CAR_Public/110401.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, April 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 65

                             Headlines

ADDUS HOMECARE: Settles IPO Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
ANDREW BOLT: Hearing on Racial Discrimination Suit Continues
ANTHONY IMBRIOLO: Served Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
AUSTRALIA: Port Stephens Residents Sue Over Aircraft Noise
BMW: Faces Class Action Over Multiple Defects in N-54 Engines

CHINATOWN RESTAURANT: Plaintiffs' Immigrant Status Not Relevant
CREDIT CARD COS: Sued in Canada Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
CREDIT SUISSE: Awaits Ruling on Two Appeals in Securities Lawsuit
CREDIT SUISSE: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement of Refco-Related Class Suit Now Final

CREDIT SUISSE: Still Defends RMBS-Related Class Action Lawsuits
CREDIT SUISSE: Awaits Court Okay of ADR-Related Suit Settlement
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Awaits Court Okay of Triplecrown Settlement
DRUG MAKERS: Santa Clara Can't Proceed with Class Action
DRUGSTORE.COM: Being Sold to Walgreens for Too Little, Suit Says

EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Delgado" Suit Settlement Given Final Approval
FUWEI FILMS: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for Suit Settlement
GENERAL MILLS: Loses Appeal in YoPlus Yoghurt Class Action
SIRIUS XM: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Move Forward
TEXAS: Foster Care System Unconstitutional, Class Action Claims

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Still Defends "Chrome 6" Class Action Lawsuits
THEGLOBE.COM: Awaits Ruling on Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement
UNION FIDELITY: Sued for Refusing to Refund Unearned Premium
UNITED STATES: Gov't Employees Probe Gender Bias at TSA
UNITED STATES: Key Deadline in Indian Trust Settlement Nears

UNITED WESTERN: Defends Class Suit in Colorado Over 2009 Offering
WAL-MART STORES: Judges Divided in Gender Bias Class Action

* US Drug Watchdog Wants Injury Claims Prosecuted Individually

                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NiSource Records $1.4MM for Settlement in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,050 Cases Pending v. TriMas Corp. at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Mine Safety
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 16,865 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Posts $276MM Reserves at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Involved in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Party to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faces 1,037 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Cites $270.3MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Re Posts $1.677BB Losses for Mass Tort

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Re Has $10BB A&E Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Hathaway Has $12.4BB Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 500 Lawsuits Pending v. Entergy Corp.'s Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 555 Lawsuits Pending v. MeadWestvaco at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Georgia-Pacific
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco, Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 223 Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic's Net Reserves for A&E at $145MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Berkley Posts $35.54MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indianapolis Power Still Faces Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Has $904MM Claims Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITW, Units Still Have Welding-Related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Reaches Deal in Quigley Bankruptcy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Records 88,000 AO Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Has $214MM at Dec. 31 for A&E Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: SW Public Svc Posts $19.96MM for AROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has 430 Property Damage Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Subject to Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Coverage from 54 Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $52.7MM Libby Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has 124,420 U.S. Claims in 2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Faces 287 U.K. Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Progress Energy Posts $53MM ARO at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Faces Liability Proceedings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Pursues Coverage on Aqua-Chem Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Posts $2.9MM Abatement Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advanced Auto Unit Still Faces Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Posts $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNH Global, Units Still Face Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Party to 101 Cases in Miss., Calif.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Subject to Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Flax Bourton Resident's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arcadia Fined for Exposing Workers to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Rubber Worker's Death Related to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minton Awarded $25M Verdict in Lawsuit v. Exxon

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henderson Awarded $9MM in Case v. Dow Chemical
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strickland Gets $2.1MM in Case v. Union Carbide
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeal Court Flips Ruling in Cole Action




                             *********

ADDUS HOMECARE: Settles IPO Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Addus HomeCare Corporation has reached a settlement of a
previously disclosed investor lawsuit relating to its initial
public offering of common stock on October 27, 2009, according to
the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The monetary amounts of both settlements are covered by insurance,
and accordingly, the settlements are not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition or results of operations. Both settlements are subject
to court approval and certain other conditions.

On March 26, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Company
between October 27, 2009 and March 18, 2010, in connection with
the Company's initial public offering. The complaint, as amended,
asserts claims against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Company and the other
named defendants have denied and continue to deny all charges of
wrongdoing or liability arising out of any of the conduct,
statements, acts or omissions alleged in the Class Action.

On March 21, 2011, the plaintiffs, the Company and the other named
defendants entered into a stipulation of settlement with respect
to the Class Action, pursuant to which the Company is to cause
$3,000,000 to be paid into a settlement fund.

On March 22, 2011, the Class Action Court preliminarily approved
the settlement and scheduled a July 21, 2011 hearing to consider,
among other things, whether to finally approve the settlement of
the Class Action. If the settlement is given final approval by the
Class Action Court, the Class Action will be dismissed with
prejudice.


ANDREW BOLT: Hearing on Racial Discrimination Suit Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
Norrie Ross, writing for Herald Sun, reports that Herald Sun
columnist Andrew Bolt told a court on March 29 he was grossly
offended that a lawyer linked Nazi race laws and the holocaust to
views he expressed in articles on Aboriginal identity.

Mr. Bolt said he took great care when researching material he used
in the articles, which are now the basis of a racial vilification
class action claim by nine individuals.

Opening the case for the nine in the Federal Court on March 28
Ron Merkel QC referred to the Nuremburg race laws of 1935 and to
eugenics, a supremacist movement which advocated selective
breeding to reach racial purity.

"The holocaust started with words and ended in violence,"
Mr. Merkel said.

Neil Young QC, for Bolt, asked the columnist what he thought of
being linked to Nazis and to eugenics which stated biological
descent determines a person's capacities.

"Not only is it false, it is grossly offensive," Mr. Bolt said.

"I have been a vigorous critic of eugenics in my columns and all
my life."

Mr. Young told the court the case was about free speech and the
protection to write material that might offend some people.

"This case is not about the holocaust.  It is not about Hitler's
race laws and it has nothing to do with eugenics," Mr. Young said.

Nine individuals have taken a class action against Mr. Bolt under
the Racial Discrimination Act.

They claim Bolt implied in articles and blogs that that they were
"professional Aborigines" who self-identified with the thinnest
strand of their racial make-up to gain financial and other
benefits to the detriment of other Aborigines.

Mr. Bolt's defense is that he is not a racist and his articles
were a comment on people who chose to be Aboriginal, an
undesirable social trend that emphasized racial differences rather
than a common humanity.

The nine taking the action are activist Pat Eatock, former ATSIC
member Geoff Clark, artist Bindi Cole, academic Larissa Behrendt,
author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title
expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson and lawyer Mark
McMillan.

The articles complained of appeared under the headlines "It's so
hip to be black" in the Herald Sun on April 15, 2009 and "White
fellas in the black" on August 21, 2009.

The nine have also complained about the contents of two online
blogs based on the columns.

Ms. Behrendt said she was stunned that Mr. Bolt referred to her as
a "a professional Aborigin", referred to her as "mein liebchen",
highlighted an unknown German background and that a photo was used
with the column where she had dyed blond hair.

She told Mr. Young she speculated that because of her surname she
may have a German connection with her family she had never
regarded herself as being anything but Aboriginal.

She agreed with Mr. Young there was debate within the Aboriginal
community about the test that should be applied before someone
could call themselves an Aborigine.

Ms. Behrendt also agreed that the census showed an increasing
number of people, particularly in cities, identified themselves as
being Aboriginal.

But she said the standard three-point test of descent, acceptance
by community and self identification, was a fairly effective way
of deciding the issue.

The hearing before Justice Mordy Bromberg is continuing.


ANTHONY IMBRIOLO: Served Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case, James Thomas, on behalf of himself and
the certified class v. Anthony Imbriolo and David L. Gordon, Case
No. 650814/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.), seeks summary
judgment pursuant to section 3213 of the Civil Practice Law and
Rules awarding the plaintiff: a) $40,000,000 plus interest at 10%
from January 16, 2008, to be paid by Anthony Imbriolo jointly and
severally with defendant David L. Gordon; b) $40,150,000 to be
paid by David L. Gordon of which $40,000,000 is to be paid jointly
and severally with defendant Anthony Imbriolo, plus interest at
10% from January 16, 2008; and c) costs and disbursements of the
action to be paid by defendants.  A hearing on the Summary
Judgment Motion is set for April 29, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas W. Moyne, Esq.
          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nmoyne@faruqilaw.com
                  cmarlborough@faruqilaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Port Stephens Residents Sue Over Aircraft Noise
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hansen, writing for Port Stephens Examiner, reports that a
class action seeking up to $200 million in compensation for
Port Stephens residents affected by aircraft noise is now a
reality.

The Examiner reported on March 17 that Raymond Terrace's Carol
Moxey was seeking damages from the Commonwealth in the High Court
for her land, devalued as a result of the incoming Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF).

Around 30 readers who had been similarly affected then contacted
Goodman Law, the Canberra firm representing Ms. Moxey, and look to
be providing the numbers for a class action against the
Commonwealth.

"Now we are seriously developing a class action," Goodman Law
principal Steven Gavagna said.

"The range of complaints has been extraordinary."

He believed the compensation bill for landowners could total
between $100 million and $200 million if the action was
successful.

"If we are talking about 2000 to 4000 homes affected, it doesn't
take too much number crunching to reach those figures," he said.

Once the individual claims are assessed by the firm there will be
a start-up fee of between $1000 and $2000 per complainant.

But Mr. Gavagna said a "funding body" was investigating whether it
would bank role the remainder of the court action.

The action would seek compensation for land devaluation, loss of
amenity on affected land and the cost of noise insulation where
necessary.

Mr. Gavagna said the action would likely include a number of
"classes" reflecting the separate categories of affected
landowners.

Ms Moxey's case has been referred back to the federal court for
mediation.  Those interested in joining the action should contact
the firm via a dedicated email address, jsf@goodmanlaw.com.au or
by phone on 6206 9900.


BMW: Faces Class Action Over Multiple Defects in N-54 Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw Journals reports that a California federal court class
action charges that a number of 2007-2010 BMW cars have engine
defects that can cause a delay in throttle response, lack of
acceleration and severely reduced power.

Lead plaintiff Tim Nguyen says the N-54 engines in the affected
vehicles present a danger to drivers should such failures occur in
traffic.

BMW announced the development of the N-54 "with much fanfare" in
2006, according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  Mr. Nguyen says the
automaker touted the engine as state-of-the art technology with
twin turbochargers and a new type of fuel injection system.

BMW claimed the N-54 would eliminate "turbo lag," a common problem
in turbocharged vehicles, and offer improved performance and fuel
efficiency.

"Unbeknownst to plaintiffs and the public, the defendant's
advertising was false and misleading," the complaint says.

"Specifically, the 'Ultimate Driving Machines' promoted by the
defendant contained several serious design flaws that render the
subject vehicles unsafe," according to the suit.

Mr. Nguyen says he and other proposed class members who bought or
leased BMWs equipped with the N-54 paid too much and will have to
sell their cars for less than they would have absent the defect.

The suit says each turbocharger in the N-54 is connected to "waste
gates" that regulate their performance.  But the gates allegedly
do not seat properly, a condition that creates noise, excessive
turbo lag, poor throttle response and sluggish acceleration.

In addition, Mr. Nguyen says, the high-pressure fuel pump in the
engines has design or manufacturing defects that result in an
extremely high failure rate.

"Hundreds of owners have reported experiencing HPFP failures
shortly after purchasing their vehicles; some within 1,000 miles
of vehicle ownership," the complaint says.  "When the HPFP fails,
the vehicle goes into 'limp mode,' which is a highly reduced power
mode.  If a HPFP fails in certain traffic conditions, the driver
could be put in very dangerous situations."

Mr. Nguyen says BMW announced a recall last year but it is
"nothing more than an illusory fix" intended to create a false
sense of safety and security.  He says the company replaced the
defective fuel pump on only some of the affected vehicles and
updated the software in the engine computer system.

The software replacement merely masks symptoms that develop
shortly before a catastrophic fuel pump failure, he contends.

The complaint alleges breach of express warranty, violation of the
state Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Business Practices
Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Mr. Nguyen seeks compensatory and punitive damages, civil
penalties, and restitution.

Nguyen et al. v. BMW of North America LLC et al., No. 10-CV-02257,
complaint filed (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011).


CHINATOWN RESTAURANT: Plaintiffs' Immigrant Status Not Relevant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a Boston federal judge has called the question of whether two
plaintiffs are illegal aliens "irrelevant" to their Fair Labor
Standards Act claims about unpaid wages and their "suitability" to
lead a class.

On March 23, Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. of the District of
Massachusetts issued an order in Lin v. Chinatown Restaurant Corp.
denying the defendants' motion to compel the plaintiffs to respond
to written discovery about their immigration status.  Judge
O'Toole also granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel Brockton,
Mass.-based Chinatown Restaurant to respond to its written
discovery questions about potential class members.

Name plaintiffs Jin-Ming Lin and Chi-Wai Chao filed the purported
class action against Chinatown Restaurant Corp. in September 2009.
They filed the case on behalf of themselves and other individuals
employed by the restaurant within three years of the filing date.

They also named Chinatown Restaurant's president and treasurer,
Joyce P.Y. Hayes, as an individual defendant.

