gear and Fitness After 40 branded
resistance tubes and adjustable resistance tube kits.  The
resistance tubes are yellow, blue, red, orange, gray or black and
are attached to handles with a plastic clip.  "Fitness Gear" is
printed in red on the handles of the Fitness Gear-branded
products.  The Fitness After 40-branded resistance tubes have blue
handles with thin green and red stripes.  The recalled model
numbers are: FAF00004, STA00017, STA00018, STA00019, STA00020,
STA00021, STA00022, STA00023, STA00063, STA00064, STA00066. The
model number can be found on the bottom of the package.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11148.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Dick's Sporting Goods stores and online at
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/from October 2009 through
November 2010 for between $15 and $60.

Consumers should stop using the resistance tubes immediately and
return the product to Dick's Sporting Goods for a store credit for
the amount equal to the purchase price.  For additional
information, contact Dick's Sporting Goods toll-free at (866) 677-
4771 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, e-mail Customer.Service@dcsg.com or visit the company's
Web site at http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/


ELAN CORP: Continues to Defend 2008 Securities Litigation in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elan Corporation plc continues to defend itself in a securities
class complaint commenced in New York by certain plaintiffs in
2008.

Elan and some of its officers and directors have been named as
defendants in five putative class action lawsuits filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2008.
The cases have been consolidated as In Re Elan Corporation
Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed on August 17, 2009, and alleges claims under
the U.S. federal securities laws and seeks damages on behalf of
all purchasers of our stock during periods ranging between May 21,
2007 and October 21, 2008.  The complaints allege that the Company
issued false and misleading public statements concerning the
safety and efficacy of bapineuzumab, an antibody believed to have
potential therapeutic value for treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The Company have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint.  On July 23, 2010, a securities case was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
which has been accepted by the court as a "related case" to the
existing 2008 matter.  The 2010 case purports to be filed on
behalf of all purchasers of Elan call options during the period
from June 17, 2008 to July 29, 2008.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 24, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Elan Corporation, an Irish public limited company, is a
neuroscience-based biotechnology company, listed on the Irish and
New York Stock Exchanges, and headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ELAN CORP: Faces Securities Class Suit in NY over J&J Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elan Corporation plc and some of its affiliates have been named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on
February 23, 2011.

As noted in the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the plaintiffs'
complaint alleges claims under U.S. federal securities laws and
seeks damages on behalf of all purchasers of our stock during the
period between July 2, 2009 and August 5, 2009.  The complaint
alleges that the Company issued false and misleading public
statements concerning its transactions with Johnson & Johnson.

The J&J Transaction refers to Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy's, a
newly formed subsidiary of J&J, completion of the acquisition of
substantially all of Elan's assets and rights related to an
Alzheimer's Immunotherapy Program (or AIP) on September 17, 2009.
In addition, J&J, through its affiliate Janssen Pharmaceutical,
invested $885.0 million in exchange for newly issued American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) of Elan, representing 18.4% of the
Company's outstanding Ordinary Shares at that time.  J&J also
committed to fund up to $500 million towards the further
development and commercialization of the AIP to the extent the
funding is required by the collaboration.  As of December 31,
2010, the remaining balance of the J&J $500 million funding
commitment was $272.0 million, Elan reveals in its latest SEC
filing.

The Company plans to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

Elan Corporation, an Irish public limited company, is a
neuroscience-based biotechnology company, listed on the Irish and
New York Stock Exchanges, and headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


EQUINIX INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., continues to defend itself from a coordinated class
action lawsuit over its initial public offering, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On July 30, 2001 and August 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and several investment banks that were
underwriters of its initial public offering.  The cases were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Similar lawsuits were filed against approximately 300
other issuers and related parties.  These lawsuits have been
coordinated before a single judge.

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against us and
the Individual Defendants.  The plaintiffs have since dismissed
the Individual Defendants without prejudice.  The suits allege
that the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for
the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading and
in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose
these arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  On February 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section
10(b) claim against the Company, but denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 11 claim.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Equinix case, reached a settlement.  It
provides for releases of existing claims and claims that could
have been asserted relating to the conduct alleged to be wrongful
from the class of investors participating in the settlement.  The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
Equinix.  On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to
the settlement.  Six notices of appeal and one petition seeking
permission to appeal were filed.  Objectors to the settlement have
filed briefs in support of two separate appeals.  The remaining
objectors have withdrawn their appeals with prejudice.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend the action
vigorously if the settlement does not survive the appeal.


FAB/STARPOINT: Recalls 79,000 Circo Beaded Door Curtains
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
FAB/Starpoint LLC, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 79,000 Circo beaded door curtains.   Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Strangulations can occur when a child plays with the beaded
strands by wrapping them around their necks or by creating loops
in which they can insert their heads.  Also, children can get
entangled in the strands, which are prone to entangle, just by
running through the doorway.

The firm has received three reports of entanglement.  In January
2009, a nine-year old girl was entangled while passing through the
beads and nearly choked as she continued walking through the
curtain.  In January 2010, a six-year old girl in Reno, Nev.
became entangled in the bead strands as she passed through them
and suffered slight lacerations to her neck.  In April 2010, a
girl became entangled as the beads swung back behind her father
who had walked through the beads before her.  She was pulled off
her feet and momentarily suspended before she regained her footing
and she received scratches to her neck.

This recall involves Circo pink door curtain is a set of two
beaded door curtains, each of which is 12 inches wide and 72
inches long.  The warnings on the packaging include: "Not for use
in areas with children under 5 years of age.  Plastic ornaments
may pose strangulation or entanglement hazard.  Not for use near
cribs or playpens...".  The photograph on the packaging shows an
installed door curtain at the doorway of a girl's bedroom with
pink wall color, child-themed lamp and clock.  There is a CAUTION
statement included in the installation instructions that states:
"Do not tie bottom to form loops."  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11146.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
target stores nationwide and target.com from January 2009 through
May 2010 for between $13 (at target.com) and $15 in stores.

Consumers should immediately take down the curtains and contact
FAB/Starpoint for a full refund.  FAB/Starpoint will provide a
postage-free package to consumers to return the door curtain.  For
additional information, contact FAB/Starpoint toll-free at (888)
333-2684 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.fabny.com/


FORD MOTOR: Sued for Selling Vehicles with Defective Tailgates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the 2002-2005 Ford Explorers, Mercury Mountaineers and 2003-2005
Lincoln Aviators have defective tailgates that crack.

A copy of the Complaint in Hamilton v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 11-cv-10790 (E.D. Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/01/FordCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Marc L. Newman, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  mln@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Grant L. Davis, Esq.
          Thomas C. Jones, Esq.
          Timothy C. Gaarder, Esq.
          DAVIS, BETHUNE & JONES, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2930
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-1600
          E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net
                  tjones@dbjlaw.net
                  tgaarder@dbjlaw.net


FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that the Honorable Lucy Chernow
Brown of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida recently approved a
final settlement of $790,000 for class members who were charged an
unnecessary regulatory fee imposed by Florida Public Utilities, Co
(FPU).  The fee appeared as a "Regulatory Compliance" charge on
customers' propane gas bill.  More than 18,000 commercial and
residential customers were affected.

The class includes all persons and entities who reside in Florida
who paid FPU's Regulatory Compliance charges between May 27, 2006
and September 24, 2010. Refund checks are expected to be mailed by
May 12th and will vary according to each customers' share of the
settlement.

The final settlement obliges FPU to pay $790,000 into a settlement
fund from which Claims Administrator, Analytics, Inc. will send to
each class member, by regular U.S. mail, a check equal to each
class member's proportional share of the settlement fund, based on
the dollar amount of the Regulatory Compliance fee.  The
settlement also requires FPU to add a disclosure regarding the
nature of the Regulatory Compliance charge on its invoices and in
any future contracts with its customers.


GAMESTOP: Faces Class Action for Recording Personal Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Reilly, writing for IGN, reports that a class action complaint
has been filed against retailer GameStop for allegedly requesting
and recording personal information from its customers.

Melissa Arechiga of Alameda County California filed the suit on
Feb. 23 claiming that a GameStop store recorded her name, credit
card number, and personal identification information (PII) after
purchasing items.  These actions violate California Civil Code
section 1747.08, which prohibits corporations from requesting
credit card users to provide and record their PII.

"Defendants' employee made no attempt to erase, strikeout,
eliminate, or otherwise delete Plaintiff's personal identification
information from the electronic cash register after the
Plaintiff's credit card number was recorded," the suit says.

Ms. Arechiga believes GameStop uses PII obtained from cardholders
to obtain additional personal information, such as residential
addresses.  "Such conduct is performed intentionally and without
the knowledge or consent of the cardholder, and is of potentially
great benefit to [GameStop]."

The Class is defined as all California GameStop customers where
the store requested and recorded personal identification
information when using a credit card to purchase items within one
year of this filing.

The suit is asking the court to enjoin GameStop from further using
its policy that requests and records customer PII and award each
member of the Class what he or she is entitled to under California
Civil Code 1747.08.

A GameStop spokesperson told IGN the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

A copy of the suit in PDF form can be found at http://is.gd/K4IytO


GOLD'S GYM: Faces Class Action in Calif. for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims the Gold's Gym in Elk Grove installed a hidden camera in a
tanning room, invading the privacy of its naked customers.

A copy of the Complaint in Stroup, et al. v. Elk Grove Fitness,
LLC, et al. Case No. 34-2011-00098086 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/01/GoldsGym.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David P. Mastagni, Esq.
          Phillip R.A. Mastagni, Esq.
          MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN
          1912 "I" Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
          Telephone: (916) 446-4692
          E-mail: dmastagni@mastagni.com
                  phillip@mastagni.com


GREENWICH HOSPITAL: Judge John Blawie Rejects Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Friedman, writing for Greenwhich Times, reports that a state
Superior Court judge has stricken both counts of a class-action
lawsuit against Greenwich Hospital over its handling of a drug-
addicted surgeon, a significant blow to eight former patients who
were hoping the case would go to trial.

Four months after Judge John Blawie took a motion to strike under
advisement, he ruled it was a stretch to argue the hospital
violated any clauses under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act by promoting Dr. Ian Rubins as a top breast specialist while
he was dealing privately with drug addiction.

Judge Blawie, however, did outline other avenues for the
plaintiffs to pursue a case.

"Unfair trade practice statutes were clearly not enacted to
address potential abuses in the practice of medicine itself,"
Judge Blawie wrote in his memorandum filed last week.  "That is
what medical malpractice claims are for."

The lawsuit, filed in 2008 in state Superior Court, argues the
hospital violated CUPTA by ignoring Dr. Rubins' drug problems to
maintain the profitability of its specialized breast center.
Dr. Rubins, a private plastic surgeon who had privileges at the
hospital, died of a heroin overdose in 2008.

Dr. Rubins had a string of incidents involving substance abuse and
had entered rehabilitation programs several times while at the
hospital.

In one instance in 2006, he was found slurring his words and half
asleep during a shift and later allegedly used a fake urine sample
when asked to submit to a drug test.  In 2007, Dr. Rubins admitted
to injecting himself with a painkiller while on duty, resulting in
his suspension.

In October 2010, lawyers for both sides argued before Judge Blawie
in court on the motion to strike.  Hospital lawyers said the case
was not about business practices, but medical services.  Lawyers
said even if the case stood on trade-practice grounds, plaintiffs'
lawyers could not prove the advertisements promoting Dr. Rubins as
a "top breast specialist" were false because they were "puffery."

Judge Blawie agreed with that argument in his decision.

"We conclude that this representation was simply what all
physicians and health care providers represent to the public,"
Judge Blawie wrote.  "That they are licensed and impliedly that
they will meet the applicable standards of care.  If they fail to
meet the standard of care and harm results, the remedy is not one
based upon CUPTA, but upon malpractice."

The hospital also claimed they could not release information to
the public about Dr. Rubins' drug problems because it would
violate state laws that sought to keep that information
confidential -- another element Judge Blawie supported.

"The court agrees with the hospital that it had no duty to
publicly disclose the information about Dr. Rubins," Judge Blawie
said. "Plaintiffs have not made any showing, pointed to any safe
harbor, any safe path, for the hospital to do without thereby
running afoul of some law or regulation."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, which include Sean McElligott, had
argued the lawsuit was valid under CUPTA because the hospital knew
about Dr. Rubins' chronic addiction, but still solicited surgical
candidates by promoting him as one of the best.  They further
argued that the hospital intentionally violated Connecticut law by
concealing its knowledge of Dr. Rubins' condition from state
regulatory authorities in order to avoid embarrassment and
maintain the profitability of the "lucrative business."

Judge Blawie said that since the plaintiffs did not mention the
alleged failure of the hospital to report Dr. Rubins to the state
in their original complaint, he could not consider that in making
his decision.  The plaintiffs' allegation came later in briefs
submitted to the court.

"If the plaintiffs wish to allege a failure by the hospital to
report Dr. Rubins to the appropriate authorities as required by
state statue, they may only do so by pleading over," states the
decision.

In his conclusion, Judge Blawie wrote that Dr. Rubins' case
illustrates that the consumer is often not the "proper judge of
the competence of the professional."

Judge Blawie was also set to rule on whether a series of documents
from Dr. Rubins' personnel file should be disclosed.  Granting the
motion to strike made that decision moot.  But Judge Blawie wrote
certain privileges "clearly exist."

Mr. McElligott said on Feb. 28 he was reviewing Judge Blawie's
decision and "carefully evaluating the options available to us."

Greenwich Hospital has continually declined comment on the matter.


GROUPON: Sued Over Illegal Expiration Dates in Coupons
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lansu, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that a
potential class action lawsuit was filed in federal court on
March 1 against Chicago-based Groupon, claiming the discounted
gift certificate Web site issues coupons with illegal expiration
dates.

Eli R. Johnson claims he purchased a gift certificate Aug. 15 to
WhirlyBall through Groupon with an illegally deceptive expiration
date, according to a suit filed in U.S. District Court.  The
certificate was good for 30 minutes of play for up to 10 people
for $55.

Groupon offers "Daily Deals" coupons through its Web site that do
not become valid until a certain number of consumers accept the
offer.  The coupons are purchased through Groupon and offer a
significant discount off a given retailer's regular price for an
item or service.

