CAR_Public/110325.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 25, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 60

                             Headlines

ALCATEL-LUCENT: Funded $35.8 Million Net Settlement of 2005 Suit
APPLE INC: Steve Jobs Ordered to Answer Questions in iTunes Suit
AT&T: Faces Class Action Over "Inside Wire Protection Plan"
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
BARCLAYS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Suit Dismissal

BIRMINGHAM, AL: Magistrates Not Certified, Suit Claims
BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Illegal Midyear Changes to Deductibles
CHINA SHENGHUO: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
GENERAL MOTORS: Claim in Warranty Class Suit Pegged at $8.8MM
GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Child Support Jail Time

GOOGLE INC: Court Rejects $125MM Accord Over Copyright Suit
INTERCLICK INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bose" Suits in New York Pending
IPAYMENT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit in New York Pending
ITURAN LOCATION: Faces Discrimination Class Action in Tel-Aviv
J.CREW GROUP: Still Defends Class Suits Over TPG Acquisition

JONES SODA CO: Plaintiffs Did Not File Petition for Review
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Cold Remedy Class Action to Proceed
NEW ORLEANS, LA: April 15 Hearing for Property Tax Class Action
PERDUE INC: Class Action to Move Forward in Maryland
RANGE RESOURCES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement

SHENGDATECH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
SLM CORPORATION: Late Fees Violate Calif. Law, Suit Says
STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Tip Policy
U.S. DRUG STORES: Insist W.Va. AG Suit Should Stay in Fed Court
UNITED WESTERN: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado

WAL-MART STORES: To Urge Sup. Ct. Next Week to Junk Class Action
WHOLE FOODS: Sued for Engaging in Deceptive Business Practices

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Company Records $11.47M ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corporation Faces 36 Actions at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Accrues $1.3MM Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 9 Units Involved in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Kodak Records $57MM AROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solutia Inc. Still Facing "Legacy Tort Claims"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Records $226.11M A&E Losses at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Ins. Has $9.98MM Dec. 31 Gross Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 24,764 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Units Still Face Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corporation Still Subject to Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 80 Actions in Md. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 68,513 Claims Open v. MetLife's Unit at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: HP Fined $9,600 for Breach at Corvallis Campus
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cases Filed in St. Clair on Feb. 2 & Feb. 22
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amencon Director Fined for Asbestos Mishandling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Site Manager Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willmore Family Wins Legal Case to Compensation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwell's Case v. 6 Firms Filed Feb. 22 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Issues Statement on McLean Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. 2034 to Deter "Abuses" in Lawsuits Filed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comment Period for Madison Cases Opens March 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Reacts to McLean Asbestos Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MACK Group Completes Cleanup of Pa. Power Stack
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lenney Awarded $1.36MM in Filter Suit in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillenwater Awarded $90MM in Ill. Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ellesmere Secretary's Family Wins Payout Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Co. Posts $3.51BB A&E Reserves


                             *********

ALCATEL-LUCENT: Funded $35.8 Million Net Settlement of 2005 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcatel-Lucent funded the net settlement amount of U.S.$35.8 million

in December 2010 in connection with a class action lawsuit filed in

2005 against one of its subsidiaries, according to the Company's

March 21, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and

Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2005, a purported class action was filed by Peter A.

Raetsch, Geraldine Raetsch and Curtis Shiflett, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District

Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs alleged that

Lucent Technologies Inc. (now known as Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.)

failed to maintain health care benefits for retired management

employees for each year from 2001 through 2006 as required by the

U.S. Internal Revenue Code, the U.S. Employee Retirement Income

Security Act, and the Lucent pension and medical plans. Upon motion

by Lucent, the court remanded the claims to Lucent's claims review

process. A Special Committee was appointed and reviewed the claims.

The Special Committee denied the plaintiffs' claims and the case

returned to the court, where limited discovery was completed.

By Opinion and Order, each dated June 11, 2008, the court granted in

part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (as

to liability) and denied Lucent's cross-motion for summary judgment

(also as to liability). Specifically, the court found that Lucent

had violated the Plan's maintenance of benefits requirement with

respect to the 2003 plan year but that the record before the court

contained insufficient facts from which to conclude whether those

provisions were violated for years prior to 2003. The court also

"tentatively" ruled that defendants had not violated the Plan's

maintenance of cost provisions for the years 2004 through 2006. The

court ordered the parties to engage in further discovery

proceedings. Finally, the court denied, without prejudice,

plaintiff's motion for class certification. On June 26, 2008, Lucent

requested the court to certify the case for appeal to the Third

Circuit Court of Appeals in its discretion. This request was denied.

As a result of the court's findings for 2003, Lucent established a

provision for U.S.$27 million during the second quarter of 2008. As

a result of the ongoing discovery and analysis, this reserve was

adjusted from time to time. On January 21, 2010, the parties agreed

to settle the lawsuit for the sum of U.S.$36 million. The settlement

was memorialized in a Settlement Agreement, which was approved by

the court on November 8, 2010 by way of a Final Judgment Approving

Settlement. This judgment became final on December 9, 2010 as it was

not appealed within the statutory delay. Lucent funded the net

settlement amount of U.S.$35.8 million in December 2010.


APPLE INC: Steve Jobs Ordered to Answer Questions in iTunes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Ong, writing for AppleInsider, reports that Apple Chief

Executive Steve Jobs has been ordered by a judge to answer questions

in a class-action lawsuit accusing Apple of an iTunes Music Store

monopoly, according to court documents.

Bloomberg reports that U.S. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in San

Jose, Calif., authorized on March 21 limited questioning of Jobs by

lawyers representing consumers in the complaint.  Lawyers will be

allowed two hours for questions limited to the sole topic of changes

Apple made to iPod software in October 2004 that disrupted

RealNetworks' Harmony software, which enabled songs purchased from

the company's music store to be transferred onto the iPod.

"The court finds that Jobs has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand

knowledge about the issues at the center of the dispute over

RealNetworks software," Judge Lloyd wrote in a court filing.

RealNetworks caused a controversy in July 2004 when it released its

Harmony work-around.  Responding to the announcement of the

software, Apple quickly released a statement accusing the company of

adopting "the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod"

and warning customers that it was "highly likely" that Real's

Harmony technology would not work with future versions of the iPod

software.

As self-predicted, Apple disabled Harmony in a subsequent update to

its iPod software later that year.

RealNetwork admitted to investors in 2005 that the Harmony

technology had put the company at risk to a lawsuit from Apple.

However, such a lawsuit failed to materialize, and now the tables

have turned as Apple finds itself on the defensive in the

proceedings of an antitrust lawsuit from 2005.  Thomas Slattery

filed a class-action lawsuit in early 2005 alleging that Apple had

violated federal antitrust laws and California's unfair competition

law by requiring that customers use an iPod to listen to music

purchased from the iTunes Music Store.

Though Apple was successful at having a few individual claims

dismissed from the suit through a court filing in 2005, an overall

motion to dismiss the case was denied by a judge.

According to the report, plaintiffs had originally requested to more

broadly question Jobs about "Apple's refusal to license FairPlay

technology to other companies or its decision to use the technology

on music purchased from iTunes and the iPod."  But given that those

claims were dismissed in December 2009,
Judge Lloyd rejected the requests.

"Plaintiffs remaining claims rely on the allegation that Apple

attempted to maintain a monopoly in the audio download and portable

music player markets by issuing updates to FairPlay, Apple's

proprietary digital rights management software," David Kiernan, who

represents Apple, wrote in a December court filing, adding that "any

deposition of Mr. Jobs would be repetitive, at best."

Since the lawsuit was originally filed, Apple has negotiated with

music labels for a more open iTunes Music Store.  A footnote in a

court document notes that, by March 2009, iTunes music tracks are

now offered without digital rights management (DRM).

Mr. Jobs, who is a survivor of a rare form of pancreatic cancer, is

currently on an indefinite medical leave of absence from Apple.

After Mr. Jobs began his leave in mid-January, speculation arose

that his health was in serious decline, with one tabloid publishing

alleged photos of an emaciated Jobs at Stanford Cancer Center.

Contrary to some rumors, however, Mr. Jobs was well enough to take

the stage earlier this month for the unveiling of the iPad 2.


AT&T: Faces Class Action Over "Inside Wire Protection Plan"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Like thousands of other customers across the U.S., Gloria Girton

pays AT&T nearly $120 every year for a service she doesn't need and

can't use.

The 82-year old Wilmington apartment dweller is billed $9.99 every

month by the corporate giant for an "Inside Wire Protection Plan"

even though a landlord owns her building's interior telephone wires

and she has no legal responsibility for maintaining them.

On March 22, 2011, Ms. Girton, filed a class action in the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to end

AT&T's unlawful practice of wrongfully billing for such plans

nationwide.  Outside of North Carolina, they are known by such names

as "Wire Pro," "Inside Wire Maintenance," and "Home Wire

Protection."

Gloria Girton and AT&T customers in North Carolina and across the

country who do not own their interior phone lines but are forced to

pay the phone company for inside wire maintenance are represented in

the matter by Steven L. Wittels and Jeremy Heisler of Sanford

Wittels & Heisler LLP, New York City.

"AT&T is illegally charging many of its land line customers who live

in multi-tenant facilities for unnecessary wire insurance," said Mr.

Wittels.  "The company knows from prior litigation and its own

internal investigations that this charge is improper, yet it

continues to charge building tenants like Gloria for these worthless

plans through deceptive sales actions that defraud and rob them of

their hard-earned financial resources.  We believe she and the class

have sustained damages of at least $10 million and very likely much

more."

The complaint asks for the certification of two classes, a North

Carolina class and a nationwide class, each comprised of all

residents of residential or commercial property who had an AT&T

account at any time in the past four years and were not responsible

for the maintenance of their residence's interior wire, but were

charged a fee for an Inside Wire plan.

The complaint names AT&T, a Delaware corporation, along with ten of

its unnamed U.S. subsidiaries as defendants.  AT&T is a national

telephone and internet service provider with more than $48 billion

in annual revenues.

According to the plaintiffs' legal team, the company's deceptive

actions in marketing and selling interior wire maintenance plans are

particularly egregious because seven years ago, AT&T reached a

Court-approved settlement in California that challenged the

company's assessment of wire protection fees to multi-unit apartment

dwellers like Gloria Girton.

"The company has been on notice since at least 2004 and probably

earlier that it is improper to charge tenants of multi-unit

buildings these fees," said Mr. Wittels.

The filing also attacks arbitration provisions in customers'

contracts that forbid class certification against AT&T.  Plaintiff's

complaint alleges that such a provision is procedurally and

substantively unconscionable and should not be enforced.

"AT&T's anti-class action arbitration clause is one-sided, harsh and

oppressive," said Jeremy Heisler, Plaintiff's Co-Counsel.  "The

clause has two unsavory purposes: first, to prevent aggrieved

customers from joining with other class members to fight the

colossal phone company in court, and second, to allow AT&T to fatten

its coffers with millions of dollars of unwarranted fees without

fear that customers can win redress in court.  A class action such

as this is the only way that consumers with limited financial

resources who have suffered relatively small damages can effectively

get any justice."

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is partnered in the wire suit with local

counsel Gary Jackson of Jackson & McGee, a well-known consumer fraud

firm based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

                            About SWH

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington,

D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment

discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex corporate class

action litigation and has represented thousands of individuals in

some of the major class action cases in the United States.  The firm

also represents individual clients in employment, employment

discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblower, public

accommodations, commercial, medical malpractice, and personal injury

matters.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Criden & Love, P.A. disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit

was filed on March 22, 2011 in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bank of

America Corporation common stock during the period between July 1,

2008 and Oct. 19, 2010, inclusive.  If you wish to serve as lead

plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 4, 2011.  You

need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any

possible recovery.

This action seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

there under.  The defendants are BAC, individually and as

successor-in-interest to Countrywide Financial Corporation, Brian T.

Moynihan, Charles H. Noski, Kenneth D. Lewis, and Joseph L. Price.

Prior to its acquisition by BAC, Countrywide was one of the world's

largest residential mortgage lenders.  As has now been widely

reported, Countrywide's mortgage lending and servicing practices

were rife with fraud, predatory tactics, and other misconduct.  This

action alleges that BAC adopted these practices and concealed

material information and made false and misleading statements

concerning the same, which artificially inflated the price of BAC

stock until the truth was revealed.