Lin was a driver for the restaurant from May 2008 to February
2009.  Chao worked as a front desk person at the restaurant from
August 2008 to February 2009.

The plaintiffs claim they routinely worked 60 to 80 hours per week
throughout their employment, but were paid for far fewer hours.
Due to the underpayment, the plaintiffs' wages fell below the
Massachusetts minimum wage.  In addition, they claim they were not
paid time-and-a-half in overtime for work hours in excess of 40
hours per week, as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) requires.

They also claimed the defendants violated the Massachusetts Timely
Payment of Wages Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Act.
Their other legal claims include quasi-contract violations and
unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, damages under the FLSA, triple
damages for violations of Massachusetts's laws and attorney fees
and costs.

Judge O'Toole wrote that the question in the Lin case is whether
the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hoffman Plastic Compounds,
Inc. v. NLRB "affects illegal aliens' rights to recover unpaid
wages under the FLSA."

The Hoffman court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board
did not have the discretion to award back pay to illegal aliens
whose employment was terminated in violation of the National Labor
Relations Act.

Although the question raised by the Lin case is a first impression
issue in the 1st Circuit "other courts around the country that
have considered it have answered this question in the negative,"
Judge O'Toole wrote.  Judge O'Toole cited three cases: from the
Northern District of California, the Northern District of
California and the District of New Jersey.

Judge O'Toole wrote that the other courts that have grappled with
this question ruled that illegal aliens have a right to recover
unpaid wages under the FLSA despite the Hoffman ruling relied on
five reasons.  First, the Hoffman case concerned awards for work
not yet performed, while FLSA awards are for work already done;
second, illegal aliens can be employees under the FLSA; third,
since Hoffman, the U.S. Department of Labor has deemed that
illegal aliens can recover under the FLSA; fourth, allowing
recovery under the FLSA is compatible with federal immigration
policy; and, finally, there's a growing consensus that illegal
aliens should be able to get their unpaid wages under the FLSA.

Judge O'Toole wrote that while he finds the other courts'
reasoning "insufficient," he reaches the same conclusion.

He wrote that, whereas the NLRB has the "authority and discretion"
to award back pay under certain circumstances, "awards for unpaid
wages under the FLSA are not discretionary, but rather a matter of
statutory entitlement when the necessary factual predicate has
been established."

Judge O'Toole went on to conclude that "courts do not have
discretion to deny the award of FLSA damages when they have been
proved."

"Adjudication of an FLSA cause of action does not call upon the
court to make a discretionary policy-or interest-balancing
assessment," Judge O'Toole wrote.  "If a plaintiff makes out an
FLSA case, he is entitled to an FLSA remedy, any obstruction or
interference with immigration policy notwithstanding."

Chinatown Restaurant's lawyer, David Berman, a Medford, Mass.-
based solo practitioner, said he plans to file a motion for
reconsideration on behalf of his client.  "I think [Judge O'Toole]
is on the right track but reaches the wrong result," Mr. Berman
said.

Ms. Hayes' lawyer, Lawrence Siskind of Brockton, Mass.-based
Siskind & Siskind did not respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Myong Joun, a Brookline, Mass. solo
practitioner, said that the court "engaged in a thoughtful
analysis of the tension between the employees' right to recover
unpaid wages under the FLSA and the federal immigration policy
under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 after the
Hoffman decision."

"The court basically says courts don't have the discretion to deny
the award under FLSA," Mr. Joun said.  "They must award damages if
the elements are proved, regardless of policy conflicts with [the
immigration act]."


CREDIT CARD COS: Sued in Canada Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------
Branch MacMaster LLP and Camp Fiorante Matthews have filed a
proposed national class action in the British Columbia Supreme
Court against Visa, MasterCard, and several leading banks.  The
claim alleges that the credit card giants and banks have engaged
in multi-billion dollar price fixing conspiracies to increase or
maintain the fees paid by merchants on every credit card
transaction.

When a customer pays with a credit card, Visa and MasterCard take
a percentage fee, along with the card-issuing bank and the company
that processes the payment.  That percentage varies depending on
what kind of card is used.  Basic cards charge a smaller
percentage, while premium credit cards that offer points and other
rewards cost merchants a much higher fee.

The claim alleges that Visa and MasterCard rules force merchants
to accept every Visa or MasterCard credit card, even if those
cards carry high fees for the merchant.  The claim also alleges
that these rules prevent merchants from charging more for payments
with premium cards.

Ward Branch, partner at Branch MacMaster LLP said, "The lawsuit
alleges that merchants are forced to raise prices for all
customers to cover the cost of transactions with premium cards.
Our research suggests that these fees cost Canadian merchants $5
billion in 2009 alone.  The system is bad for Canadian merchants,
Canadian consumers, and for the Canadian economy as a whole."

The suit follows a filing by the Competition Bureau of Canada,
which seeks to prevent Visa and MasterCard from imposing the rules
preventing surcharges and forcing merchants to honor all cards.
This proposed class action seeks to recover the fees that Visa,
MasterCard, and the banks are alleged to have collected illegally
from merchants.

Along with Visa and MasterCard, the suit names BMO Financial
Group, Bank of Nova Scotia, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
Desjardins, National Bank of Canada, Royal Bank of Canada,
Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bank of America, Capital One, and Citygroup
Inc. as defendants.

For more information about the class action, to read the Notice of
Civil Claim, or to provide your name as a potential merchant class
member, visit http://www.creditcardclassaction.com/

For further information:

Media contacts: Greg McMullen, Esq.
                Branch MacMaster LLP
                Telephone: 604-631-2560
                E-mail: gmcmullen@branmac.com

                     - and -

                Reidar Mogerman, Esq.
                Camp Fiorante Matthews
                Telephone: 604-331-9530
                E-mail: rmogerman@cfmlawyers.ca


CREDIT SUISSE: Awaits Ruling on Two Appeals in Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG's subsidiary Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC is still awaiting a ruling on two remaining appeals regarding
a court-approved settlement of a securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

Since January 2001, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, one of the
Company's affiliates, and several other investment banks have been
named as defendants in a large number of putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) concerning initial public offering
(IPO) allocation practices. In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed
consolidated amended complaints alleging various violations of the
federal securities laws resulting from alleged material omissions
and misstatements in registration statements and prospectuses for
the IPOs and, in some cases, follow-on offerings, and with respect
to transactions in the aftermarket for those offerings. The
complaints contain allegations that the registration statements
and prospectuses either omitted or misrepresented material
information about commissions paid to investment banks and
aftermarket transactions by certain customers that received
allocations of shares in the IPOs. The complaints also allege that
misleading analyst reports were issued to support the issuers'
allegedly manipulated stock price and that such reports failed to
disclose the alleged allocation practices or that analysts were
allegedly subject to conflicts of interest. In September 2008, a
settlement in principle was reached between the plaintiffs and the
underwriter and issuer defendants, and in October 2009, the SDNY
issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. Certain
members of the settlement class have since filed appeals
challenging the SDNY's approval of the settlement. Most of these
appeals have been resolved and dismissed, but two appeals remain
pending.


CREDIT SUISSE: Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Motion
-------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG's subsidiary Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC is still awaiting a ruling on its motions for summary judgment
and to preclude expert testimony in a federal securities class
action lawsuit in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
March 25, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Putative class action lawsuits were filed against CSS LLC in the
wake of publicity surrounding the 2002 industry-wide governmental
and regulatory investigations into research analyst practices.
Currently, only one federal class action, In re Credit Suisse -
AOL Securities Litigation, remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case was brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of common shares of the former AOL
Time Warner Inc. (AOL) and alleges that CSS LLC's equity research
coverage of AOL between January 2001 and July 2002 was false and
misleading. The second amended complaint in this action asserts
federal securities fraud and control person liability claims
against CSS LLC and certain affiliates and former employees of CSS
LLC. The district court denied CSS LLC's motion to dismiss the
complaint in December 2006. In September 2008, the district court
granted class certification, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit subsequently declined to hear CSS LLC's appeal of
that decision. In November 2008, CSS LLC filed a motion for
summary judgment on the grounds that there was no evidence that
CSS LLC's research coverage of AOL was false or misleading, and
there was no evidence that CSS LLC's research coverage had any
effect on AOL's stock price or caused the losses asserted by the
plaintiff class. Oral argument on CSS LLC's motion was held before
the district court in July 2009. In addition, in April and June
2009, CSS LLC and the plaintiff class cross-moved to preclude the
testimony of each other's expert witnesses. Both the motion for
summary judgment and the cross-motions to preclude expert
testimony remain pending before the district court. Plaintiffs
estimate damages of approximately $3.9 billion.


CREDIT SUISSE: Settlement of Refco-Related Class Suit Now Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG's subsidiary Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC disclosed in a March 25, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010, that the final effective date of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit over its dealings with Refco, Inc., was
November 26, 2010.

In October 2005, CSS LLC was named, along with other financial
services firms, accountants and individuals as a defendant in
several federal class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Refco Inc.
These actions, now consolidated, allege violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws in
connection with a Refco notes offering in 2004 and Refco's IPO in
August 2005. In July 2006, CSS LLC and certain other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims related to the Refco
notes offering in 2004; in April 2007, the court dismissed those
claims. In December 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint naming additional defendants
and again alleging, against CSS LLC and others, violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws in
connection with both the Refco notes offering in 2004 and Refco's
August 2005 IPO. In March 2008, CSS LLC and certain defendants
again filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims related to the
Refco notes offering; in August 2008, the court granted CSS LLC's
motion to dismiss. In April 2010, CSS LLC and other financial
services firms agreed to a settlement in principle with plaintiffs
in this consolidated action in the amount of USD 50 million, which
was subject to court approval. In June 2010, CSS LLC and the other
settling financial services firms provided notice of the proposed
settlement to certain US government officials consistent with the
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act. In July 2010, the
SDNY preliminarily approved the settlement. In October 2010, the
SDNY entered a final judgment approving the settlement. The final
effective date of the settlement was November 26, 2010.


CREDIT SUISSE: Still Defends RMBS-Related Class Action Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG's subsidiary Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC is still defending itself against class action lawsuits filed
by purchasers of securities in various RMBS offerings, according
to the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In putative class actions against CSS LLC as an underwriter of
other issuers' RMBS offerings, CSS LLC generally has contractual
rights to indemnification from the issuers. However, some of these
issuers are now defunct, including affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp
(IndyMac) and Thornburg Mortgage (Thornburg).

With respect to IndyMac, CSS LLC is named as a defendant in two
purported class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
securities in various IndyMac RMBS offerings. In one action, In re
IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, CSS LLC is named
along with numerous other underwriters and individual defendants
related to approximately USD 6.4 billion of IndyMac RMBS
offerings. CSS LLC served as underwriter with respect to
approximately 20% of the IndyMac RMBS at issue or approximately
USD 1.3 billion. In the other action, Tsereteli v. Residential
Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A8, CSS LLC was the sole
underwriter defendant related to a USD 632 million IndyMac RMBS
offering. The court in the In re IndyMac action has dismissed
claims as to certain RMBS securitizations, including all offerings
in which no named plaintiff purchased securities, and in both
actions has limited the theories on which claims as to other
offerings may proceed. Discovery has commenced in both actions and
plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification.

With respect to Thornburg, CSS LLC is a named defendant in a
putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico along with a number of other financial
institutions that served as depositors and/or underwriters for
approximately USD 5.5 billion of Thornburg RMBS offerings. CSS LLC
served as co-underwriter with respect to approximately 6.4% of the
Thornburg RMBS at issue or approximately USD 354 million.
Defendants, including CSS LLC, have moved to dismiss the
complaint.

One putative class action lawsuit pending in the SDNY against CSS
LLC and certain affiliates and employees relates to a single USD
784 million RMBS offering sponsored and underwritten by the Credit
Suisse defendants. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in
part for claims related to RMBS offerings in which a named
plaintiff was not a purchaser and to limit the theories on which
the remaining claims may proceed. Discovery is ongoing, and
defendants have opposed plaintiff's motion for class
certification.


CREDIT SUISSE: Awaits Court Okay of ADR-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG is awaiting court approval of a settlement
of a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by purchasers of
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and common shares, according
to the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on April 21, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Group and certain executives by certain purchasers of American
Depositary Receipts (ADRs) and common shares alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Plaintiffs in this action allege that
the Group's stock price was artificially inflated as a result of
allegedly misleading disclosures relating to the company's
business and financial results. A second putative class action
complaint making similar allegations was filed in May 2008. These
actions were consolidated in June 2008, and an amended complaint
against the Group and certain executives was filed in October
2008. In December 2008, the Group and defendant executives filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2009, the SDNY
issued a decision dismissing the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. In November 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, and the Group and
defendant executives opposed that motion. On February 11, 2010,
the SDNY denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion.
The SDNY found that plaintiff purchasers of ADRs and US plaintiff
purchasers of Group common shares on foreign exchanges could
proceed with their proposed amended claims but that foreign
purchasers of Group common shares on foreign exchanges could not.
In March 2010, the remaining plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint. In July 2010, the SDNY (based on the U.S. Supreme
Court's July 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank)
additionally dismissed the claims of all US purchasers of Group
common shares on foreign exchanges. On January 6, 2011, following
mediation, the parties agreed in principle to settle this matter.
On March 7, 2011, the parties executed formal settlement
documentation, and on March 11, 2011, submitted the settlement to
the SDNY for preliminary approval.