Groupon spokeswoman Julie Mossler said the company does not
comment on pending legal action.

Groupon and the retail partners state the gift certificates expire
within months.  The suit claims the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act prohibits the sale of gift
certificates with expiration dates of less than five years.

The suit claims the WhirlyBall gift certificate had an expiration
date of Feb. 16 and did not list an issuance date.

WhirlyBall also is listed as a defendant.


HALLMARK INVESTMENTS: Accused of New York Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Parker, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Hallmark Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. Case 650542/2011
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 28, 2011), accuse the
defendants of non-payment of overtime wages, in violation of 12
NYCRR Section 142-2.2 and improper deductions from Class members'
paychecks in violation of New York Labor Law Section 193 and 198b.

Hallmark Investments, Inc., et al., operated as full-service
independent broker-dealers offering a comprehensive range of
financial and wealth management services for retail investors.

Stanley Parker worked for defendants from December 2007 until
March 2009.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          E-mail: matthew@jhllp.com
                  charles@jhllp.com
                  mpalmer@jhllp.com
                  maimon@jhllp.com


INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From Settlement Order Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by several objectors against the final judgment
dismissing IPO-related cases upon the settlement against
Informatica Corporation and other defendants remains pending,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The case is entitled In re Informatica Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants Informatica
Corporation, two of the Company's former officers, and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the
Company's April 29, 1999 initial public offering (IPO) and
September 28, 2000 follow-on public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statements for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The
complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued.  No
specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging more
than 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the
Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer
defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange
for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and
for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the
Company may have against the underwriters.  The Informatica
defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the
settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage.  Any
final settlement will require approval of the Court after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.

All parties in all lawsuits have reached a settlement, which will
not require the Company to contribute cash unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of the insurance coverage.  The Court gave preliminary approval
to the settlement on June 10, 2009 and gave final approval on
October 6, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of appeals
of the final judgment dismissing the cases upon the settlement.


J CREW GROUP: Court Denies Request to Vacate Stay on Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven class action complaints filed against J. Crew Group Inc., in
New York have been consolidated, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Seven purported class action complaints were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York in connection with the previously
announced Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended on January 18,
2011), dated as of November 23, 2010, among the Company, Chinos
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Chinos Acquisition
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent (each of Parent and Merger Sub are beneficially owned by
affiliates of TPG Capital, L.P. and Leonard Green & Partners,
L.P.).  The Company also previously disclosed that on January 13,
2011, the court in the New York Actions ruled that those cases
will be stayed indefinitely in favor of shareholder litigation
proceeding in Delaware.  On February 17, 2011, the plaintiffs in
the New York Actions presented to the Supreme Court of the State
of New York an Order to Show Cause seeking to vacate the stay of
the New York Actions, consolidate all of the New York Actions,
enjoin the shareholder vote to adopt the Merger Agreement
scheduled for March 1, 2011, and direct a hearing on the
plaintiffs' claims.

At a hearing on February 24, 2011, the New York court denied the
plaintiffs' request to enjoin the shareholder vote, and denied the
plaintiffs' request to lift the stay of proceedings except to
order the seven cases consolidated and appoint the plaintiffs'
agreed-upon lead plaintiff structure. The cases otherwise remain
stayed.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Motions to Dismiss Appeals in IPO Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss appeals from a court order granting final
approval of the settlement of a consolidated IPO class action
lawsuit are pending, according to Juniper Networks Inc.'s
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2001, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Royal Bank of
Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels), SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC), Chase (Hambrecht &
Quist LLC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated, Juniper Networks and certain of Juniper Networks'
officers.  This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in its initial public offering in June 1999
and the Company's secondary offering in September 1999.
Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that the
prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in
the Company's initial public offering and the Company's subsequent
secondary offering contained certain false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common
stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from
customers related to such allocations.  Various plaintiffs have
filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial
public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers.  These
various cases pending in the Southern District of New York have
been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In April 2002, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the action
against the Company, alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants in
the coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against
the Company.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an Opinion and Order
granting final approval of the settlement.  Under the settlement,
the insurers are to pay the full amount of settlement share
allocated to the Company, and the Company will bear no financial
liability.  The Company and other defendants will receive complete
dismissals from the case.  Certain objectors have appealed the
Court's October 5, 2009, final order to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.  Plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss the appeals.


LENNOX HEARTH: Recalls 3,200 Log Set Burner Assemblies
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lennox Hearth Products LLC, of Nashville, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,200 Lennox Shadowdance Natural Gas Log
Set Burner Assemblies.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A crack can develop at the gas valve connection allowing natural
gas to leak while the burner is in use, posing a risk of carbon
monoxide poisoning.

Lennox has received 20 reports of cracks at the gas valve
connection.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves gas burners sold with Lennox brand
Shadowdance natural gas log set burner assemblies.  The product is
used in a wood-burning fireplace or a ventless firebox enclosure.
The assemblies were sold under model numbers LSVFSD-18, LSVFSD-24
and LSVFSD-30, and include a burner and ceramic-fiber log set.
Replacement gas burners also were sold separately under model
number LSVFSD-NG. Burners included in this recall have serial
numbers that begin with 6407, 6408, 6409 and 6410A through 6410G.
The burner's model and serial numbers are printed on a metal
identification plate attached to the burner.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11149.html

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold through
Fireplace and HVAC retailers and installers nationwide from August
2007 through December 2010 for between $700 and $850.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled natural gas
log set burner assemblies.  Consumers can contact Lennox to
arrange for a free replacement of the burner.  For additional
information, please contact Lennox Hearth Products at (800) 299-
0027 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.lennoxhearthproducts.com/


LIGHTS OF AMERICA: Sued for False Advertising on LED Lamps
----------------------------------------------------------
Class Action.org is alerting consumers to claims that Lights of
America falsely represented the light output and life expectancy
of its Light Emitting Diode Bulbs.  LED bulbs are sold for home
use and are expected to last longer and have a higher efficiency
than incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs. However, a Lights
of America class action alleges that the company falsely
represented to consumers that its LED bulbs would produce a light
output equivalent to a certain watt incandescent light bulb or
last a certain number of hours.  If you purchased a Lights of
America LED bulb believing these allegedly misleading claims, you
may be entitled to financial compensation.  Visit
http://www.classaction.org/lights-of-america-led-lamps.htmltoday
and fill out the free case evaluation form to find out if you can
become a member of a Lights of America class action lawsuit.

In September 2010, the Federal Trade Commission sued Lights of
America to prevent them from misleading consumers by exaggerating
the life expectancy and light output of its LED lamps in product
packages and brochures.  The FTC claims that the bulbs produce
significantly less light than stated in promotional materials.
For instance, according to the FTC, one bulb was advertised as
producing 90 lumens of light output, but tests conducted by Lights
of America found that the bulb produced only 43 lumens.  The FTC
has also alleged that the LED bulbs do not last as long as stated
in promotional materials and that the company deceptively compared
the brightness of its LED lamps with incandescent bulbs.

If you purchased a Lights of America LED lamp, you may be able to
participate in a Lights of America class action lawsuit to recover
compensation for damages resulting from the company's allegedly
deceptive claims.  Visit Class Action.org today to learn more
about the Lights of America class action lawsuit and to receive a
no cost, no obligation review of your claim.  The consumer fraud
lawyers working with Class Action.org are offering this online
case review at no cost and remain committed to protecting the
rights of consumers who were affected by false or misleading
advertising.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


MATTEL INC: 2007 Product Recall Class Litigation in US Concluded
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class litigation asserted against Mattel Inc. over voluntary
product withdrawals the Company implemented in 2007 has been
concluded with the dismissal of all pending appeals in the case,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that
all federal actions related to their voluntary product recalls be
coordinated and transferred to the Central District of California
(In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation,
No. 2:07-ML-01897-DSF-AJW, MDL 1897 (C. D. Ca.)).  On December 18,
2007, the JPML issued a transfer order, transferring six actions
pending outside the Central District of California (Sarjent,
Shoukry, Goldman, Monroe, Chow and Hughey) to the Central District
of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with five actions pending in the Central District (Mayhew, White,
Luttenberger, Puerzer and Shah).  The remaining cases (Healy,
Powell, Rusterholtz, Jiminez, Probst, Harrington, DiGiacinto,
Allen, Sanders, Entsminger, and White II), so-called "potential
tag-along actions," were either already pending in the Central
District of California or were transferred there pursuant to
January 3 and January 17, 2008 conditional transfer orders issued
by the JPML.

On March 31, 2008, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in the MDL proceeding, which was followed with a
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed on May 16, 2008.
Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons who,
from May 2003 through the present, purchased and/or acquired
certain allegedly hazardous toys.  The Consolidated Complaint
defined hazardous toys as those toys recalled between August 2,
2007 and October 25, 2007, due to the presence of lead in excess
of applicable standards in the paint on some parts of some of the
toys; those toys recalled on November 21, 2006 and August 14,
2007, related to magnets; and the red and green toy blood pressure
cuffs voluntarily withdrawn from retail stores or replaced at the
request of consumers.  Defendants named in the Consolidated
Complaint were Mattel, Fisher-Price, Target Corporation, Toys "R"
Us, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., KB Toys, Inc., and Kmart
Corporation.  Mattel assumed the defense of Target Corporation,
Toys "R" Us, Inc., KB Toys, Inc., and Kmart Corporation, and
agreed to indemnify all of the retailer defendants, for the
specific claims raised in the Consolidated Complaint, which claims
related to the sale of Mattel and Fisher-Price toys.

In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs asserted claims for
breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, strict
liability, violation of the United States Consumer Product Safety
Act and related Consumer Product Safety Rules, various California
consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
sought (i) declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining defendants
from continuing the allegedly unlawful practices raised in the
Consolidated Complaint; (ii) restitution and disgorgement of
monies acquired by defendants from the allegedly unlawful
practices; (iii) costs of initial diagnostic blood lead level
testing to detect possible injury to plaintiffs and members of the
class; (iv) costs of treatment for those who test positive to the
initial diagnostic blood lead level testing; (v) reimbursement of
the purchase price for the allegedly hazardous toys; and (vi)
costs and attorneys' fees.  On June 24, 2008, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  On November 24,
2008, the Court granted defendants' motion with respect to
plaintiffs' claims under the CPSA related to the magnet toys and
the toy blood pressure cuffs and denied defendants' motions in all
other respects.

On March 15, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the parties' motion
for final approval of the class action settlement.  On March 26,
2010, the Court entered a final judgment dismissing the MDL
proceeding with prejudice, certifying the settlement class,
overruling all objections, and approving all aspects of the class
action settlement except plaintiffs' counsel's application to the
Court for attorneys' fees and expenses.  Under the settlement,
Mattel agreed, among other things, to provide various categories
of economic relief for members of the settlement class, maintain a
quality assurance system, make a charitable contribution to fund
child safety programs, and not object to plaintiffs' counsel's
application to the Court for attorneys' fees and expenses up to a
specified amount.  On May 5, 2010, the Court entered an order
awarding plaintiffs' counsel approximately $11 million in fees and
expenses, which was paid by Mattel during the three months ended
June 30, 2010.

Three appeals were filed by objectors relating to the approval of
the settlement, dismissal of the MDL actions, and the award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.  In addition, plaintiffs appealed
the award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  On November 19, 2010,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the parties' Joint
Stipulation to dismiss all of the appeals.  This litigation is now
concluded, and the parties are proceeding to provide the Class
with the relief specified in the class action settlement approved
by the district court.


MATTEL INC: Canadian Suits Over Defective Products Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc. continues to defend itself from purported class action
complaints in Canada over defective products the Company allegedly
sold.

Since September 26, 2007, nine proposed class actions have been
filed in the provincial superior courts of the following Canadian
provinces: British Columbia (Trainor v. Fisher-Price, filed
September 26, 2007); Alberta (Cairns v. Fisher-Price, filed
September 26, 2007); Saskatchewan (Sharp v. Mattel Canada, filed
September 26, 2007); Quebec (El-Mousfi v. Mattel Canada, filed
September 27, 2007, Fortier v. Mattel Canada, filed October 10,
2007 and Price v. Mattel Canada, filed October 8, 2010); Ontario
(Wiggins v. Mattel Canada, filed September 28, 2007); New
Brunswick (Travis v. Fisher-Price, filed September 28, 2007); and
Manitoba (Close v. Fisher-Price, filed October 3, 2007).  Mattel,
Fisher-Price, and Mattel Canada are defendants in all of the
actions, and Fisher-Price Canada is a defendant in two of the
actions (El-Mousfi and Wiggins).  All but two of the cases seek
certification of both a class of residents of that province and a
class of all other residents of Canada outside the province where
the action was filed.  The classes are generally defined similarly
in all of the actions to include both purchasers of the toys
recalled by Mattel and Fisher-Price in August and September 2007
and children, either directly or through their parents as "next
friends," who have had contact with those toys.

