CAR_Public/110311.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 11, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 50

                             Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Pension Plan to Appeal Forecasted $23MM Damages
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Can't Halt Merchants' Class Actions
AMWAY CORP: Superior Court OKs Gift Card Class Action Settlement
APOLLO GROUP: Stock Drop Not Connected to Class Action Ruling
ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending

BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge Suit
BOULDER, CO: Jail Postcard Policy Class Action Certified
CHEMED CORP: Vitas Unit Continues to Defend Labor Suit in Calif.
CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Suit in New York
COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Condominium Buyers File Class Action

CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Data Sales
DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Liberty Media Litigation
DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Early Cancellation Fees Suits
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Continues to Defends Antitrust Suit in California
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Dillon" Suit

DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Lawsuits
DULUTH: May Face Class Action Over Rental Ordinance
EMI MUSIC: Judge Has Yet to Approve Class Action Settlement
ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Defending Against Sex Abuse Class Suit
ENTERGY TEXAS: Settlement Term Sheet Agreed in Louisiana Suit

EQUINIX INC: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statements
FANNIE MAE: Expert Witness in Securities Class Action Dismissed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Still Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Decision on Appeal in N.Y. Suits Dismissal
KV PHARMA: 8th Cir. Revives Class Action Over Adulterated Drugs

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Suit Over Vacation Policies
LIFE PARTNERS: Sued Over Fraudulent Life Expectancy Estimates
MILESTONE AV: Recalls 2,500 Power Conditioners/Surge Protectors
NEW MEXICO GAS: Residents in Gas Shut-Off Suit Seek More Damages
NISOURCE INC: Pays $2.7MM in 2011 for "Tawney" Suit Settlement

NISOURCE INC: Sixth Circuit Affirms Settlement of Kentucky Suits
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: To Appeal Ruling in Dividend Class Action
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal From Facebook Beacon Suit Still Pending
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Amended "Hines" Suit
PEABODY ENERGY: Dismissal of Mississippi Class Suit Now Final

PROGRESS ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling of Appeal in Florida Lawsuit
PROGRESS ENERGY: Defends Class Suits Over Proposed Duke Merger
REHABCARE GROUP: Being Sold to Kindred for Too Little, Suit Says
SLM CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of "Arthur" Suit Settlement
SLM CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation in New York

SPRINT NEXTEL: "Unlimited Data" Plan Not Unlimited, Suit Claims
SUNJOY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 2,400 Steel Outdoor Fireplaces
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Securities Suits Remain Pending in New York
TREE.COM INC: Appeal in "Carson" Suit Remains Pending
TREMONT PARTNERS: Removes "Lakeview" Civil Action to N.D. Calif.

UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Remains Pending in Washington
UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suit in New York
UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Barber Auto Sales Suit in Alabama
UNITED STATES: May Face Class Suit Over Guatamela Syphilis Study
URS CORP: Continues Defense in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit

VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Approval of "Schafer" Suit Deal
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed
VERISK ANALYTICS: Certiorari Petition Junked in "Taylor" Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Remains Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Okay of "Gluzman" Suit Settlement

VERIZON COMMS: Retirees' Pension Suit Get Class Action Status
VULCAN MATERIALS: Continues to Defend Florida Antitrust Litigation
VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia
W. ROSS: Ministry Takes Student Abuse Allegations "Seriously"
WEIL TENNIS: Sued in California for False Advertising

WESCO FINANCIAL: Defends Two Lawsuits Over Berkshire Merger
WILLIS GROUP: Settlement Talks in Gender Suit Still Ongoing
WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Lawsuits
YAHOO! INC: Files Brief in Support of "Overture" Suit Settlement
YELLOW BOOK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 550 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Subsidiaries Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 110 Manhattan Steam Main Actions Open v. CECONY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Faces 15,476 Abex Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Posts $747.1MM Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $163.6MM Receivable at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Has $432MM Retirement Obligations at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12,000 Premises, Product Claims Pending v. FMC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qwest Corp. Records $31MM Obligations at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Has $12.03MM Claims Reserve at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Motions Denied in Mueller Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Bartz Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Hood Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Claims v. Barber
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Case v. Collins

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Facing 65,263 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Facing Coverage Litigation in N.J.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Cites $17.8MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.8MM CAROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windstream Corp. AROs Total $41.7MM at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Petroleum Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 886 W.Va. Claims, 11 Pa. Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Carries $35.67MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Corp. Posts $3.3MM AROs at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Short's Actions on Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Decision in Gilbert Set Aside, Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in Cole's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bostick Pleads Guilty to Breaching CAA Standard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Payout Bill "Worries" Victims and Advocates

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puyallup Firm Fined $437.3T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hooley's Widow Seeks GBP350,000 in Payout Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pinehurst Local Reaches GBP70T Deal w/ Plessey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Actions Filed in St. Clair Co. on Jan. 4 & 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allen County OKs $500T for City-County Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $200,000 Grant Awarded for Tulsa Site Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Rail Storeman's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belper Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grantham Rail Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Pending in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Fluor Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 858 Lawsuits Pending v. GATX, Units at Jan. 28
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power Records $300,000 Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holdings Posts $15MM Current Obligations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Records 30,000 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Posts $52MM Dec. 31 Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Posts $79.83MM Dec. 31 Current Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Pending Against Spence and Hoke
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Posts $307.62MM Dec. 31 Liability



                             *********


ALLIANT ENERGY: Pension Plan to Appeal Forecasted $23MM Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan intends to file an
appeal from a court decision, which would possibly make the Plan
pay $23 million in damages, according to Alliant Energy Corp.'s
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against Alliant
Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleges that certain
Plan participants who received distributions 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 because the Plan applied an improper interest
crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal
retirement age. These Plan participants are limited to individuals
who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump sum
distribution and/or received any form of distribution calculated
under the Plan's prior formula after that benefit was determined
to be more valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's
cash balance formula. The Court has certified two subclasses of
plaintiffs that in aggregate include all persons vested or
partially vested in the Plan who received these distributions from
Jan. 1, 1998 through Aug. 17, 2006 including: 1) persons who
received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002;
and 2) persons who received distributions from Feb. 29, 2002
through Aug. 17, 2006. In June 2010, the Court issued an opinion
and order that granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
on liability in the lawsuit and decided with respect to damages
that prejudgment interest on damages will be allowed at the prime
rate at the time of the judgment. A bench trial on the issue of
damages was held in June 2010, at which the Court heard evidence
on issues related to the amount of damages.

In December 2010, the Court issued an opinion and order that
decided the interest crediting rate that the Plan used to project
the cash balance accounts of the plaintiffs during the class
period should have been 8.2% and a pre-retirement mortality
discount will not apply to the damages calculation. Based on this
opinion and order, the Plan currently believes that the final
judgment of damages by the Court may be up to $23 million, which
does not include any award for plaintiff's attorney's fees or
costs. The Plan is contesting the Court's decision and intends to
pursue appropriate appeals after the final judgment is rendered by
the Court. Alliant Energy, IPL and WPL have not recognized any
potential liability for damages from the lawsuit while this matter
is being contested. Alliant Energy is currently unable to predict
the final outcome of the class action lawsuit or the ultimate
impact on its financial condition or results of operations but
believes an adverse outcome could have a material effect on
retirement plan funding and expense for Alliant Energy, IPL and
WPL.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Can't Halt Merchants' Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Patricia Hurtado, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
American Express Co. can't force merchants to resolve disputes
with the company individually rather than in class-action
lawsuits, a federal appeals court said on March 8, confirming an
earlier ruling.

Retailers aren't bound by an arbitration agreement requiring them
to press any complaints against American Express singly, the New
York-based court ruled.  The ruling and a previous order void a
clause in American Express's contract with merchants.

In the lawsuit, New York and California merchants contend that
American Express is illegally bundling its products through its
"honor all cards" policy.  American Express argued that merchants
were barred from joining class-action, or group, lawsuits, against
the company.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year sent the case back to the appeals
court.  The appeals panel confirmed its prior decision and, in
turn, on March 8 sent the case to U.S. District Judge George B.
Daniels in New York for further proceedings.

"As we did earlier, we find Amex has brought no serious challenge
to the plaintiffs demonstration that their claims cannot be
reasonably pursued as individual actions, whether in federal court
or in arbitration," the appeals court said.

"As the class action waiver in this case precludes plaintiffs from
enforcing their statutory rights, we find the arbitration
provision unenforceable," the judges said.

Original Suit

The rulings grew out of a case in which retailers sued American
Express seeking the right to accept AmEx credit cards requiring
customers to pay their balances each month, without having to
accept the company's newer credit cards, which don't require full
payment.

The newer cards aren't used by the high-end customers preferred by
stores and consequently aren't worth the high fees imposed on
merchants by American Express, the merchants said in their
lawsuit.

American Express's standard agreement with its merchants calls for
all disputes to be resolved through individual arbitration.

Christine Elliot, a spokeswoman for New York-based American
Express, couldn't be immediately reached for comment.
Gary Friedman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment
immediately, saying he was reviewing the decision.

The original lawsuit is Italian colors Restaurant v. American
Express Travel Related Services Co., 3:03-cv-03719, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California San Francisco).  The appeal
is In Re. American Express Merchants' Litigation, 06-1871-cv, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).


AMWAY CORP: Superior Court OKs Gift Card Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court has approved a settlement agreement in a
class-action lawsuit alleging Amway Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, and its related companies Quixtar Inc., a Virginia
corporation, and Alticor Inc., a Michigan corporation, sold and
marketed gift cards that contained a notation instructing
consumers to "redeem before" a certain date, which plaintiffs
contended violated numerous state laws prohibiting or restricting
the expiration of gift cards.  The settlement provides that
consumers will soon be able to redeem or replace more than $20
million worth of expired gift cards.

In Adell v. Quixtar Inc. et al., plaintiffs alleged that as a
result of Amway's improper placement of a "redeem before" date on
its gift cards, many consumers believed their cards had expired
and either disposed of them, or never redeemed them for
merchandise.  Through a sales force of Independent Business Owners
("IBOs"), Amway marketed and sold various categories of "Ribbon
Gift Cards" throughout the United States.  Amway has denied that
its use of "redeem before" dates constituted expiration dates in
violation of any state law.

"Amway received millions of dollars from consumers for gift cards
that were never redeemed and that contained 'redeem before' dates
that have passed," said James Kawahito, class co-counsel of
Kawahito, Shraga & Westrick LLP (Los Angeles).  "In California and
many other states, laws designed to protect consumers make it
illegal for gift cards to contain any expiration date."

After more than two years of litigation, Los Angeles County
Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr granted preliminary approval of
the settlement on Feb. 16, 2011.  Class-action notices informing
consumers they can replace expired or discarded Amway gift cards
by visiting http://www.giftcardsettlement.com/will be sent out by
April 10, 2011.  Consumers will have until June 20, 2011 to obtain
a new card.

"We are extremely pleased that Amway will no longer be placing
'redeem before' dates on its gift cards," said Lisa Brant, class
co-counsel, Brant Law Offices, APC (San Diego).  "Now our goal is
to get the word out to as many consumers as possible to ensure
they are aware of their ability to redeem or replace their gift
cards, even if they have already thrown them away."

Additional Settlement Benefits to Consumers Include:

    * Class members will have the opportunity to redeem expired
gift cards or exchange gift cards for new cards that do not have
expiration dates.

    * Class members who discarded expired gift cards can receive
new gift cards.

    * Amway will cease using the words "redeem before" preceding
dates on gift cards or any language that specifies a particular
date or time period by which redemption must occur.

    * Amway will make a $200,000 product donation to a charitable
organization.

Brant Law Offices -- http://www.brant-law.com/-- is a litigation
boutique dedicated to providing its clients with efficient,
result-oriented representation of the highest caliber.  Brant Law
Offices specializes in a wide array of litigation areas, including
consumer and employment class actions.

Since 2008, the law firm of Kawahito Shraga & Westrick LLP --
http://www.kswlawyers.com/-- has obtained over $25 million in
relief for consumers and employees in California and nationwide
through class-action lawsuits.


APOLLO GROUP: Stock Drop Not Connected to Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Gonzales, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports
Apollo Group Inc.'s investors were unfazed by the U.S. Supreme
Court's rejection of the Phoenix company's appeal of a shareholder
lawsuit that accused Apollo of hiding a preliminary U.S.
Department of Education report.

Although the stock dropped 22 cents on March 7 after the Supreme
Court ruling that could cause the Phoenix company to pay upwards
of $300 million to shareholders, analysts say that stock drop was
not related to the court ruling.

"The movement in Apollo's stock price was not at all
disproportionate to movement in stocks overall," said Trace Urdan,
senior analyst with Signal Hill in San Francisco.  "I don't think
shareholders cared about that announcement."

Mr. Urdan said Apollo already had set aside reserves for that
settlement.

"It's not a big amount of money," he said.

Apollo's stock closed at $44.07 on March 7, nowhere near its
52-week low of $33.75 a share.  Its 52-week high is $66.69 a
share.

It still needs to be determined exactly how much Apollo will be
paying shareholders, but Mr. Urdan said it most likely won't be
the maximum $300 million.  A decision on the amount will be made
in District Court, according to an 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.  This class action securities
lawsuit, Apollo Group Inc., et al. v. Policeman's Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Chicago, dates back to a preliminary U.S.
Education Department report that said the company illegally paid
recruiters based on the number of students they enrolled.

The company has enough money to cover the lawsuit, according to
the SEC filing.

"At Nov. 30, 2010, we had unrestricted cash and cash equivalents
of $1.0 billion and availability under our principal revolving
credit facility of approximately $400 million," according to the
8-K filed on March 7.  "We believe we have ample liquidity to fund
the payment of any damages that may be payable in connection with
this litigation."

Last fall, Apollo overhauled its compensation system for
recruiters and created programs to help incoming students prepare
for the rigors of a university curriculum.

For the three months ended Nov. 30, Apollo reported a net income
of $236 million on net revenue of $1.3 billion, down from $240
million in net income on $1.3 billion in net revenue for the same
period in 2009.

The company will report its fiscal 2011 second quarter results on
March 29.


ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal from the approval of AsiaInfo-Linkage Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated IPO allocation case still remains
pending, the Company disclosed in its February 28, 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 securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering, or
its IPO. The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of its common stock in the
aftermarket as conditions of their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO. The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement. The suit
seeks rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the
Company's common stock as well as unspecified damages. In addition
to the case against the Company, various other plaintiffs have
filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar class
action cases, or the IPO Allocation Cases, against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in
New York City, which along with the case against the Company have
all been transferred to a single federal district judge for
purposes of case management.

In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants
in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO
Allocation Cases. The agreement was filed with the court in April
2009 and a final approval was granted by the court in October
2009. The final approval was subject to appeal until November
2009. Several objectors filed timely appeals and those appeals
remain pending. If the settlement is approved, the Company expects
any damages payable to the plaintiffs to be fully funded by the
Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policies.
If the litigation proceeds, the Company intends to continue to
defend the litigation vigorously. Moreover, if the litigation
proceeds, the Company believes that the underwriters may have an
obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees and other
costs of defending this suit and that the Company's directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies would also cover the
defense and potential exposure in the suit.


BNSF RAILWAY: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company continues to defend itself in a consolidated
class action lawsuit over fuel surcharges, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints
were filed in six federal district courts around the country by
rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads
alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with
respect to unregulated freight transportation services in
violation of the antitrust laws and seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified treble damages. These cases have been consolidated and
are currently pending in the federal district court of the
District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class action
complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I
railroads in April 2008. The Company believes that these claims
are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations
vigorously. The Company does not believe that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

BNSF Railway Co. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- formerly known as The
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.  BNSF
Railway operates a railroad system in North America.


BOULDER, CO: Jail Postcard Policy Class Action Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Erica Meltzer, writing for Boulder Daily Camera, reports that a
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Boulder County
Jail's postcard-only mail policy was granted class action status
on March 8.  The decision broadens the scope of the lawsuit to
include all current and future detainees at the jail, not just
those named in the lawsuit.

The Boulder County Jail implemented the postcard-only policy after
two registered sex offenders were accused of trying to "groom"
girls in letters from the jail.  Inmates can only send mail on
jail-issued postcards.  The only exception is for mail designated
as legal or official.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit
last year on behalf of five prisoners that challenged the
constitutionality of the policy.

ACLU Communications Director Rosemary Harris Lytle said many
people in jail are awaiting trials and have not been convicted.
And even convicted criminals retain their First Amendment rights,
she said.

Harris Lytle pointed to civil rights leader Martin Luther King
Jr.'s famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail" and asked whether
King could have expressed the same ideas if limited to a postcard.

"I don't know if culture-changing communication is coming from the
Boulder County Jail, but it might be, and it ought to be
protected," she said.

On a more mundane level, an incarcerated parent might want to
write to her husband about their child without worrying the child
will read the communication on a postcard left on the dining room
table, or a gay inmate might want to write to his partner without
worrying that other inmates will find out he's gay.

"All those things deserve the privacy of the envelope," she said.

Jail officials said similar policies have been found
constitutional in other states, and inmates who want to send mail
about a sensitive subject can talk to a jail commander about
getting it marked "official."

El Paso County, the only other county in Colorado to implement a
postcard policy, went back to allowing letters when the ACLU sued
them.

Federal District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel granted class action
certification to the Boulder County lawsuit on March 8.  That
means that the lawsuit can continue even if the named plaintiffs'
cases become moot because they are released.

"This ensures that all of those who are affected by these
unconstitutional policies, all current and future detainees, get
relief," Harris Lytle said.

Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said on March 8 that he's cannot
comment on the legal significance of the decision, but the reason
the jail implemented the policy haven't changed.

A hearing on a request for an immediate injunction forcing Boulder
County to end its policy is set for April 21.


CHEMED CORP: Vitas Unit Continues to Defend Labor Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche
and Joyce White against Chemed Corporation's subsidiary remains
pending in a Los Angeles state court, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Vitas Healthcare Corporation, a subsidiary of the Company, is
party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, in September 2006 by Bernadette
Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White.  This case alleges failure
to pay overtime and failure to provide meal and rest periods to a
purported class of California admissions nurses, chaplains and
sales representatives.  The case seeks payment of penalties,
interest and Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  Vitas contests these
allegations.  In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

The lawsuit is in its early stage and the Company is unable to
estimate its potential liability, if any, with respect to these
allegations.


CHEMED CORP: Continues to Defend Wage Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action filed by Anthony Morangelli and Frank Ercole in New York,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, Messrs. Morangelli and Ercole filed a class
action lawsuit in federal district court for the Eastern District
of New York seeking unpaid minimum wages and overtime service
technician compensation from Roto-Rooter Services Company and the
Company.  They also seek payment of penalties, interest and
Plaintiffs' attorney fees.  The Company contests these
allegations.  In September 2010, the Court conditionally certified
a nationwide class of service technicians, excluding those who
signed dispute resolution agreements agreeing to arbitrate claims
arising out of their employment. There has been no final
determination of the merits of collective treatment of the case.
The Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any,
related to this case.


COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Condominium Buyers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sieroty, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that
the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas continues to deal with disgruntled
condominium buyers even though many of the former owners accepted
a settlement to walk away from their purchases.

Attorneys representing four buyers who participated in the
$60 million settlement and a former employee filed a lawsuit on
March 7 seeking to have their clients' entire deposits returned.

The lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court claimed The
Cosmopolitan's owners misled investors into accepting the
settlement and receiving 74 of their deposit principal.