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Awaits Court Okay of Triplecrown Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. is awaiting court approval of
its settlement of a class action lawsuit over the Company's merger
with Triplecrown Acquisition Corp., according to the Company's
March 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was formed as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Triplecrown
Acquisition Corp., a blank check company. CAT Merger Sub, Inc., a
Georgia corporation, was incorporated as the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary on August 31, 2009. The Company was formed in
order to allow Triplecrown to complete a business combination with
Cullen Agritech, as contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization, dated as of September 4, 2009, as amended, among
the Company, Triplecrown, Merger Sub, Cullen Agritech and Cullen
Inc. Holdings Ltd.. Cullen Agritech was formed on June 3, 2009.
Cullen Agritech's primary operations are conducted through Natural
Dairy. Cullen Holdings is an affiliated entity controlled by Eric
J. Watson, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Secretary,
Chairman of the Board and Treasurer and, prior to the Merger, was
the holder of all of the outstanding common stock of Cullen
Agritech.

Pursuant to the Merger, (i) Triplecrown merged with and into the
Company with the Company surviving as the new publicly-traded
corporation and (ii) Merger Sub merged with and into Cullen
Agritech with Cullen Agritech surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company. As a result of the Merger, the former
security holders of Triplecrown and Cullen Agritech became the
security holders of the Company. Thus, the Company became a
holding company, operating through its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Cullen Agritech. The Merger was consummated on October 22, 2009.

On December 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint,
styled Goodman v. Watson, et al., was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the former directors of
Triplecrown.  The complaint alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and their duty of disclosure in connection
with the Merger.  The plaintiff seeks, as alternative remedies,
damages in the amount of approximately $9.74 per share, to have
Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed pro rata to
members of the putative class, a quasi-appraisal remedy for
members of the putative class, and an opportunity for members of
the putative class to exercise conversion rights in connection
with the Merger. The defendants filed an answer on December 23,
2009. On January 18, 2011, the Company and the former directors
entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff.
Pursuant to the stipulation, the class action will be resolved,
and all claims will be dropped, in exchange for an aggregate
payment to the class of up to $1.4 million, of which $550,000 will
be paid by the Company and the balance will be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.  The stipulation is subject to review
and approval by the Court of Chancery, and is subject to potential
objections by permissible claimants.  If the stipulation is not
approved or an acceptable settlement cannot be reached, the
defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.  If the court
finds in favor of the plaintiff (who represents a purported class
of stockholders that held approximately 490,000 shares of
Triplecrown's common stock) and the defendants are required to pay
damages to the plaintiff (which could be approximately $5
million), the Company will have an obligation to indemnify the
defendants for such damages.  In such event, the Company will seek
to recover such payments from its D&O insurance carrier as it
believes such claims are covered by its insurance policies.
However, there is no assurance that the carrier will agree in this
analysis and not deny coverage of such claims.  If this occurred,
the Company's financial condition and business operations could be
materially adversely affected.


DRUG MAKERS: Santa Clara Can't Proceed with Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Erin Fuchs, Nick Brown and Joseph Marks, writing for Law360,
reports that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 29 that a
California county cannot sue nine drug companies for allegedly
violating a pricing agreement with the federal government by
overcharging clinics serving the poor, finding that only the U.S.
can enforce those agreements.

In an 8-0 opinion from which Justice Elena Kagan recused herself,
the Supreme Court reversed an appeals court's decision that
allowed Santa Clara County to file the putative class action
against the drug companies as third-party beneficiaries of the
pricing agreement.

The county claims AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bayer Corp.,
Pfizer Inc. and other drugmakers violated a drug pricing agreement
that set a ceiling price for drugs sold to so-called 340B-covered
facilities, consisting mostly of local providers of medical care
for the poor.

Santa Clara County conceded that it did not have a right to sue
the drug companies under Section 340B of the Public Health
Services Act, which provides no private right of action and relies
on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to enforce the
ceiling.  However, the county claimed that, as a third-party
beneficiary, it had a right to enforce that contract under federal
common law.

The high court disagreed with that argument, finding a third-party
suit to enforce the agreement was essentially the same as an
action to enforce Section 340B of the Public Health Services Act
itself.

"Telling in this regard, the county based its suit on allegations
that the manufacturers charged more than the 340B ceiling price,
not that they violated any independent substantive obligation
arising only from the [pricing agreements]," Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg wrote for the court.  "Repeatedly, the county
acknowledged that 340B is the source of the contractual term
allegedly breached."

If the court gave Santa Clara County the green light to pursue its
own suit, a slew of uncoordinated lawsuits by 340B clinics could
ensue, the high court said.  "With HHS unable to hold the control
rein, the risk of conflicting adjudications would be substantial,"
Justice Ginsburg wrote.

AstraZeneca applauded the decision.  "This is an important
decision that ensures the proper role for enforcing the public
health service medicine pricing requirements remains where
Congress intended -- with the federal government," spokesman
Tony Jewell said.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in January, when Arnold &
Porter LLP's Lisa S. Blatt contended that drug companies would
face more than 14,000 suits over 35,000 different medications if
third-party beneficiaries could sue over the 340B pricing deals.

Meanwhile, Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC's David C.
Frederick argued for the county that health providers need to be
able to pursue their own interests, especially when the government
may not have the time or resources to do so.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed Santa Clara County's case twice, saying the county
lacked standing, and denied as futile a third attempt to amend the
complaint.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed,
agreeing with the plaintiffs that covered entities qualify as
direct beneficiaries of the pricing deals and have a right to sue
for breaching those agreements.

An attorney for the county could not immediately be reached for
comment Tuesday.

Santa Clara County is represented by Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd
Evans & Figel PLLC.

The drug companies are represented by Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is Astra USA Inc. et al. v. Santa Clara County, Calif.,
case number 09-1273, in the U.S. Supreme Court.


DRUGSTORE.COM: Being Sold to Walgreens for Too Little, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say
Drugstore.com is selling itself too cheaply to Walgreen, for $3.80
a share or $409 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Grodko v. Drugstore.com Inc. et al.,
Case No. 6315 (D. Del.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/29/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 980
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: sdr@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          David Jaroslawicz, Esq.
          JAROSLAWICZ & JAROS
          225 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 227-2780
          E-mail: DJ@lawjaros.com


EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Delgado" Suit Settlement Given Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit against EPL Intermediate,
Inc., in Los Angeles has been given final court approval,
according to the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 29, 2010.

On May 30, 2008, Jeannette Delgado, a former Assistant Manager
filed a purported class action on behalf of all hourly (i.e. non-
exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles County
alleging violations of certain California labor laws and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods and
unfair business practices. By statute, the purported class extends
back four years, to May 30, 2004. Plaintiff's requested remedies
include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $1.9
million and executed a settlement agreement. This amount was
accrued for in the prior year and is included in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheets in accounts payable as of
December 29, 2010.  The Court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement on February 16, 2011, and the
settlement is expected to be funded on April 29, 2011.


FUWEI FILMS: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co., Ltd. has agreed to settle a
consolidated class-action lawsuit over its initial public offering
and a fairness hearing has been set for April 27, 2011, according
to the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On October 19, 2007, the Company became aware that a class action
lawsuit had been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock from the date of the Company's IPO
on December 19, 2006 through October 16, 2007. The complaint
alleged that the Company and certain of its present and former
officers, directors and shareholders violated the Securities Act
of 1933.

On November 21, 2007, the Company was given notice that a second
class action lawsuit had been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, commenced on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's IPO during the period from
December 19, 2006 through November 12, 2007. The complaint alleged
that the Company, its underwriters and certain of its executives
violated Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint also alleged the defendants by misrepresenting or
omitting material information regarding the Company and its
business operations.

On January 24, 2008, the Court consolidated into a single action
the putative securities class actions pending against the Company
and certain of its officers, directors and shareholders.  The
Court also appointed Ninyat Tonyaz as lead plaintiff, appointed
the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel, and granted plaintiffs
leave to file a consolidated amended class action complaint.  The
consolidated action is styled In re Fuwei Films Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-9416 (RJS).

On March 14, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint naming as defendants the Company, Xiaoan He, Mark
Stulga, Jun Yin, Tongju Zhou, Duo Wang, and the Company's IPO
underwriters -- Maxim Group LLC, WR Hambrecht + Co.and Chardan
Capital Markets, LLC.  The Amended Complaint asserts claims for
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The Company, Messrs. He and Stulga, and the Underwriter
Defendants were served with the Amended Complaint and moved to
dismiss the claims asserted against them.

On May 14, 2008, the Company and Messrs. He and Stulga filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The
Underwriter Defendants separately moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

On November 3, 2008, Plaintiffs filed proofs of service with the
Court, indicating that Messrs. Yin, Wang, and Zhou had been served
with the Amended Complaint on or about August 14, 2008, and that
they had 90 days after such date to serve an answer to the Amended
Complaint or a motion pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

By letter dated March 17, 2009, Plaintiffs apprised the Court of
Fuwei's March 10, 2009 Press Release disclosing the initial
verdict against Messrs. Yin, Wang, and Zhou, and requested that
the Court take judicial notice of this press release in
adjudicating the pending motions to dismiss.

By the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 10, 2009, the
motions to dismiss of the Company, Messrs. He and Stulga, and the
Underwriter Defendants were granted in part and denied in part. In
ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court was required to assume
that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true and to draw all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor.  Applying that
standard, the motions to dismiss of the defendants were granted in
part and denied in part by the court. The Court dismissed
plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were based upon Fuwei's
alleged failure to disclose the DMT arbitration proceeding.  The
Court also dismissed certain of plaintiffs' claims to the extent
they were brought on behalf of shareholders who did not purchase
their shares directly in the IPO.

The Court sustained plaintiffs' remaining claims. However, the
Court noted that defendants may be able to assert affirmative
defenses provided by the federal securities laws in a motion for
summary judgment, which could resolve the case before trial.

On September 9, 2009, the Company and Messrs. He and Stulga filed
their answer to the Amended Complaint. On October 2, 2009, the
Court entered a case management plan and scheduling order, which
set deadlines relating to pre-trial discovery, mediation, and
dispositive motions. Discovery thereafter proceeded.

On March 26, 2010, Fuwei, Messrs. He and Stulga, the Underwriter
Defendants, and Plaintiffs, through their respective attorneys,
engaged in mediation aimed at resolving the litigation. On
June 24, 2010, the parties reached a settlement in principle.
Subject to the Court's approval, Plaintiffs have agreed to accept
US$2.15 million in full and final settlement of all claims they
have or may have against the Company, certain of its present and
former officers, directors, shareholders and the underwriters.
Fuwei Films has agreed to contribute US$1.0 million towards the
settlement. The signed settlement agreement was submitted to the
Court for approval on September 9, 2010. The Court has
preliminarily approved the settlement, directed that notice be
given to the class, and set a fairness hearing for April 27, 2011.

The Company's management continues to believe that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit. However, in recognition of the
attendant risks and costs of continued litigation, and the
benefits of resolving the same, the Board of Directors has
unanimously consented to settle this case.

As of December 31, 2010, the Company accrued US$1.0 million
liability in connection with this litigation excluding defense
costs. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the Company
has deposit US$0.8 million in the Securities Litigation Settlement
Fund account in January 2011.


GENERAL MILLS: Loses Appeal in YoPlus Yoghurt Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order on March 25
that a federal judge in Miami appropriately granted class
certification in a false advertising class action lawsuit
involving YoPlus digestive health yogurt manufactured and sold by
General Mills and Yoplait USA.  According to the court of appeals
opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Paul C. Huck's order granting
class certification "is a scholarly work reflecting careful
attention to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, existing precedent and the factual background of this matter."

Since YoPlus was launched in July 2007, General Mills has
advertised that YoPlus yogurt provides unique digestive health
benefits because it contains "probiotic" bacteria and fiber.  The
class action complaint alleges that General Mills has no
scientific support for the YoPlus digestive health advertising
claims.  The Court's decision notes the allegations of the
misleading advertising messages that allow General Mills to charge
up to a 44% price premium for YoPlus over other yogurt products.

In 2010, Dannon agreed to a $45 million settlement in a class
action lawsuit prosecuted by Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP
involving Dannon's "probiotic" digestive health yogurt products
Activia and DanActive.  Like General Mills does with YoPlus,
Dannon charged a premium price for its Activia and DanActive
products.

Timothy Blood, co-lead counsel for the class in the YoPlus lawsuit
and managing partner of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP said that
although Dannon resolved the Activia and DanActive claims through
settlement, he fully anticipated taking the General Mills case to
trial.

"The Eleventh Circuit opinion is an important victory that allows
consumers to hold companies accountable for false advertising
through the use of a class action lawsuit," said Mr. Blood.

The YoPlus class action lawsuit is entitled Fitzpatrick v. General
Mills, Inc. (S.D. Fla.).  For more information, visit:
http://www.bholaw.com/

               About Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP specializes in consumer protection
law.  It represents consumers, insurance policy holders, investors
and small businesses in class action lawsuits nationwide.