The actions in Canada generally allege that defendants were
negligent in allowing their products to be manufactured and sold
with lead paint on the toys and negligent in the design of the
toys with small magnets, which led to the sale of defective
products.  The cases typically state claims in four categories:
(i) production of a defective product; (ii) misrepresentations;
(iii) negligence; and (iv) violations of consumer protection
statutes.  Plaintiffs generally seek general and special damages,
damages in the amount of monies paid for testing of children based
on alleged exposure to lead, restitution of any amount of monies
paid for replacing recalled toys, disgorgement of benefits
resulting from recalled toys, aggravated and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of
litigation costs and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs in all of the
actions except one do not specify the amount of damages sought.
In the Ontario action (Wiggins), plaintiff demands general damages
of C$75 million and special damages of C$150 million, in addition
to the other remedies.  In November 2007, the class action suit
commenced by Mr. Fortier was voluntarily discontinued.  In
December 2009, the Quebec court granted plaintiff's request in the
El-Mousfi action to discontinue that proceeding.  On February 3,
2010, the plaintiff in the Saskatchewan action (Sharp) served a
notice of motion seeking certification of the action as a class
action.  That motion for certification, originally scheduled to be
heard in November 2010, has been adjourned with no new hearing
date scheduled.  Certification has not yet been sought in any of
the other actions in Canada.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


MATTEL INC: Continues to Defend Drop-Side Crib Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc.'s Fisher-Price subsidiary continues to defend class
lawsuits in Canada over defective drop-side cribs, the Company
relates in its February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In late November 2009, five proposed class actions were filed in
provincial superior courts in five different Canadian provinces
against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Fisher-Price Canada Inc. alleging
claims based on alleged manufacturing defects in drop-side cribs
manufactured by Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. between 1993 and
2009, including Fisher-Price branded drop-side cribs manufactured
and sold by Stork Craft pursuant to a License Agreement with
Fisher-Price, Inc.  These claims follow product recalls of Stork
Craft-manufactured drop-side cribs in the United States and
Canada.  Stork Craft and the corporate entities of a number of
retailers, including Wal-Mart, Sears, The Bay and Toys R' Us, also
have been named as defendants in the proposed class actions.  The
five proposed class actions are: Cedar Dodd v. Stork Craft
Manufacturing Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on November 24, 2009, Victoria Registry, Action No. 09
5327; Amy St. Pierre et al. v. Fisher-Price Canada Inc., et al.,
filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta on November 24,
2009, Judicial District of Calgary, Action No. 0901-17700; Kim
Riel v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. et al., filed in the Court
of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan, on November 25, 2009, Judicial
Centre of Regina, Q.B. No. 1794 of 2009; Tara Russell v. Stork
Craft Manufacturing Inc. et al., filed in the Court of Queen's
Bench of Manitoba, on November 25, 2009, Winnipeg Centre, File No.
C1 09-01-63980; and David Duong et al. v. Stork Craft
Manufacturing Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on November 25, 2009, in Ottawa, Court File No. 09-46962.

The five proposed class actions are all brought by the same
plaintiff's law firm and the allegations are essentially the same.
Each of the proposed class actions is based on allegation that the
drop-side mechanisms used in the Stork Craft cribs are dangerously
defective in that they create a risk that infants will be injured
as a result of falling from or becoming entrapped in the crib.
The claims are based in negligence, waiver of tort and breach of
provincial sale of goods and consumer protection legislation.  The
claims seek damages for personal injury and economic loss,
including recovery of the purchase price paid for the cribs, as
well as an accounting, disgorgement or restitution of revenue
earned by the defendants from selling the cribs.  The claims
further seek exemplary, aggravated and punitive damages.  No
amount of damages is specified in any of the claims, except the
Ontario claim which seeks C$1 million in general damages and C$1
million in special damages.  Each of the proposed class actions
seeks certification on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
(except defendants) that owned or purchased the drop-side cribs in
question.  No motion for certification has yet been filed in any
of the actions.

The License Agreement between Fisher-Price and Stork Craft
includes an indemnity clause whereby Stork Craft agreed to
indemnify Fisher-Price in respect of claims against Fisher-Price
relating to Stork Craft manufactured products.  While Mattel
intends for Fisher-Price to seek indemnity from Stork Craft to
cover all costs related to these claims, there can be no assurance
that Fisher-Price ultimately would be successful in obtaining full
indemnity from Stork Craft.


METLIFE INC: Unit Defending Suit Over Clean Air Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Homer City OL6 LLC is defending itself from a class action lawsuit
alleging violation of the Clean Air Act in Pennsylvania, according
to MetLife, Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On January 4, 2011, the United States of America commenced a civil
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P.,
Homer City OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations
of the Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating
facility.  Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, is a passive investor with a non-
controlling interest in the electricity generating facility, which
is solely operated by the lessee, EME Homer City.  The complaint
seeks injunctive relief and assessment of civil penalties for
alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania's
State Implementation Plan.  The alleged violations were the
subject of Notices of Violations that the Environmental Protection
Agency issued to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC, and others in
June 2008 and May 2010.  On January 7, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted
the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and the State of New York to intervene in the lawsuit
as additional plaintiffs.

On January 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a putative class action
titled Scott Jackson and Maria Jackson v. EME Homer City
Generation L.P., et. al., in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative class
of persons who have allegedly incurred damage to their persons
and/or property because of the violations alleged in the action
brought by the United States.  Homer City OL6 LLC is a defendant
in this action.  EME Homer City has acknowledged its obligation to
indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for any claims relating to the NOVs.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Clark" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract remains
pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit entitled Clark, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed March 28,
2008), alleges breach of contract and breach of a common law
fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use of the
Company's retained asset account, known as the Total Control
Account, to pay life insurance policy death benefits.  As damages,
plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between the
interest paid to the account holders and the investment earnings
on the assets backing the accounts.  In March 2009, the court
granted in part and denied in part MLIC's motion to dismiss,
dismissing the fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims but
allowing a breach of contract claim and a special or confidential
relationship claim to go forward.

On September 9, 2010, the court granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment.  On September 20, 2010, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Faber" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit alleging
ERISA violations against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
remains pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit entitled Faber, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., filed December 4,
2008), which alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
use of the Company's retained asset account, known as the Total
Control Account, as the settlement option under group life
insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA.
As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.  On October 23, 2009,
the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss with prejudice.  On
November 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Motion to Dismiss "Keife" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a breach
of contract lawsuit in Nevada remains pending, according to
MetLife, Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

A putative class action lawsuit entitled Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.) was filed in
state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court on
September 7, 2010.  The lawsuit raises a breach of contract claim
arising from MLIC's use of the Company's retained asset account,
known as the Total Control Account, to pay life insurance benefits
under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program.  As
damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.  In September 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the breach of
contract claim, which the court has stayed.  On November 22, 2010,
MLIC filed a motion to dismiss.


METLIFE INC: 10th Circuit Affirms Judgment in "Thomas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed
a judgment granting the summary judgment motion filed by
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and MetLife Securities, Inc.,
in a class action in Oklahoma, according to MetLife, Inc.'s
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action complaint entitled Thomas, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (W.D. Okla.) was filed on
January 31, 2007 against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and
MetLife Securities, Inc.  Plaintiffs asserted legal theories of
violations of the federal securities laws and violations of state
laws with respect to the sale of certain proprietary products by
the Company's agency distribution group.  Plaintiffs sought
rescission, compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

In August 2009, the district court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  On February 2, 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court granting MLIC's and MSI's summary judgment motion.


METLIFE INC: May Have to Indemnify Sun Life in "Kang" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may be obligated to indemnify
Sun Life Assurance Co. in a class action pending in Ontario,
Canada, according to MetLife, Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, as successor to the
purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian
operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that
MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain
individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been
transferred to Sun Life.  The case was titled Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct.,
Ontario, October 2006).  Sun Life had asked that the court require
MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian
operations entered into in June of 1998.  In January 2010, the
court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for
indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet
incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment.  Both parties appealed.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC
is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims
in this lawsuit.  MLIC is currently not a party to the Kang v. Sun
Life lawsuit.


NICOR INC: Four Shareholder Suits Over AGL Merger Now Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four shareholder class action lawsuits filed in a Cook County,
Illinois, court against Nicor Inc. over the merger agreement
between Nicor and AGL Resources Inc. have been consolidated,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Nicor, its board of directors, AGL Resources Inc. and one or both
of AGL Resources' acquisition subsidiaries and, in one instance,
Nicor's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer have
been named as defendants in five putative class action lawsuits
brought by purported Nicor shareholders challenging Nicor's
proposed merger with AGL Resources.  The first shareholder action
was filed on December 7, 2010 in the Eighteenth Circuit Court of
DuPage County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division
(Joseph Pirolli v. Nicor Inc., et al.).  The other four actions
were filed between December 10, 2010 and December 17, 2010 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division (Maxine Phillips v. Nicor Inc., et al., filed
December 10, 2010; Plumbers Local #65 Pension Fund v. Nicor Inc.,
et al., filed December 13, 2010; Gus Monahu v. Nicor Inc., et al.,
filed December 17, 2010; and Roberto R. Vela v. Russ M. Strobel,
et al., filed December 17, 2010).

The shareholder actions variously allege, among other things, that
the Nicor Board breached its fiduciary duties to Nicor and its
shareholders by (i) approving the sale of Nicor to AGL Resources
at an inadequate purchase price (and thus failing to maximize
value to Nicor shareholders); (ii) conducting an inadequate sale
process by agreeing to preclusive deal protection provisions in
the Merger Agreement; and (iii) failing to disclose material
information regarding the proposed merger to Nicor shareholders.
The complaints also allege that AGL Resources, Nicor and the
acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The shareholder actions seek, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders
enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed merger
and, in certain instances, damages.

On January 10, 2011, the four actions filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division
were consolidated.  Nicor believes the claims asserted in each
lawsuit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.  The final disposition of these shareholder
litigation-related matters is not expected to have a material
adverse impact on the Company's liquidity or financial condition.


NOTEWORLD SERVICING: Sued Over "Exorbitant" Debt Adjusting Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Noteworld Servicing Center "swindle(s) money from consumers" with
"exorbitant up-front fees" and actually increases their debts.

A copy of the Complaint in Burke v. Noteworld, LLC, Case No.
11-cv-00029 (S.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/01/DebtAdjust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Hudson, Esq.
          Christopher A. Cosper, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, PC
          Post Office Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: 706-993-1533
          E-mail: dhudson@hullbarrett.com
                  ccosper@hullbarrett.com

               - and -

          Angela McElroy-Magruder, Esq.
          CLAEYS MCELROY-MAGRUDER & ASSOC.
          512 Telfair Street
          Augusta, GA 30901
          Telephone: (706) 724-6000
          E-mail: angie@augustalawfirm.com


NYSE EURONEXT: D&Os Face Third Suit Over Sale of Company to DB
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Municipal Police Employee's Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NYSE
Euronext, et al., Case No. 650537/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty. February 25, 2011), accuses NYSE's board of directors of
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's public
shareholders and Deutsche Borse AG, for aiding and abetting these
breaches, in connection with the individual defendants attempt to
complete the sale of NYSE to DB without a pre-announcement sales
process, without a post-announcement sales process, and while
creating significant deterrents to the successful emergence of a
competing bid.

NYSE is the world's leading and most liquid equities exchange
group, with more than 8,000 listed issues.  DB, an international
financial marketplace operator organized under the laws of the
Federal Republic of Germany, operates the Frankfurt Exchange.

On February 15, 2011, NYSE and DB publicly announced the sale of
NYSE to DB, pursuant to which they agreed to combine their
respective businesses and become subsidiaries of a newly formed
Dutch holding company.

Under the terms of the proposed transaction, valued at
approximately $10 billion, each share of NYSE common stock will be
converted into the right to receive 0.47 shares of the combined
new company.  Assuming that all DB shares are tendered, it is
expected that DB shareholders will own 60% of the equity of the
combined company, and NYSE shareholders will own 40% of the equity
of the combined company.

Specifically, the plaintiff says that the proposed transaction
"fails to provide any meaningful premium, despite the fact that
the transaction, if consummated, will result in a loss of control
over the Company and its prospects."  Additionally, certain of the
Company's officers and director will reap significant benefits as
a result of provisions in their employment contracts.  The
Company's minority shareholders, however, will not receive similar
material benefits, according to the Plaintiff.

Further, the lawsuit states that the agreement also includes
"unreasonable and draconian provisions" designed to impermissibly
"lock up" the proposed transaction, including a no-shop provision,
an unlimited matching right, and a Euro 250,000,000 termination
fee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          David L. Wales, Esq.
          Brett Middleton, Esq.
          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  DWales@blbglaw.com
                  brettm@blbglaw.com
                  JeremyF@blbglaw.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Removes "Provine" Labor Complaint to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard David Provine, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Office Depot, Inc., et al., Case
No. C11-00194 (Calif. Super. Ct. Contra Costa Cty.), was filed
on January 19, 2011.  The plaintiff accuses Office Depot of non-
payment of overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, in
violation of California law.

On the basis of diversity of citizenship under the Class Action
Fairness Act or CAFA, Office Depot, Inc., on February 25, 2011,
removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and
the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-00903 to the proceeding.

Plaintiff worked in a non-exempt position at a retail store
operated by defendant in Antioch, California from approximately
June 13, 2010, to December 30, 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          SPIRO MOSS LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          E-mail: dennisfmoss@yahoo.com
                  greg@spiromoss.com

               - and -

          Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          625 Broadway, Suite 600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Bradford, Esq.
          MORGAN. LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949).399-7000
          E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                  jbradford@morganlewis.com


OILSANDS QUEST: To Vigorously Defend Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Oilsands Quest Inc. has been notified of a purported class action
lawsuit.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleges that, due to an
overstatement of the accounting value of the Company's assets
during a three-year period between 2006 and 2009, the trading
price of the Company's securities was artificially inflated during
that period, to the detriment of shareholders.

Oilsands Quest management believes that the complaint is without
merit.  The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Oilsands Quest Inc. (NYSE Amex: BQI) --
http://www.oilsandsquest.com/-- is exploring and developing oil
sands permits and licenses, located in Saskatchewan and Alberta,
and developing Saskatchewan's first commercial oil sands
discovery.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Gobel Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Development Corporation continues to defend itself from
a royalty owner class action captioned Gobel et al v. Petroleum
Development Corporation, Case No. 09-C-40 in U. S. District Court,
Northern District of West Virginia filed on January 27, 2009,
according to the Company's February 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

David W. Gobel, individually and allegedly as representative of
all royalty owners in the Company's West Virginia oil and gas
wells, filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that the
Company failed to properly pay royalties.  The allegations state
that the Company improperly deducted certain charges and costs
before applying the royalty percentage.  Punitive damages are
requested in addition to breach of contract, tort and fraud
allegations.  On August 31, 2010, the federal judge issued an
order remanding the case to state court.  On October 27, 2010, the
state court set a trial date of April 2012.  The Company and the
plaintiff have been engaged in settlement discussions.  In 2010,
the Company recorded a charge to natural gas, natural gas liquids
(or NGLs) and crude oil sales in the statement of operations of
$3.3 million.  As of December 31, 2010, the Company has a total
accrual of $6.2 million related to the suit.

