CAR_Public/110408.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 8, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 70

                             Headlines

BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel
CHINA ELECTRIC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Pa.
EATON CORP: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action in New York
FOREX CAPITAL: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in New York

GUARDIAN FIRST: Court Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed
HOWREY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in "Gilmor" Case to Begin Aug. 13, 2012
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

NUTRACEA: Arizona Court Okays Settlement in Consolidated Action
PACIFIC MERCANTILE: Gets Approval of $225,000 TILA Suit Settlement
PUR MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Bio-Alcamid Injectable Gel
RADIENT PHARMA: Cohen Milstein Sellers Conducting Investigation
RAYTHEON CO: Judge Says Evidence Not Enough to Support Class Suit

ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Employee Benefits
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Dismisses Sudden Acceleration Class Actions
TRAILER BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Puerto Rico Suits
UNITED STATES: Republicans Seek Legal Fee Cap in Cobell Case
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Zheng" Derivative Class Action
XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Henzel" Class Action Complaint
XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Murphy" Class Action Complaint
XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Fast" Class Action Complaint
XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Borden" Class Action Complaint

                     Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Has $3.4MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Facing 485 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Named in Injury and Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Americas Posts $54MM Non-Current Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has Net Reserves of $532.9MM for A&E

ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Named in Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PICO Holdings Facing 28 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Energy Records $128MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Has 16 Injury Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise Products Has $97.1MM ARO at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Comments on Inaccurate Dow Jones Article
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.79MM Dec. 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Facing Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BP Plc Subject to Asbestos Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Arnold Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Could be Subject to Potential Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Action v. Ballantyne Pending in New York
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $30.33MM Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,081 Open Claims Ongoing v. Ampco at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Cleared in Howden Last Dec. 8

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Filed Case in Pa. Last Feb. 24
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Long-Term Liability at $193.6M at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Subject to Potential Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allis-Chalmers Energy Named in Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Facing Injury Cases in Four States
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Suits Pending v. American Locker at March 9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Has $1.6MM Dec. 31 ARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Has $277T Reserve for Gradall Plant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant's Motion Denied in Aultman Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $6,075 Fine to Keystone Contracting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mansell, Woodlands Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quarnmill Construction Fined for Safety Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Local Fined for Disposal Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Gilsonite Files for Chap. 11 Bankruptcy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Local Fined GBP500 for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cirencester Resident's Death Related to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.2MM OK'd for Fort Wayne Renovation, Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCJ Probes Zurbrugg Site for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HUD Probes Youngstown's $11T Fee for Abatement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawrence Company Penalized for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. to Fund Trust for Asbestos Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Realty, McGrail Issued Penalty of $200,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Evans' Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Facing 2.5T Individual Cases at Dec. 31



                             *********


BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------
BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit filed in Israel by a shareholder of Liraz
Systems Ltd., which the Company acquired in 2003, according to the
Company's March 31, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In June 2003, a former Liraz Systems Ltd. shareholder filed an
application with the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court to approve a
claim filed by him against the Company, as a class action.  The
claim relates to the acquisition of Liraz shares, which the
Company completed in March 2003.  The shareholder alleges that the
share price the Company paid to Liraz's shareholders in the tender
offer and in a subsequent mandatory purchase was lower than the
fair price of Liraz shares.  The maximum amount of the claim is
approximately NIS 38.9 million ($10.8 million) in the aggregate.
Under Israeli law, the court's approval is required for the
plaintiff to represent all of the shareholders of Liraz who sold
their shares to the Company pursuant to the tender offer and the
mandatory acquisition.  The plaintiff has applied for such
approval in the lawsuit.  Since the critical issue in the
Company's case concerns the basis upon which the fair price of
shares purchased within the context of a tender offer is to be
determined, and due to the fact that this particular issue has
come before the Supreme Court of Israel in an appeal concerning
another separate case, the plaintiff in the Company's claim has
agreed to postpone the proceedings until the Supreme Court has
given its decision in the appeal.  In December 2009, the Supreme
Court held that, as a general rule, the fair price of shares
purchased within the context of a full tender offer shall be
determined in accordance with the discounted cash flow method.
The plaintiff in the Company's case was supposed to notify the
court whether he wishes to renew the proceedings.  As of March 31,
2011, the plaintiff has not yet applied to the court.

Based on analysis of the statement of claim, including an
evaluation of the fair value of the Liraz shares, and the price
paid for Liraz in a previous transaction immediately prior to the
tender offer, the Company believes that the allegations against it
in this proceeding are without merit and the Company intends to
vigorously defend the claim and contest the allegations made
therein.


CHINA ELECTRIC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of China Electric Motor, Inc. between
January 29, 2010 and March 30, 2011, inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

China Electric Motor engages in the design, manufacture, sale and
marketing of micro-motors and micro-motor components in the
People's Republic of China and internationally.  The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period the Company violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning China Electric Motor's operations and financial
condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's securities.