Contact: Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
         Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1550
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 619-338-1100
         E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


SIRIUS XM: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Move Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Van Voris and David Glovin, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that a lawsuit claiming antitrust violations by Sirius XM Radio
Inc., the biggest U.S. satellite- radio broadcaster, may go
forward as a class action, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan allowed the antitrust
claims to proceed while dismissing claims filed under 20 state
consumer-protection laws.  In a separate order on March 29,
Judge Baer said the case may go forward on behalf of a nationwide
group of Sirius XM subscribers.

In a complaint filed in 2009, the subscribers claimed that New
York-based Sirius XM, the product of a 2008 merger between Sirius
Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Satellite Holdings Inc., abused its
monopoly power by illegally raising prices by almost 30 percent.
The suit targets so-called music royalty fees that Sirius charges
in addition to subscription fees.

Carl Blessing filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and other
subscribers.  It seeks unspecified damages, which may be tripled
under antitrust law.

In the ruling on March 29, Judge Baer certified a class of Sirius
XM customers who since July 29, 2008, paid the music royalty fee,
an increased monthly charge to activate more than one radio, or an
Internet access fee.

Patrick Reilly, a Sirius XM spokesman, said in an e-mailed
statement that the company was "heartened" by the portions of the
ruling in its favor.

"The surviving claims in this suit -- that the Sirius-XM merger
lessened competition or led to a monopoly -- are matters that have
already been passed upon by the United States Department of
Justice and the Federal Communications Commission," Mr. Reilly
said. "With new competitors emerging almost daily, we continue to
believe these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend this matter."

The case is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 09-cv-10035
(S.D.N.Y.).


TEXAS: Foster Care System Unconstitutional, Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Texas' foster care system is
unconstitutional and should be reformed, according to a class
action lawsuit that was filed against the state on March 29.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Corpus Christi, claims
Texas forces thousands of children to live in poorly supervised
institutions and move frequently from one place to another.  It
also contends that children languish for years without permanent
families, face a higher risk of abuse, are denied mental health
services and are routinely separated from their brothers and
sisters.

The suit was initiated by Children's Rights, a New York-based
child advocacy group that regularly supports such legal action.
The plaintiffs are nine children between the ages of nine and 16.

Marcia Lowry, the executive director of Children's Rights, said
the 85-page pleading is the product of five years of scrutiny of
Texas' child welfare practices by her organization.  A ruling that
the Texas system is unconstitutional would pave the way to reform,
she said.

"This is a system that's been bad for a long time," Ms. Lowry said
at a news conference in Dallas.  "It's not going to turn around
overnight, but it can be turned around."

According to Ms. Lowry, improving the system wouldn't necessarily
require major new funding, even though the suit contends that the
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is "severely"
understaffed.

"It's a question of where the state wants to put its money," she
said.  "There are ways to redesign the system."

Anne Heiligenstein, commissioner of the Department of Family and
Protective Services, said Texas' foster children are safe, well-
cared for and in a system that's nationally-recognized for seeking
adoptive parents.  The system has been subject to reform and has
received more than $1 billion in additional funding in recent
years, she said in a written statement.

"We're on the right path and will continue to do everything we can
to protect Texas children, but I worry that a lawsuit like this
will take critical time and resources away from the very children
it presumes to help," Ms. Heiligenstein said.

According to statistics compiled by the agency, the number of
caseworkers in Child Protective Services has risen in the last six
years from 2,947 to 4,660.  The number of adoptions consummated
during that time period also has increased dramatically, from
2,512 to 4,803.

The Texas suit is the 12th class action initiated by Children's
Rights seeking reform to the child welfare systems administered by
state or municipal governments.  Three other suits remain in
litigation, and eight have been settled, according to the
organization.

The suit names Gov. Rick Perry, Heiligenstein and Thomas Suehs,
executive commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services
Commission, as defendants.

It contends that "deficiencies" in the system, including
overburdened case workers and poorly supervised contract
providers, have led to a number of harmful conditions for the
12,000 children in long-term foster care.  These children in the
state's permanent managing conservatorship have become
"forgotten," according to the suit.

The suit cites statistics showing that, as of 2009, children who
had been in the state's custody more than three years had been
placed in an average of 11 different homes or other settings such
as shelters or residential treatment centers.  Cycling children
through the system in this manner doesn't comply with "reasonable
professional standards," the complaint alleges.

The suit also is critical of the state's use of foster group homes
that accommodate seven to 12 children.  Those homes can be "little
more than poorly supervised dormitories," and they provide further
evidence of how the Texas system differs from conventional
standards, according to the suit.

The suit draws much of its narrative from recent media accounts,
including an Associated Press story detailing how one foster group
home in East Texas was a collection of mobile homes and how the
state repeatedly ruled out allegations that young girls living
there were sexually abused by their foster father until he was
arrested on those charges.

"(That type of home) is an unusual form of treatment and was one
of the things that surprised us when we began our investigation,"
Ms. Lowry said.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Still Defends "Chrome 6" Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc., is still defending itself against class
action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs allegedly exposed to chrome 6,
according to the Company's March 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
February 28, 2011.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al. The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant. The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals. The suit requests,
among other things, establishment and funding of a medical testing
and monitoring program for the class until their exposure to
chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as well as
punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court. The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc., or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury
and wrongful death by over 2,800 individual plaintiffs who were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant. The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.,
from the suits, but most of the Company's subsidiaries operating
in California remain as defendants.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc., or one or more of the Company's
subsidiaries in the same court involving similar allegations,
causes of action and requests for relief, but with respect to the
Company's Oro Grande, California cement plant instead of the
Crestmore plant. The suits involve approximately 300 individual
plaintiffs. The court has also dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from these suits. Prior to the filing of the lawsuits, the air
quality management district in whose jurisdiction the plant lies
conducted air sampling from locations around the plant. None of
the samples contained chrome 6 levels above 1.0 ng/m3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that vary somewhat from
suit to suit, but typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, wrongful death and
loss of consortium. The plaintiffs generally request, among other
things, general and punitive damages, medical expenses, loss of
earnings, property damages and medical monitoring costs. As of
March 2011, none of the plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in
their pleadings any specific amount or range of damages. Some of
the suits include additional defendants, such as the owner of
another cement plant located approximately four miles from the
Crestmore plant or former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande
plants.

The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these suits but
cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from them. The
Company also cannot predict whether any other suits may be filed
against the Company alleging damages due to injuries to persons or
property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.


THEGLOBE.COM: Awaits Ruling on Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
TheGlobe.com, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on two appeals from a
court-approved settlement of a class action lawsuit involving the
Company's initial public offering, according to its March 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On and after August 3, 2001, six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and several investment banks
that were the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and secondary offering. The lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on
April 19, 2002.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed
on behalf of purchasers of the stock of the Company during the
period from November 12, 1998 through December 6, 2000. The
purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege
that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering and its secondary offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectuses for the Company's initial
public offering and its secondary offering were false and
misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the
Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice. This
dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person
claims without prejudice.

At the Court's request, Plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases,
which do not include the Company. The Court indicated that its
decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide strong
guidance for the parties in the remaining cases. On December 5,
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the District Court granting class certification in the
focus cases. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a
petition for rehearing filed by Plaintiffs, but noted that
Plaintiffs could ask the District Court to certify more narrow
classes than those that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the Company's, reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer
defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including theglobe. On
October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. Objectors to the settlement are pursuing two appeals
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss both appeals.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter. If
the settlement does not survive appeal and the Company is found
liable, the Company is unable to estimate or predict the potential
damages that might be awarded, whether such damages would be
greater than the Company's insurance coverage, and whether such
damages would have a material impact on the Company's results of
operations or financial condition in any future period.


UNION FIDELITY: Sued for Refusing to Refund Unearned Premium
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Union
Fidelity Life Insurance charges a lump sum for credit insurance on
auto loans, but will not return a prorated portion of it if
policyholders pay off the loan early.

A copy of the Complaint in Ragland v. Union Fidelity Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV-11-751938 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga
Cty.) (Friedman, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/29/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Erick Kennedy, Esq.
          Daniel P. Goetz, Esq.
          WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A.
          Suite 1600 Midland Building
          101 Prospect Avenue, West
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 781-111
          E-mail: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com
                  dgoetz@weismanlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
                     (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-9168
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Austin Gower, Esq.
          CHARLES A. GOWER, P.C.
          1425 Wynton Road
          P.O. Box 5509
          Columbus, GA 31906
          Telephone: (706) 324-5685
          E-mail: austin@cagower.com


UNITED STATES: Gov't Employees Probe Gender Bias at TSA
-------------------------------------------------------
The American Federation of Government Employees on March 29
renewed its call for adequate staffing throughout TSA after the
union received a high number of complaints from Transportation
Security Officers across the country with concerns of gender
biases surrounding scheduling and shift-bidding.

"There are overtones of gender discrimination throughout the
nation's airports, and AFGE has heard from enough TSOs to raise
our concern level to one involving a possible Wal-Mart-style class
action lawsuit," AFGE National President John Gage said.  "We have
been monitoring this situation for years, and it unfortunately
only seems to be getting worse."

For example, in a number of airports, female TSOs are being forced
from their baggage screening position to the checkpoints because
of the male to female ratio needed for passenger screening.  This
affects not only scheduling, but also seniority and pay.

"Here you have a prime example of a reactive management, rather
than one that is proactive," Mr. Gage said.  "TSA has had nine
years to figure out what is the right percentage of female
officers. Instead of recruiting and hiring from a pool of new
female hires, management is forcing all of its current employees
to scramble for a solution.  TSA's approach only serves to further
demoralize an already stressed workforce, and to create a
disruption in morale and service.

"AFGE is conducting an investigation into what our TSOs believe
may be agency-wide gender bias," Mr. Gage added.  "Whether or not
this constitutes legal discrimination, it still is a very serious
issue that TSA management must address."

AFGE is the only union to represent TSOs since the agency's
inception, and currently has more than 12,000 dues-paying members
in 40 AFGE TSA Locals across the country.  With more than 265,000
dues-paying members in more than 75 federal and D.C. government
agencies, AFGE is the single largest federal employee union in the
country.

For more information, please visit http://www.tsaunion.com/

AFGE -- http://www.afge.org/-- is the largest federal employee
union representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and
the government of the District of Columbia, including tens of
thousands of DHS employees in Border Patrol, Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, FEMA, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
Federal Protective Service, Office of Immigration Statistics and
TSA.


UNITED STATES: Key Deadline in Indian Trust Settlement Nears
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court-ordered process of notifying individual Indians of their
legal rights in the historic $3.4 billion class action Settlement,
Cobell v. Salazar, is coming to a close.  The Settlement resolves
claims related to Individual Indian Money (or IIM) accounts and
interests in land held in trust or restricted fee by the federal
government for the benefit of individual Indians.

Class Members all over the country have received detailed
information about their legal rights and options via U.S. Mail and
through an extensive media campaign, which included Native
American print media, television and radio ads, and online
advertising.

Class Members who received a formal notice in the mail about the
Settlement and who are currently receiving IIM account statements
do not have to do anything to receive payment.  Individuals who
believe they should be part of the Settlement but did not receive
a notice in the mail or are not receiving IIM account statements
need to fill out a Claim Form as soon as possible, available at
the Indian Trust Web site or by calling the toll-free number.

Class Members who wish to keep their right to sue the federal
government over mismanagement claims covered by the Settlement
must exclude themselves from the Settlement by April 20, 2011.
Class Members can also submit written comments or objections about
any Settlement terms that concern them by April 20, 2011.

The Settlement provides a $1.5 billion fund to compensate an
estimated 500,000 affected individual Indian trust beneficiaries
who have or had IIM accounts or hold an interest in trust or
restricted land.  The Settlement creates two groups of Class
Members eligible to receive money from the fund -- the Historical
Accounting Class and the Trust Administration Class.

    * The Historical Accounting Class comprises individual Indians
who were alive on Sept. 30, 2009, who had an open IIM account
anytime between Oct. 25, 1994 and Sept. 30, 2009, and whose
account had at least one cash transaction.

    * The Trust Administration Class comprises individual Indians
alive on Sept. 30, 2009, who had an IIM Account at any time from
1985 through Sept. 30, 2009, recorded in currently available
electronic data in federal government systems, as well as
individual Indians who, as of Sept. 30, 2009, had a recorded or
demonstrable interest in land held in trust or restricted status.

    * The estates of deceased Class Members will also receive a
Settlement distribution if the deceased beneficiary's account was
open as of Sept. 30, 2009, or their land interest was open in
probate as of that date.  Other eligibility conditions and
requirements for each Class are detailed in the Settlement
Agreement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, $1.9 billion will fund a
Department of the Interior program to buy fractionated interests
in trust or restricted land from willing sellers to benefit tribal
communities and aid in land consolidation.  Depending on the level
of participation in the land consolidation program, up to $60
million will be set aside to provide scholarships for higher
education for American Indian and Alaska Native youth.

The Web site http://www.IndianTrust.com/and toll-free number 1-
800-961-6109 are available to provide more information about the
Settlement and the legal rights of Class Members.  Individuals who
are unsure whether they are included in the Settlement should
visit the Web site or call the toll-free number for more
information.