Given the inherent uncertainty in actions of this nature, the
Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the case at
this time; however, it could result in a loss in excess of the
amount accrued.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Statewide Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated continues to defend itself against
numerous class actions pending across the country, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Priceline.com Incorporated and certain third-party defendant
online travel companies are currently involved in approximately
fifty lawsuits, including certified and putative class actions,
brought by or against states, cities and counties over issues
involving the payment of hotel occupancy and other taxes (i.e.,
state and local sales tax) and the Company's "merchant" hotel
business.  The Company's subsidiaries Lowestfare.com LLC and
Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all of these cases.
Generally, each complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy
tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of
amounts to cover taxes under each law.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The statewide class actions and putative class actions include:

   * City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
   * City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * City of Jacksonville, FL et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and
        Marshall County, Indiana v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.
   * City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
   * City of Goodlettsville et al. v. priceline.com Inc. et al.
   * Township of Lyndhurst, NJ v. priceline.com Inc. et al.
   * County of Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et al.
   * Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
        County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al.
   * County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in all of the proceedings against it.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend "Chiste" Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2010, one purported class action, Chiste, et
al. v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (filed December 11, 2008 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York) brought by consumers, was pending against Priceline.com
Incorporated.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all
of the on-going proceedings against it, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeal Still Pending in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
One appeal remains pending in the securities class action lawsuit
filed against Priceline.com Incorporated in New York, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On March 16, March 26, April 27, and June 5, 2001, four putative
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming priceline.com, Inc.,
Richard S. Braddock, Jay Walker, Paul Francis, Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
as defendants (01 Civ. 2261, 01 Civ. 2576, 01 Civ. 3590 and 01
Civ. 4956).  Shives et al. v. Bank of America Securities LLC et
al., 01 Civ. 4956, also names other defendants and states claims
unrelated to us.  The complaints allege, among other things, that
the Company and the individual defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling priceline.com common stock
in the Company's March 1999 initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had allegedly solicited
and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.

After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a comprehensive
settlement on or about March 30, 2009.  On April 2, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement.  On June 9, 2009, the court granted the motion and
scheduled the hearing for final approval for September 10, 2009.
The settlement, previously approved by a special committee of the
Company's Board of Directors, compromised the claims against it
for approximately $0.3 million.  The court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement on October 5, 2009.
Notices of appeal of the Court's order have been filed with the
Second Circuit.  All but one of the appeals has been resolved.
The remaining appeal is still pending.


PRINCETON PARK: Sued for Violations of the Chicago RLTO
-------------------------------------------------------
Cornelia and Gardell Branch, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, et al. v. Princeton Park Homes, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2011-CH-07170 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. February 25,
2011), accuse the owner of their rental unit of failing to hold
their security deposit in a separate, interest-bearing, federally
insured Illinois bank account, failing to supply them with a
proper security deposit receipt, and failing to attach a summary
of the RLTO to their written rental agreement, as required by the
Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Municipal Code
Title 5 Chapter 12 et seq.

The plaintiffs state further that the rental agreement they signed
included numerous provisions prohibited by Section 5-12-140 of the
RLTO, too many to mention here.  The plaintiffs add that the
landlord also failed to make all necessary repairs to maintain the
premises as required by Section 5-12-070 of the RLTO.

Princeton Park Homes owns and manages the rental home where
plaintiffs resided, as well as several other properties located in
Chicago, Illinois.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants are
landlords as defined under RLTO Section 5-12-030(b).

The plaintiffs relate that in October of 2004, they entered into a
written five-year lease with defendants, which listed $715 as
plaintiff's monthly obligation for a three-bedroom townhouse unit
located at 9153 S. Harvard, in Chicago, Illinois.  They lived in
the unit from October 5, 2004, to October 31, 2010.  The
plaintiffs say that on November 4, 2004, plaintiffs paid a
security deposit of $1,230 to defendants, which plaintiffs allege
was not listed in the lease.

On October 1, 2009, plaintiffs and defendants entered into an
oral, month-to-month lease.  The parties agreed to a monthly rent
of $755.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Telephone: (312)781-0290
          E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com


SAFEWAY: Faces Class Action Over Recalled Food Items
----------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
Safeway is the target of a national class-action suit alleging it
has failed its duty to notify customers when they have bought
recalled food items.  "All their competitors make the effort to
contact customers," says Steve Gardner, the chief litigator for
the Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). "Safeway
just doesn't make an effort to do it.

"Safeway is probably ignorant of the fact that they were selling
tainted food at the time it was sold," says Mr. Gardner.  "We are
not alleging that they are dumping bad food.  But when they did
learn the products were recalled, they kept that fact effectively
secret."

It was a San Francisco neighborhood newsletter that informed
Jennifer Rosen that she possibly had salmonella tainted eggs in
her fridge purchased at Safeway.  Another plaintiff from Montana
purchased potentially deadly peanut butter cookies at Safeway that
were part also part of a salmonella recall.

Mr. Gardner and the CFPI are working together with San Francisco
consumer law attorney Dan LeBel.  They have filed a national class
action on behalf of the plaintiffs in Safeway's home state of
California alleging Safeway is in violation of the California
consumer protection laws.

Safeway has almost 2,000 stores across the United States and
Western Canada with annual revenues of more than $40 billion a
year.  The store regularly posts recall notices on its Web site,
but Gardner says Safeway is not meeting its corporate duty to
inform.

"They maintain that is sufficient." says Mr. Gardner, "but I for
one, do not generally check out the recall section of Safeway
before I go there to buy food."

Mr. Gardner says the Safeway club card members provide the grocery
retail chain with all kinds of information that make it possible
to contact customers when there is a recall.

"They have email, phone numbers, home addresses and all kinds of
information," says Mr. Gardner.  "There are some people who shop
at Safeway that don't have a frequent shopper number, although
since that is the only way you can get the sales prices, those
people are very few."

The suit asks first of all that Safeway begin to make an effort to
contact customers who have purchased recalled food items and,
secondly, that Safeway identity customers who paid for tainted
items and refund their money.

Steve Gardner is the senior litigator with the Centre for Science
in the Public Interest and is based in Texas.  Dan Lebel is a
consumer law attorney and securities attorney based in San
Francisco.


SHOPPER DISCOUNTS: Faces Class Action Over "Coupon Click Fraud"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action, led by a girl who bought her mom a present, claims
Internet merchant Shopper Discounts, a subsidiary of Webloyalty,
runs a "coupon click fraud" in which it lifts credit card
information when shoppers click on a pop-up ad, then steals $12 a
month for a so-called "membership" the shoppers never asked for,
were not aware of and don't want.

"The uniform business practice at issue in this case is as simple
as it is deceptive and devious," the class claims.

The class, led by 15-year-old Danielle Stryker, says the pop-up
windows appear when consumers "enter into online transactions with
one of Webloyalty's many e-commerce clients."

The pop-up promises a $10 cash rebate from the retailer on their
next purchase.

"Once the consumer clicks the 'pop-up' window and enters their
e-mail address to redeem their free $10 discount, their personal
information, including their credit or debit card number, is
automatically transferred to Webloyalty," the class claims.
"Webloyalty then automatically bills the consumer's credit card
for a flat monthly fee of $12 for a membership in its 'discount
club' on a purported 30-day trial basis."

The company allegedly e-mails consumers to tell them they can
cancel their membership within 30 days, but "more often than not,
such e-mails are typically recognized as 'spam' that is
disregarded, automatically filtered out of the consumer's e-mail
box, or ignored," according to the complaint.

"Consumers' credit or debit accounts are then billed month after
month for this 'membership program,' of which the consumers had no
knowledge and which they never accepted.  To add insult to injury,
the 'membership program' does not provide consumers with any
benefit whatsoever," the complaint states.

Webloyalty pays its retailer accomplices for signing up consumers,
the class claims.

The complaint also names Woman Within as a defendant.  The company
is the online retailer that Stryker used to buy a gift for her
mom.

Ms. Stryker says she saw the pop-up and clicked "continue" to
proceed with her purchase and 14 months later she saw the $12
check card purchase on her checking account, posted for Shopper
Discounts.  Then she discovered similar monthly charges dating
back to her original purchase.

She says the company agreed to cancel her "membership" but refused
to refund the 14 months of payments it collected from her.

The class claims Shopper Discounts and Woman Within violated the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, were unjustly enriched and
invaded consumer privacy.  It also seeks punitive damages for
larceny, fraud, trespass, and obtaining money by false pretenses.

A copy of the Complaint in Stryker v. Shopper Discounts, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00009 (W.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/01/ShopperCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marilyn Ann Solomon, Esq.
          Thomas W. Ashton, Esq.
          LAW FIRM OF MARILYN ANN SOLOMON
          103 East Cork Street
          Winchester, VA 22601
          Telephone: (540) 678-0569


SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Malpractice Suit Denied Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has refused to
expand a lawsuit beyond the seven people who are suing a South
Dakota urology clinic and its owners.

The plaintiffs sought to make it a class action suit representing
more than 6,000 patients.

The lawsuit against Siouxland Urology Center in Dakota Dunes and
doctors alleges that the former patients could have been exposed
to blood-borne infections because medical equipment that was
intended for single-patient use was reused at the clinic.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier ruled that the complaint did
not meet all the requirements for class action status.

The plaintiffs, identified as Iowa residents, seek more than $5
million on allegations that include negligence, medical
malpractice, and emotional distress.


TOMMY BAHAMA: Recalls 1,800 Mini-Candle Travel Sets
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tommy Bahama Group Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,800 mini-candle travel sets.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The candle flame can spread from the wick to the wax causing a
larger than expected flame, posing a risk of burns to consumers.

Tommy Bahama has received two reports of candles flames extending
to the wax area.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Tommy Bahama six tin mini-candle travel sets.
The mini-tin candles have the following scents: pineapple
paradise, pineapple cilantro, maui mango, coconut mango, hibiscus
blossom and caribbean breeze.  The six tin candles are packaged in
a beige carton with a matching sleeve that reads "Tommy Bahama",
"mini candle travel set" and "Set of 6 mini tins".  Various color
labels are affixed to the top of the bronze-colored tins listing
the individual candle scents.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11147.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and China
and sold through Tommy Bahama retail stores nationwide and online
at http://www.tommybahama.com/from November 2010 through January
2011 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled candles and
contact Tommy Bahama for a refund. Consumers can also return the
mini-candle set to their nearest Tommy Bahama retail store.  For
additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (866) 986-
8282 between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.tommybahama.com/


WADDELL & REED: Continues to Defend FLSA Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., continues to defend a class action
pending in California against it and various affiliates, according
to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young, individuals, on behalf of
themselves individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
commenced a lawsuit against Waddell & Reed, Inc., Waddell & Reed
Financial, Inc., Waddell & Reed Development, Inc., Waddell & Reed
Financial Advisors, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 09-CV-2909DMS
WVG, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.  In this action filed December 28, 2009, the
Company, along with various of its affiliates, were sued in an
individual action, class action and Fair Labor Standards Act
nationwide collective action by two former advisors asserting
misclassification of financial advisors as independent contractors
instead of employees.  Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA for
minimum wages and overtime wages, and under California Labor Code
Statutes for timely pay wages, minimum wages, overtime
compensation, meal periods, reimbursement of losses and business
expenses and itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair
Business Practices under Section 17200 of the California Business
& Professions Code.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief and monetary damages.

The Company says it intends to vigorously contest plaintiffs'
claims.  The Company's management opines that the ultimate
resolution and outcome of this matter is uncertain, and that at
this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to estimate
the expense or exposure, if any, that it may represent.  The
Company asserts that the ultimate resolution of this matter, or an
adverse determination against the Company, could have a material
adverse impact on the financial position and results of operations
of the Company.  However, this possible impact is unknown and not
reasonably determinable; therefore, no liability has been recorded
in the consolidated financial statements.


WAL-MART STORES: ACLU Supports Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Women's Law
Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court
on March 1, along with 32 other organizations, supporting a class
action lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart for systemic discrimination
against the company's female employees at stores across the
country.  A group of female employees initially sued Wal-Mart 10
years ago, claiming the company paid them lower wages and gave
them fewer promotions than men -- even when they had higher
performance ratings and more seniority than their male
counterparts.  The women claimed the treatment violated their
rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which ensures
protection against discrimination in the workplace.  The Supreme
Court will decide whether the class action lawsuit can go forward.

"Denying women equal pay and equal opportunities at work violates
our fundamental values of fairness and equality," said Lenora M.
Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project.  "All
employees should have the right to challenge unequal treatment in
the workplace.  A class action lawsuit is the best mechanism to
allow the employees of Wal-Mart, one of the largest employers in
the country, to address their claims of discrimination."

The brief addresses three aspects of sex discrimination:
significant disparities between women and men in pay and
promotions, archaic sex stereotypes that influence employment
decisions and systemic barriers that block individual women from
challenging the discrimination.

The evidence presented by the plaintiffs includes reports that
Wal-Mart managers across the country relied on archaic sex
stereotypes in denying promotions and equal pay for women.  In
court declarations, women described how they were told that men
deserve the promotions and higher pay because they have families
to support, while women are just working to make "extra money."
They also described how they were confined to departments such as
cosmetics and women's clothing, and denied jobs in hardware, meat-
cutting and firearms.  Other women reported that they were told
they could never advance because they were not part of a "boys
club" or were told they should stay in the kitchen with a "bun in
the oven" instead of advancing their careers.

"Plaintiffs presented evidence that Wal-Mart managers undervalued
women and espoused outdated stereotypes about their roles in the
workplace," said Ariela Migdal, staff attorney with the ACLU
Women's Rights Project.  "The women allege that Wal-Mart's
nationwide practice of leaving pay and promotion decisions up to
local managers allowed the stereotypes to limit their
opportunities.  Because of this, the women should be able to
pursue their class action."

The brief argues that a class action lawsuit is necessary because
many of the employees affected would not have the ability or
resources to bring such a lawsuit individually, and would have
reason to fear retaliation if they proceeded alone in challenging
the company.  Additionally, because employees claim they are
forbidden from discussing their pay levels with each other, it is
difficult to determine if they are being treated differently.  The
class action rules were designed, in part, to allow individuals to
overcome such barriers.