Any member of the alleged class may seek to be appointed as lead

plaintiff, even if that person has not filed a complaint, by

complying with the relevant provisions of the Private Securities

Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)

(A)(I)-(iv).  The Plaintiff -- Patricia Grossberg Living Trust --

seeks to recover damages on behalf of the class and is represented

by Criden & Love, P.A., a firm with a strong background and

significant experience in handling securities class actions and

other complex litigation.  If you have any questions about this

Notice, the action, or your rights, please contact us at http:

http://www.cridenlove.com/

CONTACT: Kevin Love, Esq.
         Criden & Love, P.A.
         Telephone: +1-305-357-9000


BARCLAYS BANK: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays PLC and various current and former

members of Barclays PLC's Board of Directors have been named as

defendants in five proposed securities class actions (which have

been consolidated) pending in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended

complaint, dated February 12, 2010, alleges that the registration

statements relating to American Depositary Shares representing

Preferred Stock, Series 2, 3,4 and 5 (ADS) offered by Barclays Bank

PLC at various times between 2006 and 2008 contained misstatements

and omissions concerning (amongst other things) Barclays portfolio

of mortgage-related (including US subprime-related) securities,

Barclays exposure to mortgage and credit market risk and Barclays

financial condition. The consolidated amended complaint asserts

claims under Sections 11,12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of

1933. On January 5, 2011, the Court issued an order, and on January

7, 2011, judgment was entered, granting the defendants' motion to

dismiss the complaint in its entirety and closing the case. On

February 4, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to

reconsider in part its dismissal order, and that motion is pending.

Barclays considers that these ADS-related claims against it are

without merit and is defending them vigorously. It is not possible

to estimate any possible loss in relation to these claims or any

effect that they might have upon operating results in any particular

financial period, according to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form

20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the

fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Magistrates Not Certified, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action on

behalf of people who appeared before Birmingham municipal

magistrates claims the city let some magistrates preside without

timely enrolling in the state's magistrate certification course, as

required by law.

A copy of the Complaint in Chappell v. City of Birmingham, Alabama,

et al., Case No. CV-2011-900947 (Ala. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.), is

available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/22/CivRts.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James S. Roberts, Jr., Esq.
          TOWNES, WOODS, & ROBERTS, PC
          717 Kerr Drive
          P.O. Box 96
          Gardendale, AL 35071
          Telephone: 205-631-4019


BLUE CROSS: Sued Over Illegal Midyear Changes to Deductibles
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in Los

Angeles Superior Court claims Blue Cross of California dba Anthem

Blue Cross made illegal, midyear changes to deductibles and

benefits.


CHINA SHENGHUO: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. disclosed on
March 22 that a settlement agreement resolving and dismissing all

claims asserted against the company in the consolidated class action

lawsuit, Varghese, et al. v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings,

Inc., et al., has been given final approval by the court.  The

substantive allegations of the amended consolidated complaint have

previously been summarized in SEC disclosures by China Shenghuo.

China Shenghuo is contributing US $200,000 towards a total

settlement fund of $600,000.

In settling and resolving all claims on a class basis, China

Shenghuo has not admitted any wrongdoing and the settlement avoids

the costs of continued litigation.

                       About China Shenghuo

Founded in 1995, China Shenghuo -- http://www.shenghuo.com.cn/--
is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the research,

development, manufacture and marketing of Sanchi-based medicinal and

pharmaceutical, nutritional supplement and cosmetic products.

Through its subsidiary, Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (Group) Co.,

Ltd., it owns thirty SFDA (State Food and Drug Administration)

approved medicines, including the flagship product Xuesaitong Soft

Capsules, which is currently being listed in the 2010 Provincial

Insurance Catalogue of sixteen provinces and remains to be listed in

the 2009 Provincial Insurance Catalogue of three provinces around

China.  At present, China Shenghuo incorporates a sales network of

agencies and representatives throughout China, which markets

Sanchi-based traditional Chinese medicine to hospitals and drug

stores as prescription and OTC drugs primarily for the treatment of

cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and peptic ulcer disease.  The

Company also exports medicinal products to Asian countries such as

Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand and to European

countries such as the United Kingdom, Tajikistan, Russia and

Kyrgyzstan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Claim in Warranty Class Suit Pegged at $8.8MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company, et al., fka General Motors Corp., et

al., ask the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New

York to approve an agreement it reached with class action plaintiff

Jason Anderson, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,

resolving the Plaintiff's Proof of Claim No. 51093.

Under the Agreement, the Anderson Proof of Claim will be resolved

and the Participating Anderson Class Members will receive, in the

aggregate, a single allowed general unsecured claim against Motors

Liquidation in the amount of $8,853,300.

The deal is based on a previous settlement reached in a class action

lawsuit brought by Mr. Anderson, on behalf of himself and the

Anderson Class against General Motors Corporation on May 18, 2004,

in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los

Angeles, alleging, among other things, that GM violated the Unfair

Competition Law by creating an adjustment program under the Motor

Vehicle Warranty Adjustment Programs statute, allegedly without

providing the Anderson Class with certain notices and repair

reimbursements.

On May 18, 2004, Mr. Anderson filed a class action complaint against

GM on behalf of himself and the Anderson Class in the California

Court, alleging that certain Silverado trucks exhibit an abnormal

engine knock or piston noise.  Mr. Anderson further alleged that GM

knew about this condition and that GM had a business policy under

which it provided certain benefits, including a 6 year/100,000

General Motors Protection Plan to California owners and lessees of

Silverados who complained to GM about the condition.  Mr. Anderson

asserted that GM's business policy to offer a GMPP or other benefit

to some consumers, but not others, who own or lease a Silverado with

an abnormal engine knock or piston noise condition was an adjustment

program or "secret warranty" that violates California law,

including, specifically, the California MVWAP, because GM allegedly

did not notify Mr. Anderson or the Anderson Class about the

adjustment program or provide them with coverage under the plan.

Following substantial discovery, law and motion practice, class

certification having been granted, a writ petition as to the form

and notice of class certification having been denied, and two

separate mandatory settlement conferences before a California state

judge, GM and the Anderson Class reached a comprehensive claims-made

stipulation of settlement of the Anderson Class Action.

Under the terms of the prior settlement, GM will reimburse class

members who submitted valid, timely claims for: (i) monies spent on

the purchase of a GMPP that otherwise would have been available to

them for free under GM's allegedly unlawful adjustment program; and

(ii) repair costs paid by class members to correct the abnormal

engine knock or piston noise or on other specified engine repairs.

GM also agreed that certain members of the Anderson Class with

constant engine knock or piston noise concerns could request a free

evaluation from a Chevrolet dealer and, if appropriate, obtain free

repairs of the condition.

On Nov. 25, 2009, the Anderson Proof of Claim, based on the
Anderson Class Action Settlement, was filed with the Court,

purportedly on behalf of the Anderson Class, and assigned claim

number 51093.  The Anderson Proof of Claim asserts a claim in the

amount of $10 million, for class consideration allegedly due

pursuant to the Anderson Class Action Settlement.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the Court approved and entered the stipulation and

order between the Debtors and the holders of Unliquidated Dex-Cool

and Anderson Claims to allow class proofs of claim for Dex-Cool and

Anderson Claimants and through which the Debtors and the holders of

Unliquidated Anderson Claims agreed that Class Counsel could file a

class-wide proof of claim on behalf of all holders of Unliquidated

Anderson Claims.

                          About General Motors

With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
Company -- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest
automakers.  GM employs 205,000 people in every major region of
the world and does business in some 157 countries.  GM and its
strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 31 countries, and
sell and service these vehicles through the following brands:
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, FAW, GMC, Daewoo, Holden, Jiefang,
Opel, Vauxhall and Wuling.  GM's largest national market is China,
followed by the United States, Brazil, Germany, the United
Kingdom, Canada, and Italy.  GM's OnStar subsidiary is the
industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information
services.

General Motors Co. is 60.8% owned by the U.S. Government.  It was
formed to acquire the operations of General Motors Corporation
through a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363 following Old GM's
bankruptcy filing.  The deal was closed on July 10, 2009, and Old
GM changed its name to Motors Liquidation Co.  Old GM remains
subject to a pending Chapter 11 reorganization case before the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

At Sept. 30, 2010, GM had US$137.238 billion in total assets,
US$106.522 billion in total liabilities, US$6.998 billion in
preferred stock, US$971 million in non-controlling interest, and
US$23.718 billion in total equity.

New GM has a 'BB-' corporate credit rating from Standard & Poor's
and a 'BB-' issuer default rating from Fitch.

                     About Motors Liquidation

General Motors Corporation and three of its affiliates filed for
Chapter 11 protection on June 1, 2009 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case
No. 09-50026).  The Honorable Robert E. Gerber presides over the
Chapter 11 cases.  Harvey R. Miller, Esq., Stephen Karotkin, Esq.,
and Joseph H. Smolinsky, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
assist the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  Al Koch at AP
Services, LLC, an affiliate of AlixPartners, LLP, serves as the
Chief Executive Officer for Motors Liquidation Company.  GM is
also represented by Jenner & Block LLP and Honigman Miller
Schwartz and Cohn LLP as counsel.  Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP is
providing legal advice to the GM Board of Directors.  GM's
financial advisors are Morgan Stanley, Evercore Partners and the
Blackstone Group LLP.  Garden City Group is the claims and notice
agent of the Debtors.

The U.S. Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors and a separate Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Holding Asbestos-Related Claims.  Lawyers at Kramer Levin Naftalis
& Frankel LLP serve as bankruptcy counsel to the Creditors
Committee.  Attorneys at Butzel Long serve as counsel regarding
supplier contract matters.  FTI Consulting, Inc., serves as
financial advisors to the Creditors Committee.  Elihu Inselbuch,
Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, represents the Asbestos
Committee.  Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., serves as asbestos
valuation analyst.


GEORGIA: Faces Class Action Over Child Support Jail Time
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a civil rights group has filed a

class action lawsuit that aims to secure lawyers for indigent

parents who have been jailed or are in danger of being jailed for

failing to pay child support.

The lawsuit was filed on March 22 in Fulton County Superior Court by

the Southern Center for Human Rights on behalf of six parents who

couldn't pay child support amid the tough economic times. Several of

the plaintiffs have been jailed for months because they cannot pay

the fee.

The lawsuit said Georgia law bans authorities from jailing a parent

who doesn't have the ability to pay child support.  But it says the

plaintiffs don't have the opportunity to prove they are indigent

because they don't have an attorney.


GOOGLE INC: Court Rejects $125MM Accord Over Copyright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Helft, writing for The New York Times, reports that Google's

ambition to create the world's largest digital library and bookstore

has run into the reality of a 300-year-old legal concept: copyright.

Judge Denny Chin said the legal settlement with publishers and

authors would have granted Google a "de facto monopoly."

The company's plan to digitize every book ever published and make

them widely available was derailed on March 22 when a federal judge

in New York rejected a sweeping $125 million legal settlement the

company had worked out with groups representing authors and

publishers.

The decision throws into legal limbo one of the most ambitious

undertakings in Google's history, and it brings into sharp focus

concerns about the company's growing power over information.  While

the profit potential of the book project is not clear, the effort is

one of the pet projects of Larry Page, the Google
co-founder who is set to become its chief executive next month. And

the project has wide support inside the company, whose corporate

mission is to organize all of the world's information.

"It was very much consistent with Larry's idealism that all of the

world's information should be made available freely," said Ken

Auletta, the author of "Googled: The End of the World as We Know

It."

But citing copyright, antitrust and other concerns, Judge Denny Chin

said that the settlement went too far.  He said it would have

granted Google a "de facto monopoly" and the right to profit from

books without the permission of copyright owners.

Judge Chin acknowledged that "the creation of a universal digital

library would benefit many," but said that the proposed agreement

was "not fair, adequate and reasonable."  He left open the

possibility that a substantially revised agreement could pass legal

muster.  Judge Chin was recently elevated to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but handled the case as a

district court judge.

The decision is also a setback for the Authors Guild and the

Association of American Publishers, which sued Google in 2005 over

its book-scanning project.  After two years of painstaking

negotiations, the authors, publishers and Google signed a sweeping

settlement that would have brought millions of printed works into

the digital age.

The deal turned Google, the authors and the publishers into allies

instead of opponents.  Together, they mounted a defense of the

agreement against an increasingly vocal chorus of opponents that

included Google rivals like Amazon and Microsoft, as well as

academics, some authors, copyright experts, the Justice Department

and foreign governments.

Now the author and publisher groups have to decide whether to resume

their copyright case against Google, drop it or try to negotiate a

new settlement.

Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild, said in an

interview that it was too early to tell what the next step would be.

"The judge did expressly leave the door open for a revised

settlement," he said.

Hilary Ware, managing counsel at Google, said in a statement that

the decision was "clearly disappointing," adding: "Like many others,

we believe this agreement has the potential to open up access to

millions of books that are currently hard to find in the U.S.

today."  The company would not comment further.

Google has already scanned some 15 million books.  The entire text

of books whose copyrights have expired are available through

Google's Book Search service.  It shows up to 20% of copyrighted

titles that it has licensed from publishers, and only snippets of

copyrighted titles for which it has no license.