UNITED WESTERN: Defends Class Suit in Colorado Over 2009 Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Western Bancorp, Inc., was served a class action complaint
over its September 2009 public offering, according to its
March 25, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On March 22, 2011, United Western Bancorp, Inc., was served
through its registered agent with a class action complaint filed
by MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated who acquired the common stock of the Company
pursuant to an allegedly false and misleading registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
September 17, 2009 public offering of common shares in the
Company. The Complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado. Other named defendants in the
Complaint include Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P.; FBR Capital
Markets & Co.; the Company's current directors and one former
director; McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; and Crowe Horwath LLP.

The Complaint alleges that on September 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 gross proceeds of $80
million. The Complaint also alleges that United Western 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 Form
10-K/A for 2008 and the reported financial results and Form 10-Q
for the second quarter of 2009.

The Complaint further alleges that certain facts were omitted from
the Registration Statement including: (1) United Western's
mortgage backed securities ("MBSs") and collateralized mortgage
obligations ("CMOs") 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.

The Complaint alleges that United Western ultimately announced
multi-million dollar impairments in its investment securities
portfolio, specifically in MBSs and CMOs, and alleges that this
caused the price of its common stock to plummet. In turn, on
January 21, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was
appointed as receiver for United Western Bank, the Company's
former federal savings bank subsidiary by the Office of Thrift
Supervision under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

The Company believes that it has substantial and meritorious legal
and factual defenses to the allegations made in the Complaint
which the Company and its officers and directors intend to
vigorously pursue.


WAL-MART STORES: Judges Divided in Gender Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Oliphant and David G. Savage, writing for Los Angeles Times,
report that Supreme Court justices, sharply divided along gender
lines, appeared poised to reject a nationwide class-action suit
that accuses Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of sex discrimination.

Led by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, the
majority of men on the court questioned how Wal-Mart could be held
liable for illegal sex bias when its 3,400 store managers across
the nation decide who gets promoted and who receives pay raises.

"It's not clear to me: What's the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart
has adopted?" Mr. Kennedy asked.  The company's written policy
calls for equal treatment without regard to race or sex.

But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan
-- who together mark the first time the court has had three women
on the bench -- asserted that a corporate policy of letting store
managers decide on promotions could result in discrimination
against women.

The statistics generated in the case so far strongly suggested
that was what had occurred, they said.

A lawyer representing the female plaintiffs argued that Wal-Mart's
corporate culture teaches mostly male supervisors that women are
"less aggressive" than men and therefore less suited to being
managers.

Unconvinced, Judge Scalia called that "an assessment of why the
percentage [of women in management] is different," but it is not
evidence of an illegal policy. Wal-Mart does not say, "Don't
promote women," he said.

"If you have an aggressive woman, promote her," Judge Scalia
added.

Judge Ginsburg, who made her legal reputation in sex-
discrimination law, said Wal-Mart's experience showed how gender
bias could "creep" into the workplace.  It isn't "at all
complicated," she said.

"Most people prefer themselves. And so a decision-maker, all other
things being equal, would prefer someone who looked like him,"
Judge Ginsburg said.

The case heard on March 29 is the most important and far-reaching
job-discrimination dispute to come before the high court in more
than a decade.  It could determine whether job-bias claims must
proceed as individual lawsuits or instead could go ahead as broad,
class-action claims that rely mostly on statistics.

The Berkeley lawyers who brought the sex-bias suit against the
nation's largest retailer said about two-thirds of Wal-Mart's
employees were women when the statistics were compiled five years
ago, but men accounted for 86% of store managers.

The lawyers also said women were paid less across the country,
even though they had more seniority on average than men.

At issue before the court was whether these findings would allow
this single suit to proceed as a class-action claim on behalf of
1.6 million women who have worked for Wal-Mart since 1998.  If so,
it would be by far the largest job-bias case in American history.

But the tenor of the March 29argument suggested that the massive,
decade-old suit may run aground before it can move toward a trial.

Although the more conservative-leaning justices on the high court
seemed to be the most hostile to the case, nearly all of its
members appeared troubled by aspects of the litigation.

Their concerns included how back pay would be awarded to class
members and whether the company would be afforded an ample
opportunity to defend itself against the accusations of
discrimination.

A key, at least for what appeared to be a majority of justices,
was whether Wal-Mart had in place policies that encouraged
supervisors to treat female employees differently from men.

Wal-Mart's attorney, Theodore J. Boutrous of Los Angeles, argued
that the company instead took a strong stand against
discrimination and that any case of disparate pay or treatment was
the product of rogue managers.

"They haven't shown a pattern across the map," Mr. Boutrous said.

Of the six men on the court, only Justice Stephen G. Breyer
appeared inclined to vote in favor of the class action.

Several justices also seemed critical of a contention by the
lawyer for the plaintiffs, Joseph M. Sellers, that Wal-Mart faced
liability because it allowed its managers too much leeway in
hiring and pay decisions.

"Wal-Mart provided to its managers unchecked discretion . . . that
was used to pay men more than women," Sellers said.

That troubled Judge Scalia.  "Which is it?" he asked.  "It's
either individual supervisors who are left on their own or there
is a strong corporate culture that tells you what to do. . . .  If
somebody tells you how to exercise discretion, you don't have
discretion."

A ruling in Wal-Mart vs. Dukes is not likely until June.


* US Drug Watchdog Wants Injury Claims Prosecuted Individually
--------------------------------------------------------------
The US Drug Watchdog is the premier US advocate for victims of
recalled pharmaceuticals, and or medical devices, and the group's
focus is 100% commitment to getting the best possible help, and
outcome for the victim.  The group is saying, "Many of these
recalled drug, or medical device victims have been damaged beyond
comprehension, and as such we think these extreme cases should be
prosecuted in individual state court, not as part of a national
class action.  In our opinion, an MDL is a disservice, or even an
insult to the victim, or their family, in many instances.  It is
for this reason we are looking for seasoned plaintiffs law firms,
in every state, that see the value in what we are attempting to
do." http://USDrugWatchdog.Com/

The US Drug Watchdog says, "We strongly believe bad drug, or
recalled medical device victims, who are now crippled, paralyzed,
permanently disabled, or dead, in many to most cases deserve
something better than a national class action, or an MDL.  We
think these types of cases should be prosecuted individually in
state court, by the absolute best plaintiffs attorneys possible."
They say, "If you are a passionate like minded managing partner of
a personal injury law firm, we want to talk with you.  The US Drug
Watchdog is initiative driven, and we are passionate about getting
the absolute best results for the precious souls we identify."
For more information, partners at a well established, and
aggressive personal injury law firm, who seek superior results for
victims of a recalled drug, or medical device are encouraged to
contact the US Drug Watchdog anytime at 866-714-6466, or contact
the group via their Web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.Com/


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NiSource Records $1.4MM for Settlement in 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc.'s subsidiary, Northern Indiana Public Service
Company, performed activities associated with asbestos removal
resulting in settlements of US$1.4 million in 2010 and also
recorded additions of US$2.3 million related to underground gas
storage wells whose lives became determinable.

Northern Indiana performed retirement activities associated
with a landfill and asbestos removal resulting in settlements of
US$1 million for 2009.

NiSource, Inc. is an energy holding company whose subsidiaries
provide natural gas, electricity and other products and services
to about 3.8 million customers located within a corridor that runs
from the Gulf Coast through the Midwest to New England.  The
Company is based in Merillville, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,050 Cases Pending v. TriMas Corp. at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, was a party to about
1,050 pending cases involving an aggregate of about 8,200
claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-
containing materials, according to the Company's annual report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 28,
2011.

The asbestos was formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's
subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and
exploration industries.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded
892 claims filed, 456 claims dismissed and 52 claims settled.  The
average settlement amount per claim was US$7,029 and total defense
costs during the period were US$2,870,000.

During the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded
586 claims filed, 254 claims dismissed and 40 claims settled.  The
average settlement amount per claim was US$4,644 and total defense
costs during the period were US$2,652,000.

Of the 8,200 claims pending at Dec. 31, 2010, about 40 set forth
specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the
statutory minimum or maximum).  About 28 of the 40 claims sought
between US$1 million and US$5 million in total damages (which
includes compensatory and punitive damages), nine sought between
US$5 million and US$10 million in total damages (which includes
compensatory and punitive damages) and 3 sought over US$10 million
in total damages (which includes compensatory and punitive
damages).

Solely with respect to compensatory damages, 30 of the 40 claims
sought between US$50,000 and US$600,000, seven sought between US$1
million and US$5 million and three sought over US$5 million.

Solely with respect to punitive damages, 28 of the 40 claims
sought between US$1 and US$2.5 million, nine sought between US$2.5
million and US$5 million and three sought over US$5 million.  In
addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery
stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been about
US$5.8 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos cases is
monetary in nature.  To date, about 50 percent of the Company's
costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation
have been covered by its primary insurance.

TriMas Corporation is a global manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets.  The
Company is based in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Mine Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mine Safety Appliances Company is presently named as a defendant
in about 1,900 lawsuits in which plaintiffs allege to have
contracted certain cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure
to silica, asbestos, and/or coal dust.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos, and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis.

These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory protection products
allegedly manufactured and sold by the Company.

Mine Safety Appliances Company develops, manufactures and supplies
products that protect people's health and safety.  Its safety
products typically integrate any combination of electronics,
mechanical systems, and advanced materials to protect users
against hazardous or life threatening situations.  The Company is
based in Cranberry Township, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 16,865 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at Dec. 31, 2010, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,865 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of
23 claims from those previously reported.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive
damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 38,968 of those
claims were dismissed, 17 were tried to defense verdicts, seven
were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 573 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a broad-line manufacturer of
welding and cutting products.  The Company's product offering also
includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding and
cutting.  The Company is based in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Fin'l. Posts $276MM Reserves at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s asbestos-related reserves
amounted to US$276 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$300 million as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 28, 2011.

American Financial Group, Inc. is a holding company that is
engaged in property and casualty insurance, focusing on
specialized commercial products for businesses, and in the sale of
traditional fixed and indexed annuities and a variety of
supplemental insurance products, such as Medicare supplement.  The
Company is based in Cincinnati, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Involved in Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is party to a number of personal
injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been
exposed to asbestos, according to the Company's annual report
filed on Feb. 28, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.  However,
other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive
component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until
they were substantially eliminated at the Company by 1985.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is a holding company that
conducts no operating activities and owns no significant assets
other than through its interests in its subsidiaries. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company is engaged primarily in the freight rail
transportation business. At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company and its
subsidiaries had about 38,000 employees.  The Company is based in
Fort Worth, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Party to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries are still facing
asbestos complaints filed in Mississippi courts.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named, along
with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints
filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of
exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.

A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial,
subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a
separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints
were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts.  The amended complaints
resulted in one of the Company's subsidiaries being named as a
direct defendant in seven cases.  The Company has or may have an
indirect interest in an additional 12 cases.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with
drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence,
products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the
Jones Act and general maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

In each of these cases, the complaints have named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.

In 2009, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi-
plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated
defendant companies, which allegedly manufactured drilling-related
products containing asbestos.  The Company was not a defendant in
either of these cases.

One of the cases resulted in a substantial jury verdict in favor
of the plaintiff, and this verdict was subsequently vacated by the
trial judge on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its
burden of proof.  While the court's decision is consistent with
the Company's general evaluation of the strength of these cases,
it has not been reviewed on appeal.  The second case resulted in a
verdict completely in favor of the defendants.

There were two additional trials in 2010, one resulting in a
substantial verdict for the plaintiff and one resulting in a
complete verdict for the defendants.  The Company was not a
defendant in either case and both of the matters are currently on
appeal.

Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for
oil and gas wells.  As of Feb. 10, 2011, the Company owned, had
partial ownership interests in or operated 138 mobile offshore
drilling units.  The Company is based in Vernier, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Faces 1,037 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, its subsidiary was
a defendant in about 1,037 asbestos lawsuits, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 18, 2011.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company
estimates that there are about 2,440 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

One of the Company's subsidiaries was involved in lawsuits arising
out of the subsidiary's involvement in the design, construction
and refurbishment of major industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly
as the beneficiary of a qualified settlement fund, funding from
settlements with insurers, assigned rights from insurers and
"coverage-in-place" settlement agreements with insurers, and funds
received from the communication of certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous
other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.  The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed
against this subsidiary in 1990.

Through Dec. 31, 2010, the amounts expended to resolve claims,
including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs,
have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied
or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and
expenses and costs of settlement have been met by insurance made
available to the subsidiary.

Transocean Ltd. provides offshore contract drilling services for
oil and gas wells.  As of Feb. 10, 2011, the Company owned, had
partial ownership interests in or operated 138 mobile offshore
drilling units.  The Company is based in Vernier, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Cites $270.3MM Gross Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation's gross asbestos-related reserves were
US$270.3 million and net asbestos reserves were US$154.4 million
at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 28, 2011.

Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not reported
reserves for asbestos and environmental exposures were US$131.6
million and US$84.4 million, respectively, at Dec. 31, 2010.

Inception-to-date net paid losses and loss adjustment expenses for
A&E related exposures totaled US$355.7 million at Dec. 31, 2010,
which includes US$67.2 million of litigation-related expense.