In their complaint, attorneys with the Las Vegas-based law firm
Santoro, Driggs, Walsh, Kearney, Holley and Thompson are seeking
class action status and a jury trial to force the owners to return
their clients' entire deposit with interest.

Deutsche Bank and its subsidiary Nevada Property 1 LLC acquired
the property in 2008 from 3700 Associates LLC, the original
developer, which defaulted on $760 million in loans made by the
German bank.  At the time of the purchase on 2005 and 2006, the
original developer promised the units would be ready to occupy in
early 2008.

According to the 16-page complaint, Deutsche Bank and Nevada
Property 1 decided to abandon The Cosmopolitan's condominium
component and build a hotel-casino property.

"Once (they) made that material decision, they were legally and
contractually obliged to disclose it. (They) instead decided to
conceal their decision and use the class actions that were filed
by buyers to negotiate a partial refund of plaintiff's deposits,
so that they could coerce (them) into forfeiting over $150 million
of their and interest to The Cosmopolitan, despite their decision
to convert the project to all-hotel," the complaint said.

Messages left with officials from The Cosmopolitan were not
returned.

The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction to protect
Todd Mastej, a former employee of 3700 Associates and Nevada
Property 1, from retaliation for passing on documents that showed
the units "failed to meet applicable soundproofing standards" and
that it was decided in 2009 to make the project all hotel and make
"significant material changes to the plans of their units."

The complaint accused the owner of committing fraud "by
negotiating a class action settlement that called for a partial
refund . . . under the auspice that The Cosmopolitan was
proceeding with its construction and conveyance of (the)
condominium units, while in reality (they) had no good faith
intention or desire to actually" deliver the units.

Potential buyers paid deposits of 20% to secure one of the
condominiums.  In April 2010, Cosmopolitan developers finalized a
$60 million settlement with more than 400 buyers involved in a
class action lawsuit.

The luxury condominiums on the Strip had been priced in the high
six-figure to low-seven figure range when the Las Vegas housing
market collapsed.

Approximately $250 million in deposits were paid to hold the
condos.  Even after the settlement, Deutsche Bank and Nevada
Property 1 retained more than $150 million in deposits and
interest, according to the lawsuit.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Prescription Data Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Pharmacy
raked in millions by selling consumers' confidential prescription
information to some of the nation's largest pharmaceutical
manufacturers, according to a class action.

"Not content with the receipt of the substantial funds generated
from the performance of pharmacy services, defendants instead
chose to generate additional sources of revenue from the
confidential prescription information entrusted by consumers to
defendants," the complaint in Philadelphia County Court states.

Arthur Steinberg and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers
Health and Welfare Fund filed the suit on behalf of other
consumers who have received unsolicited communications after CVS
allegedly sold customers' private information to Eli Lilly and
Co., Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and other drug manufacturers.

"Specifically, in exchange for the receipt of funds, direct
promotional letters were sent to physicians of consumers by
defendant CVS Caremark in order to promote and tout specific
prescription drugs of pharmaceutical manufacturers who contracted
with defendant CVS Caremark" for use of prescription information,
according to the complaint.

"While touted as an 'RXReview Program' by defendant CVS Caremark,
in reality, the physician communications were nothing more than a
profit-making opportunity," the class claims.

CVS' scheme contradicts its "public pronouncements as to the
sanctity of both consumers' privacy and the physician-patient
relationship," according to the complaint.  CVS also never
mentioned that it sold customers' confidential information on the
"Notice of Privacy Practices" that is included with prescriptions,
according to the complaint.

The complaint quotes a statement CVS Caremark CEO Thomas Ryan made
to investors.  "We have more information on the consumer and their
behavior than anybody else, and we share it with our over-the-
counter suppliers," Mr. Ryan said, according to the complaint.

In 2009, CVS settled related claims from the Department of Health
and Human Services and Federal Trade Commission.  Under the
agreement with the health department, CVS paid $2.25 million to
settle claims related to media reports that its pharmacies were
throwing pill bottles with customers' personal information into
open dumpsters.

A spokesman for the Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, which
represents the class, told Courthouse News that the disclosure of
confidential prescription information can be particularly
upsetting for a person with HIV or a psychiatric disorder.

CVS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The class seeks statutory damages and disgorgement of ill-gotten
profits, alleging violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

A copy of the Complaint in Steinberg, et al. v. CVS Caremark
Corporation, et al., Case No. 110300253 (Pa. C.P. Ct.,
Philadelphia Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/cvscaremark.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 507
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 609-1350
          E-mail: dsenoff@cmbclaw.com

               - and -

          William R. Caroselli, Esq.
          CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
          20 Stanwix Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          E-mail: wcaroselli@cbmclaw.com


DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Liberty Media Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
DirecTV continues to defend itself in a purported class action
lawsuit related to the 2009 split-off transaction with Liberty
Media Corporation, according to the Company's February 28, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action complaint was filed on February 9, 2010
and amended on April 23, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court against
certain past and present directors of Liberty Media Corporation
alleging, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties as Liberty board members in connection with the
business terms and approval process by Liberty stockholders of the
merger of Liberty Entertainment, Inc. with a subsidiary of DIRECTV
as part of the Liberty Transaction. The plaintiff purports to
represent approximately 85 former Liberty Media Corporation
stockholders (other than the defendants) that allegedly held
approximately 1.8 million Liberty Media Corporation shares prior
to the consummation of the Liberty Transaction. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that John Malone and certain other
Liberty Media Corporation stockholders received disparate
allocation of consideration in the Liberty Transaction. The
complaint seeks equitable reallocation and disgorgement of the
improper consideration received by the defendants and other
relief. The defendants have requested indemnification and have
tendered defense of this litigation to DIRECTV pursuant to
agreements executed as part of the Liberty Transaction and DIRECTV
has elected to take control of the defense.

DIRECTV (NASDAQ:DTV) delivers premium video service to more than
28 million subscribers worldwide. Through its subsidiaries and
affiliated companies in the United States, Brazil, Mexico and
other countries in Latin America, DIRECTV provides digital
television service to more than 19.2 million customers in the
United States and more than 9 million customers in Latin America.
DIRECTV sports and entertainment properties include three Regional
Sports Networks (Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Pittsburgh) as well
as a 65 percent interest in Game Show Network.


DIRECTV: Continues to Defend Early Cancellation Fees Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV continues to defend itself in class action lawsuits
relating to its early cancellation fees, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments. Several of these
lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting
to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts
purporting to represent nationwide classes. The lawsuits seek both
monetary and injunctive relief. While the theories of liability
vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under state
consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately disclosed
to customers. Each of the lawsuits is at an early stage. Where
possible, the Company is moving to compel these cases to
arbitration in accordance with its Customer Agreement, but in
states such as California where the enforceability of the
arbitration provision is limited, the Company intends to defend
against these allegations in court. The Company believes its early
cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and represent
reasonable estimates of the costs it incur when customers cancel
service before fulfilling their programming commitments.

DIRECTV (NASDAQ:DTV) delivers premium video service to more than
28 million subscribers worldwide. Through its subsidiaries and
affiliated companies in the United States, Brazil, Mexico and
other countries in Latin America, DIRECTV provides digital
television service to more than 19.2 million customers in the
United States and more than 9 million customers in Latin America.
DIRECTV sports and entertainment properties include three Regional
Sports Networks (Northwest, Rocky Mountain and Pittsburgh) as well
as a 65 percent interest in Game Show Network.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Continues to Defends Antitrust Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is still defending itself
against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of California
laws, according to the Company's February 28, 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, a purported class action was filed against
the Company, by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the Southern
District Court of California, claiming that the pass through of
the California Trade and Tourism Commission and airport concession
fee authorized by legislation effective in January 2007 constitute
antitrust violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair
Competition Act.  The case is styled Michael Shames; Gary Gramkow,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA,
Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent-A-Car, Inc., Coast
Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission and
Caroline Beteta (No. 07 CV 2174 H BLM (S.D. Cal.)).  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
July 25, 2008 the Court issued an order denying the motion as to
the antitrust claims but granting the motion to dismiss state law
claims.  The Court also dismissed The California Travel and
Tourism Commission from the litigation based on state action
immunity; but thereafter, reversed this decision on October 19,
2010.


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Dillon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling
on an appeal made by plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging
breach of contract, according to the Company's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 22, 2009, a purported class action complaint was
filed in Illinois state court by Susan and Jeffrey Dillon,
individually and on behalf of all persons who rented a vehicle
from Thrifty Car Rental in Colorado from September 22, 2006
forward, who signed a rental agreement which obligated them to pay
for loss of use of a vehicle if damaged, and who were charged for
loss of use or an administrative fee related to the vehicle damage
claim.  Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract,
violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and for
declaratory judgment under the Colorado Uniform Declaratory
Judgment Law related to the assessment of loss of use and
administrative fees in connection with vehicle damage claims
against renters.  The case is styled: Susan and Jeffrey Dillon v.
DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Thrifty Car Rental (Case No. 09CH34874,
Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, Illinois).   On
July 23, 2010, these actions were dismissed with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on August 19, 2010.


DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend "Deepwater Horizon" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dril-Quip, Inc., is still defending itself against several class
action and other lawsuits arising out of the "Deepwater Horizon"
incident, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in nine class action lawsuits and nine other lawsuits
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident, which occurred on
April 20, 2010, and involved explosions and fire on the semi-
submersible rig Deepwater Horizon and resulted in an oil spill.
These actions were filed against the Company between April 28,
2010 and January 17, 2011. As of February 22, 2011, sixteen of the
lawsuits have been consolidated, along with hundreds of other
lawsuits not directly involving the Company, in the multi-district
proceeding In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, and are pending in the
federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The remaining
two cases are pending in the federal courts for the Southern
District of Alabama and the Northern District of Alabama. The
lawsuits generally allege, among other things, violation of state
and federal environmental and other laws and regulations,
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability and/or property
damages and generally seek awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory and punitive damages and/or declaratory relief.

The judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding is also presiding over
a separate proceeding filed by affiliates of Transocean Ltd. under
the Limitation of Liability Act in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. In the Limitation Action,
Transocean seeks to limit its liability for claims arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon incident to the value of its rig and
freight. On February 18, 2011, Transocean impleaded the Company in
the Limitation Action. The procedural effect of Transocean's
action is to make the Company a defendant in any of the actions
consolidated in the MDL Proceeding where the plaintiffs file or
have filed a claim in the Limitation Action. However, at this time
there are no new allegations against the Company as a result of
Transocean's action, and the Company is entitled to assert all the
defenses available to it in the actions to which it was already a
party.

The Company intends to vigorously defend any litigation, fine
and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with
these matters.


DULUTH: May Face Class Action Over Rental Ordinance
---------------------------------------------------
Duluth News Tribune reports that the city of Duluth has been asked
to delay implementation of a recently passed rental reform
ordinance or face a class-action lawsuit.

A letter sent on March 7 by Duluth attorney Jerome Feriancek
includes a draft complaint that he states will be served before
week's end if the city will not pause to reconsider new
regulations poised to take effect shortly.  Along with the suit,
Mr. Feriancek said he also intends to file a motion for a
temporary restraining order on behalf of local property owners
whom he represents.

"There is an obvious underlying motive within this particular
ordinance with respect to excluding certain people from Duluth
neighborhoods," Mr. Feriancek claims in his letter.  "At a
minimum, if there was no intent, it will have an unfortunate
impact on neighborhoods, resulting in the wholesale exclusion of
certain segments of the Duluth population."

He also expressed concern about the effect the new rules will have
on property owners and the city's rationale for the fees that
would be assessed.

The Duluth News Tribune will have more on this story as it
develops.


EMI MUSIC: Judge Has Yet to Approve Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for the Financial Post, reports that a
proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against record
label EMI has hit a snag after the son of jazz legend Chet Baker
sent a letter to the judge to express concerns.

The case of Chesney "Chet" Baker Estate vs Sony BMG Music (Canada)
is a class action that was supposed to be resolved on March 14.  A
hearing had been scheduled to ask a judge to approve a proposed
settlement.

Four record labels, Sony Music Entertainment Canada, EMI Music
Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada, have
agreed to pay $45-million to composers and publishers for
copyright infringement and overdue royalties.

As it turned out, counsel need a few more days to sort out some
paperwork, so the judge granted another adjournment -- though not
before a bit of a monkey wrench was thrown into the process.

Chet Baker died in 1998, and Paul Baker, his son, claims a
one-eighth interest in his father's estate.  He sent a letter to
the judge raising an issue about the right of one of the
representative plaintiffs, his mother Carol Baker, to enter an
agreement on behalf of the estate.

At a hearing on March 7, Judge George Strathy asked counsel to
provide Paul Baker with copies of the settlement material, then
adjourned the motion to March 28. What happens next is still up in
the air. He wrote in his endorsement:

Counsel for the plaintiffs is considering the appropriate response
to the concerns raised by Mr. Baker.  This may include the
production of further evidence (if available) to satisfy the court
and counsel for the defendants that Carol Baker has authority to
enter into an settlement agreement on behalf of the estate and on
behalf of the corporate plaintiff.  It may include a motion to
substitute or add another representative plaintiff.  It may
include some other form of relief.


ENGLISH MONTREAL SCHOOL: Defending Against Sex Abuse Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Montgomery, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that
convicted sex offender Renwick Spence wasn't acting in his duties
as teacher when he sexually abused Montreal West High School
students, the school board claims in a class-action suit against
it.

In a 20-page statement of defense, the English Montreal School
Board says it bears no responsibility for what happened in
Mr. Spence's secluded cottage in Morin Heights, north of Montreal,
where the abuse took place in the 1960s and '70s.

In his own defense in the suit -- filed by the victims and
authorized almost four years ago by Quebec Superior Court --
Mr. Spence also states the school didn't know what he was up to.

So far, about 15 alleged victims have come forward to join the
class-action suit, but lawyer Careen Hannouche said her firm has
learned through questioning Spence and his former students that
there are many more.

"Others may not have heard of (the class-action suit) or don't
want to come forward," she said.

Mr. Spence, 81, pleaded guilty to abusing eight male students
between 1967 and 1981 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison in
December 2007.  The boys ranged in age from about 13 to 16.

During a parole hearing in 2008, Mr. Spence admitted there could
have been more victims than the original eight who went to police.
He was granted full parole in 2009.

The class action alleges Spence abused his position of authority,
inviting students to his cottage and abusing them physically,
sexually and/or mentally.  It also contends the EMSB, which was
then called the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, was
aware of the abuse and didn't act.

Ms. Hannouche said they're hoping for a trial date in the fall.

"There's always a chance of an out-of-court settlement, but for
the moment, it looks like we're going to trial," she said.


ENTERGY TEXAS: Settlement Term Sheet Agreed in Louisiana Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the fiber optic cable litigation pending in a state
court in Louisiana have entered into a term sheet establishing
basic terms for a settlement, according to Entergy Texas, Inc.'s
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Several property owners have filed a class action suit against
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Services, Inc., ETHC, and Entergy
Technology Company in state court in St. James Parish, Louisiana
purportedly on behalf of all property owners in Louisiana who have
conveyed easements to the defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that
Entergy installed fiber optic cable across the plaintiffs'
property without obtaining appropriate easements.  The plaintiffs
seek damages equal to the fair market value of the surplus fiber
optic cable capacity, including a share of the profits made
through use of the fiber optic cables, and punitive damages.
Entergy removed the case to federal court in New Orleans; however,
the district court remanded the case back to state court.  In
February 2004, the state court entered an order certifying this
matter as a class action.  Entergy's appeals of this ruling were
denied.  The parties have entered into a term sheet establishing
basic terms for a settlement that must be approved by the court.

Based in Beaumont, Entergy Texas, Inc. provides electric service
to about 393,600 customers in Southeast Texas. The company's
service area encompasses 26 counties, extending from Newton,
Orange and Jefferson counties along the Texas-Louisiana border,
south to Chambers County near the Gulf of Mexico, west to Burleson
County and north to Robertson and Trinity counties.


EQUINIX INC: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statements
------------------------------------------------------
Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Equinix, Inc., et al,.
Case No. 11-cv-01016 (N.D. Calif. March 4, 2011), accuses Equinix
and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff alleges that
between July 29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, inclusive, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.

Specifically, the plaintiff says that defendants failed to
disclose that Equinix was having difficulty with the integration
of Switch & Data Corporation Facilities Company, Inc., the
competitor company it acquired in April 2010, into its operations
due to a decline in bookings prior to the close of the acquisition
and due to the Company's aggressive synergy plan.  Defendants
further continuously hyped demand for the Company's colocation
services as being robust and failed to disclose that the Company's
business model was not working and was causing the Company to
experience increased churn and pricing pressure on its colocation
services.  As a result of defendants' false statements, Equinix's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $105.09 per share on October 5, 2010.

On October 5, 2010, Equinix issued a press release announcing
revised third quarter and fiscal year 2010 guidance.  The Company
reported it expected revenue to be in the range of $328 million to
$330 million for the third quarter of 2010.  The Company further
reported it expected revenues for the full year 2010 to be
approximately $1.215 billion, 1.2% lower than the midpoint
of its previous outlook.

After releasing its revised financial guidance on October 5, 2010,
Equinix hosted a conference call during which the Company
announced it would transition from a demand fulfillment business
model to a demand creation model.

On this news, Equinix's stock collapsed $34.75 per share to close
at $70.34 per share on October 6, 2010, a one-day decline of over
33% on high volume.

Equinix is a global network-neutral provider of data centers and
Internet exchanges.  Equinix offers the following data center
services: premium data center colocation, interconnection
and exchange services, and outsourced IT infrastructure services.

Plaintiff Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust, who
purchased common stock during the Class Period, was damaged as the
result of defendants' wrongdoing, as alleged in the Complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RODMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  katek@rgrdlaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Expert Witness in Securities Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Newberry, writing for Business Courier, reports that
Cincinnati class-action lawyer Stan Chesley ran into problems in a
Washington, D.C., courtroom last week when his expert witness in a
securities fraud class-action lawsuit was dismissed after walking
out of a deposition.

Mr. Chesley, of the law firm of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley, is lead counsel in the case against Fannie Mae, the giant
mortgage finance corporation that was taken over by the federal
government in 2008.  Lead plaintiffs are the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement System of
Ohio, which have accused Fannie Mae of distorting its financial
results to deceive investors.

Mr. Chesley is meanwhile facing possible disbarment in Kentucky
for his actions as co-counsel in a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of people injured by the diet drug popularly known as "fen-phen."
He has denied any wrongdoing in his handling of that case and said
his role was limited to negotiating the $200 million settlement.

According to this post on the Legal Times blog, the judge in the
Fannie Mae case dismissed former SEC chairman Harvey Pitt as
expert witness after Mr. Pitt walked out in the middle of a
deposition conducted by defense lawyers.

According to an earlier Legal Times post, Mr. Pitt indicated he
was troubled by the way the lawyers had handled the deposition and
was "not able to finish a good portion of sentences."

During Chesley's own testimony last September, at a hearing in
Frankfort on disciplinary charges related to the fen-phen case,
the Kentucky Bar Association's chief bar counsel complained that
Mr. Chesley couldn't finish his sentences quickly enough.

Linda Gosnell told the trial commissioner that if Mr. Chesley
continued to give lengthy explanations "of Mr. Chesley's theory of
the case" in response to simple questions, the questioning was
going to take longer than she had planned.