The settlement would have allowed it to go much further, making

millions of out-of-print books broadly available online and selling

access to them.  It would have given authors and publishers new ways

to earn money from digital copies of their works.

Yet the deal faced strong opposition.  Among the most persistent

objections, raised by the Justice Department and others, were

concerns that it would have given Google exclusive rights to profit

from millions of so-called orphan works, books whose rights holders

are unknown or cannot be found.  They also said no other company

would be able to build a comparable library, leaving Google free to

charge high prices for its collection.  And some critics said the

exclusive access to millions of books would help cement Google's

grip on the Internet search market.

Judge Chin largely agreed with the critics on those points.  But he

suggested that substantial objections would be eliminated if the

settlement applied only to books whose authors or copyright owners

would explicitly "opt in" to its terms.

When the Justice Department suggested as much last year during a

court hearing, Google rejected the idea as unworkable.  It would

leave millions of orphan works out of the agreement and out of

Google's digital library, greatly diminishing its value to Google

and to the public.

"Opt-in doesn't look all that different from ordinary licensing

deals that publishers do all the time," said James Grimmelmann, a

professor at New York Law School who has studied the legal aspects

of the agreement.  "That's why this has been such a big deal -- the

settlement could have meant orphan books being made available again.

This is basically going back to status quo, and orphan books won't

be available."

Some longtime opponents of the settlement hailed the decision,

saying that they hoped it would prompt Congress to tackle

legislation that would make orphan works accessible.

"Even though it is efficient for Google to make all the books

available, the orphan works and unclaimed books problem should be

addressed by Congress, not by the private settlement of a lawsuit,"

said Pamela Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of

California, Berkeley who helped organize efforts to block the

agreement.

Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in a statement

that the court had reached the "right result."

A group of publishers said they were disappointed by the decision,

but believed that it provided "clear guidance" on the changes

necessary for the settlement to be approved.

John Sargent, the chief executive of Macmillan, spoke on behalf of

the publishers, which included Penguin Group USA, McGraw-Hill,

Pearson Education, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons.

"The publisher plaintiffs are prepared to enter into a narrower

settlement along those lines to take advantage of its groundbreaking

opportunities," Mr. Sargent said in a statement. "
We hope the other parties will do so as well."

He added: "The publisher plaintiffs are prepared to modify the

settlement agreement to gain approval.  We plan to work together

with Google, the Authors Guild and others to overcome the objections

raised by the court and promote the fundamental principle behind our

lawsuit, that copyrighted content cannot be used without the

permission of the owner, or outside the law."


INTERCLICK INC: Motion to Dismiss "Bose" Suits in New York Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
interclick, inc.'s motions to dismiss class action lawsuits filed by

Sonal Bose alleging breach of electronic privacy laws, among others,

remain pending, according to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form 10-K

filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the

fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On or about December 8, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced an action in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

alleging that interclick engaged in certain activities that

plaintiff claims violate electronic privacy and computer use laws.

The plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims, and seeks

compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, restitution, and

reimbursement of expenses and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiff also

seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and class action

certification.

On or about December 23, 2010, Sonal Bose commenced a related action

in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York against McDonald's Corporation, CBS Corporation, Mazda Motor of

America, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (Sonal Bose v. McDonald's

Corporation; CBS Corporation; Mazda Motor of America, Inc.; and

Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 10 Civ. 9569-DAB  (S.D.N.Y.))

alleging that the actions of interclick caused the defendants to

violate various laws and seeking class action certification.  The

Company is not a party to this action but are providing for the

defense of the case at the Company's expense based upon

indemnification obligations in its standard agency agreements.  The

complaint asserts the same claims as are alleged in the complaint

against the Company, together with a cause of action for tortious

interference, and seeks similar relief.

On February 28, 2011, motions to dismiss each of the cases were

filed, which are pending.  As noted in the motions to dismiss,

interclick believes the cases are entirely without merit and

interclick intends to vigorously defend its prior practices and

technology.


IPAYMENT INC: Motion to Dismiss "Green" Suit in New York Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
iPayment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit captioned

L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.,

Online Data Corporation, and iPayment, Inc., United States District

Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 09CV05679-RJD-SMG,

remains pending, according to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form 10

-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the

fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The matter relates to a purported class action lawsuit initially

filed by plaintiff L. Green d/b/a Tisa's Cakes in December 2009 in

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, naming

the Company and one of the Company's subsidiaries, Online Data

Corporation, and Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. as defendants. The

First Amended Class Action Complaint, as amended and filed on
September 8, 2010, asserts claims for unjust enrichment and for a

declaratory judgment. In October 2010 the Company filed a motion to

dismiss count one (unjust enrichment) of plaintiff's FAC, and

plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion. As of
March 21, 2011, the court has not issued a ruling on the Company's

motion to dismiss nor has it set a hearing date for the Company's

motion to dismiss. At this time, the Company cannot predict with any

certainty how the court might rule on the Company's motion to

dismiss.

The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend itself

and believe that the Company has meritorious defenses to the claims

asserted, however, at this time the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit

and the Company's potential liability associated with the claims

asserted against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, and

there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in the

Company's defense or that a failure to prevail will not have a

material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial

condition or results of operations.


ITURAN LOCATION: Faces Discrimination Class Action in Tel-Aviv
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location and Control Ltd. disclosed that on March 21, 2011,

Ituran Location and Control Ltd. received a purported class action

lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of

Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of

the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a

monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988,

unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated between

its customers.

The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from

the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from customers

who are obliged by insurance company requirements to install

location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly

subscription fees that are charged from customers who are not

required by insurance companies to install location and recovery

systems in their vehicles.

The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action.  The total

amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class action was

estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS75 million.

Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, the Company believes that

the lawsuit lacks substantiation, includes incorrect assumptions and

inconsistent claims and that the Company has good defense arguments

in respect of claims made by the plaintiff.

Notwithstanding, at this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to

assess the lawsuit's chances of success.

                          About Ituran

Ituran -- http://www.ituran.com/-- provides location-based

services, consisting predominantly of stolen vehicle recovery and

tracking services, as well as wireless communications products used

in connection with its location-based services and various other

applications.  Ituran offers mobile asset location, Stolen Vehicle

Recovery, management & control services for vehicles, cargo and

personal security.  Ituran's subscriber base has been growing

significantly since the Company's inception to over 604,000

subscribers distributed globally.  Established in 1995, Ituran has

over 1,300 employees worldwide, provides its location based services

and has a market leading position in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and

the United States.


J.CREW GROUP: Still Defends Class Suits Over TPG Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
J. Crew Group, Inc., is still defending itself against class action

lawsuits over its acquisition by affiliates of TPG Capital, L.P. and

Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., according to the Company's March 21,

2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

In connection with the Acquisition, between November 24, 2010 and

December 16, 2010, sixteen purported class action complaints were

filed against some or all of the following: the Company, certain

officers of the Company, members of the Company's board of directors

(the "Board of Directors" or "Board"), Holdings, the Issuer, TPG,

TPG Fund VI and LGP. The plaintiffs in each of these complaints

allege, among other things, (1) that certain officers of the Company

and members of the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties

to the Company's public stockholders by authorizing the Acquisition

for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process,

and (2) that the Company, TPG and LGP aided and abetted the other

defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The purported class

action complaints sought, among other things, an order enjoining the

consummation of the Acquisition or an order rescinding the

Acquisition and an award of compensatory damages.

Between November 24, 2010 and December 8, 2010, seven purported

class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of

Chancery. On December 14, 2010, these cases were consolidated into a

single action, captioned In re J.Crew Group, Inc. Shareholders

Litigation, C.A. No. 6043-VCS. On January 16, 2011, the Company

entered into a memorandum of understanding with the other parties in

the Delaware Action providing for the settlement of all claims

asserted in the Delaware Action against the Company and the other

defendants. The MOU was agreed to by the Company and the other

defendants pending the execution of a more formal settlement

agreement and provides for, among other things, a one-time

settlement payment of $10 million by J. Crew or its insurers to be

distributed pro rata among the members of the class of Company

shareholders on whose behalf the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action

purport to act. Once the MOU was signed, the parties removed from

the Court's docket a preliminary injunction hearing that had been

scheduled for February 24, 2011. By letter dated January 31, 2011,

the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action attempted to repudiate the MOU

and informed the Court that they were no longer in a position to

support or pursue the settlement and indicated that they intended to

seek monetary damages following a trial. By letter dated February 1,

2011, the defendants informed the Court that they believe they have

honored their obligations under the MOU and that they intend to seek

specific performance of the MOU. The court held a conference on

February 11, 2011, during which it stated that it would not

entertain any applications in the litigation until after the

shareholder vote. If the MOU is not enforced, the Company intends to

defend against the allegations asserted in the Delaware Action

vigorously. On March 4, 2011, one of the plaintiffs in the Federal

Actions filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware Action, which

seeks to replace the current putative class representatives in the

Delaware Action. In addition, the parties in the Delaware Action

submitted status reports to the Court, which advised the Court of

the results of the shareholder vote and included the parties'

proposals on how the litigation should proceed. On March 15, 2011,

the Chancery Court held a scheduling conference during which it

ordered the parties to confer on a schedule for trial on the

enforceability of the MOU by late August or September.

Between November 24, 2010 and December 16, 2010, seven purported

class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State

of New York. Those complaints are captioned respectively as Church

v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al., No. 652101-2010; Taki v. J.Crew

Group, Inc., et al., No. 65125-2010; Weisenberg v. J.Crew Group,

Inc., et al., No. 10115564-2010; Hekstra v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et

al., No. 652175-2010; St. Louis v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al., No.

652201-2010; Peoria Police Pension Fund v. Drexler, et al., No.

652239-2010; KBC Asset Management NV v. J.Crew Group, Inc., et al.,

No. 6522870-2010. On December 16, 2010, certain of the plaintiffs in

the New York Actions filed an Order to Show Cause seeking

consolidation of all of the New York Actions, as well as the

appointment of certain lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December

20, the defendants opposed that Order to Show Cause, and moved to

dismiss the New York Actions or, alternatively, to stay the New York

Actions in favor of the Delaware Action. On December 30, certain

other plaintiffs in the New York Actions filed a separate Order to

Show Cause seeking consolidation of all of the New York Actions and

the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The defendants

opposed that order to show cause and moved to dismiss or stay the

New York Actions in favor of the Delaware proceedings. On January

13, 2011, the court in the New York Actions ruled that the New York

Actions will be stayed indefinitely in favor of the Delaware Action.

On February 15, 2011, the New York plaintiffs filed a notice of

appeal of the order granting the stay. On February 17, 2011, the New

York plaintiffs submitted to the New York court an Order to Show

Cause seeking to vacate the stay of the New York Actions,

consolidate all of the New York Actions, enjoin the shareholder vote

scheduled for March 1, 2011, and direct a hearing on the plaintiffs'

claims. At a hearing on February 24, 2011, the New York court denied

the plaintiffs' request to enjoin the shareholder vote, and denied

the plaintiffs' request to lift the stay of proceedings except to

order the seven cases consolidated and appoint the plaintiffs'

agreed-upon lead plaintiff structure. The cases otherwise remain

stayed.

On December 1, 2010, a purported class action complaint, captioned

Brazin v. J.Crew Group, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 8988, was filed in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On December 14, 2010, another purported class action complaint,

captioned Caywood v. Drexler, No. 10 Civ. 9328, was also filed in

the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York. The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions assert claims that are

largely duplicative of the claims asserted in the Delaware and New

York Actions, but also allege that the defendants violated multiple

federal securities statutes in connection with the filing of the

Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A. On December 21, the

defendants moved to stay the Federal Actions pending the resolution

of the Delaware Action or, alternatively, to enforce the automatic

stay provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The Company has notified its insurers of each of the Delaware

Action, the New York Actions, and the Federal Actions. The Company

believes that any and all costs, expenses, and/or losses associated

with the lawsuits are covered by its applicable insurance policies.

By letter dated January 26, 2011, the Company's primary directors

and officers liability insurer, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company,

stated that the claims asserted in the Delaware Action, the New York

Actions, and the Federal Actions appeared to be claims against

insured persons that would be covered by the applicable insurance

policy, but identified potential defenses, exclusions, and

limitations to coverage that it believed might apply, subject to

reviewing additional information. The Company believes that any and

all costs, expenses and/or losses associated with the Delaware

Action, the New York Actions, and the Federal Actions are covered by

its applicable insurance policies, and will pursue all available

remedies and rights with respect to insurance coverage.