Markel Corporation is a diverse financial holding company serving
a variety of niche markets.  Its principal business markets and
underwrites specialty insurance products and programs.  The
Company is based in Glen Allen, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Re Posts $1.677BB Losses for Mass Tort
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s General Re unit recorded US$1.677
billion for mass tort-asbestos/environmental matters, according to
the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 28, 2011.

Overall industry-wide loss experience data and informed judgment
are used when internal loss data is of limited reliability, such
as in setting the estimates for mass tort, asbestos and hazardous
waste claims.

Unpaid mass tort reserves at Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009 were about
US$1.7 billion gross and US$1.3 billion net of reinsurance.  Mass
tort net claims paid were about US$89 million in 2010.  In 2010,
ultimate loss estimates for asbestos and environmental claims were
increased by US$70 million.

The survival ratio based on claim payments made over the last
three years was about 14 years as of Dec. 31, 2010.  The
reinsurance industry's comparable survival ratio for asbestos and
pollution reserves was about 10 years.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries
engaged in a number of diverse business activities.  The most
important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a
primary basis and a reinsurance basis.  The Company is based in
Omaha, Nebraska.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Re Has $10BB A&E Liabilities at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s subsidiary Berkshire Hathaway
Reinsurance Group's liabilities for environmental, asbestos and
latent injury losses and loss adjustment expenses were about
US$10.7 billion at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$9.1 billion at Dec. 31,
2009 and were concentrated within retroactive reinsurance
contracts.

The Company paid losses in 2010 attributable to these exposures of
about US$800 million.

Absent significant judicial or legislative changes affecting
asbestos, environmental or latent injury exposures, the Company
currently believes it unlikely that gross unpaid losses as of Dec.
31, 2010 (US$18.7 billion) will develop upward to the maximum loss
payable or downward by more than 15 percent.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries
engaged in a number of diverse business activities.  The most
important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a
primary basis and a reinsurance basis.  The Company is based in
Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Hathaway Has $12.4BB Dec. 31 Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s liabilities for environmental, asbestos
and latent injury claims and claims expenses net of reinsurance
recoverables were about US$12.4 billion at Dec. 31, 2010 and
US$10.6 billion at Dec. 31, 2009.

These liabilities included about US$10.7 billion at Dec. 31, 2010
and US$9.1 billion at Dec. 31, 2009 of liabilities assumed under
retroactive reinsurance contracts.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries
engaged in a number of diverse business activities.  The most
important of these are insurance businesses conducted on both a
primary basis and a reinsurance basis.  The Company is based in
Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Still Involved in Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the asbestos litigation Ford Motor Company is party to
involve individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of its
vehicles over the years.

Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive
components from the early 1900s.  Along with other vehicle
manufacturers, the Company has been the target of asbestos
litigation and, as a result, is a defendant in various actions for
injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford
parts and other products containing asbestos.

Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health
problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component
parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos
products in the Company's facilities, or asbestos aboard its
former maritime fleet.

Ford Motor Company produces cars and trucks.  The Company and its
subsidiaries also engage in other businesses, including financing
vehicles.  The Company is based in Dearborn, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 500 Lawsuits Pending v. Entergy Corp.'s Units
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are about 500 asbestos involving about 5,000 claimants
currently pending against certain of Entergy Corporation's
subsidiaries, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 28, 2011.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts
primarily in Texas and Louisiana, primarily by contractor
employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, against Entergy
Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. and Entergy Texas, Inc. and to a
lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as premises
owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to
asbestos.

Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well.

Entergy Corporation's subsidiaries distribute electricity to 2.7
million customers in four southern states (Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas) and provide natural gas to 189,000
customers in Louisiana.  The Company is based in New Orleans, La.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 555 Lawsuits Pending v. MeadWestvaco at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 555 asbestos-related lawsuits pending against
MeadWestvaco Corporation as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 28, 2011.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation.  Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants.  To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$24 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging company that
provides packaging solutions to many of the world's brands in the
healthcare, beauty and personal care, food, beverage, tobacco and
home and garden industries.  The Company is based in Richmond, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. Georgia-Pacific
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings Inc. says that Georgia-Pacific, LLC is a
defendant in suits brought in various courts around the nation by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to products containing asbestos.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia-
Pacific.

BlueLinx Holdings Inc. distributes building products in the United
States.  As of Jan. 1, 2011, the Company distributed about 10,000
products from over 750 suppliers to service more than 11,500
customers nationwide, including dealers, industrial manufacturers,
manufactured housing producers and home improvement retailers.
The Company is based in Atlanta.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco, Inc. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may be brought
against Sunoco, Inc. arising out of its current and past
operations, including allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances (such as benzene or asbestos) and general
environmental claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 28, 2011.

Sunoco, Inc. is principally a petroleum refiner and marketer and
chemicals manufacturer with interests in logistics and cokemaking.
The Company's cokemaking operations currently are conducted in
Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and Vitoria, Brazil.  The
Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 223 Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 223 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation,
LLC was potentially liable and that had not been settled and
dismissed at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 28, 2011.

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20,
2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of its
reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50 percent of
specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related
expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing
arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future
asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement.

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportion
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or
Midwest Generation locations.  The obligations under this
agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.

The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year terms (subject
to the right of either party to terminate); under the automatic
renewal provision, it has been extended until February 2012.

While the range of this liability is between US$46 million and
US$67 million, the Company had recorded a liability for previous,
pending and future claims of US$56 million and US$50 million at
Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, included in benefit plans
and other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance
sheets.

Midwest Generation, LLC sells wholesale electricity to markets in
the Midwest.  The independent power producer has a generating
capacity of more than 5,770 MW, primarily from its six coal-fired
power plants in Illinois (5,740 MW); it also oversees the
operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-site generating plants which
have 305 MW of capacity.  The Company is based in Bolingbrook,
Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Badger Meter Still Facing Multi-Party Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been
named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, manufactured by third parties, and integrated into or
sold with a very limited number of the Company's products.

Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of products
incorporating liquid flow measurement and control technologies
serving markets worldwide.  The Company was incorporated in 1905
and is based in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic's Net Reserves for A&E at $145MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestosis and
environmental claim reserves amounted to US$144.9 million at
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$136.9 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's gross A&E claim reserves amounted to US$195.7
million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$172.8 million at
Dec. 31, 2009.

Old Republic International Corporation is engaged in the single
business of insurance underwriting.  It conducts its operations
through a number of regulated insurance company subsidiaries
organized into three major segments, namely, its General (property
and liability insurance), Mortgage Guaranty, and Title Insurance
Groups.  The Company is based in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Berkley Posts $35.54MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
adjustment expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims
were US$35,543,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$36,525,000 at Dec. 31,
2009.

The Company's gross reserves for losses and loss adjustment
expenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims were
US$51,214,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$53,986,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.

Net incurred losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and
environmental claims increased by about US$1,755,000 in 2010.  Net
paid losses and loss expenses for reported asbestos and
environmental claims were about US$2,737,000 in 2010, US$2,508,000
in 2009 and US$2,384,000 in 2008.

W. R. Berkley Corporation is an insurance holding company that is
among the largest commercial lines writers in the United States
and operates in five segments of the property casualty insurance
business: Specialty lines of insurance; Regional commercial
property casualty insurance; Alternative markets; Reinsurance; and
International.  The Company is based in Greenwich, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indianapolis Power Still Faces Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company, is a defendant in a little less than 100 pending lawsuits
alleging personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure
to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in
IPL power plants.

IPL has been named as a "premises defendant" in that IPL did not
mine, manufacture, distribute or install asbestos or asbestos
containing products.  These suits have been brought on behalf of
persons who worked for contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.

IPL has insurance which may cover some portions of these claims;
currently, these cases are being defended by counsel retained by
various insurers who wrote policies applicable to the period of
time during which much of the exposure has been alleged.

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s principal subsidiary is Indianapolis
Power & Light Company, a regulated electric utility with its
customer base concentrated in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Substantially all of the Company's business consists of the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy
conducted through IPL.  The Company is Indianapolis, Ind.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and
other primary defendants, Gardner Denver, Inc. has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants.  In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury
for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits.  However, neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the
injury underlying the lawsuits.  Moreover, the asbestos-containing
components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the
subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain
of its or its predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential
indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for
the costs associated with the asbestos lawsuits filed against the
Company.  The Company has also pursued litigation against certain
insurers or indemnitors where necessary.

The latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9,
2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Ill., as case
number 10-L-48.

In the lawsuit, the Company seeks to require certain excess
insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to
the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs
associated with the asbestos lawsuits filed against the Company.

Gardner Denver, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets engineered
industrial machinery and related parts and services.  The Company
is based in Wayne, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Has $904MM Claims Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., as of Dec. 31, 2010, had
established gross loss and loss adjustment expense reserves for
asbestos claims of US$904 million, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 28, 2011.

About 99 percent of these loss and LAE reserves are covered under
reinsurance arrangements.  The Company's net loss and LAE reserves
for asbestos claims after giving effect to third-party reinsurance
other than the NICO Cover were US$647.3 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's net loss and LAE reserves for asbestos claims after
giving effect to both third-party reinsurance and the NICO Cover
were US$6.4 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. is a property and casualty
insurance writer that offers specialty insurance products and
services through independent agencies, regional and national
brokers, wholesalers and managing general agencies.  The Company
is based in Minnetonka, Minn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc. has been named, along with numerous other
nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various
states involving asbestos and/or silica.

These lawsuits typically assert claims of personal injury arising
from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or silica as a consequence
of products purportedly distributed by the Company.

In 2010, the Company was named in lawsuits relating to asbestos
and/or silica involving about 190 new plaintiffs, and lawsuits
relating to asbestos and/or silica involving about 150 plaintiffs
were dismissed with respect to the Company, typically based on the
lack of product identification.

As of Jan. 24, 2011, the Company is named in cases filed on behalf
of about 1,900 plaintiffs in which there is an allegation of
exposure to asbestos and/or silica.

As of Feb. 2, 2010, the Company is named in cases filed on behalf
of about 1,900 plaintiffs in which there is an allegation of
exposure to asbestos and silica.  (Class Action Reporter, March 5,
2010)

W.W. Grainger, Inc. is a broad-line distributor of maintenance,
repair and operating supplies and other related products and
services used by businesses and institutions primarily in the
United States and Canada, with an expanding presence in Asia and
Latin America.  The Company is based in Lake Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITW, Units Still Have Welding-Related Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Among the toxic tort cases in which Illinois Tool Works Inc. is a
defendant, the Company as well as its subsidiaries Hobart Brothers
Company and Miller Electric Mfg. Co., have been named, along with
numerous other defendants, in lawsuits alleging injury from
exposure to welding consumables.

The plaintiffs in these suits claim unspecified damages for
injuries resulting from the plaintiffs' alleged exposure to
asbestos, manganese and/or toxic fumes in connection with the
welding process.

Illinois Tool Works Inc. is a multinational manufacturer of a
diversified range of industrial products and equipment with
operations in 57 countries.  These businesses are internally
reported as 60 operating segments to senior management.  The
Company is based in Glenview, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Reaches Deal in Quigley Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. reached a settlement with
asbestos claimants that may bring an end to its Quigley
subsidiary's seven-year-old bankruptcy case, Bloomberg reports.

Pfizer and a committee of asbestos claimants entered into an
agreement on March 20, 2011 that may resolve their dispute over
claims, according to court papers filed March 22, 2011 in
Manhattan.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein had refused to allow
Quigley to exit Chapter 11 court protection in September 2010,
saying Pfizer had manipulated the bankruptcy process to benefit
itself.

Asbestos claims against Quigley may total US$4.45 billion during
the next 42 years, according to testimony cited by Judge Bernstein
in September 2011.  Under the deal, which requires court approval,
asbestos claimants would vote in favor of Quigley's bankruptcy
plan and waive all rights to a jury trial.

In exchange, Pfizer would contribute US$264.9 million in cash and
all of the stock in a reorganized Quigley to a trust to pay
asbestos claims.  Pfizer also would forgive its own claims against
the non-operating unit, according to a draft of the plan.

In November 2010, Pfizer reported a US$701 million third-quarter
charge for asbestos litigation for Quigley.  The ad hoc committee,
representing 43,100 asbestos claimants, had asked the court to
lift an injunction that has barred them from bringing claims
against Pfizer since 2004.

The case is In re Quigley Co., 04-15739 (S.D.N.Y.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co. Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s wholly owned Quigley Company, Inc. continues to be
subject to asbestos-related exposure litigation.

Quigley was acquired by the Company in 1968 and sold small amounts
of products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.  In
September 2004, the Company and Quigley took steps that were
intended to resolve all pending and future claims against the
Company and Quigley in which the claimants allege personal injury
from exposure to Quigley products containing asbestos, silica or
mixed dust.  The Company recorded a charge of US$369 million pre-
tax (US$229 million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2004 in
connection with these matters.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York seeking reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  In March 2005,
Quigley filed a reorganization plan in the Bankruptcy Court that
needed the approval of both the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York after receipt
of the vote of 75 percent of the claimants.

In connection with that filing, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with lawyers representing more than 80
percent of the individuals with claims related to Quigley products
against Quigley and the Company.  The agreements provide for a
total of US$430 million in payments, of which US$215 million
became due in December 2005 and is being paid to claimants upon
receipt by the Company of certain required documentation from each
of the claimants.