Retired Franklin County (Kentucky) Circuit Judge William Graham,
presiding as trial commissioner, said he thought Mr. Chesley's
answer was appropriate in that instance.  But in a report last
month, Judge Graham recommended Mr. Chesley's disbarment,
characterizing Mr. Chesley's failure to recollect a key meeting as
"not credible" and his claim that he didn't read a subsequent
court order as unconvincing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss New York Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting a federal court's ruling on its
motions to dismiss a number of actions arising from the Company's
sales of auction-rate securities, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company faces a number of civil actions relating to its sales
of auction-rate securities, including a putative securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York that seeks unspecified damages, and
individual arbitrations and lawsuits in various forums brought by
institutional and individual investors that, together, seek
damages totaling more than $200 million relating to the Firm's
sales of auction-rate securities.  One action is brought by an
issuer of auction-rate securities.  The actions generally allege
that the Company and other firms manipulated the market for
auction-rate securities by placing bids at auctions that affected
these securities' clearing rates or otherwise supported the
auctions without properly disclosing these activities.  Some
actions also allege that the Firm misrepresented that auction-rate
securities were short-term instruments.  The Firm has filed
motions to dismiss each of the actions, which are being
coordinated before the Southern District.  These motions are
currently pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Decision on Appeal in N.Y. Suits Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., is awaiting a ruling on appeals from the
dismissal of two putative class actions alleging collusion in
auction-rate securities market, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was named in two putative antitrust class actions in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The actions allege that the Company, along with numerous
other financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and
stabilize the auction-rate securities market and then to withdraw
their support for the auction-rate securities market.  In January
2010, the District Court dismissed both actions.  The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the two appeals.  That
appeal is currently pending.


KV PHARMA: 8th Cir. Revives Class Action Over Adulterated Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit revived a potential
class action that accuses the makers of a hypertension drug of
failing to meet standards set by the Food and Drug Administration.

In the wake of a March 2009 complaint by the FDA against KV
Pharmaceutical and its subsidiaries, Ethex and Ther-Rx, for
defectively manufacturing the hypertension drug Metoprolol
Succinate ER, Rhode Island resident Allen Lefaivre filed suit
against the drugmakers for breach of warranty and violations of
the Missouri Merchantability Practices Act.

KV moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that Mr. Lefaivre's claims
were preempted by federal law, and that government agencies have
sole authority to enforce those standards.

A Missouri federal judge agreed, but the St. Louis-based federal
appeals panel reversed that decision on March 3.

In its settlement agreement with the FDA, KV admitted to selling
"adulterated" drugs, acknowledging that it had not used proper
quality control procedures when manufacturing Metoprolol
Succinate.  KV also agreed to destroy the remaining stock of
"adulterated" drugs and issued a recall for all stocks of the
medication sold to retailers between May 2008 and February 2009.

The appellate court's ruling that this recall notice only affected
products "at the retail level."

"A retail-level recall instructs all retailers that had purchased
the medication to return all unsold product to KV," Judge Lavenski
Smith wrote for the court.  "The consent decree did not require KV
to distribute its recall notice to individual purchasers of the
medication, and it did not do so."

The three-judge panel found that Congress did not intend give the
FDA exclusive drug-safety oversight.

"In keeping with Congress' decision not to pre-empt common-law
tort suits, it appears that the FDA traditionally regarded state
law as a complementary form of drug regulation," the opinion
states.  "The FDA has limited resources to monitor the 11,000
drugs on the market, and manufacturers have superior access to
information about their drugs, especially in the postmarketing
phase as new risks emerge.

Congress adopted the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) so
that state law could complement FDA regulation, Mr. Smith wrote.

"State tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide
incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks
promptly," the decision states.  "They also serve a distinct
compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come
forward with information.

"Failure-to-warn actions, in particular, lend force to the FDCA's
premise that manufacturers, not the FDA, bear primary
responsibility for their drug labeling at all times," Judge Smith
continued.  "Thus, the FDA long maintained that state law offers
an additional, and important, layer of consumer protection that
complements FDA regulation."

A copy of the Opinion in Lefaivre v. KV Pharmaceutical Company, et
al., No. 10-1326 (8th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/f3T3R1


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Suit Over Vacation Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc., is still defending itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by a former employee over its vacation
policies, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On August 31, 2005, former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200 current
and former California employees of the Company. The trial was
bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May 1,
2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a
conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal
choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California
law. In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on
August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members
approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time
penalties and interest but did not include post judgment interest,
costs and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a notice of appeal
with the California Court of Appeals on September 30, 2010. On
November 17, 2010, the trial court judge partially granted the
Company's motion for a new trial solely as to the argument that
current employees are not entitled to any damages. The trial court
judge vacated the original damage award and ordered further trial
proceedings to determine the amount of previously-awarded damages
that were attributable to current employees.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable. The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation. In accordance with U.S.
GAAP, if the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range and
no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum
amount of the range is accrued. The Company has reserved a total
of $1.8 million including attorney fees for estimated damages in
the matter. The amount recorded represents an estimate at the
minimum amount of the range. At the high end of the range, the
class has sought approximately $16.7 million, the highest
forfeiture amount asserted by the class' expert based on an
assumption that none of the California employees ever used any of
their accrued vacation or personal choice days and this $16.7
million amount does not include post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees which also may be assessed against the Company.


LIFE PARTNERS: Sued Over Fraudulent Life Expectancy Estimates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO class action
claims Life Partners reaped "millions in illicit profits" in the
secondary market in life settlements, through its "nefarious
organization composed of life settlement brokers, agents, and a
single corrupt doctor to fraudulently provide life settlement
purchasers with grossly understated life expectancy estimates."

A copy of the Complaint in Rice, et al. v. Life Partners, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-0390 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/LifePart.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 330-7149
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Miller, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          500 5th Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730

               - and -

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Paul S. Balanon, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455-1400


MILESTONE AV: Recalls 2,500 Power Conditioners/Surge Protectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Milestone AV Technologies LLC, of Savage, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,500 low-profile power conditioners/
surge protectors.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Improper grounding of the case and inadequate insulation for the
circuit breaker poses an electrical shock hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves all Sanus Elements model ELM205 low-profile
power conditioners or surge protectors.  SANUS ELEMENTS is printed
on the front of the unit and the model number is printed near the
UL logo on the back.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Independent home theater dealers from June 2009 through December
2010 for about $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Milestone for a replacement product or refund.  For additional
information, contact Milestone toll-free at (877) 894-6280 between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday and
between 10:30 a.m. and 7 p.m., Central Time, Saturday and Sunday,
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.milestone.com/recall/


NEW MEXICO GAS: Residents in Gas Shut-Off Suit Seek More Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
KOAT Albuquerque reports that Attorney Michael Ross, who is
representing Taos residents in a class action lawsuit filed
against the New Mexico Gas Company, said his clients are demanding
that the company pay three times the damages suffered by customers
during February's gas shut-off.

According to the lawsuit, the company shut off the gas service of
about 32,000 customers, and some of the poorest people in the
state were freezing.

"At a very basic level, people were freezing," Mr. Ross said.

Five days into the gas shut-off, people in Taos and Espanola still
didn't have any natural gas, and some residents set their homes on
fire trying to keep warm with Kiva fireplaces.

"They missed work, had to scramble for heaters and had to stand in
line at Walmart for electric blankets.  It was a very trying time
in these communities," Mr. Ross said.

The gas company said it has set up a $1 million relief fund to
help those affected by the shut-off.  A spokesperson for the gas
company said this lawsuit is a separate issue and will not
affected the relief fund.

The lawsuit said the relief fund wouldn't even be enough to
compensate the thousands of customers and wants the company to pay
three times the actual damage suffered.

Ross said he is still looking to find more people to join this
class action lawsuit.


NISOURCE INC: Pays $2.7MM in 2011 for "Tawney" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. has contributed $2.7 million this year as part of
the settlement of the class action lawsuit, Tawney, et al. v.
Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed a lawsuit
in early 2003 in the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County,
West Virginia against CNR alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on
gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production
costs and not paying a fair value for the gas. Plaintiffs also
claimed that Defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of
post-production charges. In December 2004, the Trial Court granted
Plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource and Columbia as Defendants. The
Trial Court later certified the case as a class action that
includes any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due
royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands
lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia. Although
NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remained obligated to manage
this litigation and was responsible for the majority of any
damages awarded to Plaintiffs. On January 27, 2007, the jury
hearing the case returned a verdict against all Defendants in the
amount of $404.3 million inclusive of both compensatory and
punitive damages; Defendants subsequently filed their Petition for
Appeal, which was later amended, with the West Virginia Supreme
Court of Appeals, which refused the petition on May 22, 2008. On
August 22, 2008, Defendants filed Petitions to the United States
Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. Given the Appeals Court's
earlier refusal of the appeal, NiSource adjusted its reserve in
the second quarter of 2008 to reflect the portion of the Trial
Court judgment for which NiSource would be responsible, inclusive
of interest. This amount was included in "Legal and environmental
reserves," on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31,
2008. On October 24, 2008, the Trial Court preliminarily approved
a Settlement Agreement with a total settlement amount of $380
million. The settlement received final approval by the Trial Court
on November 22, 2008. NiSource's share of the settlement liability
is up to $338.8 million. NiSource complied with its obligations
under the Settlement Agreement to fund $85.5 million in the
qualified settlement fund by January 13, 2009. Additionally,
NiSource provided a letter of credit on January 13, 2009 in the
amount of $254 million and thereby complied with its obligation to
secure the unpaid portion of the settlement, which was terminated
on December 29, 2010. The Trial Court entered its Order
discharging the judgment on January 20, 2009 and is supervising
the administration of the settlement proceeds. As of December 31,
2010, NiSource has contributed a total of $330.5 million into the
qualified settlement fund, $277.3 million of which was contributed
prior to December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2010, $8.3 million
of the maximum settlement liability has not been paid. NiSource
has since contributed an additional $2.7 million in 2011. NiSource
will be required to make additional payments, pursuant to the
settlement, upon notice from the Class Administrator.


NISOURCE INC: Sixth Circuit Affirms Settlement of Kentucky Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a lower court's decision approving
a settlement and dismissing lawsuits against NiSource Inc.,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Thacker case, a purported
class action alleging that Chesapeake has failed to pay royalty
owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil
and gas leases covering real property located within the state of
Kentucky. Columbia has assumed the defense of Chesapeake in this
matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement
dated July 3, 2003, among Columbia, NiSource, and Triana Energy
Holding, Inc., Chesapeake's predecessor in interest. Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other
things, added NiSource and Columbia as Defendants. On March 31,
2008, the Court denied a Motion by Defendants to Dismiss and on
June 3, 2008, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting
of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by Chesapeake under
leases operated by Chesapeake at any point after February 5, 1992,
on real property in Kentucky.

In June 2009, the parties to the Thacker litigation presented a
Settlement Agreement to the Court for preliminary approval. The
court granted the Motion for Preliminary approval and held a
fairness hearing on November 10, 2009. On March 3, 2010 the Court
granted final approval of the settlement and on March 31, 2010
Poplar Creek filed a notice of appeal of that approval with the
Sixth Circuit. On February 17, 2011, the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the lower court's approval of the settlement.

On October 9, 2008, Chesapeake tendered the Poplar Creek case to
Columbia and Columbia conditionally assumed the defense of this
matter pursuant to the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement.
Poplar Creek also purports to be a class action covering royalty
owners in the state of Kentucky and alleges that Chesapeake has
improperly deducted costs from the royalty payments; thus there is
some overlap of parties and issues between the Poplar Creek and
Thacker cases. Chesapeake filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings in December 2008, which was granted on July 2, 2009.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Oral argument was held on December 9, 2010 for both the
Thacker and Poplar Creek cases. On February 17, 2011, the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: To Appeal Ruling in Dividend Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. breached its contracts with
thousands of annuity holders when it unilaterally changed how
dividends were paid on pre-1985 annuities, a judge has found.

A Northwestern Mutual spokeswoman called the ruling shocking and
said the company will appeal.

In a 97-page decision, Reserve Judge Dennis Flynn, of Racine,
found the Milwaukee-based financial giant also breached its
fiduciary duty, and duties of good faith, fair dealing and loyalty
during the switch.

"Intentional and repeated concealment of wrongdoing over a period
of a quarter century took place," Judge Flynn wrote.

Jean Towell, a spokeswoman for Northwestern Mutual, said the
company is extremely disappointed in the judge's ruling and
shocked by his conclusions.  She said the company will appeal.

"Twenty-five years after the fact, the court is willing to second-
guess company execs and insurance regulators," Ms. Towell said.

"Northwestern Mutual stands strongly behind its decision-making
when it comes to dividends," she said.  "They were made in made in
good faith for good reasons for the benefit of all our policy
holders."

The decision followed a non-jury trial he heard in Milwaukee in
November.  Judge Flynn said he retained jurisdiction of the
complicated case for "further and supplemental relief allowed as
necessary and proper."

The class-action lawsuit from people who bought the annuities
before 1985 contends the change deprived them of potentially
millions of dollars in dividends from Northwestern Mutual's
general portfolio over the past 25 years and into the future.

While annuity holders continued to receive what were called
dividends, the lawsuit contends they were merely interest payments
from short-term bonds into which the company had switched the
annuity assets.

The lengthy order recapped much of the evidence from the trial,
which featured 21 witnesses and more than 500 exhibits.  Judge
Flynn found testimony of the defense experts wanting, and found
retired Northwestern Mutual CEO Ed Zore "not credible."

"His answer to the conundrums faced by Northwestern Mutual was to
tell lies and manufacture reality," Judge Flynn wrote.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Appeal From Facebook Beacon Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OverStock.com Inc. continues to defend itself from an appeal in a
"Facebook Beacon" class action complaint in California, according
to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 12, 2008, the Company, along with seven other
defendants, were sued in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, by Sean Lane, and 17 other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the defendants by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
court accepted the proposed settlement.  Various parties objecting
to the settlement have appealed and their appeal is now pending.

OverStock.com is an online retailer offering discount brand name,
non-brand name and closeout merchandise, including bed-and-bath
goods, home d‚cor, kitchenware, furniture, watches and jewelry,
apparel, electronics and computers, sporting goods, and designer
accessories, among other products.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Continues to Defend Amended "Hines" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
OverStock.com Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
complaint filed by Cynthia Hines, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims
for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer
fraud laws.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to
properly disclose its returns policy to her and that the Company
improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum
cleaner.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon
assertions that its agreement with its customers requires all such
actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively,
the Company asked that the case be transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, so that
arbitration may be compelled in that district.  On September 8,
2009, the motion to dismiss or transfer was denied, the court
stating that the Company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient
under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to
arbitrate disputes in Utah.  On October 8, 2009, the Company filed
a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling.  The appeal was denied.
On December 31, 2010, Hines filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint eliminated common law fraud claims and breach of
contract claims and added claims for breach of Utah's consumer
protection statute and various other state consumer protection
statutes.  The amended complaint also asks for an injunction.

The suit is in discovery, and the Company intends to vigorously
defend the action.

OverStock.com is an online retailer offering discount brand name,
non-brand name and closeout merchandise, including bed-and-bath
goods, home d‚cor, kitchenware, furniture, watches and jewelry,
apparel, electronics and computers, sporting goods, and designer
accessories, among other products.


PEABODY ENERGY: Dismissal of Mississippi Class Suit Now Final
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the class action lawsuit filed by residents along
the Mississippi Gulf coast against Peabody Energy Corporation is
now final after the Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition of
mandamus, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along the
Mississippi Gulf coast filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi
against more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal companies,
including the Company. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants'
greenhouse gas emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of the
increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and
sought damages based on several legal theories. The defendants
filed motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of personal and
subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2007, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
political question doctrine and for lack of standing. In October
2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) reversed in part the decision of the
trial court, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to assert
their public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence claims.
The court held that plaintiffs did not satisfy the prudential
standing requirement for their unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims and dismissed those
claims and ordered that the case be remanded to the district court
for further proceedings. In March 2010, the Fifth Circuit vacated
the panel opinion and ordered a hearing en banc before the full
Fifth Circuit to consider plaintiffs' appeal. After the en banc
court was properly constituted, a recusal by one of the judges
resulted in the en banc court losing its quorum. On May 28, 2010,
the Fifth Circuit issued an order indicating that the court had no
authority to reinstate the panel decision and directing the clerk
to dismiss the appeal. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Mandamus
with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs' Petition for Mandamus. As a result,
the trial court's dismissal of the case is final.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling of Appeal in Florida Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc. is still awaiting a ruling of an appeal from
an order dismissing a Florida Nuclear Cost Recovery lawsuit,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Florida Power
Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc., in state circuit
court in Sumter County, Fla., alleging that the Florida nuclear
cost-recovery statute (Section 366.93, Florida Statutes) violates
the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund of all monies
collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with interest. The
complaint also requests that the court grant class action status
to the plaintiffs. On April 6, 2010, PEF filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint. The trial judge issued an order on May 3, 2010,
dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on June 1, 2010. PEF believes the lawsuit is without
merit and filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
12, 2010. On October 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of
the trial court's order dismissing the complaint. Initial and
reply briefs have been filed by the appellants and PEF. The
appellants filed their response brief on January 25, 2011.the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Defends Class Suits Over Proposed Duke Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc., is defending itself against class action
lawsuit over its proposed merger with Duke Energy Corporation,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 8, 2011, Duke Energy and Progress Energy entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger.  Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, Progress Energy will be acquired by Duke Energy in a
stock-for-stock transaction (the Merger) and continue as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Duke Energy.

Progress Energy shareholders have filed class action lawsuits in
the state and federal courts in North Carolina against Progress
Energy and each of the members of Progress Energy's board of
directors. The lawsuits seek to prohibit the Merger and, in some
cases, seek damages in the event that the Merger is completed.
Progress Energy intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this matter.


REHABCARE GROUP: Being Sold to Kindred for Too Little, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that RehabCare
officers breached their duty to shareholders by selling the
company too cheaply to Kindred Healthcare, shareholders say.
Kindred's acquisition of RehabCare "serves no legitimate purpose
for RehabCare but rather is an attempt by defendants to aggrandize
their own financial interests," according to the class action in
St. Louis County Court.

Named plaintiff Alfred Kowalewski says RehabCare's stock rose
rapidly, from $12.45 a share on March 3, 2009 until it peaked at
$34.88 a share on Jan. 19, 2010.  The stock leveled off and was
selling at $25.47 a share on Feb. 7, 2011, the day before the
announcement of the acquisition.

The $1.3 billion buyout offer was $26 a share, plus 0.471 Kindred
shares per RehabCare share.

"While the consideration offered to RehabCare's public
stockholders represents a 37.55% premium to the closing share
price on the day prior to announcement, this does not reflect the
true value of the company or its prospects for future growth," the
complaint states.

"In contrast, Kindred and the individual defendants stand to reap
substantial benefits from the proposed transaction.  On Feb. 7,
2011, on the day before the announcement of the proposed
transaction, the compensation committee of the board approved a
grant of 46,393 shares of restricted stock worth a total of $1.25
million to defendant [John] Short, the president and CEO of
RehabCare.  . . . Short's restricted shares will vest immediately
upon the consummation of the proposed transaction.  These
restricted shares are in addition to at least $11 million in
potential change-in-control payments to Short."

The class wants the acquisition blocked, and a better deal.

RehabCare, Kindred and eight RehabCare officers are named as
defendants.