On March 31, 2011, the Company announced it would be unable to
timely issue its fiscal year 2010 financial results due to
"possible discrepancies concerning the Company's banking
statements that were very recently identified by the Company's
auditors in the course of their audit of the consolidated
financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010."

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased China Electric Motor securities
between Jan. 29, 2010 and March 30, 2011, you have certain rights,
and have until May 31, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.
To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020,
by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by
email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/

Contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
                    (888) 638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all Pennsylvania homeowners
whose mortgage loans have been serviced by CitiMortgage, Inc., and
who, since April 13, 2009, (1) have entered into a Trial Period
Plan Contract with CitiMortgage and made all payments as required
by their TPP Contract and complied with CitiMortgage's requests
for documentation, and (2) have not received or have been denied a
permanent Home Affordable Modification Agreement that complied
with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Home Affordable
Modification Program rules.

If you believe that you have been improperly denied a permanent
loan modification by CitiMortgage, Inc., after April 13, 2009,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric Lechtzin of Berger &
Montague, P.C. at 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, or by e-mail at
elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on Berger & Montague, P.C.'s
website at http://www.bergermontague.com/or may be requested from
the Court.  The docket number is 11-cv-02318.

The Complaint alleges that CitiMortgage accepted billions in
government bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program
earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.
CitiMortgage, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is
contractually obligated to modify mortgage loans it services for
homeowners who qualify under HAMP, a federal program designed to
abate the foreclosure crisis by providing mortgage loan
modifications to eligible homeowners.

According to the lawsuit, CitiMortgage systematically slows or
thwarts homeowners' requests to modify mortgages, depriving
borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from
foreclosure.  The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits
provided by TARP funds and also collects higher fees and interest
rates associated with stressed home loans.

For more information about this case, please contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289
                     215-875-3000
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  rpaul@bm.net

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation.  The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate
their practice in complex litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims
actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental
and mass torts, and have recovered several billion dollars for
consumers and investors.


EATON CORP: Faces Gender Discrimination Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation may be celebrating its "100-year heritage of
innovation," but it remains firmly rooted in the dark ages when it
comes to gender equality.  Innovation does not seem to have
permeated Eaton's employment decisions; today, it is a corporation
with a male-dominated culture and not a single woman on its 44-
member General Sales Force management team.

Aiming to put an end to the rampant gender discrimination at
Eaton, two former female Sales Engineers filed a $150 million
class action discrimination lawsuit against the company and three
of its male managers today in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The Plaintiffs, Amy Gaitane and
Mahasti Koosha, live in New Jersey and worked in Eaton's New York
and New Jersey offices.

Eaton is a power management company with sales of $13.7 billion in
2010.  Its sales engineers sell Eaton's electrical distribution,
generation and power quality equipment and engineering and support
services to the company's many customers.

Plaintiffs Gaitane and Koosha allege that Eaton engages in
systemic discrimination against its female sales employees.  The
lawsuit is intended to change Eaton's discriminatory pay and
promotion policies and practices, as well as its unlawful hostile
work environment for female employees.  The Plaintiffs are filing
this action on behalf of a class of hundreds of current and former
female sales employees nationwide who have worked in Eaton's
electrical division from early 2008 through the date of judgment.

The women and the class are represented by Janette Wipper, Siham
Nurhussein, and Deepika Bains of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP.

"Although Eaton publicly claims that it 'fosters an inclusive
environment that respects individual differences,' this is a gross
misrepresentation of Eaton's actual work environment," said
Ms. Wipper, class counsel in the case.  "In reality, Eaton's
actions toward women could not be less inclusive. Not one of the
44 members of Eaton Electrical's General Sales Force management
team is female, although women comprise approximately twenty
percent of the sales employees in the U.S."

Despite their exemplary performance, Plaintiffs Gaitane and Koosha
were passed over for promotions, paid less than their male peers,
and excluded from career-enhancing opportunities that would have
resulted in greater recognition and compensation.  Eaton's male
managers also assigned less lucrative accounts to Ms. Gaitane,
Ms. Koosha and other female sales employees, which had a negative
impact on their earning potential and performance evaluations.

By contrast, Eaton's male managers took great interest in the
development of their male colleagues.  Male employees were invited
to sports bars, cigar bars, entertainment venues, and golf clubs,
where they discussed company business with their managers on the
company's tab.  Plaintiffs Gaitane and Koosha and other female
employees at Eaton were systematically excluded from these "team-
building" functions.

The company's male managers regularly referred to female sales
engineers as "the bitches."  One manager explained to Ms. Koosha
that because she was of Iranian ancestry, she did not understand
that bitch was an endearing term.  Because of incessant gender-
based harassment which induced extreme work-related stress,
Ms. Koosha suffered a heart attack in 2009 and has undergone
numerous bypass surgeries.