The reorganization plan provided for the establishment of a Trust
(the Trust) for the payment of all remaining pending claims as
well as any future claims alleging injury from exposure to Quigley
products.

In February 2008, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Quigley to
solicit an amended reorganization plan for acceptance by
claimants.  According to the official report filed with the court
by the balloting agent in July 2008, the requisite number of votes
was cast in favor of the amended plan of reorganization.

The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing with respect to
Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that concluded in
December 2009.  In September 2010, the Bankruptcy Court declined
to confirm the amended reorganization plan.

The Company and Quigley are seeking to address the Bankruptcy
Court's concerns regarding the amended reorganization plan and
currently intend to submit a revised plan for consideration by the
court.

As a result of the foregoing, the Company recorded additional
charges for this matter of about US$1.3 billion pre-tax (about
US$800 million after-tax) in 2010.  Further, in order to preserve
its right to address certain legal issues raised in the court's
opinion, in October 2010, the Company filed a notice of appeal and
motion for leave to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's decision denying
confirmation.

In a separately negotiated transaction with an insurance company
in August 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement related to
certain insurance coverage which provides for payments to the
Company over a 10-year period of amounts totaling US$405 million.

Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company.
The Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio includes
human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and
vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's
best-known consumer healthcare products.  The Company is based in
New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Records 88,000 AO Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. says that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, about 88,000 claims
naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical
Corporation, which manufactured and sold respiratory protective
devices and asbestos safety clothing.  In connection with the sale
of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify
the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-
related and other claims.

Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will
continue to explore various means to resolve, these claims.

Warner-Lambert and American Optical brought suit in state court in
New Jersey against the insurance carriers that provided coverage
for the asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials claims
related to American Optical.  A majority of the carriers
subsequently agreed to pay for a portion of the costs of defending
and resolving those claims.

Numerous lawsuits are pending against the Company in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal
injury from exposure to products containing asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials sold by Gibsonburg Lime Products
Company.  Gibsonburg was acquired by the Company in the 1960s and
sold small amounts of products containing asbestos until the early
1970s.

There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by the Company or
its subsidiaries.

Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company.
The Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio includes
human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and
vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's
best-known consumer healthcare products.  The Company is based in
New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PartnerRe Has $214MM at Dec. 31 for A&E Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PartnerRe Ltd.'s net reserves for unpaid losses and loss expenses
included US$214 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$232 million at
Dec. 31, 2009 that represent estimates of its net ultimate
liability for asbestos and environmental claims.

The gross liability for such claims was US$222 million at Dec. 31,
2010 and US$239 million at Dec. 31, 2009, which primarily relate
to Paris Re's gross liability for asbestos and environmental
claims for pre-2006 accident years of US$144 million and US$159
million, respectively, with any favorable or adverse development
being subject to the Reserve Agreement.

Of the remaining US$78 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$80 million
at Dec. 31, 2009, the majority of the reserves relate to casualty
exposures in the United States arising from business written by
PartnerRe SA and PartnerRe U.S.

PartnerRe Ltd. provides reinsurance on a worldwide basis through
its wholly owned subsidiaries, including Partner Reinsurance
Company Ltd. (PartnerRe Bermuda), Partner Reinsurance Europe
Limited (PartnerRe Europe) and Partner Reinsurance Company of the
U.S. (PartnerRe U.S.).  The Company is based in Pembroke, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SW Public Svc Posts $19.96MM for AROs at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Public Service Company's asset retirement obligations
for steam production asbestos amounted to US$19,960,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$18,596,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

AROs have been recorded for steam production and electric
transmission and distribution.  The steam production obligation
includes asbestos and ash containment facilities.  The asbestos
recognition associated with the steam production includes certain
plants at the Company.

Generally, this asbestos abatement removal obligation originated
in 1973 with the Clean Air Act applied to the demolition of
buildings or removal of equipment containing asbestos that can
become airborne on removal.

Southwestern Public Service Company is an operating utility
engaged primarily in the generation, purchase, transmission,
distribution, and sale of electricity in portions of Texas and New
Mexico.  The Company is based in Amarillo, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has 430 Property Damage Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. said that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims, about 430
asbestos-related property damage claims subject to a March 31,
2003 bar date remain outstanding.

The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement agreements covering
about 395 of such claims for an aggregate allowed amount of
US$146.8 million.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the April 2, 2001
bankruptcy Filing Date, 140 were dismissed without payment of any
damages or settlement amounts; judgments after trial were entered
in favor of the Company in nine cases.

Judgments after trial were entered in favor of the plaintiffs in
eight cases for a total of US$86.1 million; 207 property damage
cases were settled for a total of US$696.8 million; and 16 cases
remain outstanding.  Of the 16 remaining cases, eight relate to
ZAI and eight relate to a number of former asbestos-containing
products (two of which also are alleged to involve ZAI).

About 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the March 31,
2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy Court.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.  These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation.

The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes
and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars per
home.  As a result of the Filing, the eight U.S. cases have been
stayed.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Still Subject to Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effects
from exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly
manufactured by W. R. Grace & Co.

Cumulatively through the April 2, 2001 bankruptcy Filing Date,
16,354 asbestos personal injury lawsuits involving about 35,720 PI
Claims were dismissed without payment of any damages or settlement
amounts (primarily on the basis that Grace products were not
involved) and about 55,489 lawsuits involving about 163,698 PI
Claims were disposed of (through settlements and judgments) for a
total of US$645.6 million.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending against
Grace.  The Company said it believes that a substantial number of
additional PI Claims would have been received between the Filing
Date and Dec. 31, 2010 had such PI Claims not been stayed by the
Bankruptcy Court.

The Bankruptcy Court has entered a case management order for
estimating liability for pending and future PI Claims.  A trial
for estimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but
was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Records $970MM Coverage from 54 Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. said that, as of Dec. 31, 2010, there remains
about US$970 million of excess asbestos coverage from 54 presently
solvent insurers.

The Company estimates that eligible claims would have to exceed
US$4 billion to access total coverage.

The Company holds insurance policies that provide coverage for
1962 to 1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.
For the most part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has been
exhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 available
for pending and future asbestos claims.  Since 1985, insurance
coverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not been
commercially available to the Company.

Under the Joint Plan, proceeds from insurance policies that
provide coverage for asbestos-related claims and proceeds,
including interest, received after the date of the PI Settlement,
would be assigned to the PI Trust.  The Company has entered into
settlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers that
are not dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan.

These settlements involve amounts paid and to be paid to the
Company.  The unpaid maximum aggregate amount available under
these settlement agreements is about US$487 million.

Excluding settlement agreements that are dependent upon the
effectiveness of the Joint Plan, the Company has no agreements in
place with insurers with respect to about US$483 million of excess
coverage.

In addition, the Company has about US$253 million of excess
coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurance carriers.  Non-
paying carriers are those that, although technically solvent, are
not currently meeting their obligations to pay claims.  The
Company has filed and continues to file claims in the insolvency
proceedings of these carriers.

The Company has entered into settlement agreements, which are
dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with
underwriters of a portion of the Company's insurance coverage.
Under these agreements, the insurers have agreed, subject to
certain conditions, to pay to the PI Trust (directly or through an
escrow arrangement) an aggregate of about US$393.2 million in
respect of claims for which the Company was provided coverage
under the affected policies.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Posts $52.7MM Libby Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co.'s total estimated liability for asbestos
remediation studies and other estimable matters related to its
former vermiculite operations in Libby, Mont., was US$52.7 million
at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$51.6 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont., in 1963
and operated it until 1990.  Vermiculite ore from the Libby mine
was used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other
products.  Some of the vermiculite ore that was mined at the Libby
mine was contaminated with naturally-occurring asbestos.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has investigated sites,
including sites owned by the Company, which used, stored or
processed vermiculite from the Libby mine.  The Company and other
potentially responsible parties have conducted investigations
and/or remedial actions at those sites identified by the EPA as
requiring remedial action.

During 2008, the Company paid US$250 million plus accrued interest
of about US$2 million under an agreement between the Company and
the U.S. Department of Justice to settle the EPA's cost recovery
claims for all past and future remediation costs with respect to
the Company's former Libby operations, except for those relating
to the Grace-owned Libby vermiculite mine.

During 2010, the EPA commenced a reinvestigation of up to 105
former or currently operating plants, including seven that are
currently owned by the Company, at which vermiculite from the
Libby mine was processed prior to 1990.

The Company is cooperating with the EPA on this reinvestigation.
The Company evaluates its estimated remediation liability as it
receives additional information regarding potential remediation of
these sites.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has 124,420 U.S. Claims in 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG faced 124,420 open asbestos claims in the United
States during the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
125,100 open claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 6,080
new claims and 6,760 claims resolved.  The Company recorded 97,440
claims not valued in the liability and 26,980 open claims valued
in the liability.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 4,410
new claims and 10,070 claims resolved.  The Company recorded
94,740 claims not valued in the liability and 30,360 open claims
valued in the liability.

Of the 124,420 open claims, the Company's subsidiaries are
respondents in about 30,300 open claims wherein it has
administrative agreements and are named defendants in lawsuits
involving about 94,120 plaintiffs.

Total asbestos-related assets were US$219,901,000 at Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$274,006,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.  Total
asbestos-related liabilities were US$337,500,000 at Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with US$376,500,000 at Dec. 31, 2009.

Through Dec. 31, 2010, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were
about US$729,300,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were
about US$340,700,000.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Faces 287 U.K. Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG is involved in 287 open asbestos claims in the
United Kingdom as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Feb. 28, 2011.

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have
received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to
asbestos.  To date, 959 claims have been brought against the U.K.
subsidiaries.  None of the settled claims has resulted in material
costs to the Company.

Total asbestos-related assets were US$31,046,000 during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$39,267,000 during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Total asbestos-related liabilities were US$31,046,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$39,267,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury and accordingly, the Company has reduced its liability
assessment.

If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total asbestos
liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be about
US$53,100,000.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Progress Energy Posts $53MM ARO at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc.'s asbestos-related asset retirement
obligations totaled US$53 million at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$54 million at Dec. 31, 2009.

Subsidiaries Carolina Power & Light Company and Florida Power
Corporation (PEF) have recognized ARO liabilities related to
asbestos abatement costs.

PEC's ARO liabilities related to asbestos abatement costs were
US$26 million at Dec. 31, 2010 and US$27 million at Dec. 31, 2009.
PEF's ARO liabilities related to asbestos abatement costs were
US$27 million at both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009.

Progress Energy, Inc. is a public utility holding company
primarily engaged in the regulated electric utility business.  It
owns, directly or indirectly, all of the outstanding common stock
of its utility subsidiaries, Carolina Power & Light Company (PEC)
and Florida Power Corporation (PEF).  The Company is based in
Raleigh, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Faces Liability Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. is involved in actions that
allege harm caused by products it has allegedly made or used,
containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are focusing on alleged harm caused by other
products the Company has made or used, including silica-containing
resin coated sands and discontinued products, some of which may
have contained some asbestos fines.

Momentive Specialty Chemicals produces thermosetting resins, or
thermosets, and produces adhesive and structural resins and
coatings.  The Company is based in Columbus, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Pursues Coverage on Aqua-Chem Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company and Aqua-Chem, Inc. (n/k/a Cleaver Brooks,
Inc.) are pursuing and obtaining coverage agreements for asbestos-
related claims against Aqua-Chem with insurance companies that did
not settle in the Wisconsin coverage litigation.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, the Company owned Aqua-Chem.
A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside suppliers.

Several years after the Company sold this entity, Aqua-Chem
received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a component of
some of the gaskets.  In September 2002, Aqua-Chem notified the
Company that it believed the Company was obligated for certain
costs and expenses associated with its asbestos litigations.

Aqua-Chem demanded that the Company reimburse it for about US$10
million for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses.  Aqua-Chem
also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing obligation
to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses that are
excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or for which
there is no insurance.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem.

In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed a
declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and 16
defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

During the course of the Wisconsin coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem
and the Company reached settlements with several of the insurers,
including plaintiffs, who have or will pay funds into an escrow
account for payment of costs arising from the asbestos claims
against Aqua-Chem.

On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.

The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's
losses up to policy limits.

The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation.  The Georgia litigation remains subject to the stay
agreement.

The Coca-Cola Company owns or licenses and markets more than 500
non-alcoholic beverage brands, primarily sparkling beverages but
also a variety of still beverages such as waters, enhanced waters,
juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and
energy and sports drinks.  The Company is based in Atlanta.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Posts $2.9MM Abatement Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of Dec. 31, 2010, has
recorded in its financial statements a liability of US$2.9 million
related to potential future asbestos abatement activities at its
Properties, according to the Company's annual report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011.

CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. is a self-managed, self-
administered, fully integrated real estate investment trust.  The
Company owns, develops, acquires, leases, manages, and operate
regional shopping malls, open-air centers, community centers and
office properties.  The Company is based in Chattanooga, Tenn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advanced Auto Unit Still Faces Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Auto Parts, Inc.'s Western Auto subsidiary, together with
other defendants including automobile manufacturers, automotive
parts manufacturers and other retailers, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2011.