A copy of the Complaint in Kowalewski v. Rich, et al.,
Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/RehabCare.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Leventhal, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: dleventhal@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Schmitt, Esq.
          James M. Heffner, Esq.
          DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C.
          7701 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63205
          Telephone: (314) 726-1000
          E-mail: jschmitt@dmfirm.com
                  jheffner@dmfirm.com


SLM CORP: Awaits Final Court Approval of "Arthur" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its settlement
of a class action styled, Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM
Corporation, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 2, 2010, a putative class action suit was filed by a
borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation). The suit
complains that the Company allegedly contacted "tens of thousands"
of consumers on their cellular telephones via autodialer without
their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.  Each violation
under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a
willful violation is shown). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages,
damages for willful violations, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. On April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint changing the defendant from SLM
Corporation to Sallie Mae, Inc. The parties in this matter have
reached a tentative settlement which is subject to court approval
and other conditions. On September 14, 2010, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington agreed to
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
Agreement.

The Company says it has vigorously denied all claims asserted
against it, but agreed to the settlement to avoid the burden and
expense of continued litigation. If the settlement receives final
approval from the Court, settlement awards will be made to
eligible class members on a claims-made basis from a settlement
fund of $19.5 million, and class members may opt out of certain
calls to their cellular telephones. On January 21, 2011, and
February 7, 2011, the Company filed submissions with the Court to
advise that approximately 1.76 million individuals had been
omitted from the original notice list for a total of approximately
6.6 million class members. In response, Class Counsel asked the
Company to contribute additional unspecified amounts to the
settlement fund. On February 10, 2011, the Court granted a
Consented Motion to Stay Implementation of Settlement and Certain
Deadlines. The Court ordered Class Counsel to file a status report
on March 18, 2011. On February 10, 2011, Judith Harper filed a
Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff, which the Court terminated
on February 11, 2011 based upon the Court's February 10, 2011
Stay. On February 9, 2011, Ms. Harper filed a similar Class Action
Complaint regarding the TCPA against Arrow Financial Services,
LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. On February 22, 2011, Arrow Financial Services, LLC
filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in the Harper case. That Motion
is pending.


SLM CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation continues to defend itself against a consolidated
securities class action filed by parties who bought the Company's
common stock, according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 31, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. This case
and other actions arising out of the same circumstances and
alleged acts have been consolidated and are now identified as In
Re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation. The case purports to be
brought on behalf of those who acquired the Company's common stock
between January 18, 2007 and January 23, 2008. The complaint
alleges that the Company and certain officers violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements and that the statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price for the Company's
securities. The complaint alleges that Defendants caused the
Company's results for year-end 2006 and for the first quarter of
2007 to be materially misstated because the Company failed to
adequately provide for loan losses, which overstated the Company's
net income, and that the Company failed to adequately disclose
allegedly known trends and uncertainties with respect to the
Company's non-traditional loan portfolio. On September 24, 2010,
the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss Mr. Albert Lord
and the Company but dismissed Mr. C.E. Andrews as a defendant in
the action. The matter is now in the discovery phase. Lead
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. At this time the
Company does not believe it is possible to estimate a range of
exposure.


SPRINT NEXTEL: "Unlimited Data" Plan Not Unlimited, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Sprint Nextel cheats customers by tacking on a $10 monthly
"premium data add-on" after selling them a supposedly "unlimited
data" plan.

A copy of the Complaint in Wilkerson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation,
Case No. 11-cv-01040 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/SprintCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reginald Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          P. O Box 13315
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

               - and -

          Donald Amamgbo, Esq.
          AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES
          6167 Bristol Parkway, #325
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: 310-337-1134
          E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com

               - and -

          Sydney J. Hall, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SYDNEY J. HALL
          1308 Bayshore Highway, Suite 220
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 342-1830


SUNJOY INDUSTRIES: Recalls 2,400 Steel Outdoor Fireplaces
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunjoy Industries Group Limited, of Steubenville, Ohio, announced
a voluntary recall of about 20,000 Freestanding Steel Outdoor
Fireplaces in the United States and 400 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The decorative bronze powder coat finish on the fireplace chimney
can ignite during use, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Sunjoy has received 14 reports of the chimney's decorative powder
coat finish catching fire, resulting in one report of melted
siding.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves "Garden Treasures Living" steel outdoor
fireplaces with a bronze finish chimney and slate colored accents.
The wood burning fireplace is approximately 24 inches deep by 35
inches wide and 57 inches tall, has two glass doors and a tile
back inside.  Item number 0027705 and model number L-OF082PST-3
are printed on the front page of the product's instruction manual.
No other "Garden Treasures Living" brand outdoor fireplaces are
included in this recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11157.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Lowe's retail stores nationwide from March 2010 through November
2010 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the fireplace and contact
Sunjoy to obtain a free replacement chimney and chimney cap.  For
additional information, contact Sunjoy toll-free at (877) 343-5651
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://ww.sunjoydirect.com/fireplacerecall.htm/ Consumers can
also email the firm at fireplacerecall@sunjoydirect.com


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Securities Suits Remain Pending in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three securities class action lawsuits filed against Transocean
Ltd. remain pending in New York, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The federal securities law class actions, currently pending in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, name the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as defendants.
Two of these actions generally allege violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in
connection with the Macondo well incident.  The plaintiffs are
generally seeking awards of unspecified economic damages,
including damages resulting from the decline in the Company's
stock price after the Macondo well incident.  The third action was
filed by a former GlobalSantaFe shareholder, alleging that the
proxy statement related to the Company's shareholder meeting in
connection with its merger with GlobalSantaFe violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff claims that
GlobalSantaFe shareholders received inadequate consideration for
their shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks
rescission and compensatory damages.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. provides
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas wells.
Specializing in technically demanding sectors of the offshore
drilling business with a particular focus on deepwater and harsh
environment drilling services, the Company contracts its drilling
rigs, related equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate
basis to drill oil and gas wells.


TREE.COM INC: Appeal in "Carson" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed in the putative class action entitled Sylvia
Carson v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-247 (U.S. Dist. Ct.,
W.D.N.C.), remains pending, according to Tree.com, Inc.'s
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company named defendant in eight putative class actions
arising out of the Company's April 21, 2008 announcement that
unauthorized persons had gained access to non-public information
relating to its customers:

   * Constance Spinozzi v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-229 (U.S.
     Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.);

   * Sylvia Carson v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 3:08-cv-247 (U.S.
     Dist. Ct., W.D.N.C.);

   * Mitchell v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 08-303-RJC (U.S.
     Dist. Ct., W.D. N.C.);

   * Miller v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08cv2300 (U.S. Dist. Ct.,
     N.D. Ill.);

   * Marvin Garcia v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 08 Civ. 4551 (U.S.
     Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.);

   * Amy Bercaw v. LendingTree, LLC, No. SACV08-660 (U.S. Dist.
     Ct., C.D. Cal.);

   * Shaver v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist.
     Ct. C.D. Cal.); and

   * Bradley v. LendingTree, LLC, et al., SACV08-755 (U.S. Dist.
     Ct. C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs allege that LendingTree is a "consumer reporting
agency" within the meaning of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act and has violated FCRA by failing to maintain reasonable
procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports.
Plaintiffs also assert claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy and misappropriation of confidential
information. Plaintiffs purport to represent all LendingTree
customers affected by the information security breach, and seek
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The cases were
transferred for consistent pre-trial treatment into In re
LendingTree, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation in the
Western District of NC Charlotte Division, and the court ordered
each case to individual arbitration. The Carson case was
arbitrated on an individual (non-class) basis and a decision was
issued in favor of LendingTree in April 2010. Following this
decision, certain of the Plaintiffs in the Bercaw case withdrew
their filings.  Each of the other cases was dismissed on July 8,
2010. Plaintiff in the Carson case filed an appeal on January 13,
2011.

Tree.com, Inc. -- http://www.tree.com/-- through its various
subsidiaries, operates a lending business (the Lending Business)
and a real estate business (the Real Estate Business).  The
Lending Business consists of online networks, principally
LendingTree.com and GetSmart.com, as well as call centers, which
match consumers with lenders and loan brokers.  In addition, the
Lending Business originates, processes, approves and funds
various types of residential real estate loans under two brand
names, LendingTree Loans and HomeLoanCenter.com, and offers
residential mortgage loan settlement services under the name
LendingTree Settlement Services.  The Real Estate Business
consists of an Internet-enabled national residential real estate
brokerage that operates offices in 14 markets under the brand
name RealEstate.com, REALTORS.


TREMONT PARTNERS: Removes "Lakeview" Civil Action to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeview Investments, LP, on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. Robert Schulman, et al., Case No. CIV1006488 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Marin Cty.), was filed on December 10, 2010.  The case
arises out of the massive fraud committed by Bernard L. Madoff and
the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.  Lakeview alleges
that Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., and
other defendants, among other things: (i) made fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions in the funds' offering materials,
(ii) failed to conduct adequate due diligence on Mr. Madoff
before investing assets of the funds with BMIS, (iii) did not
monitor the funds' investment performance adequately, and (iv)
ignored "red flags" that purportedly should have made defendants
reluctant to invest with Mr. Madoff, as a result of which
plaintiff and other class members were harmed.

The plaintiff, a Delaware limited partnership based in California,
alleges that it invested approximately $23,950,000 in defendant
Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P., and $1,200,000 in defendant
Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P.

Tremont Partners, Inc., an investment adviser established in 1984
and a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Tremont Group Holdings,
Inc., is the general partner of the XL Fund and the Market Fund --
Partnerships.  Tremont Partners is deemed to have custody over the
cash and securities comprising the assets of the Partnerships
attributable to the partners' respective ownership interests in
the Partnerships.  Tremont Holdings is a holding company that
manages approximately $6 billion in assets through its various
hedge fund products and multi-manager portfolios.  Defendant
Robert Schulman was Chairman of Tremont Holdings' Board of
Directors from 2004 until 2008 and is identified by the
Partnerships' PPMs (Private Placement Memorandum) as one of the
principal decision makers for Tremont Partners in its role as
General Partner to the Parnerships.

On the basis that the appropriate district court has original
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because the matter
raised a federal jurisdiction under the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standard Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C., Section 78bb et seq.,
defendants Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc.,
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Oppenheimer
Acquisition Corp., Inc., Rye Select Broad Market XL Fund, L.P.,
Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P f/k/a American Masters Broad
Market Fund, L.P., Robert Schulman, James V. Mitchell, Harry
Hodges, Darren Johnston, on March 4, 2011, removed the lawsuit to
the Northern District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case
No. 11-cv-01025 to the proceeding.

Defendants Stuart Pologe and Patrick Kelly, who are listed as
defendants in plaintiff Lakeview Investment, LP's Complaint, have
not yet been served.  Defendants Pologe and Kelly consent to the
removal of this action, but do not waive any defenses related to
the lack of service and do not accept service by their consent to
removal.

The Complaint also lists MassMutual Life Insurance Company
as a defendant.  The defendants state that no such entity exists.
As such, MassMutual Life Insurance Company is not included among
the list of defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone; (619) 525-3990

Defendants Tremont Partners, Inc., Tremont Group Holdings Inc.,
Robert Schulman, James V. Mitchell, Harry Hodges, and Darren
Johnston are represented by:

          Eric S. Waxman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Haroldson, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
          Telephone: (213) 687-5000
          E-mail: eric.waxman@skadden.com

Defendant Oppenheimer Acquisition Corp. is represented by:

          Matthew L. Larrabee, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3513
          Telephone: (415) 262-4500
          E-mail: matthew.larrabee@dechert.com

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company is represented by:

          Susan Hoffman, Esq.
          BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3106
          Telephone: (213) 680-6400
          E-mail: susan.hoffman@bingham.com

Rye Select Broad Market Prime Fund, L.P. f/k/a Rye Select Broad
Market XL Fund, L.P., Rye Select Broad Market Fund, L.P. f/k/a
American Masters Broad Market Fund, L.P., are represented by:

          Kirsten Hicks Spira, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-5052
          Telephone: (310) 734-3200
          E-mail: kspira@steptoe.com


UNITED ONLINE: "Michaels" Suit Remains Pending in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated
class action complaint over dating services contracts currently
pending in Washington, according to the Company's February 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 30, 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class
action complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as
Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online
in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  On
December 19, 2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media
Corporation and United Online in Superior Court of Washington,
Kings County, alleging causes of action for violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, unjust enrichment and violation of California Civil
Code section 1694, dealing with dating services contracts.  In
both actions, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and
damages.  On April 30, 2009, the United States District Court of
the Western District of Washington consolidated the Michaels and
the Vasquez actions and designated the Michaels action as the lead
case.  On March 12, 2010, the parties entered into a comprehensive
class action settlement agreement.  On December 16, 2010, the
court conducted a final approval hearing on the settlement.  On
February 22, 2011, the court issued an Order formally denying
final approval of the settlement.  Discovery has not recommenced
and no trial date has been set.

United Online is a provider of consumer products and services over
the Internet through a number of brands including FTD, Interflora,
Memory Lane, Classmates, StayFriends, NetZero, and MyPoints.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Price-Fixing Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., is still defending itself against a
class action alleging price-fixing activities, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing for the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case. On
July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself in this
case. At this time, the Company has not determined the amount of
any liability that may result from these matters or whether such
liability, if any, would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Still Defends Barber Auto Sales Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc., said in a Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2011, that it continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit in Alabama filed by
Barber Auto Sales.

In Barber Auto Sales v. UPS, which a federal court in Alabama
certified as a class action in September 2009, the plaintiff
asserts a breach of contract claim arising from UPS's assessment
of shipping charge corrections when UPS determines that the
"dimensional weight" of packages is greater than reported by the
shipper.

The Company has denied any liability with respect to these claims
and intend to vigorously defend itself in this case. At this time,
the Company has not determined the amount of any liability that
may result from this matter or whether such liability, if any,
would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations, or liquidity.


UNITED STATES: May Face Class Suit Over Guatamela Syphilis Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, writing for Law.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit on behalf of about 700 Guatemalans who were subjected to
syphilis experiments by American doctors in the 1940s will be
filed against the U.S. government in three days unless reparations
of some kind are made to their families, plaintiffs attorneys said
on March 8.

The Obama administration apologized last October for U.S.
government doctors infecting Guatemalans with the syphilis virus
from 1946 to 1948 to study how the sexually transmitted disease is
passed and whether penicillin treatment was effective.  The
experiments came to light in 2009 through research by historian
Susan Reverby, a professor of women and gender studies at
Wellesley College in Massachusetts.

Because of the apology, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Conrad &
Scherer and Washington, D.C.-based Parker Wakeman Alonso notified
Attorney General Eric Holder that he had until today, March 11, to
offer a way to settle claims before the 33-page lawsuit is filed
in federal court.

The draft complaint names as class representatives heirs of a
Guatemalan experiment victim as well as soldiers who were given
the virus without their consent.

"What we are doing is a bit unconventional," said Piper Hendricks,
a Conrad & Scherer associate in Washington.  "Rather than hit them
with a lawsuit right away, we want to see if there is an agreement
that can be reached prior to filing."

Mr. Hendricks said this is not an attempt at a money grab, and
there are variety of solutions that can arise from the threat of
litigation, including a program to provide medical treatment or
information on STDs in Guatemala.

"When no amount of money can make anybody whole, that's when
you've got to get creative," she said.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment on
the potential lawsuit but said, "Once it is filed, we will review
the complaint and make a determination as to how the United States
will respond in court."

DOCTOR WITH A PAST

The doctor who led the Guatemalan experiments was John C. Cutler,
who also helped coordinate the infamous Tuskegee, Alabama, study
where 600 black men with syphilis were left untreated for decades
starting in 1932 to follow the course of the treatable disease.

In Guatemala, Cutler contacted orphanages, prisons and mental
hospitals and cajoled them with medical supplies to allow the
experiments, according to the plaintiffs lawyers.

Doctors were interested in how the disease was transmitted.  One
method was to have an infected prostitute sleep with prisoners,
lawyers said.

"This was not just a shot in the arm," Mr. Hendricks said.  "The
ugliest thing about this is that they targeted people who were the
most defenseless."

Cutler moved his experiments to Guatemala because there would not
be the same level of oversight as in the U.S., the threatened
lawsuit stated.  Unlike the Tuskegee study, which involved people
already infected with syphilis, Guatemalans were intentionally
exposed to the disease.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Health and Human
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius apologized last October to
Guatemala, the survivors and their descendants, calling the
experiments "clearly unethical."

Additionally disturbing was that the experiments in Guatemala were
performed at the same time as the Nuremberg trials, which
documented atrocities done by the Nazis in the name of medical
science during World War II, Mr. Hendricks said.

"It's very disturbing.  It's not just a wrong recognized in
hindsight," she said.  "They knew at the time that you cannot
engage in nonconsensual human experimentation like this."


URS CORP: Continues Defense in New Orleans Levee Failure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
URS Corporation continues to defend itself in a class suit arising
from alleged negligence in their design, construction and
maintenance of the New Orleans levees, which resulted to personal
injury damages during the surge of Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company, subsequently renamed URS Energy &
Construction, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the
Company on November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site
preparation, and environmental remediation services for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal in New Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005,
Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created
by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and
floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the
city.

Since September 2005, 59 personal injury, property damage and
class action lawsuits have been filed in Louisiana State and
federal court naming WGI Ohio as a defendant.  Other defendants
include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the
Orleans Parish Levee District, and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and
Marine Insurance Company.  Over 1,450 hurricane-related cases,
including the WGI Ohio cases, have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  The
plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and maintenance of the New Orleans levees.  The
plaintiffs are all residents and property owners who claim to have
incurred damages arising out of the breach and failure of the
hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.  The allegation against the Company is that the
work it performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the
levee and floodwall and caused and contributed to breaches and
flooding.  The plaintiffs allege damages of $200 billion and
demand attorneys' fees and costs.  WGI Ohio did not design,
construct, repair or maintain any of the levees or the floodwalls
that failed during or after Hurricane Katrina.  WGI Ohio performed
the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a contractor for the
federal government and has pursued dismissal from the lawsuits on
a motion for summary judgment on the basis that government
contractors are immune from liability.

On December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
Company performed the work adjacent to the Industrial Canal as a
contractor for the federal government and are therefore immune
from liability, which was appealed by a number of the plaintiffs
on April 27, 2009 to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI Ohio's
dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court for
further litigation.

WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, the Company cannot provide assurance that it will be
successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time, the
Company said.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Approval of "Schafer" Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., is awaiting court approval of a settlement
agreement and release executed by all parties in the putative
class action lawsuit entitled Schafer v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Co., et al., according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

The putative class action was filed by or on behalf of groups of
Louisiana insurance policyholders who claim, among other things,
that certain insurers who used products and price information
supplied by the Company's Xactware subsidiary (and those of
another provider) did not fully compensate policyholders for
property damage covered under their insurance policies. The
plaintiffs seek to recover compensation for their damages in an
amount equal to the difference between the amount paid by the
defendants and the fair market repair/restoration costs of their
damaged property.

The putative class action was filed in March 2007 in the Eastern
District of Louisiana. The complaint alleged antitrust violations,
breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and fraud. The court
dismissed the antitrust claim as to both defendants and dismissed
all claims against the Company other than fraud, which will
proceed to the discovery phase along with the remaining claims
against State Farm. Judge Duval denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class with respect to the fraud and breach of contract
claims on August 3, 2009 and the time to appeal that decision has
expired. The matter now a single action was reassigned to Judge
Africk. The plaintiffs agreed to settle the matter with the
Company and State Farm and a Settlement Agreement and a Release
was executed by all parties in June 2010.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action entitled Mornay v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
et al., remains administratively closed pending completion of the
appraisal process.