Although the Company, the Company's Board, TPG, and LGP have entered

into the MOU to settle the Delaware Action, they believe that the

claims asserted in that action, as well as the claims asserted in

the New York Actions and the Federal Actions, are without merit and

intend to defend against the New York and Federal Actions

vigorously. The Company has recorded a reserve for litigation

settlement of $10 million in the consolidated financial statements

as of and for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

Certain stockholders, including funds affiliated with Mason Capital

Management LLC, have purported to assert appraisal rights under

Delaware law with respect to approximately 4.8 million shares of

Company common stock. The equity purchase price related to these

shares was not distributed at closing of the Acquisition, and

therefore will be held by the Company until such appraisal rights

proceedings are resolved. The Company intends to defend this matter

vigorously.


JONES SODA CO: Plaintiffs Did Not File Petition for Review
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs of a dismissed consolidated securities lawsuit

against Jones Soda Co. did not file a petition for review after

their appeal to file an amended complaint was turned down, according

to the Company's March 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended

December 31, 2010.

On September 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed

against the Company, its then serving chief executive officer, and

its then serving chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court

for the Western District of Washington, alleging claims under

Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as

amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case was

entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al., Case No.
07-cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of

purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period March 9,

2007 to August 2, 2007. Six substantially similar complaints

subsequently were filed in the same court, some of which alleged

claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common

stock during the period November 1, 2006 to August 2, 2007. Some of

the subsequently filed complaints added as defendants certain

current and former directors and another former officer of the

Company. The complaints generally alleged violations of federal

securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading

statements and omissions about the Company's financial results and

business prospects. The complaints sought unspecified damages,

interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On October 26, 2007,

these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a single action entitled

In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366

-RSL. On March 5, 2008, the Court appointed Robert Burrell lead

plaintiff in the consolidated securities case. On May 5, 2008, the

lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint, which

purports to allege claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the

Company's common stock during the period of January 10, 2007, to May

1, 2008, against the Company and Peter van Stolk, the Company's

former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board, and

former director. The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally

alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other

things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the

Company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and

business prospects. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended

complaint on July 7, 2008. After hearing oral argument on February

3, 2009, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety on

February 9, 2009. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend

their complaint on March 25, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the Court

issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and

dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 7, 2009, the Court

entered judgment in favor of the Company and Mr. van Stolk. On

August 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's

order dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs' motion for

leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009 judgment. The

parties' briefing on the appeal was completed on March 4, 2010, and

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on July 15,

2010. On August 30, 2010, the Ninth Circuit  panel affirmed the

denial of plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend. On September 20, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition

for rehearing of their appeal by the full Ninth Circuit. On October

20, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for

rehearing. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for review by the U.S.

Supreme Court, and the time for doing so has passed.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Cold Remedy Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Fox, writing for NationalJournal, reports that investors can

file a class action lawsuit against the makers of a cold remedy that

snuffed out the sense of smell in some people who used it, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled on March 22.

The high court ruled unanimously in favor of investors in Matrixx

Initiatives Inc, which made an over-the-counter product called Zicam

Cold Remedy.  The zinc-based nasal spray and gel product accounted

for about 70% of Matrixx's sales.

In 2009, U.S. regulators told Matrixx to stop selling two intra-

nasal forms of Zicam after complaints it made some people lose their

sense of smell.  Matrixx did pull those versions of Zicam but

claimed the product was safe. Investors found out that researchers

had in fact reported the risk of the problem, known as anosmia, in

2000.

A group of investors sued Matrixx for a "material" misrepresentation

and omission under federal securities law.  In the March 22ruling,

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Matrixx knew better.  "This is not a

case about a handful of anecdotal reports, as Matrixx suggests,"

Justice Sotomayor wrote.  "Matrixx received information that

plausibly indicated a reliable causal link between Zicam and

anosmia.  That information included reports from three medical

professionals and researchers about more than 10 patients who had

lost their sense of smell after using Zicam."

Drugmakers had argued they could be forced to release thousands of

meaningless complaints if the Supreme Court sided with Matrixx. But

the ruling "does not mean that pharmaceutical manufacturers must

disclose all reports of adverse events," Justice Sotomayor wrote,

according to Reuters.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: April 15 Hearing for Property Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for the Louisiana Record, reports

that a hearing in Orleans Parish Civil District Court that would

determine the fate of a possible class action against the City of

New Orleans has been continued to April 15.

The lawsuit, brought on by New Orleans residents Jimmie Jackson,

Simms Hardin and their business KSD Properties LLC, challenges City

Ordinance No. 22207, which imposes penalties and attorney and

collection fees on residents who are late paying property taxes.

New Orleans attorney Allain Hardin filed the suit on behalf of KSD

in May 2009.

Hardin's firm, Fransen & Hardin APLC, sued the city for the illegal

collection of fees in 2008.  In that suit, residents were assessed a

3% penalty by the city and a 30 percent attorney-collection fee.

In the Fransen & Hardin suit, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled it

unconstitutional for the city to impose and collect the penalties

and fees.

As a result of the ruling, New Orleans issued the city ordinance

that KSD is now challenging.  The new law charged residents a 10

percent penalty on property taxes for late payment as well as a 9.5

percent "attorney/collection fee."

The City of New Orleans is arguing that what they charged residents

were taxes and were not unconstitutional.

"The City of New Orleans fee and the outside collectors fee are not

penal in nature but are in fact designed to cover the cost of

collections from the chronically delinquent taxpayer and hence would

not be unconstitutional," city attorneys argued in opposition to the

plaintiffs.

The city has filed a motion for peremptory exception of no cause of

action, stating that there are no damages at issue because the

additional taxes imposed on late payments are not unconstitutional.

The city also filed a motion to transfer and consolidate this case

with the Francis & Hardin suit.

Plaintiff attorneys claim that by seeking consolidation, New Orleans

"is telling this Court that toes charges imposed by City Ordinance

No. 22207 are the same as the Ordinance that was declared

unconstitutional (Ordinance No. 18637)."

Consolidating the cases will also create a conflict of interest

because the same counsel was being paid attorney/collection fees

under both ordinances, the plaintiffs claim.  In the Fransen &

Hardin case, the city filed a cross claim against its counsel saying

it was liable for returning any unconstitutional fees.

"If counsel is going to be consistent, then he will have to file a

cross claim over and against his own law firm in this case for the

attorney/collection fee his law firm is paid," the plaintiffs argue.

"One could understand that counsel would be hesitant to push any

cross claims given that he may be impacting his own pocketbook. Who

is going to watch out for the City?"

The firm Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Pena & Sampson LLP was retained

by the city and charges the attorney/collection fee on residents.

New Orleans attorneys Lawrence Jones and Errol Conley are

representing the city in this case.

Orleans Parish Judge Herbert Cade will oversee the next hearing in

this suit scheduled for April 15.

Orleans Parish Case 2009-05493


PERDUE INC: Class Action to Move Forward in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a

federal class action lawsuit accusing managers at Perdue Inc. of

conspiring to depress wages by hiring hundreds of illegal immigrants

will move forward in Maryland instead of in Alabama, where it was

filed a year ago.

The lawsuit against former and current human resource employees and

supervisors of the Eastern Shore poultry processor was filed last

March on behalf of hundreds or even thousands of hourly workers at

16 Perdue plants in Maryland and nine other states.

A U.S. District Court judge in Alabama granted the defendants'

request to move the case to Maryland, where the company has its

headquarters in Salisbury.

"A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred

at the Perdue headquarters in Maryland," the judge, Mark E. Fuller,

said in the opinion.

The case will be heard in U.S. District Court in Baltimore by Judge

Richard D. Bennett.  A trial has not yet been set.

The named plaintiffs -- Perdue employees at processing plants in

Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee -- accuse company supervisors of

organizing a hiring scheme in which human resources staff are told

to accept fake work authorization documents or to lie about the

existence of such documents.  By doing so, Perdue has hired more

than 500 undocumented workers in the past four years, the lawsuit

said. The alleged scheme, which would violate the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, has increased

Perdue's profitability and allowed defendants to earn higher wages,

the lawsuit claims.

A spokesman for Perdue, the third-largest poultry company in the

United States, said on March 22 that the company, which was not

named as a defendant, continues to maintain that the lawsuit is

without merit.

In a statement posted on the company's website last April, Perdue

says it hires only workers who prove they are authorized to work in

the United States and trains human resources staff extensively in

procedures to verify employment eligibility.

"We go the extra step of electronically verifying Social Security

numbers and work authorization numbers against government records,

and have been participating in the government's E-Verify program and

its predecessor for more than a decade," the statement says. "If we

find at any time that an associate has presented false

documentation, we terminate that person's employment."

Howard W. Foster, an attorney for the named plaintiffs, said Tuesday

he did not expect the change of venue to affect the case.

"We want to pursue our case as promptly as we can," Mr. Foster said.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to require the firing of any illegal

immigrants at Perdue, and are also seeking judgment in an amount

three times the damages caused by illegal hiring.

An attorney for one of the 15 named defendants declined to comment

on the case on March 22.


RANGE RESOURCES: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that an Erie federal judge has

approved a class-action settlement between a Texas-based gas firm

drilling in the Marcellus shale and about 25,000 Pennsylvania

landowners.

U.S. District Judge Sean McLaughlin approved a settlement -- which

was agreed upon last year -- that gives the landowners about $1.3

million initially and increases their royalties by an estimated

$16.6 million over the next five years.  The attorneys for the

landowners would receive $437,500 initially and $4.2 million over

the next five years.

The landowners claimed in the 2008 lawsuit that Range Resources was

improperly calculating royalty payments.  The company denies it was

wrong in the settlement, but agreed to change its methodology.


SHENGDATECH INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action

lawsuit against ShengdaTech, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The

class action (11 Civ. 1996), pending in the Southern District of New

York, is on behalf of a class of all persons or entities who

purchased or otherwise acquired ShengdaTech securities during the

period from May 10, 2010 through and including March 14, 2011. The

Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ShengdaTech securities during

the Class Period and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the

class, you have until May 17, 2011 to ask the Court to seek

appointment from the Court.  A copy of the complaint can be obtained

at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at

rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, toll free.  Those who inquire by

e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone

number.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants

made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to

disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,

operations, and prospects.  Specifically, serious discrepancies in

the Company's and its subsidiaries' financial records and the lack

of adequate internal and financial controls resulted in the

Company's issuance of materially false and misleading financial

results at all relevant times.

On March 15, 2011, the Company shocked the market with the

disclosure "that it appointed a special committee of the Board of

Directors to investigate potentially serious discrepancies and

unexplained issues relating to the Company and its subsidiaries'

financial records."  Upon this disclosure, Nasdaq halted trading of

ShengdaTech shares at $3.55.

Defendant ShengdaTech manufactures and markets specialty additives.

The Company's nano precipitated calcium carbonate products are sold

to its customers in the tire, polyvinyl chloride building materials,

ink, paint, latex, adhesive, paper and polyethylene industries.  The

aggregate number of shares of ShengdaTech securities outstanding as

of November 5, 2010 is approximately 54 million shares.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and

Washington, D.C., is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the

areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.

Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the

class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of

securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years later, the

Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting

for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of

fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm has recovered

numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class

members.

CONTACT: Rachelle R. Boyle
         Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
         E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com


SLM CORPORATION: Late Fees Violate Calif. Law, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Tina M. Ubaldi, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated

v. SLM Corporation, d/b/a Sallie Mae, Inc.., d/b/a Sallie Mae

Servicing, Case No. 11-cv-01320 (N.D. Calif. March. 18, 2011),

accuses Sallie Mae of unlawfully charging plaintiff and other

California residents who have Private Education Loans originated or

serviced by Sallie Mae a late fee of 5% of the payment amount not

received or $5.00, whichever is greater, each time any payment is

not received by Sallie Mae within 15 days of the scheduled payment

date.

Ms. Ubaldi says this late fee is actually a liquidated damages

penalty, which is unlawful under California law.

Plaintiff says that for a liquidated damages provision such as a

late fee to be lawful, it must be compensatory and not punitive.

Plaintiff explains that Sallie Mae's revenue from late fees far

exceeds the costs it incurs as a result of late payments, and is

therefore punitive.

Sallie Mae services federally guaranteed education loans, as well as

Private Education Loans that are not federally guaranteed.

Plaintiff's action only concerns Sallie Mae's servicing of Private

Education Loans.  Plaintiff Tina M. Ubaldi is a citizen of the State

of California residing in San Mateo County, Calif., who, on June 24,

2003, entered into a Private Education Loan in the State of

California that has been owned and serviced by Sallie Mae, and was

charged late fees by Sallie Mae on several occasions  after March

17, 2007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlsp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          William J. Genego, Esq.
          NASATIR, HIRSCH, PODBERESKY KHERO & GENEGO
          2115 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 399-3259
          E-mail: wgenego@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE, LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  efeinstein@stemberfeinstein.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Tip Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a

Boston federal judge has certified a Massachusetts class action

against Starbucks Corp. over its tip policy on the same day

plaintiffs appealed a New York federal court's judgment on the same

policy to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

A March 18 order by District Judge Nathaniel Gorton in Matamoros v.