"The Supreme Court should, consistent with precedent, ensure that
individuals can continue to seek justice collectively, instead of
creating obstacles for low-paid workers seeking redress," said
Linda Lye, staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.
"The Court should allow this class action lawsuit to go forward to
give the women of Wal-Mart a chance to fight for their rights."

The brief can be viewed at http://is.gd/v9h9rr

More information on the ACLU's work fighting sex discrimination in
the workplace can be found at:

http://www.aclu.org/fighting-sex-discrimination-job/


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Awaits Trial in Royalty Suit
------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc., anticipates trial to be held this
year in a class action related to royalty payment calculation and
obligations, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County,
Colorado, filed a class action suit in Colorado state court
alleging that the Company improperly calculated oil and gas
royalty payments, failed to account for the proceeds that it
received from the sale of gas and extracted products, improperly
charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts withheld in
excess of ad valorem tax obligations.  The Company reached a final
partial settlement agreement for an amount that was previously
accrued.  The Company received a favorable ruling on its motion
for summary judgment on one claim now on appeal by plaintiffs.

The Company anticipates trial on the other remaining issue related
to royalty payment calculation and obligations under specific
lease provisions in 2011.  While the Company is not able to
estimate the amount of any additional exposure at this time, the
Company says it is reasonably possible that plaintiff's claims
could reach a material amount.


WISCONSIN ELECTRIC: Suit Against Retirement Plan Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit against Wisconsin Electric Power Company's retirement
plan remains pending, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 30, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Alan M. Downes, a former
employee, against The Wisconsin Energy Corporation Retirement
Account Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin.  Counsel representing the plaintiff is attempting to
seek class certification for other similarly situated plaintiffs.
The complaint alleges that Plan participants who received a lump
sum distribution under the Plan prior to their normal retirement
age did not receive the full benefit to which they were entitled
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) and are owed additional benefits, because the Plan
failed to apply the correct interest crediting rate to project the
cash balance account to their normal retirement age.

On September 6, 2010, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint alleging additional claims under ERISA and adding
Wisconsin Energy Corporation as a defendant.  The plaintiff has
not specified the amount of relief he is seeking.

The Company says that an adverse outcome of this lawsuit could
have a material adverse effect on Plan funding and expense and the
Company's results of operations.  Although the Company is
currently unable to predict the final outcome or impact of this
litigation, it is aware that courts in two similar lawsuits filed
in Wisconsin found that the interest crediting rates applied by
the pension plan involved in those cases were not in compliance
with ERISA.


YORK INT'L: Sued Over Defective Coleman DGU Series Furnaces
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
York International has knowingly sold defective Coleman DGU Series
Furnaces since 2003.

A copy of the Complaint in Goleman v. York International
Corporation, Case No. 11-cv-01328 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/01/Furnace.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
          FELGOISE LAW FIRM
          261 Old York Road, Suite 518
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: 215-886-1900

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000
          E-mail: mhenzel@henzellaw.com


* Tenn. Governor Proposes Ban on Class Action Over Consumer Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Locker, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports
that Gov. Bill Haslam is proposing new restrictions to the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, including a ban on class-action
lawsuits against violations of the 34-year-old law.

The governor also wants to exempt securities from the act's
coverage on the grounds that equities are regulated by federal and
state laws tailored to them.

The changes are part of a broader Gov. Haslam initiative that, if
approved by the legislature, would place new limits on civil
liability lawsuits in Tennessee.  The broader bill imposes lower
limits on noneconomic damage awards in personal-injury cases and
bans punitive damages in some of them.

Senate Bill 1522 is sponsored by Majority Leader Mark Norris, R-
Collierville, but has not been set for a hearing.

The bill's revisions would also:

Ban class-action lawsuits under the Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act, which would codify a 2008 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in a
Memphis case that the act allow only lawsuits by individuals.

Ban punitive damage awards when a separate TCPA provision is used
providing for awards three times actual damages in cases where the
courts find that unfair or deceptive acts were "willful or
knowing."

According to its preamble, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act
of 1977 was adopted "to protect consumers and legitimate business
enterprises from those who engage in unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

State Rep. Mike Kernell, D-Memphis, sponsored the bill at the
start of his second term. Now in his 19th, Kernell said on Feb. 28
that he's disappointed with efforts to weaken the law.

"I have not heard of any complaints about it," he said.  "It's not
really been discussed so I don't understand why it's all of a
sudden a problem.  . . . It protects consumers and businesses from
fly-by-night and fraudulent businesses."

The governor's legal counsel, Herbert Slatery, said the changes
"fit within everything else: providing some clarity for business,
including specified limits" on damage awards.

"So many other states have done this and we want to be
competitive," he said.

Mr. Slatery said the new administration believes TCPA has been
misused, a stance backed by the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce &
Industry, which brought it to the governor's attention.

"That's been a big issue for businesses and it's been exploited
over time," said the chamber's Bradley Jackson.  "We've heard
quite a bit of our businesses say it's unfair and it's not
something a lot of other states have."

But Mary Mancini of Tennessee Citizen Action, a citizen- and
consumer-rights group, said the bill would "dismantle key
provisions of the act, leaving, for example, victims of ponzi
schemes without the legal means to recover their losses.  . . .

"We're not clear how this legislation would create quality jobs,
boost the economy, or generate revenue for the state -- all things
we believe the legislature should be focused on right now."


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GNS II Posts $30M Retirement Obligation in 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNS II (U.S.) Corp., in 2010, recorded asset retirement
obligations for non-friable asbestos of about US$30 million,
according to a Company report, on Form S-1, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 14, 2011.

These AROs generally include the removal and disposition of non-
friable asbestos.  The Company has not recorded a liability for
these conditional AROs as of May 31, 2010.

COMPANY PROFILE:
GNS II (U.S.) Corp.
3033 Campus Drive
Suite E490
Plymouth, Minn. 55441
Telephone No.: (800) 918-8270

Description:

The Company produces and markets concentrated phosphate and potash
crop nutrients for the global agriculture industry.  Through its
broad product offering, the Company is a single source supplier of
phosphate- and potash-based crop nutrients and animal feed
ingredients.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Still Pending v. PPG Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc. has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC).  The Company and Corning Incorporated are each
50% shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.  As of the April
16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against
the Company, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous
asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served on
the Company.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

PPG Industries, Inc. is comprised of six reportable business
segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings, Architectural
Coatings - EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), Optical and
Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass.  The Company
is based in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Posts $350MM Net Losses Paid in 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos losses paid were
US$350 million in 2010, US$341 million in 2009 and US$658 million
in 2008, according to the Company's annual report filed on
Feb. 17, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Asbestos payments in 2008 included the Company's one-time net
payment of US$365 million associated with the settlement of the
ACandS, Inc. matter.  About 32% of total net paid losses in 2010
related to policyholders with whom the Company had entered into
settlement agreements limiting the Company's liability.

The Company recorded 1,722 policyholders at and for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 1,715 policyholders at and for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Continues to Defend W.Va. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are
still subject to asbestos direct action litigation in West
Virginia courts.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers (not
including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court in
West Virginia.

These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were
consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, W.Va.  The plaintiffs allege that the insurer
defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation of state
statutes by inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims.

The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging
inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed
in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts. These suits are
collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.

Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising similar allegations,
primarily violations of purported common law duties to third
parties, have also been asserted in various state courts against
TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in these suits are collectively
referred to as the Common Law Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.
Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to US$412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.

This settlement requires a payment of up to US$90 million by TPC,
subject to a number of significant contingencies.  Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements is a final order of
the bankruptcy court clarifying that all of these claims, and
similar future asbestos-related claims against TPC, are barred by
prior orders entered by the bankruptcy court (the 1986 Orders).

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the
pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common
Law Claims pending against TPC (the Clarifying Order).  The
Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct action claims that
may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties
to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en
banc, requesting reinstatement of the district court's judgment,
which were denied.  TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions
for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of
the Second Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions
were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding
that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and
Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against
TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court ruled that the bankruptcy court
had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.

However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.  On Oct. 21, 2009, all but
one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order requested that the
Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the order approving the
settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.

On Aug. 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
March 22, 2010 opinion, and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
seeking an order from the Supreme Court requiring the Second
Circuit to comply with the Supreme Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in
TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court denied the Petitions on Nov. 29,
2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on Sept. 2, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010, respectively, arguing
that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been met and
seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.

On Sept. 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On Dec. 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On Jan. 20, 2011, the
bankruptcy court entered judgment in accordance with its Dec. 16,
2010 ruling and ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus
prejudgment interest.  On Jan. 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from
the bankruptcy court's Jan. 20, 2011 judgment.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements described above, is a party to pending direct
action cases in Texas state court asserting common law claims.
All such cases that are still pending and in which SPC has been
served are currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Records Dec. 31 Liabilities of $21.16MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$21,159,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$20,587,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$8,563,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$6,944,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Long-term asbestos-related insurance receivables were
US$20,733,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$20,466,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$8,563,000
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$6,944,000
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Rogers Corporation produces specialty materials and components
that enable high performance and reliability of consumer
electronics, power electronics, mass transit, clean technology,
and telecommunications infrastructure.  The Company is based in
Rogers, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABB Ltd Pays $25M in Dec. 2010 for CE PI Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd, in December 2010, made a payment of US$25 million to the
Combustion Engineering Inc. (CE) Asbestos Personal Injury (PI)
Trust and thereby discharged its remaining payment obligations to
the CE Asbestos PI Trust.

The Company's CE was a co-defendant in a large number of lawsuits
claiming damage for personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos.  A smaller number of claims were also brought against
the Company's former Lummus subsidiary as well as against other
entities of the Company.

Separate plans of reorganization for CE and Lummus, as amended,
were filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  The CE
plan of reorganization and the Lummus plan of reorganization
(collectively, the Plans) became effective on April 21, 2006 and
Aug. 31, 2006, respectively.

The Company recorded asbestos-related cash expenditures of
US$51 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$1 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company recorded asbestos-related cash expenditures of
US$26 million during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with US$1 million during the three months ended Dec. 31,
2009.

ABB Ltd works with customers to engineer and install networks,
facilities and plants with particular emphasis on enhancing
efficiency, reliability and productivity for customers who
generate, convert, transmit, distribute and consume energy.  The
Company is based in Zurich, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Facing Actions as "Premises Defendant"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation has been named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by non-
employees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims
against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries
occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.  This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 24 such
cases tendered, resolved 46 during the period, and faced 1,116
unresolved cases during the period.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 18 such
cases tendered, resolved 20 during the period, and faced 1,138
unresolved cases during the period.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases.  As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$13 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$13 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded five
cases filed, seven resolved cases, and 37 unresolved cases.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded three
cases filed, seven resolved cases, and 39 unresolved cases.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$201,000 and
nil during the years ended Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company had an accrual of US$225,000
relating to these cases.

Huntsman Corporation manufactures differentiated organic chemical
products and inorganic chemical products.  The Company is based in
Salt Lake City, Utah.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Arguments in AMSF Case Set for April 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company says the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2011 will
hear oral arguments in an appeal filed by the Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF).

In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company
in federal court alleging violations of the federal securities
laws after the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an
investigation in connection with the Company's change in
accounting for revenue on long-term construction projects and
related disclosures.  In the weeks that followed, about 20 twenty
similar class actions were filed against it.

Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of the
Company's present or former officers and directors.  The class
action cases were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated
class action complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Company, et al., was filed and served upon the Company
in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now
styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al.  The Company settled with the SEC in
the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court.  In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by the Company, including that the Company failed
to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the Company file its
motion to dismiss.  The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting AMSF to re-plead some of those claims to correct
deficiencies in its earlier complaint.  In April 2006, AMSF filed
its fourth amended consolidated complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the
complaint that had been re-pled.  A hearing was held on that
motion in July 2006, and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal
of the claims against all individual defendants other than the
Company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO).  The court ordered that
the case proceed against the Company and its CEO.

In September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification,
and the Company's response was filed in November 2007.  The court
held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order Nov. 3, 2008
denying AMSF's motion for class certification.  AMSF then filed a
motion with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals requesting
permission to appeal the district court's order denying class
certification.

The Fifth Circuit granted AMSF's motion.  Both parties filed
briefs, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in December
2009.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
denying class certification.

On May 13, 2010, AMSF filed a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court.  In early January 2011, the Supreme Court granted
AMSF's writ of certiorari and accepted the appeal.

The parties will now submit legal briefs to the Court and the
Court will hear oral arguments in April 2011.  The appeal is
limited to review of the legal ruling of the Fifth Circuit
affirming the lower court's order denying class certification and
will not include review of the facts of the underlying lawsuit.

Halliburton Company provides services and products to customers in
the energy industry related to the exploration, development, and
production of oil and natural gas.  The Company serves major,
national, and independent oil and natural gas companies throughout
the world and operates under two divisions: the Completion and
Production segment and the Drilling and Evaluation segment.  The
Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural, Units Party to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
continue to be party to claims over the exposure of asbestos and
silica to seamen who sailed on the Great Lakes vessels formerly
owned and operated by certain of the Company's subsidiaries.

The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The Cleveland-Cliffs
Steamship Company have been named defendants in 489 actions
brought from 1986 to date by former seamen in which the plaintiffs
claim damages under federal law for illnesses allegedly suffered
as the result of exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while
serving as crew members aboard the vessels previously owned or
managed by the Company's entities until the mid-1980s.

All of these actions have been consolidated into multidistrict
proceedings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, whose docket
now includes a total of over 30,000 maritime cases filed by seamen
against ship-owners and other defendants.  All of these cases have
been dismissed without prejudice, but could be reinstated upon
application by plaintiffs' counsel.  By a series of court orders,
the court has been reinstating cases and dismissing other cases
without prejudice.

The Company is a defendant in 14 cases that have been reinstated
and 34 cases that have been dismissed.  The claims in the 14
reinstated cases involve allegations with respect to lung cancer,
asbestosis and pleural changes of varying severity.  The court
entered an order on March 2, 2010, dismissing without prejudice,
at the request of plaintiffs' counsel, the claims against the
viable defendants in 7,405 cases.

Separately, the cases that were reinstated have been placed in
suspense pending further order of the court.  In their place,
plaintiffs' counsel are identifying about 4,000 cases that they
wish to pursue, with the remaining cases to be dismissed subject
to a tolling agreement, which remains under negotiation, and
presented to the parties for approval.