The putative class action lawsuit was filed by or on behalf of
groups of Louisiana insurance policyholders who claim, among other
things, that certain insurers who used products and price
information supplied by Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s Xactware
subsidiary (and those of another provider) did not fully
compensate policyholders for property damage covered under their
insurance policies. The plaintiffs seek to recover compensation
for their damages in an amount equal to the difference between the
amount paid by the defendants and the fair market
repair/restoration costs of their damaged property.

The putative class action was filed in November 2007 in the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The complaint alleged antitrust
violations, breach of contract, negligence, bad faith, and fraud.
As in the class action lawsuit entitled entitled Schafer v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al., the court dismissed the antitrust
claim as to both defendants and dismissed all claims against the
Company other than fraud. Judge Duval stayed all proceedings in
the case pending an appraisal of the lead plaintiff's insurance
claim. The matter has been re-assigned to Judge Barbier, who on
September 11, 2009 issued an order administratively closing the
matter pending completion of the appraisal process. At this time,
it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution of or
estimate the liability related to this matter.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Certiorari Petition Junked in "Taylor" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of
certiorari filed in class action lawsuit entitled Sharon Taylor,
et al. v. Acxiom Corporation, et al., according to Verisk
Analytics, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In March 2007, the Company's subsidiary, Insurance Information
Exchange, or iiX, as well as other information providers and
insurers in the State of Texas, were served with a summons and
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas alleging violations of the
Driver Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Sharon
Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs brought
the action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals whose personal information is contained in
any motor vehicle record maintained by the State of Texas and who
have not provided express consent to the State of Texas for the
distribution of their personal information for purposes not
enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been
knowingly obtained and used by the defendants. The class complaint
alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal
information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks
liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred
dollars for each instance of a violation of the DPPA, punitive
damages and the destruction of any illegally obtained personal
information. The Court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the
complaint based on failure to state a claim and for lack of
standing. Oral arguments on the plaintiffs' appeal of that
dismissal were held on November 4, 2009. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of
the complaint on July 14, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a
Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on
October 12, 2010, which was denied on January 10, 2011.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit entitled Janice Cook, et al.
v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al., remains pending, according
to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2010, Insurance Information Exchange, or iiX, a
subsidiary of the Company, as well as other information providers
in the State of Missouri were served with a summons and class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Driver
Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA, entitled Janice Cook, et al.
v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al.  Plaintiffs brought the
action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals whose personal information is contained in any motor
vehicle record maintained by the State of Missouri and who have
not provided express consent to the State of Missouri for the
distribution of their personal information for purposes not
enumerated by the DPPA and whose personal information has been
knowingly obtained and used by the defendants. The class complaint
alleges that the defendants knowingly obtained personal
information for a purpose not authorized by the DPPA and seeks
liquidated damages in the amount of two thousand five hundred
dollars for each instance of a violation of the DDPA, punitive
damages and the destruction of any illegally obtained personal
information. The court granted iiX's motion to dismiss the
complaint based on a failure to state a claim on November 19,
2010. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2010. At
this time, it is not possible to determine the ultimate resolution
of or estimate the liability related to these matters.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Court Okay of "Gluzman" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, Inc., is awaiting final court
approval of a settlement of the class action lawsuit entitled
Renata Gluzman v. Interthinx, Inc., according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., or
Interthinx, was served with a putative class action entitled
Renata Gluzman v. Interthinx, Inc. The plaintiff, a former
Interthinx employee, filed the class action on August 13, 2009 in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles on behalf of all Interthinx information technology
employees for unpaid overtime and missed meals and rest breaks, as
well as various related claims claiming that the information
technology employees were misclassified as exempt employees and,
as a result, were denied certain wages and benefits that would
have been received if they were properly classified as non-exempt
employees. The pleadings include, among other things, a violation
of Business and Professions Code 17200 for unfair business
practices, which allows plaintiffs to include as class members all
information technology employees employed at Interthinx for four
years prior to the date of filing the complaint. The complaint
seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the
various statutes, restitution, interest costs, and attorney fees.
On June 2, 2010, plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims with
Interthinx. The court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement on November 10, 2010 and scheduled the final approval
hearing for February 23, 2011. Although no assurance can be given
concerning the outcome of this matter, in the opinion of
management the lawsuit is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. -- http://www.verisk.com/-- provides
information about risk to professionals in insurance, healthcare,
mortgage, government, and risk management.  Using advanced
technologies to collect and analyze billions of records, Verisk
Analytics draws on vast industry expertise and unique proprietary
data sets to provide predictive analytics and decision-support
solutions in fraud prevention, actuarial science, insurance
coverages, fire protection, catastrophe and weather risk, data
management, and many other fields.  In the United States and
around the world, Verisk Analytics helps customers protect people,
property, and financial assets.


VERIZON COMMS: Retirees' Pension Suit Get Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Federal Judge A. Joe Fish of the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, issued an order granting class
certification for participants in Verizon's pension plans who were
involuntarily transferred to Idearc's pension plans in
November 2006.  Idearc was a Verizon spin-off that filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and has since emerged from
bankruptcy as SuperMedia Inc.

The Feb. 28 order defines the class to include all former
participants in Verizon's pension plans who were transferred into
Idearc's pension plans in connection with a spin-off transaction
that occurred in November, 2006 and who were retired or terminated
from Verizon at the time of the spin-off.  Also included in the
class are the beneficiaries of such participants.  The class is
represented by Denver lawyer Curtis L. Kennedy and Dallas lawyer
Robert Goodman, Jr.

The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit had all been retired for at
least 10 years and none had ever actually worked for
Idearc/SuperMedia.  Each was fully vested in a Verizon sponsored
pension plan.  The involuntary switch to the Idearc plans resulted
in retiree welfare benefit reductions that were not experienced by
retirees who remained in the Verizon sponsored plans.

In the lawsuit, Philip A. Murphy Jr., et al vs. Verizon
Communications, Inc., et al (Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2262-G)
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, the retirees have pending claims of ERISA
violations including:

    * Breach of fiduciary duty for failure to comply with pension
plan document rules; and

    * Various other ERISA violations justifying that the federal
court order declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and restore the retirees into Verizon's sponsored employee benefit
plans.

The retirees contend they should not have been treated like mere
chattels and removed from Verizon's sponsored pension plans
without their express permission.  For more information, see the
court filings posted at the retirees' Web site:

                        http://is.gd/16pm72

"This is a necessary step in the efforts of the retirees to
recover benefits they earned which were illegally taken from
them," said C. William Jones, president of the Association of
BellTel Retirees Inc. "Verizon improperly transferred thousands of
its pensioners to a company that didn't even exist when they
retired."


VULCAN MATERIALS: Continues to Defend Florida Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vulcan Materials Company continues to defend itself in the
antitrust litigation pending before a Florida court, according to
the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company's subsidiary, Florida Rock Industries, Inc., has been
named as a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The lawsuits were filed by several ready-mixed concrete
producers and construction companies against a number of concrete
and cement producers and importers in Florida. There are now two
consolidated amended complaints: (1) on behalf of direct
independent ready-mixed concrete producers, and (2) on behalf of
indirect users of ready-mixed concrete. The other defendants
include Cemex Corp., Prestige and Tarmac. The complaints allege
various violations under the federal antitrust laws, including
price fixing and market allocations. The Company has no reason to
believe that Florida Rock is liable for any of the matters alleged
in the complaint, and the Company intends to defend the case
vigorously.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of
construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and
concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.


VULCAN MATERIALS: "Addair" Suit Remains Pending in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action Addair et al. v. Processing Company, LLC,
et al., remains pending, according to Vulcan Materials Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

This is a purported class action case for medical monitoring and
personal injury damages styled Addair et al. v. Processing
Company, LLC, et al., pending in the Circuit Court of Wyoming
County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege various personal
injuries from exposure to perc used in coal sink labs. The perc
manufacturing defendants, including Vulcan, have filed a motion
for summary judgment. The Court has yet to rule on the motion but
in the interim has stayed the litigation. As such, there has been
no activity on this matter pending the Court's ruling.

Vulcan Materials Company is the nation's largest producer of
construction aggregates, a major producer of asphalt mix and
concrete and a leading producer of cement in Florida.


W. ROSS: Ministry Takes Student Abuse Allegations "Seriously"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Ball, writing for Brantford Expositor, reports that the
Ontario Ministry of Education says it can't comment on a proposed
multi-million dollar class action lawsuit filed against the
province alleging that students who attended W. Ross MacDonald
School in the 1950s and 1960s were abused by staff.

"The safety of our students is of the utmost importance to this
government and we take these allegations very seriously,"
Gary Wheeler, a ministry spokesman said.

"We are aware of the proposed class action.  As this matter may be
before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment."

The Brant Avenue school is operated by the provincial schools
branch of the Ministry of Education.

The lawsuit has been initiated by a former student, Robert Seed,
of Thunder Bay, who began attending the school and living in
residence in 1954 when he was seven.

He left in 1965.

Mr. Seed is seeking $200 million in damages for negligence and
breach of fiduciary duty and $25 million in punitive damages.  He
is being represented by Koskie Minsky LLP, of Toronto, which
provided a copy of the statement of claim to The Expositor.

The legal action started on Feb. 22 and is in a preliminary stage.
It is proposed only in the sense that the court has not yet
certified the action as a class proceeding, a requirement for
every class action in Ontario, Koskie Minsky said in an e-mail
reply.

The next major step in the action would be a motion for
certification where the court would consider whether the action is
appropriate to proceed as a class action.  Factors that would be
considered by the court include whether the claims raise issues
that are common among the class members and if it is the
preferable procedure for the resolution of those issues.

The allegations have not been proved in court.

In his statement of claim, Seed alleges "every aspect of students'
lives was dictated, controlled and provided for by the Crown" and
"students at Ross Macdonald had no control over any aspect of
their lives."

More specifically, Mr. Seed alleges that "students were frequently
punished for minor or innocuous matters such as being homesick,
wetting the bed, throwing up, having trouble reading or using too
much toilet paper."

He further alleges that teachers and residence counselors used
physical violence as a means of discipline, including beating,
shoving students, throwing books and other equipment at students
during classes, making students drink from urinals, slapping
students.

"Students caught speaking at night, even as young as six years
old, endured a counselor jumping on their backs and beating them.
Students were force-fed at mealtimes, were forced to eat their own
vomit as punishment for throwing up and in some cases had their
mouths literally washed out with soap."

The lawsuit further claims that school staff, including residence
counselors, were unqualified and failed to supervise students.

The lawsuit goes on to state that assault among students was
widespread and that there were inappropriate relationships between
staff and students.

In his statement, Seed said that he rebuffed the sexual advances
of a residence counselor, known as a house father.

The statement of claim states the provincial government had a duty
of care to make sure the students were cared for and protected.
Moreover, the province knew or should have known about the
conditions at the school because a 1950 Royal Commission on
Education visited the school.

The lawsuit quotes a report from the commission: ". . . frankly,
we were appalled by the conditions under with the staff and
students work.  The school buildings, with the exception of the
residences, are inadequate, antiquated, dilapidated, dismal,
poorly lighted, and constitute a fire hazard of the first
magnitude . . . Such deficiency in school plan, particularly where
blind children are in attendance, is inexcusable . ."

The statement of claim also cites a 1991 Ministry of Education
report that was done after the ministry received complaints of
sexual abuse of students at two of its provincial schools.

The report found, among other things, that supervision was
inadequate, particularly at night, which led to incidents of
sexual involvement between students, inappropriate touching and
complaints of sexual assault," the statement of claim says.

Instead of helping students, the school's environment was such
that it was "further disabling to these individuals, physically,
emotionally and psychologically."


WEIL TENNIS: Sued in California for False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims Mark Weil breaches contract, falsely advertises and
intentionally misrepresents his Weil Tennis Academy, of Ojai,
which charges up to $42,000 a year.

A copy of the Complaint in Conliffe, et al. v. Weil, et al., Case
No. 56-2011-00391924 (Calif. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/08/TennisSchool.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Clarke, Esq.
          Dugan P. Kelley, Esq.
          Matthew N. Mong, Esq.
          CHRISTMAN, KELLEY & CLARKE
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 884-9922
          E-mail: matt@christmankelley.com
                  dugan@christmankelley.com


WESCO FINANCIAL: Defends Two Lawsuits Over Berkshire Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wesco Financial Corporation is defending itself against two class
action lawsuits over its proposed merger with Berkshire Hathaway,
Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 31,
2010.

Two lawsuits were filed on February 8, 2011, by plaintiffs
claiming to be Wesco shareholders challenging the transactions
contemplated by the merger agreement between Berkshire and Wesco.
Both of the lawsuits name Wesco, Wesco's directors, Berkshire and
Montana Acquisitions, LLC as defendants.  One of them also names
Blue Chip and Wesco's Chief Financial Officer as defendants. One
of the actions was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and the other
in Los Angeles Superior Court. Both purport to be class actions on
behalf of Wesco shareholders.

The Delaware action is styled Joel Krieger v. Wesco Financial
Corporation, et al. The Los Angeles action is styled James Kinsey
v. Wesco Financial Corporation, et al. The lawsuits allege, among
other things, that Wesco's directors have breached their fiduciary
duties based on allegations that (i) the consideration being
offered is unfair and inadequate, (ii) statements in Wesco's
annual reports comparing its prospects for growth with those of
Berkshire have been unduly unfavorable to Wesco, and (iii) the
Wesco directors' approval of the proposed merger was tainted by
conflicts of interest between Berkshire and the non-Berkshire
shareholders of Wesco in breach of the Board's fiduciary duties.
The lawsuits also allege that Berkshire and its affiliates
violated fiduciary duties owed by a majority shareholder and/or
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by Wesco's directors. The
plaintiffs seek various remedies, including enjoining the
transaction from being consummated in accordance with the agreed-
upon terms. The defendants intend to defend against these and any
additional actions asserting similar claims that may be brought in
the future.


WILLIS GROUP: Settlement Talks in Gender Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company has yet to reach an
agreement on certain injunctive terms with plaintiffs in a gender
discrimination class action in New York, the Company disclosed in
its February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2010.

In March 2008, Willis Group settled an action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York commenced
against the Company in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide
class of present and former female officer and officer equivalent
employees alleging that the Company discriminated against them on
the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Although the Court had denied
plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to grant
nationwide discovery, it certified a class of approximately 200
female officers and officer equivalent employees based in the
Company's offices in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.  The
settlement agreement provides for injunctive relief and a monetary
payment, including the amount of attorney fees plaintiffs' counsel
are entitled to receive, which was not material to the Company.
In December 2006, a former female employee, whose motion to
intervene in the class action was denied, filed a purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, with almost identical allegations as those
contained in the suit that was settled in 2008, except seeking a
class period of 1998 to the time of trial (the class period in the
settled suit was 1998 to the end of 2001).  The Company's motion
to dismiss this suit was denied and the Court did not grant the
Company permission to immediately file an appeal from the denial
of its motion to dismiss.  The parties are in the discovery phase
of the litigation.  The suit was amended to include one additional
plaintiff and another filed an arbitration demand that includes a
class allegation.

In January 2011, the Company reached an agreement with plaintiffs
on a monetary settlement to settle all class claims and the claims
of the individual named plaintiffs as well as the plaintiff that
filed an arbitration demand.  The amount of the settlement is not
material, according to the Company.  However, before this matter
can be settled in its entirety, the parties must reach agreement
on any injunctive measures the Company will implement and the
Court must approve all terms of the settlement.

Willis Group and its affiliates provide a broad range of insurance
brokerage, reinsurance and risk management consulting services to
clients worldwide.


WILLIS GROUP: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company continues to defend
itself against class action complaints related to its role as
insurance broker of Stanford Financial Group, the Company
disclosed in its February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On July 2, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-
CV-01274-N, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others, relating to
the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which Willis of
Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of
insurance.  The complaint generally alleged that the defendants
actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by
providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that
they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or
prospective Stanford client investors.  The complaint alleged that
these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the
insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford,
contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in
this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly
fraudulent certificates of deposit.  The putative class consisted
of Stanford investors in Mexico and the complaint asserted various
claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought actual
damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs.  On
August 12, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which,
notwithstanding the addition of certain factual allegations and
Texas common law claims, largely mirrored the original and sought
the same relief.

On July 17, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 09-22085, was
filed against Willis Group Holdings and Willis of Colorado, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
relating to the same alleged course of conduct as the Troice
complaint.  Based on substantially the same allegations as the
Troice complaint, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
and other South American Stanford investors, the Ranni complaint
asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as various claims under
Florida statutory and common law, and seeks damages in an amount
to be determined at trial and costs.

On or about July 24, 2009, a motion was filed by certain
individuals -- Movants -- with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate and coordinate in the
Northern District of Texas nine separate putative class actions --
including the Troice and Ranni actions, as well as other actions
against various Stanford-related entities and individuals and the
Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda -- relating to Stanford and
its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit.

On August 6, 2009, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:09-CV-01474-D, was filed against Willis Group Holdings, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others,
also in the Northern District of Texas, relating to the same
alleged course of conduct as the Troice complaint.  Based on
substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, but on
behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan investors, the Canabal
complaint asserted various claims under Texas statutory and common
law and sought actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On or about August 10, 2009, the Movants filed with the JPML a
Notice of Related Action that referred the Canabal action to the
JPML.  On October 6, 2009, the JPML ruled on the transfer motion,
transferring seven of the subject actions (including the Troice
and Ranni actions) - i.e., the original nine actions minus two
that had since been dismissed - for consolidation or coordination
in the Northern District of Texas.  On October 27, 2009, the
parties to the Canabal action stipulated to the designation of
that action as a related case and properly part of the new
Stanford MDL proceeding in the Northern District of Texas.

On September 14, 2009, a complaint, captioned Rupert, et al. v.
Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on behalf of 97
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in
Texas state court (Bexar County).  Based on substantially the
same allegations as the Troice complaint, the Rupert complaint
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as well as
various Texas statutory and common law claims, and seeks
rescission, damages, special damages and consequential damages of
$79.1 million, treble damages of $237.4 million under the Texas
Insurance Code, attorneys' fees and costs.  On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed the Rupert action to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency
of this additional 'tag-along' action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.  In
November 2009, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order or CTO
for the transfer of the Rupert action to the Northern District of
Texas.  On December 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
vacate, or alternatively stay, the CTO, to which Willis of
Colorado, Inc. responded on January 4, 2010.  On April 1, 2010,
the JPML denied the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the CTO and
issued a final transfer order for the transfer of the Rupert
action to the Northern District of Texas.

On December 18, 2009, the parties to the Troice and Canabal
actions stipulated to the consolidation of those actions and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs therein, collectively, filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which largely mirrors the
Troice and Canabal predecessor complaints, but seeks relief on
behalf of a worldwide class of Stanford investors.  Also on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in the Canabal action filed a
Notice of Dismissal, dismissing the Canabal action without
prejudice.  On February 25, 2010, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated Troice/Canabal action.  Those motions are currently
pending.  On May 24, 2010, the plaintiffs in the consolidated
Troice/Canabal action filed a motion for leave to file a Third
Amended Class Action Complaint, which, among other things, adds
several Texas statutory claims.  That motion is also currently
pending.