Starbucks Corp. certified a class action against the coffee company

for allegedly violating the Massachusetts Tips Law.

Also on March 18, Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the

plaintiffs in both cases, filed a brief in the 2d Circuit in In re

Starbucks Employee Gratuity Litigation.  In that case, name

plaintiffs Jeana Barenboim and Jose Ortiz are appealing District

Judge Laura Taylor Swain's December 2009 summary judgment ruling for

Starbucks.

In the Massachusetts case, Judge Gorton's order accepted two

recommendations by Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin.  His order denied

the defendant's summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's

partial summary judgment motion by ruling that Starbucks shift

supervisors are barred by the state's tip laws from receiving any

money from tip pools at the coffeehouse chain.

Hernan Matamoros sued Starbucks in March 2008 in Massachusetts state

court on behalf of baristas who had worked at Starbucks in the prior

six years over its policy of distributing customers' tips to

baristas and shift supervisors.

The case was removed to federal court a couple of months later. Two

other former baristas, Sharon Sam Chan and Kate Petersen,

subsequently joined the case as named plaintiffs.

The Massachusetts Tips Law "is clear on its face," said
Ms. Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan.  "We are

looking forward to recovering money the Starbucks baristas should

have received because their tip pool was diluted," Ms. Liss-Riordan

said.  "The legislature has made clear that the supervisors' pay

should come entirely out of company's pocket and not the tip pool."

Ms. Liss-Riordan also said Judge Gorton "made an apt observation in

affirming the magistrate judge's ruling that denying a class in this

case would be an end run around the tips law, which the

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has said is not allowed."

In the case before the 2d Circuit, the plaintiffs' brief argues that

the New York labor law's plain language prohibits wait staff

employees from being required to share tips with supervisors.

Instead of analyzing that language, the brief states that the

district court relied on "prior federal district court decisions

that had erroneously applied the less protective federal law

standard regarding waitstaff's tips under the [Fair Labor Standards

Act]."

Although the New York and Massachusetts laws are written somewhat

differently, "we believe that they should reach the same result,"

Ms. Liss-Riordan said.

"The New York law uses slightly different language that signifies

the same important point that supervisors are not to share in tip

pools," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.  "Their money must come entirely from

employers."

Minnesota's federal court dismissed a similar case in December,

Delsing v. Starbucks Coffee Corp., after the parties settled. The

plaintiffs' lawyers at Minneapolis' Nichols Kaster could not be

immediately reached for comment.

Starbucks declined to comment because both the Massachusetts and New

York cases are in active litigation.  Lawyers at Akin, Gump,

Strauss, Hauer & Feld who represent Starbucks in the Massachusetts

and New York cases -- and represented the company in the Minnesota

case -- did not return calls for comment.

Baristas won big, then lost at the appellate level, in the best-

known lawsuit against Starbucks for its tips policies.  In
June 2009, San Diego's 4th District Court of Appeal overturned an

$86 million verdict for the employees in Chau v. Starbucks Corp. In

that case, the trial court ruled that Starbucks violated

California's unfair competition law by allowing shift supervisors to

share employees' tips.

The award topped $100 million with interest.  The appellate court

ruled that Starbucks did not violate state law because shift

supervisors share some of the same duties as baristas and the tips

are gathered collectively and shared equally

A group of assistant store managers have filed a separate New York

federal case, Winans v. Starbucks Corp., asserting that the New York

labor law gives them a right to share tips.

The parties in Winan are finished briefing the court on the class

certification question and expect a ruling in the next several

months, said the plaintiffs' lawyer, Adam Klein, who chairs the

class action practice group at New York employment law firm Outten &

Golden.  "We'll proceed after that fact on the merits,"
Mr. Klein said.


U.S. DRUG STORES: Insist W.Va. AG Suit Should Stay in Fed Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that six

prescription drug retailers made their case to a federal appellate

court March 22 that West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw

has filed a class action lawsuit against them.

Those drug stores -- which include CVS, Wal-Mart and Target --

disagree with Mr. McGraw, who says he is representing the interests

of the state in his parens patriae capacity.  They claim he is

representing consumers affected by their alleged pricing policies in

a class action, and as such the lawsuit should be heard in federal

court.

Mr. McGraw wants the case remanded to Boone County Circuit Court. He

says the drug stores have not passed savings on generic drugs on to

consumer and has called some of the stores' arguments "weak" and

"absurd."

Mr. McGraw recently notified the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit of two decisions from other jurisdictions this year

that prove his case.  A district judge in Charleston, W.Va., has

already ruled for Mr. McGraw.

Mr. McGraw says arguments made by the defendants have been shot down

in a California federal court decision entered on Feb. 15 and in a

Connecticut federal court's decision entered on Jan. 5.

It was written in the California decision that, "The fact that

private parties may benefit from (California's and Washington's)

actions does not negate the states' substantial interests in these

cases."

In Connecticut's case against Moody's Corp., the decision found that

the State was a real party in interest because of its sovereign

interest in enforcing its laws, McGraw's attorneys wrote.

"These on-point decisions strongly and persuasively support the

conclusion that (the Class Action Fairness Act) does not confer

subject matter jurisdiction in this case," wrote John Barrett of

Charleston firm, W.Va., Bailey & Glasser.

In a response filed on March 23, the drug stores disagreed with the

meanings of the decisions.

In the California decision, the complaints sought damages owed to

the respective states and their agencies. "(U)nder the California

statute at issue . . . once damages were paid to the state, the

agencies had discretion to distribute retributive funds to

California consumers, but any excess funds escheated to the state.

By contrast, the West Virginia Credit Consumer Protection Act

requires that any recovered excess charges be paid from the

defendant to consumers directly."

The drug stores say the state of Connecticut had a direct pecuniary

interest in the other lawsuit and that the court concluded that it

had an "interest apart from the interests of particular private

parties."

"Again, in contrast, the WVCCPA directs that restitution payments

are made directly from liable defendants to the private consumers,"

the drug stores wrote.  "No share of this restitution award is split

with the state or otherwise funds state agencies.

McGraw hired two private firms -- Bailey & Glasser and DiTrapano

Barrett & DiPiero -- to pursue the case, and another one against

Rite Aid.  The two firms have contributed more than $60,000 to
Mr. McGraw's campaign fund over the years, including $11,800 for his

2008 race against Republican Dan Greear.

The pharmacies brought up Mr. McGraw's use of outside counsel in

their appeal brief.

"First, and at the outset, the defendants' premise -- that the

State's use of outside counsel somehow affects the jurisdictional

analysis -- is absurd," Mr. McGraw wrote in response.  "The text of

the statute makes no distinction between state enforcement actions

brought exclusively by state attorneys general and actions brought

by attorneys general with the support of private counsel."

John Barrett of Bailey & Glasser argued the case for Mr. McGraw.

The three judges of the Fourth Circuit hearing the appeal are judges

Paul Niemeyer, Andre Davis and Ronald Lee Gilman.

The losing party will have the options of asking for a rehearing of

the issue by the full roster of Fourth Circuit judges or appealing

to the U.S. Supreme Court.


UNITED WESTERN: Faces Securities Class Action in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has

been filed in the United States District Court for the District of

Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or

otherwise acquired the common stock of United Western Bancorp, Inc.

pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and

prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 17,

2009 offering, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning

this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.

MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980

Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to

info@rigrodskylong.com or via our Web site:

http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/UnitedWesternBancorp-UWBK

The Complaint names United Western, certain of the Company's current

executive officers and directors, auditors, and investment advisors

as defendants.  On Sept. 17, 2009, defendants consummated the

Offering pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement,

selling 20 million shares of United Western common stock at $4.00

per share, for proceeds of $80 million.  United Western also

received additional gross proceeds of $7.8 million (1,961,325 shares

issued at $4.00/share) as a result of the partial exercise of the

over-allotment option to purchase additional shares granted to the

underwriters.  The registration statement incorporated, among other

documents, United Western's reported financial results and 10-K/A

for 2008 and the reported financial results and 10-Q for the second

quarter of 2009.

The Complaint alleges that the true facts which were omitted from

the registration statement were: (1) United Western's mortgage

backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations were

impaired to a far greater extent than the Company had disclosed; (2)

defendants failed to properly record losses for other than temporary

impairment in United Western's non-agency MBSs and CMOs; (3) the

Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company

from improperly reporting its impaired assets; and (4) the Company's

capital base was not adequate in light of the impairment of its

assets.

United Western ultimately announced multi-million dollar impairments

in its investment securities portfolio, specifically in MBSs and

CMOs, causing the price of its common stock to plummet.  In turn, on

Jan. 21, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was

appointed as receiver for United Western Bank by the Office of

Thrift Supervision under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no

later than May 17, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party

acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine

that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other

class members, and that the class member will adequately represent

the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,

affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead

plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to

serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may

choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this

matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden

City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and

direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate

governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty

and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state

and federal courts throughout the United States.

Contact: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Telephone: 888-969-4242
                    302-295-5310
         Fax: 302-654-9430
         E-mail: info@rigrodskylong.com
         Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com


WAL-MART STORES: To Urge Sup. Ct. Next Week to Junk Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Vicini, writing for Reuters, reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-

action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female

employees who seek billion of dollars.

The top U.S. court hears arguments on March 29 in a lawsuit against

the world's largest retailer for allegedly giving women less pay and

fewer promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since late 1998.

Lawyers for the two sides will spar over whether the small group of

women who began the lawsuit 10 years ago can represent a huge

nationwide class of current and former employees that could total

millions of women.

The case has pitted women's and employees' rights against business

interests, with Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling

it "the most important class-action case facing the court in over a

decade."

The case will have far-reaching implications for working women who

challenge discrimination, women's rights advocate Marcia Greenberger

of the National Women's Law Center said.

"The ability of women to be treated fairly in the workplace hangs in

the balance," Ms. Greenberger said.

The ruling, expected by late June, could change the legal landscape

for workplace class-action lawsuits and affect many cases, including

a similar one against Costco Wholesale Corp.

Large class-action lawsuits make it easier for big groups of

plaintiffs to sue corporations and they have yielded huge payouts by

tobacco, oil and food companies.

Companies have sought to limit such lawsuits to individual or small

groups of plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that has often ruled

for businesses, has already limited large class-action securities

fraud lawsuits and asbestos cases.

If Wal-Mart wins, the huge class would be undone, though the company

still could face individual discrimination lawsuits.  If the workers

win, they would be able to pursue their lawsuit as a collective

group at trial.

Legal experts and financial analysts said Wal-Mart, with more than

$400 billion in sales and $16 billion in net income last year, has

enough cash to make even a big payout if it loses at trial.

"It would take a seismic ruling against the company to have an

impact on the valuation," said R.J. Hottovy, equity analyst at the

Chicago-based Morningstar Inc investment research firm.

MANAGERS ACCUSED OF GOING STRIP CLUBS

The Wal-Mart lawsuit has produced testimony that managers held

business meetings at Hooters restaurants, attended strip clubs and

referred to female employees as "girls," in what plaintiffs lawyers

said was a corporate culture rife with stereotypes demeaning to

women.

                     Chronology of Key Events

Separately, Reuters' Mr. Vicini reports that the Supreme Court hears

arguments on March 29 in the largest sex-discrimination class-action

lawsuit ever as Wal-Mart Stores Inc's female employees seek billions

of dollars from the giant retailer.

Here is a chronology of key events in the case:

June 19, 2001: Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart greeter at a store in

Pittsburg, California, and five current or former female employees

file a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco, accusing the

retailer of discriminating against its female employees by paying

them less than men and giving them fewer promotions.

April 28, 2003: Attorneys for the women filed a motion for class

certification and asked the judge to rule the case can go to trial

on behalf of all women who worked for Wal-Mart in the United States

at any time since December 26, 1998, a group believed to exceed 1.5

million current and former female employees.

June 21, 2004: District Judge Martin Jenkins ruled the lawsuit can

proceed as a nationwide class covering the women who worked at 3,400

stores, but did not decide the merits of the lawsuit.

He proposed a two-stage trial. First, the court would decide if

Wal-Mart was liable for intentional sex discrimination.  Depending

on the verdict, the second stage would decide remedies, such as back

pay, punitive damages and injunctive relief requiring pay and

promotion changes.

April 26, 2010: A U.S. appeals court based in San Francisco, by a 6

-5 vote, upheld the judge's conclusion that it would be better to

handle the case as a single group rather than requiring individual

lawsuits to be litigated.