Currently, about 3,400 cases have been identified of which the
Company is named the defendant in 68.  The claims against its
entities are insured in amounts that vary by policy year; however,
the manner in which these retentions will be applied remains
uncertain.

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an international mining and
natural resources company.  The Company produces iron ore pellets
in North America, supplies direct-shipping lump and fines iron ore
out of Australia, and produces metallurgical coal.  The Company is
based in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Subject to Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries have been
subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 17, 2011.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components
sold in the past by the Company's subsidiaries.

The vast majority of these claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a variety of products allegedly
containing asbestos.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the
past.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules
and components to global automotive original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets.  The Company is
based in Livonia, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Empire District Records $3.76MM ARO at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Empire District Electric Company recorded asbestos retirement
obligation liabilities of US$3,757,000 at Dec. 31, 2010, compared
with US$3,607,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company has identified asset retirement obligations associated
with the future removal of certain river water intake structures
and equipment at the Iatan Power Plant, in which the Company has a
12% ownership.

The Company also has a liability for future containment of an ash
landfill at the Riverton Power Plant along with a liability for
asset retirement obligations associated with the removal of
asbestos located at the Riverton and Asbury Plants.

In addition, the Company has a liability for the removal and
disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) contaminants
associated with its transformers and substation equipment.

The Empire District Electric Company operates its businesses as
three segments: electric, gas and other.  The Company is based in
Joplin, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DTE Energy Company Has $1.514BB AROs at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
DTE Energy Company's asset retirement obligations totaled
US$1.514 billion at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1.439 billion
at Jan. 1, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2011.

Less US$16 million in current liabilities, the ARO at Dec. 31,
2010 was US$1.498 billion.

The Company has a legal retirement obligation for the
decommissioning costs for its Fermi 1 and Fermi 2 nuclear plants.
To a lesser extent, the Company has legal retirement obligations
for gas production facilities, gas gathering facilities and
various other operations.

The Company has conditional retirement obligations for gas
pipeline retirement costs and disposal of asbestos at certain of
its power plants.  To a lesser extent, the Company has conditional
retirement obligations at certain service centers, compressor and
gate stations, and disposal costs for PCB contained within
transformers and circuit breakers.

DTE Energy Company's utility operations consist primarily of The
Detroit Edison Company and Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
(MichCon).  The Company also has four other segments that are
engaged in various energy-related businesses.  The Company is
based in Detroit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunswick Unit Still Has 2,500 Cases From Vapor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corporation's subsidiary, Old Orchard Industrial Corp.,
is a defendant in more than 2,500 lawsuits involving claims of
asbestos exposure from products manufactured by Vapor Corporation,
a former subsidiary divested by the Company in 1990.

The substantial majority of the asbestos suits involve numerous
other defendants.  The claims generally allege that Vapor sold
products that contained components, such as gaskets, which
included asbestos, and seek monetary damages.  Neither the Company
nor Vapor is alleged to have manufactured asbestos.

Several thousand claims, including more than 6,000 in 2010, have
been dismissed with no payment and no claim has gone to jury
verdict.  In a few cases, claims have been filed against other
Brunswick entities alleging the sale of products with components
that include asbestos.

A majority of these suits have been dismissed or settled for
nominal amounts, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2011.

Brunswick Corporation designs, manufactures and markets recreation
products including marine engines, boats, fitness equipment and
bowling and billiards equipment.  The Company is based in Lake
Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Posts $46.4MM Adjustment at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's asbestos adjustments resulting from
the effect of foreign exchange movements were unfavorable
adjustments of US$46.4 million for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010
and US$91.1 million for the nine months ended Dec. 31, 2010.

This compared to unfavorable adjustments of US$17.5 million for
the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009 and US$200 million in the nine
months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's asbestos adjustments are derived from an estimate of
future Australian asbestos-related liabilities in accordance with
the Amended and Restated Final Funding Agreement (AFFA).

For the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010, the number of new asbestos
claims of 142 is higher than new claims of 115 reported for the
corresponding quarter of the prior year.  For the nine months
ended Dec. 31, 2010, the number of new claims of 398 is lower than
new claims of 401 reported for the corresponding period last year,
and below actuarial expectations for the nine months ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

For the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010, the number of claims settled
of 139 is higher than claims settled of 130 in the corresponding
quarter of the prior year.  For the nine months ended Dec. 31,
2010, the number of settled claims of 334 is lower than claims
settled of 430 for the same period last year.

The average claim settlement for the nine months ended Dec. 31,
2010 of AUD196,000 is AUD9,000 higher than the same period last
year and below the actuarial expectations for the nine months.

Asbestos claims paid of AUD23.2 million and AUD71.9 million for
the quarter and nine months ended Dec. 31, 2010, respectively, are
lower than the actuarial expectation of AUD29.3 million and
AUD87.8 million for the quarter and nine months ended Dec. 31,
2010, respectively.

On Dec. 9, 2010, the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund, Amaca
Pty Ltd, Amaba Pty Ltd and ABN 60 Pty Limited entered into a
secured standby loan facility and related agreements (the
Facility) with The State of New South Wales, Australia, whereby
the AICF may borrow, subject to certain conditions, up to an
aggregate amount of AUD320 million (US$325.3 million, based on the
exchange rate at Dec. 31, 2010).

The term of the Facility expires on Nov. 1, 2020, at which time
all amounts outstanding under the Facility become due and payable.
As of Feb. 18, 2011, the conditions before drawdown on the
facility have not been satisfied; accordingly, there have been no
drawings or amounts outstanding under the Facility to date.

The Company made a further contribution of about AUD72.8 million
(US$63.7 million) to the AICF on July 1, 2010.  This amount
represented 35% of the Company's free cash flow for fiscal year
2010, as defined by the AFFA.  Since the AICF was established in
February 2007, the Company has contributed AUD375 million to the
fund.

James Hardie Industries SE, a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced
fiber cement, uses the material to create products for residential
and commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank),
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.  The Company also
makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business.  The Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hardie Posts $118.4MM Dec. 31 Current Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Hardie Industries SE's current asbestos liability amounted
to US$118.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$106.7 million as of March 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$1.604 billion as
of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1.512 billion as of March 31,
2010.

Current asbestos restricted cash and cash equivalents were US$80.8
million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$44.5 million as of
March 31, 2010.  Restricted asbestos short-term investments were
US$5.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$13.3 million
as of March 31, 2010.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$18.6 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$16.7 million as of March 31, 2010.
Deferred asbestos income taxes were US$14.2 million as of Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$16.4 million as of March 31, 2010.

Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$184 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$185.1 million as of March 31,
2010.  Deferred asbestos income taxes were US$452.6 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$420 million as of March 31, 2010.

James Hardie Industries SE, a pioneer in cellulose-reinforced
fiber cement, uses the material to create products for residential
and commercial construction, including siding (Hardiplank),
external cladding, walls, fencing, and roofing.  The Company also
makes fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) pipe through its Hardie Pipe
business.  The Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Actions Still Pending Against Alcoa Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Along with various asbestos manufacturers and distributors, Alcoa
Inc. and its subsidiaries as premises owners are defendants in
several hundred active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons
alleging injury predominantly as a result of occupational exposure
to asbestos at various company facilities.

In addition, an Alcoa subsidiary company has been named, along
with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern
complaint where the Company's involvement is not evident.  Since
1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed.  To date,
the subsidiary has been dismissed from almost every case that was
actually placed in line for trial.

The Company, its subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had
numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage
for asbestos based claims.  Many of these policies provide layers
of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations.
The Company has significant insurance coverage.

Alcoa Inc. produces and manages primary aluminum, fabricated
aluminum, and alumina combined, through its active and growing
participation in all major aspects of the industry: technology,
mining, refining, smelting, fabricating, and recycling.  The
Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Holdings Has $493MM ARO at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement liability was
US$493 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$948 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

These liabilities primarily relate to nuclear generation plant
decommissioning, land reclamation related to lignite mining,
removal of lignite/coal-fueled plant ash treatment facilities and
generation plant asbestos removal and disposal costs.

Non-current asset retirement liability was US$452 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

Energy Future Holdings Corp. is a non-regulated retail electric
provider in Texas, with 2.1 million customers, and through its
Luminant unit, it has a generating capacity of more than 15,510 MW
from its interests in nuclear and fossil-fueled power plants in
the state.  The Company is based in Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Records $44.2MM A&E Long-Term Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. has recorded US$44.2 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010 and US$3.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 in "Other
long-term liabilities" to address asbestos and environmental
matters.

These liabilities were primarily to address remediation of
contaminated sites, asbestos containing materials, management of
hazardous waste material disposal, outstanding air quality
measures for certain of the Company's liquids and natural gas
assets, and penalties the Company has been or expects to be
assessed.

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is a limited partnership that owns
and operates crude oil and liquid petroleum transportation and
storage assets, and natural gas gathering, treating, processing,
transportation and marketing assets in the United States of
America.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 194 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 194 pending claims against Rogers Corporation as
of Dec. 31, 2010, compared to about 167 pending claims at Dec. 31,
2009, according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 18,
2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.  Of the 194 claims pending
as of Dec. 31, 2010, about 59 claims do not specify the amount of
damages sought, about 132 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and
three claims (less than 2% of the total pending claims) specify
the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional
requirements.

Of these three claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive
damages of US$20 million each; one claim alleges compensatory
damages of US$65 million and punitive damages of US$60 million and
one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of US$1
million each.  These three claims name between 10 and 109
defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants.  The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was able to have 163
claims dismissed and settled 20 claims.  For the year ended Dec.
31, 2009, 96 claims were dismissed and 22 were settled.  The
majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.  Such settlements totaled about
US$5.5 million for 2010, compared to US$7.6 million for the full
year 2009.

Rogers Corporation produces specialty materials and components
that enable high performance and reliability of consumer
electronics, power electronics, mass transit, clean technology,
and telecommunications infrastructure.  The Company is based in
Rogers, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boardwalk Records $18.7MM Obligations in 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP's asset retirement obligations
totaled US$18.7 million at the end of 2010, compared with
US$18 million at the end of 2009.

Of those amounts, US$1.5 million was current during 2010.  Long-
term asset retirement obligations were US$17.2 million during 2010
and US$18 million during 2009.

Under federal regulations, the Company has a legal obligation to
cut and purge any pipeline that will remain in place after
abandonment and to remove offshore platforms after the related gas
flows have ceased.

The Company has identified and recorded legal obligations
associated with the abandonment of offshore pipeline assets and
certain onshore facilities as well as abatement of asbestos
consisting of removal, transportation and disposal when removed
from certain compressor stations and meter station buildings.

The Company said it believes that an ARO exists for the Texas Gas
corporate office building constructed in Owensboro, Ky., in 1962.
Under the legal requirements enacted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency during 1973, Texas Gas became legally obligated
to dismantle and remove the asbestos from its office building at
the end of its useful life, estimated to range from 2112 to 2162.

The Company said it believes that the spray-applied asbestos can
be maintained in place indefinitely, if undisturbed by following
written maintenance procedures.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, through its subsidiaries, owns
and operates three interstate natural gas pipeline systems
including integrated storage facilities.  The Company serves
producers, local distribution companies (LDCs), marketers,
interstate and intrastate pipelines, electric power generators and
direct industrial users.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Records 9 Filter Cases set for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of Feb. 9, 2011, nine asbestos-
related Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed
on courts' trial calendars.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco Company and the
Company by individuals who seek damages resulting from their
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into
filter material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by
Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time ending more than 50
years ago.  Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 34 Filter Cases.

The Company is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two
that also name Lorillard Tobacco.  Since Jan. 1, 2009, Lorillard
Tobacco has paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of
about US$15.6 million in settlements to finally resolve 46 claims.
The related expense was recorded in selling, general and
administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of income.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, a verdict has been returned in one Filter
Case, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al, which was tried in
the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.  Plaintiffs
in the Cox case voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their
appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the matter is
concluded.

As of Feb. 9, 2011, trial was underway in one Filter Case in which
Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant, Lenney v. Armstrong
International, Inc., et al., (Superior Court of California, San
Francisco County).

Lorillard, Inc. manufactures cigarettes.  In addition to its
Newport brand, the Company's product line has four additional
brand families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, and Old
Gold brand names.  The Company is based in Greensboro, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 62,582 Claims Pending v. Union Carbide in 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 65,582 unresolved asbestos claims
at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 75,030 claims at Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2011.

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades.  These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on the Company's premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Company
subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc.

In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Company's products.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 7,731 claims filed and
20,179 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Claimants
with claims against the Company and Amchem numbered to 18,890 and
individual claimants numbered at 43,692.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 8,455 claims filed and
9,131 claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  Claimants
with claims against the Company and Amchem numbered to 24,146 and
individual claimants numbered at 50,844.

Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company that
has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company
since 2001.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $50MM Receivable at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$50 million at Dec. 31,
2010 and US$84 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

The Company's receivables for asbestos-related costs were US$298
million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$532 million at Dec. 31,
2009.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was US$728 million.

At Dec. 31, 2010, about 21% of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and about 79% related to future claims.  At Dec.
31, 2009, about 23% of the recorded liability related to pending
claims and about 77% related to future claims.

Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company that
has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company
since 2001.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Records $87MM 2010 Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos defense costs were
US$87 million in 2010, compared with US$62 million in 2009.

Asbestos-related resolution costs were US$43 million in 2010,
compared with US$94 million in 2009.

The Company expenses defense costs as incurred.  The pretax impact
for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$73
million in 2010, US$58 million in 2009 and US$53 million in 2008,
and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated
statements of income.

Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company that
has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company
since 2001.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Insurance Action Ongoing in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's Insurance Litigation is ongoing is
ongoing in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York.

In September 2003, the Company filed the comprehensive insurance
coverage case, seeking to confirm its rights to insurance for
various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly and timely
collection of insurance proceeds (Insurance Litigation).

The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the 1985 Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Since the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements
with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation,
including settlements reached with two significant carriers in the
fourth quarter of 2009.