On September 16, 2010, a complaint, captioned Casanova, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-01862-O, was
filed on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group
Holdings, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same
Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of
Texas.  Although this is not a class action, the Casanova
complaint is based on substantially the same allegations as the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated
Troice/Canabal action.  The Casanova complaint asserts various
claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual
damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The defendants have not yet responded to the Ranni or Rupert or
Casanova complaints.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by other
investors in certificates of deposit issued by Stanford and its
affiliates, the Company avers.  The Company disputes the
allegations and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Willis Group and its affiliates provide a broad range of insurance
brokerage, reinsurance and risk management consulting services to
clients worldwide.


YAHOO! INC: Files Brief in Support of "Overture" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. filed a response in February to appeals filed by
parties objecting the approval of a global settlement of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's Feb. 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 12, 2001, the first of several purported securities class
action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against certain underwriters
involved in Overture Services Inc.'s IPO, Overture, and certain of
Overture's former officers and directors. The court consolidated
the cases against Overture. Plaintiffs allege, among other things,
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed compensation to the
underwriters, and improper practices by the underwriters, and seek
unspecified damages. Similar complaints were filed in the same
court against numerous public companies that conducted IPOs of
their common stock since the mid-1990s. All of these lawsuits were
consolidated. On October 5, 2009, the court granted class
certification and granted final approval of a stipulated global
settlement and plan of allocation. On October 6, 2010, various
individuals objecting to the settlement filed opening appeal
briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and
in early February 2011 Yahoo! and other appellees filed reply
briefs in support of the settlement.


YELLOW BOOK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that
an East Texas businessman is suing Yellow Book, alleging the
telephone directory is fraudulently misleading customers about the
size of the ads they are purchasing.

Scott Ellis, individually and as a representative of all others
similarly situated, filed a deceptive trade practices suit against
Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co. Inc. on March 2 in the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Ellis purchased a full-page business
telephone directory display advertisement in the 2008-2009 edition
of the Tyler/Smith County Yellow Book.

The next year, he signed a contract and purchased a full-page ad
with additional listings for $1,198 per month.  However, Mr. Ellis
states that Yellow Book did not disclose that the listing he
purchased would be downsized by approximately 26% for the new
directory.

Mr. Ellis states the reduced page size made the ads more difficult
to read and reduced the marketing effectiveness of the ad.

The proposed class will contain Texas consumers who purchased
2009-2010 or later Yellow Book reduced size display adverting or
directory listings.

Yellow Book is accused of violating the Deceptive Trade Practices
Act by failing to notify consumers of the reduced ad size.

The plaintiff is seeking more than $5 million in damages,
interest, court costs and attorney fees.

Ellis is represented by Addison attorney Charles E. Ames, Thomas
A. Crosley Law Firm in San Antonio and Jeffrey T. Embry of Hossley
& Embry in Tyler.  A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge T. John Ward is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-00138


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Facing 550 Pending Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, was a
defendant in about 550 active asbestos cases involving about 3,090
plaintiffs, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

At Dec. 31, 2009, the Company was a defendant in about 440 active
asbestos cases involving about 3,040 plaintiffs.

During 2010, settlements and dismissals resulted in the
disposition of about 200 claims and the Company paid about US$8
million in settlements.  New filings added about 250 claims.

About 2,600, or about 84%, of these claims are currently pending
in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based upon its experience in such cases, the Company
said it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who
ultimately assert claims against the Company will likely be a
small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.

Most of the claims filed in 2010, 2009 and 2008 involve individual
or small groups of claimants.

Historically, about 89% of the cases against the Company did not
specify any damage amount or stated that the damages sought
exceeded the amount required to establish jurisdiction of the
court in which the case was filed.  Jurisdictional amounts
generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000.

United States Steel Corporation is an integrated steel producer of
flat-rolled and tubular products with major production operations
in North America and Europe.  The Company is based in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConEd Subsidiaries Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suits are pending in New York State and federal courts against
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of
the Utilities.

These Utilities are Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(CECONY) and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been
resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that
were not, in the aggregate, material to them.

In 2010, CECONY estimated that its aggregate undiscounted
potential liability for these suits and additional suits that may
be brought over the next 15 years is US$10 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's accrued
liability for asbestos suits was US$10 million and regulatory
assets for asbestos suits were US$10 million.  Its accrued
liability for workers' compensation was US$106 million and
regulatory assets for workers' compensation were US$31 million.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, CECONY's accrued liability
for asbestos suits was US$10 million and regulatory assets for
asbestos suits were US$10 million.  Its accrued liability for
workers' compensation was US$101 million and regulatory assets for
workers' compensation were US$31 million.

Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, distributes electricity to 3.3 million
residential and business customers in New York City; it also
delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers.  Subsidiary
Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more than 400,000 electric
and gas customers in three states.  The Company is based in New
York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 110 Manhattan Steam Main Actions Open v. CECONY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary, Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY), is involved in about 110
lawsuits regarding a 2007 steam main rupture in Manhattan.

In July 2007, a CECONY steam main located in midtown Manhattan
ruptured.  It has been reported that one person died and others
were injured as a result of the incident. Several buildings in the
area were damaged.  Debris from the incident included dirt and mud
containing asbestos.

The response to the incident required the closing of several
buildings and streets for various periods.

The cases seek generally unspecified compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages, for personal injury, property damage and
business interruption.  The Company has not accrued a liability
for the suits.

Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s main subsidiary, Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, distributes electricity to 3.3 million
residential and business customers in New York City; it also
delivers natural gas to about 1.1 million customers.  Subsidiary
Orange and Rockland Utilities serves more than 400,000 electric
and gas customers in three states.  The Company is based in New
York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Faces 15,476 Abex Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc is involved in 15,476 pending asbestos-
related Abex Claims at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 22, 2011.

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business
to Federal-Mogul Corporation.  These discontinued businesses
(including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo-
Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through subsidiary
companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to
Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17,
1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo
under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement between the Company and
Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed
a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.  The Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and
Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to
approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in implementation of the previously
approved Plan B Settlement.

As part of its obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-related
claims arising from the Abex Friction product line (Abex Claims),
the Company has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant
insurance for such claims.

From Aug. 28, 1998 through Dec. 31, 2010, a total of 149,350 Abex
Claims were filed, of which 133,874 claims have been resolved.

During the years ended Dec. 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 claims filed
were 1,610; 1,565; and 2,641, respectively and claims resolved
were 8,963; 2,424; and 8,403, respectively.

Since Aug. 28, 1998, the average indemnity payment for resolved
Abex Claims was US$2,065 before insurance.  A total of US$189.4
million was spent on defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998
through Dec. 31, 2010.

Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit
protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring
devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for
residential, commercial, and industrial use.  Major electrical
product and tool brands include Buss fuses, Capri conduits,
Crescent pliers and wrenches, EMSA power transformers, Plumb
hammers, and Weller soldering supplies.  The Company is based in
Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Ind. Posts $747.1MM Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, as of Dec. 31, 2010, estimated that the
undiscounted asbestos liability for pending and future indemnity
and defense costs for the next 45 years will be US$747.1 million.

The amount included for unpaid indemnity and defense costs is not
significant at Dec. 31, 2010.  The estimated liability is before
any tax benefit or insurance recoveries and is not discounted as
the timing of the actual payments is not reasonably predictable.

Pneumo-Abex Corporation discontinued using asbestos in the Abex
Friction product line in the 1970s and epidemiological studies
that are publicly available indicate the incidence of asbestos-
related disease is in decline and should continue to decline
steadily.

Although it said it believes that its estimated liability for
pending and future indemnity and defense costs represents the best
estimate of its future obligation, the Company utilized scenarios
that it believes are reasonably possible that indicate a broader
range of potential estimates from US$500 to US$785 million
(undiscounted).

Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit
protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring
devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for
residential, commercial, and industrial use.  Major electrical
product and tool brands include Buss fuses, Capri conduits,
Crescent pliers and wrenches, EMSA power transformers, Plumb
hammers, and Weller soldering supplies.  The Company is based in
Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records $163.6MM Receivable at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc's asbestos receivable for recoveries of
costs from insurers amounted to US$163.6 million as of Dec. 31,
2010, of which US$59.5 million relate to costs previously paid or
insurance settlements.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company, through Pneumo-Abex LLC, has
access to Abex insurance policies with remaining limits on
policies with solvent insurers in excess of US$670 million.

About 92% of the US$163.6 million receivable from insurance
companies at Dec. 31, 2010 is due from domestic insurers whose AM
Best rating is Excellent (A-) or better.

Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit
protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring
devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for
residential, commercial, and industrial use.  Major electrical
product and tool brands include Buss fuses, Capri conduits,
Crescent pliers and wrenches, EMSA power transformers, Plumb
hammers, and Weller soldering supplies.  The Company is based in
Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Has $432MM Retirement Obligations at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc.'s asset retirement obligations amounted to
US$432 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$415 million
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22,
2011.

The Company's AROs are primarily related to the future
dismantlement of equipment on leased property and environmental
obligations related to nuclear decommissioning, ash disposal, site
closures, and fuel storage facilities.

In addition, the Company has also identified conditional AROs for
asbestos removal and disposal, which are specific to certain power
generation operations.

NRG Energy, Inc. is a primarily wholesale power generation company
with a significant presence in major competitive power markets in
the United States.  The Company is based in Princeton, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 12,000 Premises, Product Claims Pending v. FMC
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 12,000 premises and product asbestos claims
pending against FMC Corporation in several jurisdictions as of
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

Like hundreds of other industrial companies, the Company has been
named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation.  Most of these cases allege personal injury or
death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of the
Company or to asbestos-containing components installed in
machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued
operations.

The machinery and equipment businesses the Company owned or
operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts
at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the
Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these
components.

Further, the asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and
equipment were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair
and maintenance.

Since the 1980s, the Company has had discharged about 98,000
asbestos claims against it, the overwhelming majority of which
have been dismissed without any payment to the plaintiff.
Settlements by the Company with claimants since that time have
totaled about $36.6 million.

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products.
The Company operates in three distinct business segments:
Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial
Chemicals.  The Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qwest Corp. Records $31MM Obligations at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation's asset retirement obligations amounted to
US$31 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's asset retirement obligations
balance was primarily related to estimated future costs of
removing circuit equipment from leased properties and estimated
future costs of properly disposing of asbestos and other hazardous
materials upon remodeling or demolishing buildings.

Qwest Corporation offers data, Internet, video and voice services
within the 14-state region of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.  The Company is based
in Denver, Colo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Has $12.03MM Claims Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation's non-current asbestos litigation reserve
was US$12,030,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$12,111,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22,
2011.

The Company's asbestos insurance receivables were US$8,489,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$8,672,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving
exposure to asbestos.  These cases involve exposure to asbestos in
premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
subsidiaries of the Company.

The Company has never manufactured, sold, or distributed products
that contain asbestos.  Nearly all of these cases are pending in
Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve multiple defendants.

NewMarket Corporation is a holding entity for two operating
subsidiaries: Afton Chemical and Ethyl Corporation.  Afton
Chemical manufactures petroleum additives used to improve the
performance of gasoline, diesel, and other fuels and as a
lubricant in motor oil, fluids, and grease. Ethyl's main product
is the antiknock additive tetraethyl lead.  The Company is based
in Richmond.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Motions Denied in Mueller Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Massachusetts County denied Mueller Co.'s
and OneBeacon America Insurance Co.'s respective motions for
summary judgment.

Judge Stephen E. Neel entered judgment in Civil Action No. 09-
0826-BLS2 on Dec. 20, 2010.

At issue in this case was whether OneBeacon and its third-party
claims administrator, Resolute Management, Inc. - New England
Division, were required to pay and reimburse Mueller Co. for costs
incurred in the defense of underlying asbestos personal injury
claims, and whether Mueller had the right to continue to control
its defense of those claims, including selection of defense
counsel.

The matter was before the Court on cross motions for summary
judgment seeking to establish the parties' rights and obligations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Split Ruling in Bartz Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued split rulings
in a case involving asbestos styled Ruby M. Bartz, Appellant v.
Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Hagel entered judgment in Case No. 09-2961 on Jan. 5, 2011.

Ruby M. Bartz, who is self-represented, appealed a June 26, 2009
Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied entitlement to
dependency and indemnity compensation and accrued benefits.

Mrs. Bartz is the widow of Donald LeRoy Bartz, who served on
active duty in the U.S. Navy from April 1943 to November 1945 and
from May 1951 to May 1952, including service in World War II.  He
died on June 4, 2005 and his death certificate listed
cardiovascular disease as the immediate cause of death, dementia
as an underlying cause, and hypertension and congestive heart
failure as contributing conditions.

In May 2006, Mrs. Bartz applied for dependency and indemnity
compensation and accrued benefits.  In a statement that
accompanied her application, she contended that her husband had
been diagnosed with multiple myeloma that she believed caused his
death and resulted from either exposure to radiation during his
service in Japan during World War II or exposure to asbestos
encountered while serving aboard U.S. Navy ships.

In a September 2006 rating decision, a VA regional office denied
Mrs. Bartz's claims for accrued benefits and for dependency and
indemnity compensation to the extent that she contended that her
husband's multiple myeloma resulted from his service and caused or
contributed to his death.  The regional office denied Mrs. Bartz's
additional claim for dependency and indemnity compensation.

Mrs. Bartz filed a Notice of Disagreement in February 2008 and
statements in support of her claim in April and May 2008, along
with private and VA medical records indicating Mr. Bartz had been
diagnosed with multiple myeloma, hypertension, dementia, and
cardiovascular disease.

After further development, the Board issued the decision now on
appeal in June 2009.  First, the Board determined that Mr. Bartz's
death was not the result of a service-connected condition.

Accordingly, the Board found that Mrs. Bartz was not entitled to
dependency and indemnity compensation.

Finally, the Board denied Mrs. Bartz's claim for accrued benefits
because there was no evidence of record to show that, at the time
of his death, Mr. Bartz was receiving, owed, or had submitted an
application for VA benefits.

That portion of the June 26, 2009, decision that denied
entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation on the basis
that Mr. Bartz's death was not service connected was vacated and
the matter was remanded for further development and readjudication
consistent with this decision.  The remainder of June 26, 2009
Board decision was affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Hood Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, upheld the ruling
of the Cowlitz Superior Court, in a case involving asbestos styled
Irene M. Hood and Department of Labor and Industries of the State
of Washington, Respondents v. Weyerhaeuser Company & Subsidiaries,
Appellant.

Judges Ellington, Leach, and Schindler entered judgment in Case
No. 64974-4-I on Jan. 10, 2011.

Leslie Hood worked for Weyerhaeuser from 1964 until his voluntary
retirement in 1990.  Seven years after he retired, he was
diagnosed with asbestos-related illness, which caused his death in
1999.  He was survived by his wife Irene, who filed an application
for death benefits under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act.

The Department determined that workplace exposure to asbestos
caused Mr. Hood's disease, that the date of manifestation was Jan.
24, 1997, and entered an order allowing the claim under former RCW
51.32.050(2)(a) (1995).

Weyerhaeuser appealed, contending that Mr. Hood's voluntary
retirement precluded the claim.  The Board of Industrial Insurance
Appeals affirmed the order.  Weyerhaeuser did not appeal further.

The Department then issued a "wage order" awarding benefits.
Consistent with the Department's standard policy in such cases,
the order based the benefit rate on Mr. Hood's last known wages -
his gross monthly wages at the time he retired.  According to the
pension adjudicator for the Department, this approach to
calculation of death benefits is longstanding, was the practice of
her predecessors, and has been the consistent practice of the
Department since she began adjudicating benefit claims in 1993.

Weyerhaeuser appealed to the Board, arguing that under the
statute, benefits should be based upon Mr. Hood's wages at the
time of manifestation of his fatal occupational disease rather
than his wages at the time of retirement (US$4,223.60 per month),
so the award should be the statutory minimum (US$185 per
month).  The Board agreed, reversed the Department's
determination, and awarded benefits at the minimum amount.

Mrs. Hood and the Department both appealed.  Cowlitz County
Superior Court granted summary judgment in their favor, reversed
the Board, and reinstated the Department's award of benefits based
on Mr. Hood's last known wages.  The court also granted Mrs. Hood
and the Department their reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Weyerhaeuser appealed, contending the award violates legislative
intent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Claims v. Barber
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia,
granted Karen S. Barber's motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit
filed by CSX Transportation, Inc.

The case is styled CSX Transportation, Inc. a corporation,
Plaintiff v. Karen S. Barber, Individually and as Administratrix
of the Estate of James M. Siple, Deceased, Defendant.

District Judge Robert C. Chambers entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 3:10-1098 on Jan. 18, 2011.

This was an action for declaratory relief brought by CSX against
Mrs. Barber as the administratrix and personal representative of
the estate of James M. Siple.

Specifically, CSX sought a declaration that the Mrs. Barber must
indemnify it for any costs and expenses it incurs as a result of
her decision to file a concurrent Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of
Mr. Siple.  Further, CSX sought a declaration that the State court
lawsuit was precluded by a release clause signed by Mr. Siple.

James Siple was employed as a brakeman and conductor by the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and its successor in interest,
CSX, from 1948 to 1979.  During his employment, he was exposed to
asbestos and other toxic substances, which ultimately led to a
diagnosis of a non-malignant, asbestos-related lung disease.

As a result, in 1992, Mr. Siple filed a claim against CSX in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia under the Federal
Employers Liability Act.  The Kanawha County action was settled
for a sum of US$48,000.  As a condition of the settlement, Mr.
Siple signed a full release of related future tort claims he could
later have against CSX.

A few years after settling his Kanawha County action with CSX, Mr.
Siple was diagnosed with lung cancer.  He passed away on Feb. 19,
2008.  Thereafter, Mrs. Barber instituted an action against CSX in
Greenup County Kentucky Circuit Court for violations of FELA.
Among her claims was a wrongful death count.  CSX answered the
complaint, attaching the settlement agreement and raising the
release clause as an affirmative defense.  The Kentucky action is
still in discovery.

On Sept. 13, 2010, CSX initiated the instant action in this Court
to declare valid the provisions of the release and indemnity
clauses signed by Mr. Siple in 1998.  Mrs. Barber had filed a
Motion to Dismiss CSX's request for declaratory relief.

Craig R. Banford, Esq., of Huddleston Bolen in Huntington, W.Va.,
represented CSX.

James A. McKowen, Esq., of James F. Humphreys & Associates in
Charleston, W.Va., John E. Guerry, III, Esq., of Motley Rice in
Mount Pleasant, S.C., represented Mrs. Barber.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Dismissal Bid in CSX Case v. Collins
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia,
granted Tim Collins's motion to dismiss an asbestos lawsuit filed
by CSX Transportation, Inc.

The case is styled CSX Transportation, Inc., a corporation,
Plaintiff v. Tim Collins, Individually and as Administrator for
the Estate of Willie Collins, Deceased, Defendant.

District Judge Robert C. Chambers entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 3:10-1099 on Jan. 18, 2011.

This was an action for declaratory relief brought by CSX against
Mr. Collins as the administrator and personal representative of
the estate of Willie Collins.

CSX sought a declaration that Mr. Collins must indemnify it for
any costs and expenses it incurs as a result of his decision to
file a concurrent Kentucky lawsuit on behalf of Willie Collins.
CSX further sought a declaration that the State court lawsuit was
precluded by a release clause signed by Willie Collins.

Willie Collins was employed as a laborer, oiler and blacksmith by
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company and its successor in
interest, CSX, from 1955 to 1991.  During his employment, Willie
Collins was exposed to asbestos and other toxic substances, which
ultimately led to a diagnosis of asbestosis.  As a result, in
1999, he filed a claim against CSX in the Circuit Court of Mason
County, W.Va.