August 25, 2010: Wal-Mart appealed to the Supreme Court.  It argued

claims involving current and former workers, hourly employees and

salaried managers and stores across the country were too different

to proceed as one class-action lawsuit.

December 6, 2010: The Supreme Court said it would decide whether the

class-action certification violated federal rules for such lawsuits,

one of the most important employment discrimination class-action

cases in decades.


WHOLE FOODS: Sued for Engaging in Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Motta, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.

Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01322 (N.D. Calif.

March 18, 2011), accuses the retail store operator of engaging in a

pattern of unlawful and deceptive practices by requesting and

recording personal identification information, including zip codes

from customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in

defendants' retail establishments, in violation of California Civil

Code Section 1747.08.

California Civil Code Section 1747.08 prohibits a merchant engaged

in a retail transaction with a customer from (1) requesting personal

identification from a customer paying for goods with a credit card,

and then recording that personal information upon the credit

transaction form, or (2) requiring as a condition to accepting the

credit card as payment to provide the customer's personal

identification information which the retailer causes to be written,

or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction.

Plaintiff relates that defendants obtain credit card customers'

addresses with the help of third-party vendors such as Experian or

Acxiom that maintain proprietary software and databases containing

hundreds of millions of individual consumers' contact information.

Plaintiff says that defendants then stored and shared customers'

private information, including zip codes and home addresses, with

others, without authorization.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Matthew J. O'Connor, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Company Records $11.47M ARO at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company recorded asset retirement obligations of US

$11,470,000 at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$12,608,000 at Dec.

31, 2009, according to the Company's annual report filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

The liability recognized to retire long-lived assets primarily

relates to the Company's combustion turbines at its Pea Ridge

facility, various landfill sites, a barge unloading dock, asbestos

removal, ash ponds, and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in

certain transformers.

The Company also has identified retirement obligations related to

certain transmission and distribution facilities, certain wireless

communication towers, and certain structures authorized by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers.

The Southern Company owns all of the outstanding common stock of

Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, and Mississippi Power,

each of which is an operating public utility company.  The

traditional operating companies supply electric service in the

states of Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.  The Company

is based in Atlanta.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corporation Faces 36 Actions at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 36 asbestos-related lawsuits at Dec. 31, 2010 in

which Noble Corporation is one of many defendants, according to the

Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

The Company is from time to time a party to various lawsuits that

are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an

unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,

including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos

on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of

Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Noble Corporation performs contract drilling services with its fleet

of 73 mobile offshore drilling units and one floating production

storage and offloading unit (FPSO) located worldwide.  Its fleet

consists of 14 semisubmersibles, 12 drillships, 45 jackups and two

submersibles.  The Company is based in Baar, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Accrues $1.3MM Dec. 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
The amount included in accounts payable and other accrued

liabilities on Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s consolidated balance

sheets was about US$$1.3 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations as

required by current accounting guidance.  The amount of asset

retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated asbestos

removal costs at the end of the economic life of properties that

were built before 1984.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns, acquires, develops, redevelops and

manages technology-related real estate.  The Company is based in San

Francisco.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 9 Units Involved in Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and nine of its subsidiaries are presently named as

defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related

personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products

manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were

not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.  To date, the majority

of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of

coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion

of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance subject to

applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United

States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed

without payment.

The balance has been settled for various insignificant amounts.

Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the

Company's business unit.

No provision has been made in the financial statements of the

Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary

course.

IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells pumps,

flow meters and other fluidics systems and components and engineered

products to customers in various markets worldwide.  The Company is

based in Lake Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, VWR Funding, Inc. is named as a defendant in

cases that arise as a result of its distribution of laboratory

supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior

distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its

predecessors or acquired companies.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the

Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

VWR Funding, Inc. is a leader in the global laboratory supply

industry.  It provides distribution services by offering products

from a wide range of manufacturers to a large number of customers.

The Company is based in Radnor, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Kodak Records $57MM AROs at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company has recorded about US$57 million as of Dec.

31, 2010 and US$62 million as of Dec. 31, 2009 of asset retirement

obligations within Other long-term liabilities in the accompanying

Consolidated Statement of Financial Position.

The Company's asset retirement obligations primarily relate to

asbestos contained in buildings that the Company owns.

In many of the countries in which the Company operates,

environmental regulations exist that require the Company to handle

and dispose of asbestos in a special manner if a building undergoes

major renovations or is demolished.  Otherwise, the Company is not

required to remove the asbestos from its buildings.

Eastman Kodak Company reorganized its business to focus less on film

sales and more on sales of digital cameras and imaging systems.  It

operates through three segments: Consumer Digital Imaging Group;

Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment Group; and Graphic

Communications Group.  The Company is based in Rochester, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solutia Inc. Still Facing "Legacy Tort Claims"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. is currently involved in various "Legacy Tort Claims,"

which include claims for property damage, personal injury, products

liability or premises liability or other damages arising out of or

related to exposure to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl

chloride, silica, butadiene, pentachlorophenol, styrene tars and

other chemicals manufactured before the Company's spinoff from

Pharmacia Corporation.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the

Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

Solutia Inc. manufactures performance materials and specialty

chemicals used in consumer and industrial applications including

interlayers and aftermarket film for automotive and architectural

glass; chemicals that promote safety and durability in tires; and

encapsulants, coatings and specialty chemicals used in a variety of

electronic, industrial and energy solutions.  The Company is based

in St. Louis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Records $226.11M A&E Losses at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Group plc's asbestos- and environmental-related gross unpaid

losses and loss expenses were US$226,112,000 during the year ended

Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$252,885,000 during the year ended

Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation of

the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to asbestos

and environmental claims, including related loss adjustment

expenses.  Liabilities are established to cover both known and

incurred but not reported claims.

Reserves for incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance,

were US$54.9 million in 2010 and US$68.5 million in 2009.

The Company had 1,200 asbestos claims outstanding as of Dec. 31,

2010, compared with 1,437 claims outstanding as of Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company reported 125 new

asbestos claims and 362 claims resolved.  During the year ended Dec.

31, 2009, the Company reported 221 new asbestos claims and 330

claims resolved.

XL Group plc is a global insurance and reinsurance company providing

property, casualty and specialty products to industrial, commercial

and, professional firms, insurance companies and other enterprises

on a worldwide basis.  The Company is based in Dublin, Ireland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Ins. Has $9.98MM Dec. 31 Gross Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s gross asbestos reserves for losses

and loss expenses were US$9,979,000 during the year ended Dec. 31,

2010, compared with US$11,056,000 during the year ended Dec. 31,

2009.

The Company's net reserves for losses and loss expenses were US

$8,167,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US

$9,244,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Included in the Company's loss and loss expense reserves are amounts

for environmental claims, both asbestos and non-asbestos.  Carried

net loss and loss expense reserves for environmental claims were US

$39.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and
US$41.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's reserves for environmental claims

amounted to US$47.3 million on a gross basis (including case

reserves of US$15.7 million and IBNR reserves of US$31.6 million)

and US$39.4 million on a net basis (including case reserves of US

$11.6 million and IBNR reserves of US$27.8 million).

Of these, 1,070 are asbestos related, of which 414 are with 43

insureds in the wholesale and/or retail of plumbing, electrical, and

other building supplies with related case reserves of US$3.1

million.  In addition, 647 asbestos claims are with one insured, an

asbestos gasket manufacturer with related case reserves of US

$900,000.  These claims are associated with two policies each

written with a US$1 million policy aggregate limit.

During 2010, 283 asbestos claims were closed.  The total case

reserves for asbestos related claims amounted to US$4.2 million on a

gross basis and US$3.7 million on a net basis.  About 66 of the

total environmental claims involve nine landfill sites.  The

landfill sites account for case reserves of US$6.6 million on a

gross basis and US$3.4 million on a net basis, and include reserves

for several sites that are currently listed on the National

Priorities List.

The remaining claims, which account for US$4.9 million of case

reserves on a gross basis and US$4.5 million on a net basis, involve

leaking underground heating oil storage tanks and other latent

environmental exposures.

Selective Insurance Group, Inc. offers property and casualty

insurance products and services in the Eastern and Midwestern

regions of the United States.  The Company is based in Branchville,

N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has 24,764 Unresolved Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 24,764 unresolved asbestos claims during

the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 25,295 claims during the

year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 3,692

claims filed and 4,223 claims resolved.  The average cost of

resolved claims was US$12,073.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 3,323

claims filed and 13,385 claims resolved.  The average cost of

resolved claims was US$11,106.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in

a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of

exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components that

are alleged to have contained asbestos.

Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were

not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the

subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos.  The

manufactured products that are alleged to have contained asbestos

generally were provided to meet the specifications of the

subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts management

considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each

claim.  The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant

has fluctuated during the past several years.

To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no

payment.

Colfax Corporation offers critical fluid-handling products and

technologies.  The Company's operating subsidiaries supply products

under brands like Allweiler, Baric, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin,

Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith.  The Company

is based in Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Units Still Face Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Minerals Technologies Inc.'s subsidiaries are among

numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for

exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.

The Company currently has 305 pending silica cases and 27 pending

asbestos cases.  To date, 1,160 silica cases and five asbestos cases

have been dismissed.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to date.

The Company is unable to state an amount or range of amounts

claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading

practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed

damage.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these

cases since inception was about US$200,000, the majority of which

has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of certain

agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial

public offering in 1992.

The Company's experience has been that the Company is not liable to

plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect

to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits.

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based

company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad range

of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral products

and supporting systems and services.  The Company has two reportable

segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories.  The Company is based

in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corporation Still Subject to Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation continues to be subject to claims, administrative

and legal proceedings, like lawsuits that relate to contractual

allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries

(including asbestos claims), antitrust matters and employment-

related matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the

Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

Eaton Corporation is a diversified power management company with

2010 sales of US$13.7 billion.  The Company has about 70,000

employees in over 50 countries and sells products to customers in

more than 150 countries.  The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 80 Actions in Md. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. says that at Dec. 31, 2010, there are about 180

asbestos cases still pending against subsidiary Potomac Electric

Power Company in the State Courts of Maryland.

Of such cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000,
and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and

indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its

generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the state

Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and

Baltimore County, Md. in separate ongoing, consolidated proceedings

known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."

Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases on

a theory of premises liability.  Under this theory, the plaintiffs

argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe work

environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly were

exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property.

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco to

their complaints.  While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it

appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory

damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits have

been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases have been

dismissed.  As a result of two motions to dismiss, numerous hearings

and meetings and one motion for summary judgment, Pepco has had

about 400 of these cases successfully dismissed with prejudice,

either voluntarily by the plaintiff or by the court.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the

remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about US$360

million, the Company and Pepco believe the amounts claimed by the

remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes electricity and natural gas through

its Potomac Electric Power (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light, and

Atlantic City Electric utilities to about 1.9 million customers in

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.  None of the

Company's three utilities have power generation plants.  The Company

is based in Washington, D.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 68,513 Claims Open v. MetLife's Unit at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,

recorded 68,513 asbestos injury claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 68,804 claims during the year ended

Dec. 31, 2009.

During 2010, MLIC had 5,670 new claims and settlement payments were

US$34.9 million.  During 2009, MLIC had 3,910 new claims and

settlement payments were US$37.6 million.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-

related suits filed primarily in state courts.  These suits

principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered

personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both

actual and punitive damages.

MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing,

distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor

has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to

companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing

or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to

certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of

MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through about the

1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain

health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized or failed

to disclose those health risks.

During 1998, MLIC paid US$878 million in premiums for excess

insurance policies for asbestos-related claims.  The excess

insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provided for recovery

of losses up to US$1.5 billion in excess of a US$400 million self-

insured retention.

The Company's initial option to commute the excess insurance

policies for asbestos-related claims would have arisen at the end of

2008.  On Sept. 29, 2008, MLIC entered into agreements commuting the

excess insurance policies at Sept. 30, 2008.

As a result of the commutation of the policies, MLIC received cash

and securities totaling US$632 million.  Of this total, MLIC

received US$115 million in fixed maturity securities on Sept. 26,

2008, US$200 million in cash on Oct. 29, 2008, and US$317 million in

cash on Jan. 29, 2009.

MLIC recognized a loss on commutation of the policies in the amount

of US$35.3 million during 2008.

MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit

programs, serving 90 million customers in over 60 countries.  The

Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a

significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a result

of exposure to asbestos.

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000

complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court and

the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to

asbestos from its product categories.  Most of these claims have

been dismissed and the Company's current docket of active and

inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.

A small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers

alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars manufactured

by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's subsidiaries.