The Company and some of its subsidiaries also have been named as
defendants in many of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs have alleged
that these products were manufactured, distributed and/or sold by
the various defendants.  These products have primarily included
brake parts.

Many of the cases pending against the Company or its subsidiaries
are in the early stages of litigation.  The damages claimed
against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial.  Additionally, some of the automotive parts
manufacturers named as defendants in these lawsuits have declared
bankruptcy, which will limit plaintiffs' ability to recover
monetary damages from those defendants.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. is a specialty retailer of automotive
aftermarket parts, accessories, batteries and maintenance items
primarily operating within the United States.  Its stores carry an
extensive product line for cars, vans, sport utility vehicles and
light trucks.  The Company is based in Roanoke, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Posts $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust has insurance coverage
for certain asbestos and environmental claims up to US$10 million
per occurrence and up to US$20 million in the aggregate.

The Company is aware of certain environmental matters at some of
its properties, including ground water contamination and the
presence of asbestos containing materials.

The Company has in the past performed remediation of such
environmental matters, and it is not aware of any significant
remaining potential liability relating to these environmental
matters.

The Company may be required in the future to perform testing
relating to these matters.

Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust is primarily engaged in
the ownership, management, leasing, development, redevelopment and
acquisition of retail shopping malls and strip and power centers.
The Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNH Global, Units Still Face Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNH Global N.V. and its subsidiaries are party to various legal
proceedings including: product liability; product warranty;
environmental; asbestos; dealer disputes; disputes with suppliers
and service providers; workers compensation; patent infringement;
and customer and employment matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011.

CNH Global N.V. markets and sells agricultural equipment.  Its 540
models of farm equipment range from tractors to harvesters,
sprayers, and hay balers.  The Company also makes heavy and light-
industrial and construction equipment including backhoes, dozers,
excavators, forklifts, wheel loaders, and telescopic handlers.
The Company is based in Amsterdam.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Party to 101 Cases in Miss., Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is defending 101 lawsuits in
different jurisdictions, with the greatest number filed in
Mississippi and California state courts, alleging injury or death
as a result of exposure to asbestos.

The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of
defendants and do not identify any particular Watts products as a
source of asbestos exposure.

To date, the Company has obtained a dismissal in every case before
it has reached trial because discovery has failed to yield
evidence of substantial exposure to any Watts products.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. manufactures valves used to
maintain the quality, conservation, and flow control of water, be
it in a residential, commercial, industrial, or municipal setting.
The Company is based in North Andover, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Subject to Exposure Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2011.

The Manitowoc Company, Inc. is a multi-industry, capital goods
manufacturer operating in two principal markets: Cranes and
Related Products and Foodservice Equipment.  The Company is based
in Manitowoc, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Flax Bourton Resident's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Flax Bourton Coroners Court heard that the death
of Ronald Thomas, an 82-year-old man who had worked at the former
Portishead Power Plant, was linked to workplace exposure to
asbestos, Mercury24 reports.

Assistant deputy coroner Phillip Howells heard how Mr. Thomas, who
had contracted asbestosis after working at the former power plant,
was admitted to Weston General Hospital with pneumonia in June
2010.  He deteriorated over a few days and after refusing hospital
treatment and died on June 28, 2010.

Mr. Thomas, a former marine, worked at the power plant, which has
now been demolished, for nearly 15 years in the 1970s and 1980s
and was exposed to asbestos on a regular basis.  A verdict of
industrial disease known as asbestosis was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arcadia Fined for Exposing Workers to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retail giant Arcadia has been sentenced, alongside a shopfitting
firm, after construction workers were exposed to potentially
deadly asbestos fibers at a Topshop store in Liverpool, England,
according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated
March 17, 2011.

The HSE prosecuted the clothing shops' owners, Arcadia Group Ltd,
and the principal contractor for the site, Vincents (Shopfitters)
Ltd, following an investigation.

Liverpool Magistrates' Court heard that workers were exposed to
asbestos fibers as they removed air conditioning, sprinklers and
other equipment next to ceiling beams, which had previously been
coated with sprayed asbestos.

The refurbishment work was allowed to go ahead despite a survey,
carried out before the project started, identifying asbestos as
being present in the building on Church Street in the city center.

Attempts were initially made to seal off access to the first floor
of the building on June 9, 2008, when the sprayed asbestos on the
ceiling beams was disturbed.  However, work was allowed to
continue elsewhere in the six-story building, which also houses
Topman and Miss Selfridge.

A total of 45 construction workers were eventually asked to stop
work on June 20, 2008 after a contractor alerted HSE that the
contamination had spread outside the sealed area.

Vincents (Shopfitters) Ltd, of Newton Street in Norwich, was fined
GBP10,000 and ordered to pay GBP10,769 in costs.  Arcadia Group
Ltd, of Berners Street in London, was fined GBP5,000 with costs of
GBP10,769 on March 17, 2011.  Both fines were the maximum that
could be issued by the magistrates' court.

Warren Pennington, the investigating inspector at HSE, said, "It
is shocking that workers were exposed to deadly asbestos fibers,
and that the refurbishment work was allowed to happen without the
proper control measures in place.

"Neither company took adequate action to prevent workers being
exposed despite a survey alerting them that asbestos was present
in the building.  The refurbishment work on the first floor was
likely to disturb the asbestos and so a licensed specialist
contractor should have carried it out.

"Instead, up to 45 individuals, who were working in the building,
now have to live with the knowledge that they may become ill with
a life-threatening lung disease."

Vincents (Shopfitters) Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations
22(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007 for failing to properly plan, manage and monitor
the project, and for not identifying the risks from asbestos and
taking action to address them.

Arcadia Group Ltd admitted breaching Regulation 16(a) of the same
regulations by failing to prevent work starting on the site until
Vincents had produced a construction plan, outlining how if would
deal with the asbestos.

The ceiling beams in the Topshop store would originally have been
sprayed with asbestos to protect the building in a fire, before
the dangers of the material were widely known.  The asbestos only
became a threat when it was disturbed and its fibres were released
into the air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Rubber Worker's Death Related to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at the Isle of Wight coroner's court heard that the
death of 71-year-old Eric Sanders, a former Avon Rubber worker
from Melksham, Wiltshire, England, was due to workplace exposure
to asbestos, the Wiltshire Times reports.

Mr. Sanders worked for Avon Rubber in Melksham from 1955 to 1980.
In a statement taken before his death, he said that until the
1970s his work involved using steam equipment lagged with cracking
asbestos.

The inquest was told Mr. Sanders, who had retired to the Isle of
Wight, first started to become breathless in June 2008 and his
health declined until he died on Sept. 5, 2010, three days after
he briefly returned home from the Earl Mountbatten Hospice to
celebrate his golden wedding anniversary.

Assistant deputy coroner Hugh Calloway recorded a verdict of death
due to industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minton Awarded $25M Verdict in Lawsuit v. Exxon
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Newport News Circuit Court jury in Newport News, Va., on
March 17, 2011, hit oil giant Exxon Mobil with a US$25 million
verdict in an asbestos lawsuit brought by 72-year-old Rubert
Minton -- a former shipyard worker, WDBJ7.com reports.

Mr. Minton, of the Carrollton section of Isle of Wight County, was
a repair supervisor on commercial vessels at Newport News
Shipbuilding between 1966 and 1977, and had previously worked
there for seven years as a ship fitter in new construction.
During his time at the shipyard, he worked on 17 Exxon commercial
oil tankers then being repaired.

Decades later, Mr. Minton was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  He has
a life expectancy of about two more years and faces a painful
death, his lawyer said.  He sued Exxon in late 2009.

The three-week trial was held in Newport News Circuit Court before
Judge Timothy Fisher.  The seven-member jury awarded Mr. Minton
US$12 million in compensatory damages, US$12.5 million in punitive
damages, and US$430,961 in medical expenses, plus interest.  That
brings the total verdict to about US$25 million, said Bobby
Hatten, Esq., Mr. Minton's lead attorney.

However, the US$25 million verdict will be automatically reduced
to about US$17.5 million, Mr. Hatten said.  That's because
although the jury awarded US$12.5 million in punitive damages, it
was legally limited to the US$5 million that Mr. Hatten had
requested for that portion of the verdict.

Exxon Mobil is expected to appeal the entire verdict -- a process
that Mr. Hatten said could go on for more than two years before a
final judgment.  After subtracting out the firm's litigation
costs, Mr. Minton stands to get about two-thirds of any final
judgments, with the firm getting the other one-third.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Henderson Awarded $9MM in Case v. Dow Chemical
---------------------------------------------------------------
The mesothelioma law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announced a
US$9 million asbestos cancer verdict on March 17, 2011 for the
family of the late Robert Henderson, according to a Baron & Budd
press release dated March 17, 2011.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Mr. Henderson, deceased, his
wife Tanya Henderson and daughters Adrienna and Za'Quoia.  Baron &
Budd attorneys John Langdoc, Esq., and Alana Kalantzakis, Esq.,
who represented the Hendersons at trial, proved that his exposure
to asbestos while working at the facility caused his mesothelioma.

Mr. Henderson spent much of his career working around asbestos-
containing products.  He worked at Dow Chemical as a contract
employee, where he was exposed as a bystander to Dow insulators,
which contained asbestos.

Steve Baron, Esq., head of the firm's asbestos litigation section,
said, "Dow Chemical wrote it themselves in 1968, 'any death due to
mesothelioma would be considered due to asbestos exposure' and
then inexplicably went on to expose workers to asbestos for
decades thereafter.

"Our goal is always to reach a pretrial agreement with the other
side, but Dow Chemical refused to settle, so we presented our case
to the jury."

According to a Dow Chemical spokesman, the Company will seek to
overturn a jury verdict against it in the Henderson case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strickland Gets $2.1MM in Case v. Union Carbide
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paul & Hanley LLP announced a verdict in favor of
Glenn Strickland, in a case against Union Carbide Corporation,
with a US$2.1 million verdict, according to a Paul & Hanley press
release dated March 17, 2011.

Mr. Strickland spent most of his life doing drywall work including
using and supervising those who used joint compounds on and around
the drywall.  Unfortunately for the Strickland family and
thousands of others, Union Carbide, according to the verdict, was
supplying asbestos to the joint compound industry from the late
60s until 1978, when asbestos was finally banned from being used
in joint compounds being sold in the United States.

Mr. Strickland suffered from massive lung scarring as well as
cancer in the lining of his abdominal cavity as a result of the
exposures to these various Union Carbide-supplied joint compounds.

Mr. Strickland passed away in June 2007 after a courageous but
painful and debilitating fight with his cancer (mesothelioma).  He
leaves behind his wife and partner, Linda, their two children
Robert and Holly, and four grandchildren, Glenn, Cody, Brooke and
Sierra.

Union Carbide Corporation was found to be 46 percent at fault for
their role in Mr. Strickland's death.  Union Carbide led its
customers to believe that their asbestos was "safe" as opposed to
other asbestos; they also worked against the stringent regulations
that were ultimately approved by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) banning asbestos from joint compounds.

The CPSC's decision came too late for Mr. Strickland and his
family to be protected from Union Carbide's asbestos.

This verdict comes on the heels of the California Supreme Court's
recent denial of Union Carbide Corporation's petition for review
and request for depublication in Stewart v. Union Carbide
Corporation in which Union Carbide was found to be liable for the
death of Mr. Stewart for similar asbestos exposures to Mr.
Strickland's.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeal Court Flips Ruling in Cole Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California,
reversed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in a
case involving asbestos styled Chris Cole et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., et al., Defendants
and Respondents.

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

Plaintiffs, Chris Cole, individually and as successor-in-interest
to Virginia Kay Cole, deceased, Jonathan Cole and Katherine Cole,
appealed from: the final judgment; and the grant of summary
judgment and costs in favor of defendants, Kaiser Gypsum Company,
Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., formerly known as Kaiser
Cement Company.

Plaintiffs contended the trial court should have granted their
motion to amend the first amended complaint and the failure to do
so requires reversal.  Defendants argued that plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently identify the suppliers of the asbestos that caused
Virginia's fatal illness.

Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, filed Sept. 12, 2008, alleged
Virginia was exposed to asbestos while being present during the
construction of homes in "areas not limited to Calabasas,"
California during the 1960s through the 1970s.  In a report
prepared in connection with the case management process, Chris was
identified as the sole witness who could identify the supplier,
which produced the asbestos which caused Virginia's fatal illness.

Chris, Jonathan and Katherine were deposed and they admitted they
could not identify the supplier of the asbestos Virginia was
exposed to.  But depositions taken after defendants' summary
judgment motion was filed revealed Virginia was exposed to
asbestos while visiting her father who worked as a carpenter at
residential construction sites in the San Fernando Valley.

On June 12, 2009, defendants moved for summary judgment.  A second
amended case report dated July 27, 2009, prepared after the
summary judgment motion was filed, identified Virginia's father
and sister as product identification witnesses.

On Aug. 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed their summary judgment
opposition.  Plaintiffs presented evidence Virginia was exposed to
asbestos while washing her father's clothing in 1952-1965 and in
1969-1970, and visiting him at residential construction sites.
Virginia's father was a construction worker who worked around
asbestos laden products produced by defendants.

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

The judgment is reversed.  The second amended complaint was deemed
filed.


                            *********

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  * * *