The Mason County action was ultimately settled for a sum of
US$20,000.  As a condition of the settlement, Willie Collins
signed a full release of related future tort claims he could later
have against CSX.

A few years after settling his Mason County action with CSX,
Willie Collins was diagnosed with lung cancer.  He passed away on
Dec. 2, 2008.  Thereafter, Mr. Collins instituted an action
against CSX in Greenup County Kentucky Circuit Court for
violations of FELA and the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act.
Among his claims was a wrongful death count.  CSX answered the
complaint, attaching the settlement agreement and raising the
release clause as an affirmative defense.  The Kentucky action is
still in discovery.

On Sept. 13, 2010, CSX initiated the instant action in this Court
to declare valid the provisions of the release and indemnity
clauses signed by Willie Collins in 2001.  Mr. Collins has filed a
Motion to Dismiss CSX's request for declaratory relief.

Craig R. Banford, Esq., of Huddleston Bolen in Huntington, W.Va.,
represented CSX.

James A. McKowen, Esq., of James F. Humphreys & Associates in
Charleston, W.Va., John E. Guerry, III, Esq., of Motley Rice in
Mount Pleasant, S.C., represented Mr. Collins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Facing 65,263 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc faced 65,263 open asbestos-related claims at
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 63,887 open claims at Dec. 31, 2009,
according to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 22, 2011.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 4,445 new claims filed;
2,099 claims settled; and 970 claims dismissed.  At Dec. 31, 2009,
the Company recorded 4,821 new claims filed; 2,514 claims settled;
and 1,729 claims dismissed.

Certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are named as
defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal
courts.  In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other
companies have also been named as defendants.  The vast majority
of those claims has been filed against either Ingersoll-Rand
Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane Inc. and generally allege injury
caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical
products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers
and railroad brake shoes.

From receipt of its first asbestos claims more than 25 years ago
to Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has resolved (by settlement or
dismissal) about 339,000 claims arising from the legacy Ingersoll
Rand businesses.  The total amount of all settlements paid by the
Company (excluding insurance recoveries) and by its insurance
carriers is about US$469 million.

From receipt of the first asbestos claim more than 20 years ago
through Dec. 31, 2010, the Company has resolved about 97,947 (by
settlement or dismissal) claims arising from the legacy Trane
business.  The Company and its insurance carriers have paid
settlements of about US$178 million on these claims.

Trane faced 83,369 open asbestos claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared
with 92,298 open claims at Dec. 31, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2010, Trane recorded 2,448 new claims filed; 1,045
claims settled; and 10,332 claims dismissed.  At Dec. 31, 2009,
Trane recorded 2,343 new claims filed; 1,042 claims settled; and
9,312 claims dismissed.

At Dec. 31, 2010, over 90% of the open claims against the Company
are non-malignancy claims, many of which have been placed on
inactive or deferral dockets and the vast majority of which have
little or no settlement value against the Company, particularly in
light of recent changes in the legal and judicial treatment of
such claims.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's liability for asbestos-related
matters and the asset for probable asbestos-related insurance
recoveries totaled US$1.020 billion million and US$346.2 million,
respectively, compared to US$1.113 billion and US$424.2 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company that provides
products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and
increase industrial productivity and efficiency.  The Company is
based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Still Facing Coverage Litigation in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand plc's subsidiary, Trane Inc., continues to be in
litigation in New Jersey court against certain non-settled
insurers whose policies Trane said it believes also provide
coverage for asbestos claims.

One of those insurers is the remaining unsettled insurer defendant
in an action Trane filed in April 1999 in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Middlesex County, against various primary and lower
layer excess insurance carriers (the NJ Litigation), which
originally sought coverage for environmental claims and later was
expanded to include claims for coverage for asbestos-related
liabilities.

The environmental claims against the insurers in the NJ Litigation
have been resolved or dismissed without prejudice for later
resolution.  In addition, all but one of the insurer-defendants in
the NJ Litigation have settled with Trane in connection with
asbestos-related liabilities.

Trane also filed an action in November 2010 in the Circuit Court
for La Crosse County, Wis., against two insurers that raises
claims for coverage in connection with a subset of Trane's
historical asbestos liabilities.

Effective Aug. 26, 2008, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with the following five insurance companies or groups:
1) Hartford; 2) Travelers; 3) Allstate (solely in its capacity as
successor-in-interest to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance
Company); 4) Dairyland Insurance Company; and 5) AIG.

In addition, on Sept. 12, 2008, Trane entered into a settlement
agreement with Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest
Reinsurance Company, both members of the Everest Re group,
resolving all claims in the NJ Litigation involving policies
issued by those companies (Everest Re Agreement).

The Everest Re Agreement contains a number of elements, including
policy buy-outs and partial buy-outs in exchange for a cash
payment along with coverage-in-place features similar to those
contained in the August 26 Agreement, in exchange for certain
releases and indemnifications by Trane.

On Jan. 26, 2009, Trane entered into a coverage-in-place agreement
with Columbia Casualty Company, Continental Casualty Company, and
Continental Insurance Company (CNA Agreement), and agreed to a
dismissal without prejudice of its environmental claims against
CNA.  Trane also has reached a coverage-in-place agreement,
effective Dec. 15, 2009, with Century Indemnity Company and
International Insurance Company (Century-International Agreement).

The Century-Indemnity Agreement has an initial term of three
years, which renews automatically for successive three year terms
unless either Trane or the insurer signatories elect to forward to
the other party a notice of non-renewal.  Effective Feb. 4, 2010,
Trane reached an agreement with certain London market insurance
companies (LMC Agreement) that resolved all claims against the
policies at issue.

The LMC Agreement provides for the periodic reimbursement by the
insurer signatories of a portion of Trane's costs for asbestos
bodily injury claims based on the attainment of certain aggregate
indemnity and defense payment thresholds, and in exchange for
certain releases and indemnifications from Trane.  Trane also
reached agreement on Dec. 31, 2009 with Harper Insurance Company,
a party to the LMC Agreement, for the buy-out of Harper's
obligations to Trane under the LMC Agreement and for certain
releases and indemnifications from Trane in exchange for a one-
time cash payment by Harper.

Trane remains in settlement negotiations with the few insurer
defendants in the NJ Litigation not encompassed within the August
26 Agreement, the Everest Re Agreement, the CNA Agreement, the
Century-International Agreement and the LMC Agreement.

In addition to its pursuit of coverage from its solvent insurers
as outlined above, Trane also is pursuing claims against the
estates of insolvent insurers in connection with its costs for
asbestos bodily injury claims.

Ingersoll-Rand plc is a diversified, global company that provides
products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and
comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food
and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and
increase industrial productivity and efficiency.  The Company is
based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Cites $17.8MM ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of Dec. 31, 2010, UIL Holdings Corporation's asset retirement
obligation, including estimated conditional AROs, was US$17.8
million and consisted primarily of obligations related to removal
or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas mains.

The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are gas storage
property, distribution property and other property.  As of Dec.
31, 2009, the Company's ARO was US$200,000.

UIL Holdings Corporation's primary business is ownership of its
operating regulated utilities.  The utility businesses consist of
the electric distribution and transmission operations of The
United Illuminating Company and the natural gas transportation,
distribution and sales operations of The Southern Connecticut Gas
Company, and The Berkshire Gas Company.  The Company is based in
New Haven, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Records $3.8MM CAROs at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's estimated fair value of conditional
asset retirement obligation liabilities was US$3.8 million at
Dec. 31, 2010 and US$3.5 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company has conditional asset retirement obligations, or
CAROs, at several of its fabricated products facilities. The vast
majority of such CAROs consist of incremental costs that would be
associated with the removal and disposal of asbestos (all of which
is believed to be fully contained and encapsulated within walls,
floors, roofs, ceilings or piping) at certain of the Company's
older facilities if such facilities were to undergo major
renovation or be demolished.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010, the Company re-assessed
and revised its estimates relating to the timing and future costs
of various asbestos removal projects at one facility.  Both upward
and downward revisions relating to cost estimates were made.

The downward revisions in cost estimates resulted in a US$1.3
decrease in CARO liabilities and cumulative adjustments reducing
Cost of products sold, excluding depreciation, amortization and
other items, and Depreciation and amortization by about US$1.1
million and US$100,000, respectively.  The total of such
adjustments increased both basic and diluted earnings per share by
about US$0.05 per share.

The upward revisions in costs estimates resulted in a $1.3
increase in both CARO liabilities and CARO assets.  The Company
used a credit-adjusted, risk-free rate of 10.8% in estimating the
fair value with respect to the CARO liability associated with the
upward cost adjustment.

The Company's results for 2010, 2009 and 2008 included an
immaterial amount of depreciation expense associated with CARO-
related costs.  For 2010, 2009 and 2008, accretion of CARO
liabilities (recorded in Cost of products sold) was US$300,000;
US$200,000 and US$300,000, respectively.

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation's primary line of business is the
production of semi-fabricated specialty aluminum products.  The
Company also owns a 49% interest in Anglesey Aluminium Limited,
which owns and operates a secondary aluminum remelt and casting
facility in Holyhead, Wales.  The Company is based in Foothill
Ranch, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Windstream Corp. AROs Total $41.7MM at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Corporation's asset retirement obligations totaled
US$41.7 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$34.8 million at Dec. 31,
2009 and are included in other long term liabilities in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

The Company's asset retirement obligations include legal
obligations to remediate the asbestos in certain buildings if the
Company were to abandon, sell or otherwise dispose of the
buildings and to dispose of its chemically-treated telephone poles
at the time they are removed from service.

Windstream Corporation is a communications and technology
solutions provider, specializing in complex data, high-speed
Internet access, voice and transport services to customers in 29
states.  The Company operates an extensive local and long-haul
network, including 60,000 route miles of fiber, used to deliver
voice and data traffic of Windstream, as well as other carriers on
a wholesale basis.  The Company is based in Little Rock, Ark.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anadarko Petroleum Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Company has been named as a defendant in various personal
injury claims, including claims by employees of third-party
contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica and benzene
while working at refineries (previously owned by predecessors of
acquired companies) located in Texas, California and Oklahoma.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is an independent oil and natural-
gas exploration and production company, with 2.4 billion barrels
of oil equivalent (BOE) of proved reserves at Dec. 31, 2010.  The
Company is based in The Woodlands, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allegheny Faces 886 W.Va. Claims, 11 Pa. Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of Dec. 31, 2010, Allegheny Energy, Inc.'s total number of
claims alleging exposure to asbestos was 886 in West Virginia, 11
in Pennsylvania and two in Illinois.

The Distribution Companies have been named as defendants in
pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple sites.  These suits have been brought
mostly by seasonal contractors' employees and do not involve
allegations of the manufacture, sale or distribution of asbestos-
containing products by the Company.

These asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the installation and removal of asbestos-containing
materials at the Company's generation facilities.  Its historical
operations were insured by various foreign and domestic insurers,
including Lloyd's of London.  Certain insurers have contested
their obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement
costs relating to the asbestos suits.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company is involved in three asbestos
and/or environmental insurance-related actions:

-- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v. Allegheny
   Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733 (Washington
   County, Md.),

-- Monongahela Power Company et al. v. Certain Underwriters at
   Lloyd's London and London Market Companies, et al., Civil
   Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County, W.Va.) and

-- Allegheny Energy, Inc., et al. v. Hartford Accident &
   Indemnity Company, Civil Action No. 10-CV-3142 WY (U.S.
   District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

The parties are seeking a declaration of coverage under the
policies for asbestos-related and environmental claims.

Allegheny Energy, Inc. is an integrated energy business that owns
and operates electric generation facilities primarily in
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland.  Its operations are
organized into two business segments: The Merchant Generation
segment and The Regulated Operations segment.  The Company is
based in Greensburg, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Carries $35.67MM A&E Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2010, carries asbestos and
environmental case reserves, as recommended by the various pool
managers, totaling US$35,668,000 and IBNR (incurred but not
reported reserves) totaling US$25,461,000.

The Company's property and warranty line of business includes
exposure to asbestos, environmental and other general liability
claims arising from its participation in various reinsurance pools
from 1971 through 1985.

This exposure arose from a short duration contract that the
Company discontinued writing many years ago.

Assurant, Inc. provides specialized insurance products and related
services in North America and select worldwide markets.  It has
four operating segments: Assurant Solutions, Assurant Specialty
Property, Assurant Health, and Assurant Employee Benefits.  The
Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Still Faces in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to be a defendant in a substantial
number of lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal
injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company's heritage
companies in the past.

While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has generally
declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that this
trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will not
further increase.

Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were primarily encapsulated and used as internal components of
process equipment, and the Company said it does not believe that
any significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the
use of this equipment.

Flowserve Corporation develops and manufactures precision-
engineered flow control equipment integral to the movement,
control and protection of the flow of materials in its customers'
critical processes.  The Company is based in Irving, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITC Holdings Corp. Posts $3.3MM AROs at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITC Holdings Corp.'s asset retirement obligations of US$3.3
million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$3.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2009
are included in other liabilities.

The Company has identified conditional asset retirement
obligations primarily associated with the removal of equipment
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos.

ITC Holdings Corp.'s business consists primarily of the electric
transmission operations of its Regulated Operating Subsidiaries.
The Company currently operates high-voltage systems in Michigan's
Lower Peninsula and portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois,
Missouri and Kansas that transmit electricity from generating
stations to local distribution facilities connected to the
Company's systems.  The Company is based in Novi, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Short's Actions on Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania,
dismissed claims filed by pro se plaintiff Lenny Short in
litigation involving asbestos styled Lenny Short, Plaintiff v.
Curtis A. Williams, et al. Defendants.

District Judge John E. Jones III entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 4:10-CV-2451 on Jan. 14, 2011.

Mr. Short, an inmate presently confined at the Huntingdon State
Correctional Institution (SCI Huntingdon) in Huntingdon, Pa.,
initiated the action.  He also has filed an Application requesting
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.

In his Complaint, filed on Nov. 30, 2010, Mr. Short alleged that
he was exposed to asbestos on Oct. 28, 2008 while he was an inmate
at SCI Huntingdon.  He was notified of his potential exposure to
asbestos in a letter dated Dec. 19, 2008, which is attached to his
Complaint.

Mr. Short's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
construed as a request to proceed without full prepayment of fees
and costs, and the Motion was granted.

Mr. Short's claims against "Trojan Boiler Incorporation" were
dismissed with prejudice.  His remaining claims were dismissed
without prejudice to his ability to file an amended complaint as
directed in a foregoing Memorandum.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Board Decision in Gilbert Set Aside, Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside and
remanded a March 19, 2009 Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling in an
asbestos claim styled Emma Gilbert, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-2674 on Jan. 20, 2011.

Emma Gilbert, widow of U.S. Navy veteran J.D. Gilbert, appealed
the March 19, 2009 Board ruling, which denied her claims for
service connection for the cause of death of her late husband and
concomitant service-connected burial benefits.

Mr. Gilbert had active duty service from February 1946 to November
1951.  This service included an extended period serving in the
boiler room of a ship.  From 1998 through his death in February
2007, he was service connected for asbestosis rated as 60%
disabling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Reverses Ruling in Cole's Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, reversed the
ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which granted
summary judgment in favor of Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. and
Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., formerly known as Kaiser Cement
Company.

The case is styled Chris Cole et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., et al., Defendants and
Respondents.

Judges Armstrong, Kriegler and Turner entered judgment in Case No.
B221876 on Jan. 21, 2011.

Chris Cole, individually and as successor-in-interest to Virginia
Kay Cole, deceased, Jonathan Cole and Katherine Cole, appealed
from: the final judgment and the grant of summary judgment and
costs in favor of defendants.

The Coles' first amended complaint, filed Sept. 12, 2008, alleged
Virginia was exposed to asbestos while being present during the
construction of homes in "areas not limited to Calabasas,"
California during the 1960s through the 1970s.

On June 12, 2009, defendants moved for summary judgment on various
theories including that plaintiffs had no evidence as to the
identity of the suppliers who provided the asbestos that could
have caused Virginia's fatal illness.  A second amended case
report dated July 27, 2009, prepared after the summary judgment
motion was filed, identifies Virginia's father and sister as
product identification witnesses.  On Aug. 17, 2009, plaintiffs
filed their summary judgment opposition.

The trial court took the summary judgment and oral amendment
motions under submission.  On Sept. 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed an
ex parte motion for leave to file a second amended complaint,
which alleged Virginia was exposed to defendants' asbestos while
at residential construction sites.  The ex parte motion was
denied.  On the same date, defendants' summary judgment motion was
granted.  Plaintiffs filed a reconsideration motion.

The judgment was reversed and the matter was remanded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bostick Pleads Guilty to Breaching CAA Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Bostick, on Feb. 23, 2011, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
violate the Clean Air Act's asbestos work practice standards
during the renovation of a 204-unit apartment building in
Winnetka, Calif., in 2006, according to a U.S. Department of
Justice press release dated Feb. 23, 2011.

The federal Clean Air Act requires those who own or supervise the
renovation of buildings that contain asbestos to adhere to certain
established work practice standards.  These standards were created
to ensure the safe removal and disposal of the asbestos and the
protection of workers.

According to the plea agreement filed in federal court, Mr.
Bostick knew in January 2006 that asbestos was present in the
ceilings of the units of the apartment complex known as Forest
Glen.  Knowing that the asbestos was there, he and his co-
conspirators hired a group of workers who were not trained or
certified to conduct asbestos abatements, and had them scrape the
ceilings of the apartment units without telling the workers about
the asbestos.

The illegal scraping resulted in the repeated release of asbestos-
containing material throughout the apartment complex and the
surrounding area and also caused the unlicensed workers to
potentially be exposed to asbestos.  After the illegal asbestos
abatement was shut down by an inspector from the California South
Coast Air Quality Management District, the asbestos was cleaned up
at a cost of about US$1.2 million.

On June 14, 2010, Joseph Yoon, the project manager, pleaded guilty
to conspiracy to violate the CAA's asbestos work place standards
at the apartment site.  A sentencing date has been set for
April 25, 2011.

A six-count indictment charging conspiracy and multiple Clean Air
Act violations is pending against co-defendant Charles Yi, who was
the owner of the Forest Glen condominiums.  The trial in this case
is scheduled for Mar. 15, 2011.  The allegations in the indictment
are mere accusations and all persons are presumed innocent until
and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of
law.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Criminal Enforcement, the California South
Coast Air Quality Management District and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Central District of California and the U.S. Justice Department's
Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural
Resources Division.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Payout Bill "Worries" Victims and Advocates
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri House and Senate convened in Jefferson City, Mo., in
early February 2011 to approve an asbestos workers' compensation
bill, Mesothelioma.com reports.

However, there is a key disagreement between the bodies regarding
the bill's aim to correct mistakes made in a 2005 law have
successfully lowered the state's workers' compensation rates.  The
bill also inadvertently allowed employees to sue other employees
over workplace injuries.

Moreover, it moved occupational diseases from the workers'
compensation system to the circuit court.

The main issue of debate between the house and senate is regarding
whether current occupational disease lawsuits will remain in the
circuit court or return to the workers' compensation system, where
payouts will undoubtedly be smaller.

Special attention is being paid to this issue as it would affect a
current lawsuit against a former asbestos plant in St. Louis owned
by CertainTeed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Puyallup Firm Fined $437.3T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Department of Labor & Industries has cited a
Puyallup asbestos abatement company for several willful violations
and fined the firm more than US$400,000, according to a Washington
State Department of Labor & Industries press release dated
Feb. 17, 2011.