The balance of the claims is related to alleged exposure to asbestos

in the Company's automotive emission control products.  Only a small

percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile

mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in

other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient information

to determine whether there is any basis for a claim against the

Company.

Tenneco Inc. produces emission control and ride control products and

systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle applications.

The Company is based in Lake Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HP Fined $9,600 for Breach at Corvallis Campus
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued a US$9,600

penalty to Hewlett-Packard Company for allowing an unlicensed

contractor to perform an asbestos removal project in one of its

business campus buildings, at 1000 NE Circle Boulevard, in

Corvallis, Ore. last summer, according to an Oregon DEQ press

release dated March 14, 2011.

Hewlett-Packard allowed a flooring contractor to begin a carpet

removal project in the commercial building in late July 2010.  While

removing the carpet, the flooring company's employees disturbed

about 456 square feet of underlying, asbestos-containing vinyl floor

tile.

The employees broke the tile into pieces, likely releasing asbestos

fibers into the air.  As owner of the building, Hewlett-Packard is

responsible for ensuring that asbestos in the building is properly

managed.

DEQ also cited Hewlett-Packard for openly accumulating the

asbestos-containing waste material from the carpet removal project,

but did not issue a penalty for this violation.

Hewlett-Packard did not appeal the penalty and the full penalty

amount is now due.  Hewlett-Packard has discussed doing a Supplement

Environmental Project as part of its penalty payment.  Supplemental

environmental projects can include a variety of actions that address

local environmental problems.

Up to 80 percent of the total penalty amount can be put towards a

project that benefits Oregon's environment.  DEQ must approve any

project proposed by Hewlett-Packard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cases Filed in St. Clair on Feb. 2 & Feb. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four asbestos-related lawsuits -- one filed on Feb. 2, 2011 and

three filed on Feb. 22, 2011 -- have been added to the growing list

of cases in St. Clair County, Ill.'s asbestos docket, The

Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Joan Mozeika of New Jersey filed suit in St. Clair County Circuit

Court on behalf of her deceased next-of-kin, Alexander L. Rossi,

while Evelyn L. Thiele of Florida filed suit on behalf of her

deceased next-of-kin, Donald C. Thiele; Brian Belkin of Texas filed

suit; and Marsha K. Ayer of Michigan filed suit on behalf of her

deceased next-of-kin, Gary M. Ayer.

Ms. Mozeika, Ms. Thiele, Mr. Belkin and Ms. Ayer are represented by

Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.

Erik Karst, Esq., and Matthew J. Wright, Esq., of Karst and von

Oiste in Houston will serve of counsel.

In her complaint filed on Feb. 2, 2011, Ms. Mozeika alleges 36

defendant companies caused Mr. Rossi to develop lung cancer after

his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

According to the suit, he worked as a tile setter and brick layer

from 1946 until 1980, as a home repairman and remodeler from 1946

until 1980 and as an auto repairman from 1946 until 1980.

In her complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2011, Evelyn L. Thiele alleges 31

defendant companies caused Mr. Thiele to develop lung cancer after

his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

According to the suit, he worked as a tile setter and brick layer

for various contractors in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan from 1950

until 1980.

In his complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2011, Mr. Belkin alleges 38

defendant companies caused him to develop lung cancer after his

exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

In her complaint filed on Feb. 22, 2011, Ms. Ayer alleges 38

defendant companies caused Mr. Ayer to develop lung cancer after his

exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout his career.

According to the suit, Mr. Ayer worked as a line worker and

powerhouse engineer at General Motors from 1972 until 2005 and as a

home repairman and remodeler from the 1960s until the 1970s.

In her five-count complaint, Ms. Mozeika seeks compensatory damages

of more than US$100,000, a judgment of more than US$50,000, economic

damages of more than US$50,000 and punitive and exemplary damages of

more than US$50,000, plus punitive damages in an amount sufficient

to punish Sprinkmann Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation and

to deter them from committing similar actions in the future and

other relief the court deems just.

In her nine-count complaint, Ms. Thiele seeks economic damages of

more than US$200,000, a judgment of more than US$50,000, punitive

and exemplary damages of more than US$150,000, compensatory damages

of more than US$100,000 and punitive damages in an amount sufficient

to punish Sprinkmann Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation and

to deter them from committing similar actions in the future.

In his five-count complaint, Mr. Belkin seeks judgment of more than

US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than US$50,000 and punitive

and exemplary damages of more than US$100,000, plus other relief the

court deems just.

In her five-count complaint, Ms. Ayer seeks punitive and exemplary

damages of more than US$100,000, compensatory damages of more than

US$50,000, economic damages of more than US$50,000 and a judgment of

more than US$50,000, plus other relief the court deems just.

At the appellate court in Mount Vernon, justices are hearing an

appeal made by defendants in several asbestos cases filed by out of

state plaintiffs in St. Clair County.  The defendants argue that St.

Clair County is not an appropriate venue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amencon Director Fined for Asbestos Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shay James, the director of a defunct Redditch, England-based

asbestos surveying firm Amencon Ltd, has been sentenced after

failing to manage the spread of asbestos at a demolition site in

Leicester, according to a Health and Safety Executive press release

dated March 11, 2011.

Mr. James was appointed by Bovis Homes to carry out an asbestos

survey of a factory unit in the city's Humberstone Lane -- earmarked

to become a new housing development.

In July 2008 and August 2008, Mr. James carried out the survey with

an employee but failed to identify 1,252 square meters of asbestos

insulation board (AIB) and lagging.  As a result, part of the

building containing AIB and lagging was demolished without putting

proper asbestos management processes in place.

Fortunately, the Company employed to carry out the demolition

noticed suspicious material that was identified as asbestos during

the process, and work was stopped immediately.

Mr. James of Albert Street, Redditch pleaded guilty to breaching

Secton 36 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at

Leicester Magistrates' Court.  He was fined GBP5,000 and ordered to

pay costs of GBP2,348.

HSE inspector Stephen Farthing said, "Although Mr. James is a

trained asbestos surveyor, a very poor survey was carried out which

missed large quantities of AIB and lagging.

"This resulted from his failure to ensure they had adequate lighting

or access equipment to conduct the survey.  As a consequence, a

building was demolished that contained asbestos and contractors were

put at risk from exposure which is completely unacceptable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welsh Site Manager Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Bohlen, a construction site manager from Barry, Wales, has

been sentenced after directing a bricklayer to demolish a wall that

contained asbestos, which put him at serious risk, according to a

Health and Safety Executive Press release dated March 10, 2011.

On May 22, 2009, the 63-year-old Mr. Bohlen was in Newport

supervising the refurbishment of the Monwel Hankinson facility,

which manufactures equipment for people with disabilities.

A full site survey for asbestos had been carried out, but Mr. Bohlen

failed to check the warnings it gave and instructed Justin Jones, a

bricklayer from Pontypridd, to manually demolish the known

asbestos-containing fascia boards from the building.

Mr. Jones used a hammer and chisel to break up the board into

fragments, which generated plumes of dust, releasing asbestos fibers

into the air.

Mr. Jones continued working as he had been asked to until another

manager realized the danger and told him to stop.  Mr. Jones had to

undergo emergency decontamination as a result.

Architects employed by Newport City Council, which partly runs the

Monwel Hankinson facility, had specifically designed the

refurbishment work to avoid disturbing any of the asbestos-

containing materials.  As site manager, Mr. Bohlen was aware of this

element of the refurbishment plan.

Mr. Bohlen later informed Newport City Council that additional work

was needed on the building and, rather than waiting for the

authorization or amended plans from the architects, he went ahead

and told Mr. Jones to carry out the work which led to him being

exposed to the potentially deadly asbestos.

Mr. Bohlen pleaded guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health

and Safety at work etc.  Act 1974 and was given a suspended sentence

of two months.  He was also ordered to carry out 150 hours of

community service.

Inspector Liam Osborne said, "Henry Bohlen was a very experienced

construction site manager and, by his own admission was aware of

asbestos, the risks to health and the correct procedures that ought

to have been followed.

"Rather than wait for the architect's plans, consult the site

survey, or if that was not available, to have taken a few minutes to

check with other parties, Mr. Bohlen went ahead and instructed Mr.

Jones to do the work, which ultimately exposed him to the

potentially deadly asbestos.

"This is something Mr. Jones will have to live with for the rest of

his life -- wondering whether his site manager's lack of

consideration might lead to him contracting a deadly disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Willmore Family Wins Legal Case to Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Dianne Willmore, from Rossett, Wrexham, Wales, has won

a groundbreaking legal claim to compensation for Mrs. Willmore's

exposure to asbestos and subsequent death, the Daily Post reports.

Mrs. Willmore was awarded GBP240,000 damages in July 2009 after

convincing a High Court judge her time as a pupil at the former

Bowring Comprehensive School in Huyton, Merseyside, caused her lung

cancer.

Knowsley council took the former supermarket worker to London's

Civil Appeal Court, arguing it was not "reasonably practicable" to

protect her from asbestos exposure.  But in October that year, Mrs.

Willmore finally looked to have won her battle when Lord Justice

Sedley backed the original decision.  However, she died the

following day, after Knowsley council said it was weighing up a

fresh court bid to overturn the decision.

The authority took the case to the Supreme Court, arguing they could

only be held liable if it could be proved they were responsible for

causing exposure to asbestos that had at least "doubled the risk" of

mesothelioma.  However, on March 9, 2011, seven Supreme Court

justices unanimously dismissed their appeal.

The court heard girlhood memories for Mrs. Willmore included

watching prankster classmates removing ceiling tiles at school to

hide blazers.  She also remembered workmen removing tiles to re-

route cables, and tiles being stacked in the girls' toilets.  She

has now become the first school pupil to win damages as a victim of

malignant mesothelioma.  Legal experts said the ruling could pave

the way for similar claims nationwide.

Mrs. Willmore's husband Barre said, "I'm so, so happy.  Dianne

always said she was such an ordinary person who would not amount to

much.  But to me she was extremely special and with this judgment

now everyone can see she was no ordinary woman."

Ruth Davies, solicitor for John Pickering and Partners which

represented Mr. Willmore, said she was delighted the case -- the

first relating to a school pupil -- was finally over.

A spokesman for Knowsley Council said, "It has always been clear

that Mrs. Willmore suffered from a severe illness which was caused

by exposure to asbestos and the council is, and always has been,

extremely sympathetic towards Mrs. Willmore and her family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwell's Case v. 6 Firms Filed Feb. 22 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah J. Atwell, on behalf of her late husband Richard M. Atwell, on

Feb. 22, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against six defendant

corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia

Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Atwell was employed at job sites in

West Virginia and surrounding areas and continuously worked with and

was exposed to asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or

machinery requiring the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing

products.

Mrs. Atwell seeks seeking compensatory and punitive damages.  She is

being represented by James A. McKowen, Esq., and David P. Pavlik,

Esq.

The six companies named in the suit are A.W. Chesterton Company;

Bondex International, Inc.; Georgia-Pacific Corp.; Kaiser Gypsum

Company, Inc; Rapid American Corp.; and RPM, Inc.

Case No. 11-C-285 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Issues Statement on McLean Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., on March 14, 2011, issued the following

statement concerning the verdict handed down on March 11, 2011 by a

McLean County, Ill., jury against four defendants, including the

Company, in a case alleging asbestos-related injuries, according to

a Company press release dated March 14, 2011.

Of the total US$90 million awarded by the jury against the four

defendants, a combined US$9.6 million in compensatory damages were

assessed against all defendants, and US$40 million in punitive

damages were assessed against the Company.

"Owens-Illinois is disappointed in the jury's verdict.  The

plaintiff never worked for Owens-Illinois or in an Owens-Illinois

facility, nor did he allege exposure to asbestos-containing

materials made or sold by the company.  His alleged exposures did

not occur until 1972, which was 14 years after Owens-Illinois last

made or sold thermal insulation products containing asbestos.  The

plaintiff claimed, however, that Owens-Illinois participated in a

conspiracy with other companies to conceal or misrepresent

information about the health risks associated with asbestos

exposure.

"Owens-Illinois did not conspire with anyone concerning asbestos

health hazards, continues to deny these conspiracy claims, and will

challenge this verdict, if necessary, in the Illinois Appellate

Courts.  The company has successfully defended its position in

similar cases and is confident of a successful outcome in this

matter as well.  Owens-Illinois does not anticipate any changes to

its 2011 financial outlook as a result of this case."