Union Carbide Corporation is a chemicals and polymers company that
has been a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company
since 2001.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $48.63MM AROs at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Hawaiian Electric
Company, Inc. (HECO), recorded asset retirement obligations (ARO)
of US$48,630,000 at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$23,746,000 at
Dec. 31, 2009.

AROs recognized by HECO and its subsidiaries relate to obligations
to retire plant and equipment, including removal of asbestos and
other hazardous materials.

In September 2009, HECO recorded an ARO related to removing
retired generating units at its Honolulu power plant, including
abating asbestos and lead-based paint.  The obligation was
subsequently increased in June 2010, due to an increase in the
estimated costs of the removal project.

In August 2010, HECO recorded a similar ARO related to removing
retired generating units at HECO's Waiau power plant.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the holding company for
Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and some non-utility businesses.
HECO (along with its utility subsidiaries Maui Electric and Hawaii
Electric Light) serves about 442,600 customers as the sole public
electricity provider on the islands of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui,
Molokai, and Oahu.  The Company is based in Honolulu, Hawaii.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Posts $16.75MM Net Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves amounted to
US$16,752,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$16,763,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Gross asbestos reserves were US$22,104,000 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$22,147,000 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The ceded asbestos paid and unpaid recoverables were US$8.4
million in 2010 and US$8.9 million in 2009.

The Navigators Group, Inc. is an international insurance company
focusing on specialty products within the overall
property/casualty insurance market.  Its largest product line and
most long-standing area of specialization is ocean marine
insurance.  The Company is based in Rye Brook, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp.'s Total Liability at $81MM at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's total asbestos liability amounted to
US$81 million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$96 million during the year ended Dec. 25, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, current asbestos liability
was US$9 million and long-term asbestos liability was US$72
million.  During the year ended Dec. 25, 2009, current asbestos
liability was US$10 million and long-term asbestos liability was
US$86 million.

The Company reduced its reserves for asbestos claims by US$13
million during 2010 and US$24 million during 2009.

CSX Corporation provides rail-based transportation services
including traditional rail service and the transport of intermodal
containers and trailers.  The Company is based in Jacksonville,
Fla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various claims and other legal proceedings incidental to the
normal course of business are pending or threatened against
General Dynamics Corporation and these matters relate to such
issues as U.S. government investigations and claims, the
protection of the environment, asbestos-related claims and
employee-related matters.

No other asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 18, 2011.

General Dynamics Corporation offers products and services in
business aviation; combat vehicles, weapons systems and munitions;
military and commercial shipbuilding; and communications and
information technology.  It operates through four business groups:
Aerospace, Combat Systems, Marine Systems and Information Systems
and Technology.  The Company is based in Falls Church, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Occupational Claims Pending v. Norfolk Southern
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation continues to be subject to
occupational claims (including asbestosis and other respiratory
diseases, as well as conditions allegedly related to repetitive
motion) that are often not caused by a specific accident or event
but rather allegedly result from a claimed exposure over time.

Many such claims are being asserted by former or retired
employees, some of whom have not been employed in the rail
industry for decades, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 17,
2011.

Norfolk Southern Corporation controls a major freight railroad,
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, which is primarily engaged in
the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products,
and finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest
and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of
the United States.  The Company is based in Norfolk, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leget Claim v. 78 Firms Filed Feb. 4 in Kanawha
----------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Marie Leget, of Letart, W.Va., on Feb. 4, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit on behalf of her husband Norman Gene Lenet
against 78 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Leget was diagnosed with lung cancer
on March 23, 2009 and died on April 4, 2009.  He was employed by
American Electric Power from 1962 until 1996.

Mrs. Leget seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  Brian A.
Prim, Esq., represents her.

Case No. 11-C-201 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Case v. 37 Firms Filed Feb. 1 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit by Gerald R. and Linda C. Gardner was filed
against 37 defendant corporations on Feb. 1, 2010 in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on Jan. 29, 2010, Mr. Gardner was
diagnosed with carcinoma of the lung and pleural plaques.  The
Gardners claim Mr. Gardner was exposed to asbestos-containing
products and machinery while serving in the U.S. Navy from 1955
until 1959; while working for a coal strip mine in Kentucky from
1972 until 1978; and while working for Operators Union Hall 132 at
a coal strip mine in Charleston from 1981 until 1985.

The Gardners seek compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest.  James M. Barber, Esq., and Mary H. Keyes,
Esq., represent the Gardners.

Case No. 11-C-168 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libra Fined for Asbestos Management Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Libra Demolition Ltd, a Yorkshire, England-based demolition firm,
has been fined after failing to manage and monitor asbestos
removal work at a site in Nottinghamshire, according to a Health
and Safety Executive Press release dated Feb. 17, 2011.

Libra Demolition was the principal contractor on a project to
demolish buildings at the former Vesuvius works in Sandy Lane,
Worksop, Nottinghamshire between March 25, 2008 and Aug. 22, 2008.

A number of buildings on the site contained notifiable asbestos,
the removal of which should be declared to the HSE and carried out
by a licensed asbestos contractor.

During a joint HSE and Environment Agency prosecution, Worksop
Magistrates' Court heard the buildings were demolished but no
records of the safe removal or disposal of the asbestos were found
and HSE received no notifications for its removal.

The discovery came to light when debris from the Vesuvius site was
found at an unlicensed waste disposal site on Leverton Road,
Retford, by the EA.

Libra Demolition Limited, of Network House, West 26 Industrial
Estate, Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire, pleaded guilty to breaching
Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007.  The Company was fined GBP1,500 and ordered to
pay total costs of GBP10,000.  Further charges were brought by the
EA.

HSE inspector Kevin Wilson said, "Libra Demolition was the
principal contractor for the demolition project and had control of
the site.  It is completely unacceptable for any firm to disregard
its responsibilities in this way.

"The firm neglected to manage and monitor the project so as to
ensure the notifiable asbestos was removed safely under licensed
conditions by a licensed contractor, and therefore failed in its
legal obligations.

"The dangers of asbestos are well known and contractors should be
aware that HSE will not hesitate to take enforcement action
against any firm that ignores the law in this way."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrogate Farmer Fined for Disposal Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Bealby of Nidd Lane, Birstwith, Harrogate, England, at the
Worksop Magistrates Court on Feb. 17, 2011, pleaded guilty to one
charge related to the burial of 2.3 tons of asbestos on his land
at Grange Farm, Lindrick Road, Woodsetts, according to an
Environment Agency press release dated Feb. 18, 2011.

Mr. Bealby was fined GBP6,500 and ordered to pay GBP3,500 in
costs, along with a GBP15 victim surcharge.  The charge was
brought by the EA under Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.

For the Environment Agency solicitor Michael Robinson told the
court that Mr. Bealby had previously owned Grange Farm and
adjoining fields.  In November 2009, complaints were received that
asbestos roofing had been removed from a barn at Grange Farm and
buried.  This land did not have an Environmental Permit allowing
such activity.

On Nov. 25, 2009, two Environment Officers visited the farm.  They
found an area of bare earth in a field to the north west of Grange
Farm.  The lean to barn structure adjacent to the farmhouse was
intact but it did not have a roof.

By their second visit on Dec. 9, 2009, the framing for the lean to
structure had been completely removed.  The officers took
photographs and posted a notice through the letterbox.

They returned on Feb. 16, 2010 with a warrant authorizing them to
take samples of the buried material.  The test results confirmed
the presence of asbestos in some of the samples.

During an interview under caution, Mr. Bealby admitted instructing
two individuals to bury the asbestos for financial reasons.  In
June 2010, a land registry search confirmed that he had sold the
land.  The asbestos was finally removed in February 2011 and
disposed of appropriately.

Speaking after the case, an EA officer in charge of the
investigation said, "It is important that the disposal of waste is
regulated to ensure that it does not endanger the environment.

"In this case the hazardous material was disposed of without any
consideration for human health or the environment to avoid the
true cost of its proper disposal.  By avoiding waste management
legislation he saved over GBP1,300 in disposal costs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Llangollen Ex-Marine's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 78-year-old John Percival
Saxton, a former Royal Marine from Llangollen, Wales, was related
to exposure to asbestos while serving in a combat zone, The Leader
reports.

The inquest heard how Mr. Saxton served in terrorist hot spots
throughout the Middle East during his 35 years of service.  On
Nov. 1, 2009, he died but he was exposed to asbestos while
protecting police stations during an uprising in Cyprus in 1955.
Two of his men where killed during the fighting.

The inquest found Mr. Saxton had died from mesothelioma.  However,
his family will not be eligible for compensation.  Having served
for more than 30 years for Queen and country and seen active
service, the Crown have decided no compensation will be paid due
to Crown immunity.

Mr. Saxton served in Oman, Kuwait but it was in Cyprus, where he
was based at Amiantos, which was then home to the world's largest
open asbestos works, he suffered the exposure.  The mesothelioma
lay dormant until Mr. Saxton was diagnosed in 2008 and it was
unclear what eventually triggered the disease.

John Gittins, deputy coroner for North East Wales said, "I am
satisfied death was caused by exposure to asbestos while in
service."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. PC Industry Sees Sharp Swing in A&E Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, the U.S. property/casualty industry saw another sharp
swing in its asbestos and environmental (A&E) incurred losses,
which increased 50% in 2009 after dropping 47% in 2008, according
to A.M. Best Company, Inc. press release dated Feb. 22, 2011.

A.M. Best Co. is maintaining its revised view of ultimate industry
A&E losses, which were adjusted downward by US$4 billion on Dec.
7, 2009 to a combined total of US$117 billion.  This analysis is
based on A.M. Best's review of Footnote 32 data for year-end 2009
from statutory annual statements.

-- Aggregate industry funding for A&E liabilities increased by
   more than US$4 billion over the past two years.

-- Noteworthy court rulings have increased insurance coverage
   for asbestos claimants, including a New Jersey appeals court
   decision in 2010 that upheld a US$30.3 million verdict in an
   asbestos-related suit involving a mesothelioma case.

-- Environmental incurred losses also have fluctuated, but the
   industry's ultimate liability is unlikely to increase in the
   medium term.

-- Paid A&E losses have remained consistently high over the past
   five years, averaging US$2.7 billion a year for asbestos and
   just exceeding US$1 billion a year for environmental.

-- More than 75% of the industry's total 2009 A&E
   incurred losses were concentrated among 10 insurer groups.

-- The industry's accelerated provisions from 2001 through 2005
   resulted in sharply improved funding levels; roughly 97%
   of ultimate asbestos loss estimates were funded through
   year-end 2009, while 83% of environmental exposures have been
   funded.

-- The total industry A&E survival ratios were essentially
   unchanged in 2009 compared with 2008.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairford Man's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 78-year-old Robert Orsler, of
Hatherop Road, Fairford, England, was related to workplace
exposure to asbestos, the Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard
reports.

Mr. Orsler died at home on March 17, 2010, Gloucestershire
assistant Deputy Coroner Tom Osborne heard.  Before his death, Mr.
Orsler made a statement about his working life, and was in the
process of seeking compensation from the companies he had worked
for.

In the statement, Mr. Orsler said he had been employed at
Fibrecrete in Chalford, which made a large number of products
using asbestos and he came into daily contact with it.  Inquiries
had shown that he had been employed first from 1955-63 as a
molder.  The Company name then changed to the Universal Asbestos
Manufacturing Company and he became a foreman from 1968-73.

After that, Mr. Orsler worked at the same premises as a quality
inspector for Cape Universal Products, and then for Cape Universal
Claddings as a shift manager and stores manager.  The final
company, Cape Universal Claddings, went into liquidation in 1985
and Cape PLC, which owned it, denied liability.

Pathologist Dr. Richard Bryan said he carried out a post mortem
and microscopic examination showed Mr. Orsler had died from
pneumonia caused by lung cancer, which had also affected the
brain.

Mr. Osborne recorded a verdict that Mr. Orsler had died from an
industrial disease caused by exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22 Korean Injury Actions Recognized for Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Environmental Corporation announced on Feb. 17, 2011
that, after a review of applications for recognition of asbestos-
caused health damages according to the Act on Asbestos Health
Damage Relief that came into effect in 2011, about 22 cases in
South Korea were recognized as damages from asbestos, The
Hankyoreh reports.

Previously, workers exposed to asbestos at their workplace were
entitled to compensation through industrial accident insurance,
but no measures existed for restitution to environmental victims
such as residents of areas near asbestos factories and asbestos
mines.

Government institutions provide restitution for asbestos damages
in a few countries, including Japan, France, and the United
Kingdom.

Beginning in January 2011, the Asbestos Damage Judgment Committee,
which is affiliated with KECO, introduced and reviewed 37 reports
of patients suffering from malignant mesothelioma.  Following this
review, the 22 cases were ruled to be damages from asbestos.

In six of these cases, the individual in question is already
deceased, and the family members are to receive the compensation.
For the remaining 15 cases, the committee ruled to defer judgment
owing to factors such as insufficient test data.

Most of the victims were exposed to asbestos through either living
in the area near an asbestos mine or factory or working in the
actual mine or factory, the committee determined.  Some 59% of the
cases were residents of Hongseong County and Boryeong in South
Chungcheong Province, which are home to large numbers of asbestos
mines and factories.

The recognized individuals are to receive a KPW900,000 monthly
convalescence allowance and medical costs.  Upon their death,
their family members are to be awarded about KPW30 million.

A KECO official said, "This is significant, in that wide-ranging
restitution is being given even for cases of damage through
environmental exposure unrelated to work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Opposition Disputes Asbestos Management
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ripper, the Western Australia State Opposition Leader says
the WA Government must clarify what steps it is taking to ensure
asbestos used in public housing is safe, ABC News reports.

Mr. Ripper says nearly 17,000 properties of the Department of
Housing -- Western Australia (Homeswest) have been identified as
containing asbestos.

Mr. Ripper says the government has dismantled a committee his
party put in place to address the issue when it was in government,
and that is not good enough.  He said, "When they came to
Government they inherited a central asbestos management steering
committee.  They abandoned that committee and they've returned the
responsibilities to individual agencies, it won't be given the
priority that it needs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Local Sentenced for Disposal Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Martin Smith, a resident of Mount Gold Crescent, Plymouth,
England, endangered drivers when he fly-tipped rubbish, including
asbestos, on country roads, The Herald Reports.