The action deals with two abatement projects the Company undertook
last 2010 at the former Lynnwood High School and a building in
Olympia used by the state Department of Transportation.

At the Lynnwood site, Spenser Abatement Services Inc. was cited
for 11 willful violations and three serious violations, with a
fine of US$256,900.  At the DOT building, the Company was cited
for eight willful and three serious violations, and fined
US$180,400.

The L&I inspection of the Lynnwood site found significant problems
with the Company's work removing materials, such as pipe
insulation and vinyl tiles, that are known to contain asbestos.

L&I inspections determined that Spenser Abatement ignored basic
safety measures, exposing workers to unsafe levels of asbestos.
The heavy dust at the Lynnwood site drove one Spenser employee to
seek medical care for breathing difficulties.

Michael Silverstein, Assistant Director of L&I's Division of
Occupational Safety and Health, said, "We do not issue willful
violations lightly, but this was an employer who knew the laws,
knew how to protect his workers, and deliberately chose not to do
so.  Worker safety should never be placed at risk just to improve
a company's bottom line."

Spenser Abatement is one of more than 100 registered certified
abatement contractors in Washington state.  The Company was hired
to prepare the former Lynnwood High School for demolition.  In
August 2010, L&I began an inspection of the site and found
significant problems, including:

-- Open removal of dry asbestos with no containment.

-- Piles of bags containing chunks of dry asbestos materials.

-- A lack of available water to wet asbestos-containing
   materials.

-- No decontamination area for workers to shower or change their
   clothes.

L&I inspectors found similar violations at the DOT worksite in
Olympia.  Together, the fines from both citations total
US$437,300.  The Company has 15 days to appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hooley's Widow Seeks GBP350,000 in Payout Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Hooley, of Lichfield, England and the widow of William
Hooley -- who died form mesothelioma -- is suing for damages of up
to GBP350,000, the Lichfield Mercury reports.

Mrs. Hooley seeks compensation from Mr. Hooley's former employers
Balfour Beatty Workplace, previously trading as Troughton & Young.

According to a High Court writ, Mr. Hooley died from malignant
mesothelioma at the age of 70, losing around 20 years of life
expectancy.  The 63-year-old Mrs. Hooley blames Mr. Hooley's
former employers for his death and brands them negligent.

Mr. Hooley worked for the company between 1961 and 1966 as an
electrical site improver and then an electrical foreman, on
contracts at various industrial, public sector and commercial
premises.

Mr. Hooley first noticed symptoms in the autumn of 2008, and
underwent several procedures to treat the mesothelioma.  The
cancer spread, and he underwent more radiotherapy.  He also needed
a nerve block, Tens machine, and morphine to help control his
pain.  He was severely distressed by pain and breathlessness, and
died in St. Giles Hospice when his condition deteriorated.

The writ was issued by solicitor Alida Coates, of Irwin Mitchell.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pinehurst Local Reaches GBP70T Deal w/ Plessey
---------------------------------------------------------------
William White, a 72-year-old former Plessey employee from
Pinehurst, England, has reached a GBP70,000 asbestos settlement
with Cheney Manor Industrial Estate-based former employer, the
Swindon Advertiser reports.

Mr. White's solicitor, Brigitte Chandler, a partner at Charles
Lucas and Marshall and one of the United Kingdom's leading
industrial disease lawyers, said she believes other former
employees may also have been affected by asbestos at Cheney Manor.
She said, "Mr. White was continuously exposed to asbestos after
joining Plessey in 1972.  The Company had buildings made of
asbestos sheets and the sides and roofs of all four buildings
contained asbestos."

Ms. Chandler said that anyone concerned about their health should
seek medical advice and then consult an experienced industrial
disease lawyer if asbestos disease is diagnosed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Actions Filed in St. Clair Co. on Jan. 4 & 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four new asbestos lawsuits have been added to St. Clair County,
Ill.'s asbestos docket; one was filed on Jan. 5, 2011 and three
were filed on Jan. 28, 2011, The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Mark Nuzzo filed the second asbestos lawsuit of 2011 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court, while Gloria Hale filed the third; Marilyn
Grapperhaus filed the fourth; and Joseph and Mary Bayer filed the
fifth.

Judy L. Cates, Esq., of The Cates Law Firm in Swansea and Cooney
and Conway in Chicago represent Mr. Nuzzo.  The Bayers, Marilyn
Grapperhaus and Gloria Hale are represented by Randy L. Gori,
Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in
Edwardsville, Ill.

In his complaint filed on Jan. 5, 2011, Mr. Nuzzo alleges 55
defendant companies caused his deceased wife, Robin Nuzzo, to
develop mesothelioma after her exposure to asbestos-containing
products through her father.

Mrs. Nuzzo's father worked as an insulator, plant worker, home
renovator and shade tree mechanic at various locations from 1968
until 1992, according to the complaint.  After his work, Mrs.
Nuzzo's father would carry asbestos particles home on his
clothing, thereby exposing his daughter to the toxic substance,
the suit states.

In her complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2011, Mrs. Hale alleges 45
defendant companies caused the deceased Franklin Hale to develop
lung cancer after his work near asbestos-containing products.

In her complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2011, Marilyn Grapperhaus
alleges 20 defendant companies caused her deceased husband,
Charles Grapperhaus, to develop lung cancer after his work as a
member of the U.S. Navy from 1959 until 1963 and as a truck
driver, brick layer and carpenter at various locations throughout
Illinois from 1963 until 2000.

In their complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2011, the Bayers allege 62
defendant companies caused Joseph Bayer to develop esophageal
cancer after his career working near asbestos-containing products.

Mr. Bayer worked as a maintenance worker at Owens Illinois Glass
from 1962 until 1963; as a sheet metal worker at McDonnell Douglas
from 1963 until 1970; as a salesman at Prudential Life Insurance
from 1970 until 1978; and as a salesman at Joe Bayer and
Associates from 1978 until 2009, the complaint says.

In his 16-count complaint, Mr. Nuzzo seeks a judgment in excess of
the minimum jurisdictional amount, plus costs.  In his 10-count
complaint, Mr. Bayer seeks a judgment of more than US$100,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$150,000, economic
damages of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages of more than
US$100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish
the defendants and to discourage them from committing similar
actions in the future.

In her 10-count complaint, Mrs. Grapperhaus seeks economic damages
of more than US$200,000, a judgment of more than US$150,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000,
compensatory damages of more than US$100,000 and punitive damages
in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to discourage
them from committing similar actions in the future.

In her 10-count complaint, Mrs. Hale seeks economic damages of
more than US$200,000, plus a judgment of more than US$150,000,
punitive and exemplary damages of more than US$50,000,
compensatory damages of more than US$150,000 and punitive damages
in an amount sufficient to punish the defendants and to discourage
them from committing similar actions in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allen County OKs $500T for City-County Building
----------------------------------------------------------------
The council of Allen County, Ind., on Feb. 24, 2011, approved
US$500,000 to remove or contain asbestos during the forthcoming
renovation of the City-County Building, which is half of the
amount requested, The News-Sentinel reports.

County Commissioner Nelson Peters conceded the expense of dealing
with the asbestos used as a fire retardant and insulation should
have been included in original cost estimates.  However, he and
Councilman Larry Brown pointed out the scope of asbestos-related
work was known only after architects determined which walls,
floors and ceilings would be affected by the work needed to
convert the 40-year-old building for use by city and county police
and other offices.

The true cost of asbestos removal or containment will be known
when bids are opened March 2, 2011.  Construction bids will be
opened the next day, with contracts to be awarded March 11, 2011.

The entire project is expected to cost no more than US$5 million,
with US$1 million of that pledged by the city.  If more than the
US$3.5 million now pledged by council is needed, additional
appropriations will be needed or the project will have to be
scaled back.

The US$500,000 approved by council will come from income taxes set
aside for flood control.  The other US$500,000 requested from the
commissioners would have come from the general fund used to pay
normal operating expenses.

Council will conduct a special meeting on March 10, 2011 to
scrutinize the renovation and asbestos bids and consider
additional funding if necessary.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $200,000 Grant Awarded for Tulsa Site Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Morton Health Center in Tulsa, Okla., will receive a
US$200,000 grant from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality for the removal of asbestos and other hazardous substances
from the building, the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center
reports.

Environmental grants will help fund the cleanup of two abandoned
properties in Tulsa and the Orton Health Center is one of them.

When the hospital opened in 1921, it was the place in the city
that would treat and care for African Americans, making it a site
of historical significance.  Now the historic Morton Health Center
building sits empty, as the hospital has moved to a new building
around the corner.

The George Kaiser Family Foundation was the second recipient of
grant funding, which it will use to clean up a contaminated
industrial lot in the Brady District.  The site, which was
initially a residential area, will be turned into a community park
and pavilion that will be environmentally efficient, with
geothermal wells underneath for heating and cooling.

The funding for both grants comes from federal stimulus money,
which can be used to clean up hazardous materials like asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: British Rail Storeman's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Doug Varty, a former British
Rail storeman from Sinfin, Derby, England, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports.

In a statement read out at the inquest, Mr. Varty recalled working
with "asbestos in the air."  He worked at the carriage and wagon
works in Litchurch Lane, Derby, for more than 20 years during two
spells.

For three years in the 1950s, Mr. Varty worked close to fitters
lagging pipes with asbestos and attaching brake cylinders under
train carriages.  He recalled the "dusty atmosphere" in the sheds,
where he and his colleagues worked without protective masks.
Then, during his second spell, from 1969 to 1987, he worked as a
storeman, handling asbestos-insulated brake pads.

Mr. Varty, of Carlyle Street, was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma in 2009, and died at the Royal Derby Hospital, in
October 2010 at the age of 74.  A statement before his death, as
part of a compensation claim, was read out at his inquest.

In it, Mr. Varty said, "The brake pads were lined with asbestos
and would come in cartons that were around 14 inches by 14 inches
in size and contained 36 individual pads.  It was my job to remove
each one by hand.  There was a great deal of dust inside each box
and I would then brush each pad individually by hand.  There was a
lot of dust flying around.  I never wore a mask and we were
certainly not told that asbestos was dangerous in any way."

Mr. Varty's ex-wife, Eva Blood, and son, Sean Varty, were at Derby
and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court to hear the evidence.  In his
statement, Mr. Varty also recalled working in various jobs in Y
Shed and U Shed at the Litchurch Lane works for three years in the
1950s.

Dr. Ivan Robinson, the pathologist who carried out the postmortem
examination on Mr. Varty, found a tumor in his chest wall.  In a
statement, he said, "As the tumor gets bigger, it crushes the
lungs and spreads."

Paul McCandless, assistant deputy coroner, recorded a verdict of
death from industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belper Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court heard that the
death of Michael Hudson, a retired worker from Belper, England,
was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Derby Telegraph
reports.

Mr. Hudson died at the age of 72 on Jan. 18, 2011 at the Royal
Derby Hospital.  Before his death, he recalled "tasting asbestos"
in the air while working at power stations in Willington and
Drakelow.  He said he breathed in asbestos while it blew around in
the air as workers chipped off and reapplied lagging to pipes.

Mr. Hudson was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in October
2010.  A post-mortem examination on his body revealed the lining
of his right lung had been "obliterated by tumor."  He was in the
process of putting together a compensation claim when he died.

In a statement made before his death, Mr. Hudson said he served in
Malaya in the British Army for three years and started working for
International Combustion, in Derby, in 1963.  He said, "I worked
as a welder at power stations at Willington and Drakelow.

"I worked alongside the laggers who would chip asbestos lagging
off the pipes, either by hand or using chisels.  The pipes were
covered in asbestos and you could see it blowing around in the air
and taste it in your mouth.  It was a very dusty process and I
remember people using gloves but I do not remember using them
myself."

In his statement, Mr. Hudson said his breathlessness came on
quickly in 2010 and he went for a chest X-ray at Ripley Hospital.
He was then sent to the Royal Derby Hospital where he was
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.

In a statement read out at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's
Court, Dr. Ivan Robinson, the pathologist who carried out the
post-mortem examination, said, "Mr. Hudson's right plural cavity
was obliterated by white tumor while the left lung showed evidence
of bronchial pneumonia."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grantham Rail Worker's Death Linked to Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Lincolnshire, England, heard that the death of 82-
year-old Derek Brackenbury, a rail worker from Grantham, England,
was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Lincolnshire
Echo reports.

Mr. Brackenbury died on Sept. 7, 2010 at Welbourne Nursing Home.
Coroner Stuart Fisher heard that a postmortem examination recorded
his cause of death as malignant mesothelioma.

Mr. Brackenbury had worked with asbestos for two years starting
when he was just 16 years old.  Mr. Fisher heard that Mr.
Brackenbury had worked on the steam railways taking apart valves
and replacing the asbestos inside.

Mr. Brackenbury had made a compensation claim for his lung
diseases, which he believed came as a direct result of his work.
Summarizing the case, Mr. Fisher said, "I am satisfied that there
is a history of working in unprotected conditions and the
malignant mesothelioma resulted from the asbestos exposure.  I
find on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Brackenbury died as
a result of industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Chemical Company and its operations, from time to time,
are parties to, or targets of, lawsuits, claims, investigations
and proceedings, including product liability, personal injury,
asbestos, patent and intellectual property, commercial, contract,
environmental, antitrust, health and safety, and employment
matters, which are being handled and defended in the ordinary
course of business.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 23, 2011.

Eastman Chemical Company is a global chemical company which
manufactures and sells a broad portfolio of chemicals, plastics,
and fibers.  The Company has 16 manufacturing sites in nine
countries that supply chemicals, plastics, and fibers products to
customers throughout the world.  The Company is based in
Kingsport, Tenn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Pending in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case involving asbestos styled In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. is
pending against certain subsidiaries of Reynolds American, Inc. in
Ohio County Circuit Court, W.Va.

In the case filed February 1998, the plaintiff sued asbestos
manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco
and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR, seeking to recover US$1 million in compensatory and
punitive damages individually and an unspecified amount for the
class in both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.  The plaintiffs allege that
Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to asbestos
products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become addicted
to tobacco.

In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.

Under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

Reynolds American, Inc. is a holding company whose operating
subsidiaries include the second largest cigarette manufacturer in
the United States, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and the second
largest smokeless tobacco products manufacturer in the United
States, American Snuff Company, LLC (formerly known as Conwood
Company, LLC).  The Company is based in Winston-Salem, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Fluor Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation is a defendant in various lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos fibers and dust due to work
that the Company may have performed at various locations,
according to the Company's annual report filed on Feb. 24, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company has substantial third party insurance coverage to
cover a significant portion of existing and any potential cost,
settlements or judgments.

Fluor Corporation is a professional services firm, providing
engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance as well as
project management services on a global basis.  The Company serves
a diverse set of industries worldwide including oil and gas,
chemicals and petrochemicals, transportation, mining and metals,
power, life sciences and manufacturing.  The Company is based in
Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 858 Lawsuits Pending v. GATX, Units at Jan. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were 858 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX
Corporation and its subsidiaries as of Jan. 28, 2011, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 24, 2011.

Several of the Company's subsidiaries have also been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by
exposure to asbestos.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount
of damages based on common law, statutory or premises liability
or, in the case of American Steamship Company (ASC), the Jones
Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime
employees.

Of the total number of pending cases, 826 are Jones Act claims,
most of which were filed against ASC before the year 2000.

During 2010, 16 new cases were filed, and 396 cases were dismissed
or settled for an immaterial amount.  In addition, demand has been
made against the Company for asbestos-related claims under limited
indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain former
subsidiaries of the Company.  It is possible that the number of
these cases or claims for indemnity could begin to grow and that
the cost of these cases, including costs to defend, could
correspondingly increase in the future.

GATX Corporation leases, operates and manages long-lived, widely
used assets in the rail, marine and industrial equipment markets.
The Company also invests in joint ventures that complement
existing business activities.  The Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleco Power Records $300,000 Dec. 31 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation subsidiary Cleco Power's liability for removal
of asbestos is estimated at US$300,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009 and is included in other deferred credits.

Under the authoritative guidance for asset retirement and
environmental obligations, Cleco Power determined that a liability
exists for cleanup and closing costs of solid waste facilities
associated with its generating stations that use lignite and coal
for fuel.

Cleco Corporation is a public utility holding company that holds
investments in several subsidiaries, including Cleco Power and
Midstream, which are its operating business segments.  The Company
is based in Pineville, La.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holdings Posts $15MM Current Obligations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's current asbestos claims obligations
amounted to US$15 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$13
million at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24,
2011.

Non-current asbestos claims obligations amounted to US$86 million
at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$100 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles,
driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and
thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers world-wide.  As of Dec. 31, 2010,
the Company employed about 22,500 people, operated in 26 countries
and owned or leased 92 major facilities around the world.  The
Company is based in Maumee, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Records 30,000 Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 30,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
31,000 claims at Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 24, 2011.

In addition, about 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled
and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or
without payment.  The Company has accrued US$101 million for
indemnity and defense costs for settled, pending and future claims
at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$113 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles,
driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and
thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers world-wide.  As of Dec. 31, 2010,
the Company employed about 22,500 people, operated in 26 countries
and owned or leased 92 major facilities around the world.  The
Company is based in Maumee, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Posts $52MM Dec. 31 Insurance Asset
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had recorded US$52 million at Dec. 31,
2010 as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the
pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
compared with US$58 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2009.

During 2010, the Company recorded US$1 million of pre-tax expense
(US$2 during the first quarter, offset by a US$1 credit during the
second quarter) to correct amounts primarily associated with
asbestos-related insurance receivables at Dec. 31, 2009.

Dana Holding Corporation supplies driveline products (axles,
driveshafts and transmissions), power technologies (sealing and
thermal-management products) and genuine service parts for light
and heavy vehicle manufacturers world-wide.  As of Dec. 31, 2010,
the Company employed about 22,500 people, operated in 26 countries
and owned or leased 92 major facilities around the world.  The
Company is based in Maumee, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Posts $79.83MM Dec. 31 Current Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s subsidiary, Leslie Controls, recorded
current asbestos and bankruptcy liabilities of US$79,831,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$12,476,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$2,173,000 during
the three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$40,397,000
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy charges were US$32,775,000 during
the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$54,079,000
during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.  With more than 7,000
customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified
product portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands.  The
Company is based in Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Pending Against Spence and Hoke
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-related claims have been filed against two of CIRCOR
International, Inc.'s subsidiaries -- Spence, the stock of which
the Company acquired in 1984; and Hoke, the stock of which the
Company acquired in 1998.

No other asbestos matters regarding Spence and Hoke were disclosed
in the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Feb. 24, 2011.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products and subsystems that
control the flow of fluids safely and efficiently in the
aerospace, energy and industrial markets.  With more than 7,000
customers in over 100 countries, the Company has a diversified
product portfolio with recognized, market-leading brands.  The
Company is based in Burlington, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Posts $307.62MM Dec. 31 Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's long-term asbestos-related liability was
US$307,619,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$352,537,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 24,
2011.

Long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable was
US$194,570,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$244,265,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Net asbestos-related provision was US$5,478,000 for the fiscal
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$21,114,000 for the
fiscal quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Net asbestos-related provision was US$5,410,000 for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$26,365,000 for the
fiscal ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Foster Wheeler AG is a global engineering and construction
contractor and power equipment supplier delivering technically
advanced, reliable facilities and equipment.  The Company employs
about 12,000 talented professionals with specialized expertise
dedicated to serving its clients through one of its two primary
business groups.  The Company is based in Zug, Switzerland.


                            *********

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  * * *