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer and has ties

with many of the world's leading food and beverage brands. With

revenues of US$6.6 billion in 2010, the Company employs more than

24,000 people at 81 plants in 21 countries.  The Company, which is

based in Perrysburg, Ohio, delivers safe, effective and sustainable

glass packaging solutions to a growing global marketplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. 2034 to Deter "Abuses" in Lawsuits Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Rep. Doug Miller (R-New Braunfels) filed House Bill 2034,

which would stop abuses in asbestos cases by requiring plaintiffs'

lawyers to seek compensation from federal bankruptcy trusts before

going to trial against solvent defendants, The Southeast Texas

Record reports.

In a story first reported by the Texas Civil Justice League on March

2, 2011, Rep. Miller said, "H.B. 2034 closes a loophole the trial

lawyers have been driving an armored truck through.  This bill will

stop trial lawyers from gaming the legal system to enrich themselves

at the expense of asbestos victims."

The bill mandates applying for bankruptcy trust payments before

going to trial against solvent defendants in asbestos-related

personal injury lawsuits.  Under Texas law, the bankruptcy trust

payments would be considered settlement credits in litigation

against solvent defendants.

H.B. 2034 provides for simultaneous filing of trust claims and tort

suits with a deadline of filing trust claims 90 days before trial.

According to Rep. Miller, most trial lawyers filing asbestos

lawsuits in Texas do not file claims with the bankruptcy trusts

until after the litigation has concluded and that practice avoids

settlement credits and maximizes damages against solvent defendants.

Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal

Reform, said, "We applaud introduction of Rep. Miller's bill, which

will address the growing problem of double dipping by asbestos

plaintiffs' lawyers and promote transparency in asbestos

litigation."

The Southeast Texas Record is owned by the Institute for Legal

Reform, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Ninety-six companies have filed bankruptcy due to present and future

asbestos liabilities.  Sixty-three of those companies have created

trusts to pay asbestos-injury claims.  Those federal bankruptcy

trusts may hold as much as US$60 billion in assets to pay asbestos

claims, according to 2006 Mealey's Bankruptcy Report.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comment Period for Madison Cases Opens March 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, on March 11, 2011,

said she was open to suggestions on how to schedule cases for trial

in the court's asbestos docket, The Madison/St. Clair Record

reports.

However, Judge Crowder and the attorneys who packed her third floor

courtroom noted that a leading voice seeking to give advice on the

matter was absent.  She proposed a second date be set to accommodate

that absence.

Judge Crowder said, "We can put it more succinctly that Barney

(Robert) Shultz can't be here today and nobody from Heyl Royster can

be Barney Shultz."

With that in mind, Judge Crowder set March 25, 2011 as the date she

will hear more suggestions on the allocation of 2012's asbestos

trial dates.  That date was set after verbal agreements of the

attorneys present.

The March 25 date also allows defense firms to weigh in on proposals

submitted by attorney Allison Romani, Esq., of the firm of Shrader &

Associates on behalf of plaintiffs' firms.

Mr. Shultz submitted a proposal to Judge Crowder in December 2010 on

behalf of Union Carbide, Riley Stoker, Certainteed Corporation, Ford

Motor, Maremont Corporation, General Electric and Arvin Meritor,

companies often found at the defense table in asbestos cases.

Currently, the docket is managed along the lines laid out in a 2004

order signed by then Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, who

presided over the asbestos docket for six years until his retirement

in December 2010.

Mr. Shultz's proposal includes revisions to how trial dates are set

and changes to the discovery process leading up to those trials.

His proposal called Judge Stack's 2004 order, "an outmoded document

that, over the course of time, has led to the creation of an

environment contrary to sound public policy and an appropriate

system of civil justice."

Mr. Romani, one of the few attorneys to remark on the scheduling

following March 22, 2011's usual docket business, told Judge Crowder

that plaintiffs' firms had reached a unanimous agreement about a

proposal for 2012's dates that had been submitted to the court.

That proposal could also apply to 2013, Mr. Romani told Judge

Crowder.  The document was also submitted to some of the defense

firms.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Reacts to McLean Asbestos Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to a U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform press release

dated March 15, 2011, ILR president Lisa A. Rickard issued the

following statement regarding a US$90 million asbestos verdict

handed down in McLean County, Ill., on March 11, 2011.

"A jury's decision in a McLean County, Illinois asbestos case has

resulted in a US$90 million judgment, believed to be the second

highest verdict ever in a mesothelioma case.

"Owens-Illinois was assessed US$40 million in punitive damages and

Honeywell International Inc. and Pneumo Abex were assessed US$20

million each, even though there were no allegations by the plaintiff

in the case that he ever worked for, or was exposed to any

asbestos-containing materials made by the three companies.

"Instead, the plaintiff had claimed the three companies conspired to

conceal information about the health risks of asbestos from their

employees, customers and others, a claim the companies vehemently

deny and say was not supported by evidence presented at trial.

"This runaway verdict against companies that even the plaintiff

admitted did not expose him to asbestos, is the result of the trial

court's utter failure to follow the rule of law and controlling

precedent.

"How can companies in this country create jobs and energize the

economy when they are drained of tens of millions of dollars in

abusive litigation in which their products were not even involved?

"The ruling confirms a troubling trend in the State of Illinois

where there is a hostile litigation environment that continues to

destroy jobs and impair economic growth."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,

political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,

state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three million

businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and

local chambers and industry associations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MACK Group Completes Cleanup of Pa. Power Stack
----------------------------------------------------------------
The MACK Group, LLC completed the asbestos abatement of a 400-foot-

high concrete coal fired power plant stack in Northeast

Pennsylvania, according to a Company press release dated March 12,

2011.

The project consisted of the asbestos abatement of 20,000 square

feet of asbestos containing rubberized paint 1/8" thick on the

exterior of the 400 foot high stack while the stack remained in

operation.

Because the aging concrete stack was in need of repair, a structural

carbon fiber shell was proposed for the stack to give it a new life.

This carbon fiber shell would allow for the stack to not to have to

be demolished and completely rebuilt but remain in operation and be

refurbished.

In order for this carbon fiber shell to be put in place, all the

exterior asbestos containing paint needed to be removed from the

stack.   Three 400-foot high pump jack towers were put in place

surrounding the stack.  These towers were then plasticized and put

under HEPA negative air filtration.

The MACK Group workers then utilized specialized HEPA equipped

powered hand tools to remove the rubberized asbestos paint.  Since

the stack was still in operation and emitting noxious gases the top

50ft of the stack MACK Group workers increased the PPE to Type C

supplied air.

The MACK Group's PA licensed asbestos workers brought this unique

and challenging project in on schedule and without injury.

The MACK Group, LLC is an asbestos abatement and demolition

contractor that operates on a nationwide basis.  Services include

asbestos abatement, demolition, Terminator flooring removals, Shot

Blast/Blastrac services and fluorescent bulb and ballast recycling

services.  The Company is based in Cherry Hill, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lenney Awarded $1.36MM in Filter Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in San Francisco jury has awarded US$1.36 million to Don

Lenney, a terminally ill man, who smoked filter-tipped Kent

cigarettes in the 1950s that contained asbestos, SFGate.com reports.

Lawyers for Mr. Lenney and his wife, Monica, said the verdict was a

rare victory for plaintiffs who have sued over Kent's use of

asbestos in its Micronite filters from 1952 to 1956.  The

cigarette's manufacturer, Lorillard Tobacco Co., says it has won 15

out of 20 trials nationwide and contends the filters released only

trace amounts of asbestos that posed no danger.

The 73-year-old Mr. Lenney, a former Bay Area insurance agent, now

lives in Placerville.  He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in

November 2009 and had a lung removed in early 2010, his attorney

said.

Laurel Simes, Esq., said, "He tries not to dwell on it too much and

just wants to live as long as he can, and be there for his wife and

children and grandchildren."

Mr. Lenney started smoking other brands in 1953 at age 16 and soon

switched to Kents, Ms. Simes said.  She said he stopped smoking in

1965, shortly after the U.S. surgeon general warned of the dangers

of cigarettes.

Medical groups' concerns about tobacco in the early 1950s prompted

companies to start selling filtered cigarettes.  Kent's ads promoted

the Micronite filters as "the greatest health protection in

cigarette history" and said they removed seven times as much tar and

nicotine as other leading filters.  The Company removed asbestos

from the filters in 1957.

During the seven-week trial in San Francisco Superior Court, lawyers

for Lorillard and the filter's manufacturer, Hollingsworth & Vose,

argued that the filters were safe and that the evidence failed to

show that Mr. Lenney had smoked Kents when they contained asbestos.

Ms. Simes said Mr. Lenney had testified that he used the brand

during that period and was backed up by two former high school

classmates.

The jury rejected a claim that the companies had been negligent but

voted 9-3 to find that they had violated Mr. Lenney's right to buy

and use a safe product.  The March 3, 2011 verdict apportioned 35

percent of the fault to Lorillard, 25 percent to Hollingsworth &

Vose and the rest to other asbestos suppliers, a verdict that makes

the two companies responsible for just over US$1 million in damages,

the Lenneys' lawyers said.

Defense lawyer Randall Haimovici, Esq., said the companies would

appeal.  The negligence verdict shows that jurors agreed "we didn't

do anything wrong by using asbestos in filters back in the 1950s,"

he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gillenwater Awarded $90MM in Ill. Asbestos Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in McLean County, Ill., returned verdicts totaling nearly US

$90 million against four companies accused of exposing the 59-year-

old Charles Gillenwater to asbestos, Pantagraph reports.

Mr. Gillenwater contracted mesothelioma while working as a pipe

fitter in the 1970s at several work sites, including Illinois State

University, Bridgestone-Firestone and The Eureka Co., according to

his lawyers, James Wylder, Esq., and Andrew Kelly, Esq., with Wylder

Corwin Kelly of Bloomington.  The jury deliberated over two days

following a five-week trial.

The jury awarded compensatory damages of US$9.6 million against

defendants Honeywell International Inc., Pneumo Abex, Owens-Illinois

Inc. and John Crane Inc.

Punitive damages of US$20 million were found against Honeywell,

Peneumo Abex and US$40 million against Owens-Illinois.

The jury found that Honeywell, Pneumo Abex and Owens-Illinois

suppressed or conspired with others to suppress information about

the hazards of asbestos, including an agreement not to warn

employees and customers about the dangers of the substance.

Owens-Illinois said it plans to appeal the US$40 million punitive

damages award that the jury levied against it in the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ellesmere Secretary's Family Wins Payout Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The family of Enid Costello, an Ellesmere Port, England, secretary

who died from mesothelioma after exposure to low-level asbestos, has

won a groundbreaking claim to compensation, the Ellesmere Port

Pioneer reports.

The Supreme Court ruled on March 16, 2011 in favor of the relatives

of Mrs. Costello, who died from mesothelioma in January 2006 at the

age of 74.  The ruling is expected to open the floodgates for

similar claims from cancer sufferers exposed to "low levels" of

asbestos in other factories and works.

Mrs. Costello's daughter, Karen Sienkiewicz, initially lost a county

court claim to compensation, made on behalf of her late mother's

estate, but won in the appeal court.

Mrs. Costello was said to have breathed in dust containing asbestos

when she was a secretary at Van Leer, operating as Greif (UK) Ltd,

Oil Sites Road, Ellesmere Port.  She worked there from 1966 to 1984.

Unlike many other mesothelioma victims, Mrs. Costello, of Eastham,

was never in direct contact with deadly asbestos spores.  The

compensation claim was against her former employer that produced

steel container drums.  Asbestos dust was released into atmosphere

during the process.

The Court of Appeal ruled compensation should be paid, but Greif UK

fought the ruling in the Supreme Court, the highest court in the

land.  On March 16, 2011, seven Supreme Court justices unanimously

dismissed their appeals.

Speaking after the judgment, Ms. Sienkiewicz's solicitor Norman

Jones said, "The message here is that there is no low level where

asbestos is safe.  Mesothelioma is at the most serious end of

illnesses and people who get it go on to die, there is no getting

away from that.

"This judgment gives the unsuspecting victim who has worked in an

environment where they have been exposed to asbestos a chance to be

compensated for an illness they have developed through no fault of

their own.

"It is from that point of view a great victory for the common man,

and legally it is perhaps the most significant judgment in relation

to asbestos cases as it will put an end to these types of challenges

and disputes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Co. Posts $3.51BB A&E Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Total reserves related to environmental

remediation, including asbestos claims, were US$3.510 billion at

Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 25, 2011.

Uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and

information related to individual sites make it difficult to develop

a meaningful estimate of the reasonably possible aggregate

environmental remediation exposure; these costs could differ from

the Company's current estimates.

General Electric Company is a diversified technology and financial

service corporation.  With products and services like aircraft

engines, power generation, water processing, and household

appliances to medical imaging, business and consumer financing and

industrial products, the Company serves customers in more than 100

countries and employs about 287,000 people worldwide.  The Company

is based in Fairfield, Conn.


                            *********

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  * * *