On Feb. 18, 2011, Torquay magistrates heard that Mr. Smith dumped
loads on roads at Ugborough and Westlake, outside Plymouth.  One
of the loads contained asbestos.

The magistrates said the offense was particularly serious because
Mr. Smith had been trained in asbestos handling and had been
involved in the asbestos removal and disposal business.

Magistrates said that both fly tips had been dumped in the middle
of public roads and presented a real danger to any road users.

Mr. Smith was given concurrent sentences of four months
imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, on two counts of fly-
tipping. Both incidents happened early in 2010.

As part of the suspended sentence, Mr. Smith will have to do 150
hours of unpaid work, have 12 months of supervision and attend a
Thinking Skills course.  He was ordered to pay costs of GBP904 to
South Hams District Council, which brought the case.

Mr. Smith had pleaded guilty to both offenses at an earlier
hearing and sentencing had been postponed for pre-sentence reports
from the Probation Service.

Mr. Smith was told by the magistrates that he was given credit for
his early guilty plea and as such his sentence was lower than he
might otherwise have expected if he had been found guilty at
trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Govt. Junks Proposed Settlements in Osaka Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese government, on Feb. 22, 2011, refused a proposal by
the Osaka High Court for a settlement in damages suits filed by
people who developed asbestos illnesses including cancer in Osaka
Prefecture, Japan Today reports.

Presiding Judge Jun Miura, who called on the government last
January 2011 to decide whether to accept the proposed settlement
by Feb. 22, 2011, indicated the procedures to hand down a ruling
will resume as a result of the refusal.

One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs said, "We are
extremely disappointed because it shows the government turned its
back to deep hopes of the plaintiffs.  We will firmly protest
against it."

The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said, "The ruling of
first instance that recognized state responsibility contains legal
problems that we cannot overlook in regard to arguments on
responsibility and damages."

The Osaka District Court ordered the state in May 2010 to pay a
total of JPY435 million in damages to 23 former workers for
failing to mandate the installment of ventilators at the spinning-
mill factories in the Sennan area by 1960.  Damages claims by
residents were rejected.

A law was enacted in 2010 to ensure measures be taken to protect
factory workers against chronic lung diseases caused by particle
inhalation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wigan Resident Set to File Compensation Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hotelier Colin Holstein has now instructed Roger Maddocks, partner
and industrial illness specialist at Irwin Mitchell, to
investigate a legal claim for asbestos compensation, WIGANtoday
reports.

The 61-year-old Mr. Holstein has mesothelioma and thinks his time
in the cellars of the Brocket Arms 40 years ago, along with a
hotel in Stockport, England, was where he inhaled the asbestos.
He has appealed to former colleagues to help a legal claim against
the employers.

Mr. Holstein worked in the hotel trade for 32 years, particularly
in old buildings with large boiler rooms, often containing
asbestos lagging.  He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December
2009 and has been forced into early retirement by his illness.

Mr. Holstein believes his exposure to asbestos occurred while
working in the cellars and boiler rooms at the Alma Lodge,
Stockport, from 1967 to 197, and the Brocket from 1970 to 1972.

Mr. Holstein said, "There was pipework running throughout the
basements of both hotels, all of which was lagged in what appeared
to be asbestos.  It was all at head height, almost entirely in a
poor state of repair, deteriorating rapidly, which meant that the
atmosphere there was very dusty."

Mr. Holstein and his legal team are clear they do not hold the
current owners, Wetherspoons, in any way responsible.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Derby Steel Worker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard
that the death of John Cassidy, a retired steel erector from
Derby, England, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The
Derby Telegraph reports.

The inquest heard Mr. Cassidy breathed in asbestos while working
at steelworks in the 1960s and in the building trade later in
life.  The 83-year-old was was pronounced dead at home, in Wilson
Street, on March 24, 2010.

A post mortem revealed asbestos fibers in his lungs and his cause
of death was bronchial pneumonia, due to chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and asbestosis.  The court heard Mr. Cassidy
made a successful claim for compensation.

Coroner Dr. Robert Hunter said, "Mr. Cassidy had worked in steel
erection in the steelworks and then the building industry.  I am
satisfied that is where he became exposed to asbestos and I record
a verdict of industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons, Bifferato Still Filing Actions in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the sixth year of their association, John Simmons, Esq. of East
Alton, Ill., and Ian Bifferato, Esq., of Wilmington, Ill., still
file about six mesothelioma suits a month at State Superior Court
of New Castle County, Del., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

On Feb. 17, 2011, minutes before asbestos judge Peggy Ableman
would have heard pretrial motions in four of their cases, they
advised her they settled all four.  Other firms had done the same,
and she canceled the hearing.

Three clients of Simmons and Bifferato remain on the docket for
trial starting March 2, 2011, along with clients of other firms.
Judge Ableman has set trial dates in 2012 for 381 cases, more than
half of her docket, but she can expect most to end quietly.  Twice
in 2007, Mr. Bifferato and Mr. Simmons settled 20 suits as trial
approached.

In 2010, they settled 24 in February, 21 in March, 19 in April,
and 21 in May.  Two weeks ahead of a trial date in 2010, a group
that started with 36 persons suing more than 300 defendants had
shrunk to seven suing 10.

This January 2011, 47 individuals in the May 4 trial group
dismissed more than 550 separate claims against a host of
defendants.

If Mr. Bifferato and Mr. Simmons bring a case to trial, Judge
Ableman will have to decide how much jurors need to know about Mr.
Simmons' home court.

In a motion that Mr. Bifferato and Mr. Simmons file to limit
evidence, they seek to exclude "inappropriate or disparaging
comments regarding Madison County asbestos litigation and/or
plaintiffs' counsel's involvement in same."

The motion also calls for silence on a client's history of
insurance claims, disability benefits and worker's compensation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Jackson's Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
a case related to asbestos styled Clifford L. Jackson, Plaintiff-
Appellant v. Monterey County Jail; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Circuit Judges Goodwin, Wallace, and Thomas entered judgment in
Case No. 09-16618 on Dec. 22, 2010.

California state prisoner Clifford L. Jackson appealed pro se from
the district court's judgment dismissing his 1983 action alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement arising from asbestos
exposure.  The Appeals Court reviewed de novo dismissal for
failure to state a claim.

The Court had reviewed Mr. Jackson's remaining contentions and
found them unpersuasive.  The trial court's ruling was affirmed.

Clifford L. Jackson, of Salinas, Calif., represented himself.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DPL Inc. Still a Defendant in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
DPL Inc. is named as a defendant in asbestos litigation, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 18, 2011.

There were US$1.4 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010
(US$2.7 million during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009) of gross
additions to its existing landfill and asbestos asset retirement
obligations.

In addition, it was determined that a river structure would be
retired earlier than previously estimated.  This resulted in a
partial reduction to the ARO liability of US$800,000 in 2010.

DPL Inc.'s main subsidiary, regulated utility Dayton Power and
Light (DP&L), provides light and electricity to more than 515,300
electricity customers in 24 counties in west central Ohio.  The
Company is based in Dayton, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal USA Records $213MM for A&E in 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal's operations in the United States have environmental
and asbestos provisions of US$213 million essentially at its
ArcelorMittal USA subsidiary, according to the Company's annual
report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

The provisions mainly relate to investigation, monitoring and
remediation of soil and groundwater investigation at its current
and former facilities and to removal and disposal of PCBs and
asbestos-containing material.

ArcelorMittal USA's environmental provisions also include US$50
million, with anticipated expenditures of US$7 million during
2011, to specifically address the removal and disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the elimination of asbestos-
containing materials.

ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing more than 100 million tons
annually.  Operating globally - though strongest in Europe - the
Company makes the full range of steel products: slabs and coil,
coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar, and billets and
blooms, as well as all manner of stainless and electrical steel
products.  The Company is based in Luxembourg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Belgium Has $83MM for A&E in 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal says that, in Belgium, there is an environmental and
asbestos provision of US$83 million, of which the most significant
elements are legal obligations linked to the dismantling of steel
making installations and soil treatment.

Soil treatment is mainly related to cleaning of the groundwater
underneath the coking plant at the ArcelorMittal Gent site and
cleaning of the soil at the Cockerill Sambre site.

The provisions also concern the external recycling of waste that
cannot be recycled internally on the ArcelorMittal Gent site and
the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material,
according to the Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing more than 100 million tons
annually.  Operating globally -- though strongest in Europe -- the
Company makes the full range of steel products: slabs and coil,
coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar, and billets and
blooms, as well as all manner of stainless and electrical steel
products.  The Company is based in Luxembourg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Has 397 Exposure Claims in France
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal faced 397 unresolved asbestos claims in France in
2010, compared with 402 claims in 2009, according to the Company's
annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

In 2010, the Company reported 75 claims filed in France and 80
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.  In 2010, the
Company reported 103 claims filed in France and 132 claims
settled, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.

Various retired or present employees of certain French
subsidiaries of the former Arcelor have initiated lawsuits to
obtain compensation for asbestos exposure in excess of the amounts
paid by French social security.

Asbestos claims in France initially are made by way of a
declaration of a work-related illness by the claimant to the
Social Security authorities resulting in an investigation and a
level of compensation paid by Social Security.

Once the Social Security authorities recognize the work-related
illness, the claimant, depending on the circumstances, can also
file an action for inexcusable negligence (faute inexcusable) to
obtain additional compensation from the company before a special
tribunal.  Where procedural errors are made by Social Security, it
is required to assume full payment of damages awarded to the
claimants.

Due to fewer procedural errors and, consequently, fewer rejected
cases, the Company was required to pay some amounts in damages in
2010.

The range of amounts claimed for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010 was
EUR7,500 to EUR751,000 (about US$10,000 to US$1,006,264).  The
aggregate costs and settlements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010
were US$2.3 million, of which US$300,000 represents legal fees and
US$2.1 million represents damages paid to the claimant.

The aggregate costs and settlements for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009 were about US$500,000 and US$3 million, respectively.

ArcelorMittal makes steel, producing more than 100 million tons
annually.  Operating globally -- though strongest in Europe -- the
Company makes the full range of steel products: slabs and coil,
coated steel and tinplate, wire rod and rebar, and billets and
blooms, as well as all manner of stainless and electrical steel
products.  The Company is based in Luxembourg.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Still Involved in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be involved in unresolved legal
actions including performance liability (including claimed
asbestos and welding fumes exposure).

No other significant asbestos matters were disclosed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

Caterpillar Inc. makes construction, mining, and logging
machinery; diesel and natural gas engines; industrial gas
turbines; and electrical power generation systems.  The Company
operates plants worldwide and sells equipment via a network of
3,500 offices in some 180 countries.  The Company is based in
Peoria, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Facing 413 Injury Lawsuits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation says that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, there
were about 413 asbestos lawsuits pending against subsidiary AK
Steel Corporation (AK Steel), according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb.
22, 2011.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Most of these lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who
claim to have been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises
of a current or former AK Steel facility.  About 40% of these
premises suits arise out of claims of exposure at a facility in
Houston that has been closed since 1984.

About 121 of the 413 cases pending at Dec. 31, 2010, in which AK
Steel is a defendant, include specific dollar claims for damages
in the filed complaints.  Those 121 cases involve a total of 2,480
plaintiffs and 16,543 defendants.

In these cases, the complaint typically includes a monetary claim
for compensatory damages and a separate monetary claim in an equal
amount for punitive damages, and does not attempt to allocate the
total monetary claim among the various defendants.

For example, 111 of the 121 cases involve claims of US$200,000 or
less, five involve claims of between US$200,000 and US$5 million,
three involve claims of between US$5 million and US$15 million,
and two involve claims of US$20 million.

In 2010, AK Steel noted 122 new cases filed and 179 pending claims
disposed of.  Total amount paid in settlements were US$800,000.
In 2009, AK Steel noted 252 new cases filed and 179 pending claims
disposed of.  Total amount paid in settlements were US$700,000.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases.  All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel.

AK Steel Holding Corporation is a fully-integrated producer of
flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels and tubular
products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation.  The Company is based in West Chester, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transatlantic Records $212MM Net Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings, Inc.'s net loss reserves include amounts
for risks relating to environmental impairment and asbestos-
related illnesses totaling US$212 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and
US$163 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

This includes US$71 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$30 million at
Dec. 31, 2009, relating to such losses occurring in 1985 and
prior.

Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. offers reinsurance capacity for a
full range of property and casualty products, directly and through
brokers, to insurance and reinsurance companies, in both the
domestic and international markets on both a treaty and
facultative basis.  The Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Inc. Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
OfficeMax Incorporated and certain of its subsidiaries are named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits, claims and proceedings
alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of
the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of a
2004 sale transaction.

No other significant asbestos matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

OfficeMax Incorporated provides office supplies and paper, print
and document services, technology products and solutions and
office furniture to large, medium and small businesses, government
offices and consumers.  The Company is based in Naperville, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Accrues $1.6MM Dec. 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., at Dec. 31, 2010, had accrued
about US$1.6 million for asbestos liability and related expenses,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos due to work it may have performed at various
locations.  The Company has never been a manufacturer, distributor
or supplier of asbestos products.

Through Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving about 5,000
plaintiffs and, of those claims, about 1,400 claims were pending
and 3,600 have been closed through dismissals or settlements.

Through Dec. 31, 2010, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of about US$1,000 per claim.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. is an integrated engineering,
procurement and construction (EPC) service provider and major
process technology licensor, delivering comprehensive solutions to
customers primarily in the energy and natural resource industries.
During 2010, the Company executed over 700 projects in more than
70 countries.  The Company is based in The Hague, The Netherlands.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Ongoing v. Temple-Inland Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. is a defendant in various lawsuits involving
alleged workplace exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 22, 2011.

These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or
operated by the Company.  The Company does not manufacture any
products that contain asbestos, and all its cases in this area are
limited to workplace exposure claims.

Historically, the Company's aggregate annual settlements related
to asbestos claims have been about US$1 million.  The number of
claims has remained relatively constant in the past few years.

Temple-Inland Inc. manufactures corrugated packaging and building
products.  The Company is based in Austin, Tex.




                             *********

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  * * *