"Adding insult to injury, when Ms. Koosha and Ms. Gaitane
complained, the company's HR department turned the tables on them
and they were treated as the problem," said Deepika Bains, one of
the attorneys representing the women.  "Heaped on top of a
blatantly discriminatory and hostile work environment was
retaliatory action, ultimately forcing Ms. Koosha to resign and
Ms. Gaitane to be terminated."

"We are optimistic that this suit will bring justice to
Ms. Gaitane, Ms. Koosha, and other current and former female sales
employees, and will result in positive changes at Eaton so that in
the future, these women will be given the opportunities and
support they so richly deserve," said Siham Nurhussein, another
attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class.

Ms. Gaitane and Ms. Koosha are seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief for themselves and the class, including back pay and front
pay; compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages; and attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses.

                             About SWH

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP is a law firm with offices in
Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that specializes in
employment discrimination, wage and hour, consumer and complex
corporate class action litigation and has represented thousands of
individuals in some of the major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


FOREX CAPITAL: Morgan & Morgan Files Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan and Morgan's business trial group has filed a class action
lawsuit against Forex Capital Markets LLC, accusing the nation's
largest Forex dealer of fraud and racketeering.  The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Manhattan Division) and is brought on behalf
of a plaintiff in Oklahoma, as well as other similarly situated
FXCM customers.  If you are a former or current customer of FXCM
and believe you suffered losses as a result of this alleged fraud
and racketeering, visit http://businesstrialgroup.com/and
complete the initial case review form for a no cost, no obligation
evaluation of your claim.

According to the Forex class action lawsuit, FXCM allegedly
cheated thousands of customers out of their money through the use
of unfair and deceptive trade practices.  The suit accuses the
Forex dealer of misrepresenting itself as a trading platform that
is free from dealer intervention or manipulation.  The class
action lawsuit alleges that FXCM instead utilized a set of
devices, such as software applications, designed with the purpose
of interfering with customers' trades.

According to the complaint, FXCM allegedly partook in racketeering
activity by working with its software developers and programmers
to create an application which supplies the Forex dealer with a
number of tools and system commands which could interfere with
customers' trades.  These devices allegedly allowed the dealer to
route trades to slower servers and send false error messages when
customers tried to close out profitable trades.

Lastly, the complaint alleges that the dealer lured thousands of
customers by promoting a demo account, which was advertised as
providing customers with a true market trading experience.
Rather, the complaint alleges, once live trading began, the dealer
used its software to manipulate customers' trades.

Trial attorney Tucker H. Byrd of the Business Trial Group
commented on the allegations in the Forex class action case,
stating, "We believe, as the Complaint alleges, that Forex Capital
Markets, LLC has taken advantage of the trust placed in it by its
customers, causing substantial financial harm to this group of
people, and we are committed to working to recover those losses."

The Business Trial Group at Morgan and Morgan works to preserve
and protect the rights of both individuals and companies who have
wrongfully suffered business or investment losses.  If you have a
potential case to discuss with the business trial lawyers at
Morgan and Morgan, please visit BusinessTrialGroup.com and
complete the free case evaluation form.

                     About Morgan and Morgan

Morgan and Morgan is one of the largest Personal Injury law firms
in the country with multiple office locations throughout Florida
and the Southeast.  The firm handles auto accident cases, personal
injury cases, and medical malpractice cases, as well as claims
against drug and medical device manufacturers.  Visit Morgan and
Morgan online at http://www.forthepeople.com/for a free case
evaluation and information about your legal rights.

Contact Information: Tucker Byrd, Esq.
                     Morgan & Morgan
                     Telephone: 855-249-8742


GUARDIAN FIRST: Court Allows Overtime Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31, 2011, the District Court for the Southern District of
New York ruled that loan officers who worked for Guardian First
Funding Group from March 23, 2004 to the present could proceed
with their minimum wage and overtime claims as a Rule 23 class
action under New York state law.  Guardian First Funding Group
specializes in reverse mortgages for seniors.  It has offices in
New York and Pennsylvania.

In the action, current and former loan officers assert that the
Guardian First Funding Group's policy of paying its employees on a
commissions basis denied them minimum wages and overtime pay they
are due under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state law.
They also assert that the company's owners, Jason Levy, Mark
Fidel, and Robert Stark should be held individually liable for the
pay they were denied.  Since the case began in March 2010,
Plaintiffs have filed several motions to advance their claims.  On
March 31, the Court ruled favorably on Plaintiffs' class
certification motion, and also on four other motions Plaintiffs
brought. Those motions included two motions to strike affirmative
defenses, a motion to dismiss the company's counterclaims against
its employees, and Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.

Plaintiffs' attorney, Michele R. Fisher stated, "Current and
former employees were afraid to join this case due to concerns of
retaliation.  Now that the class is certified, these employees
will be automatically included in the case unless they take
affirmative steps to opt out.  This will help the employees who
were too scared to join to recover the pay they are owed."
Plaintiffs are represented by Michele R. Fisher, Paul J. Lukas,
and Reena Desai, from Nichols Kaster, PLLP in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.

The case is entitled, Febus v, Guardian First Funding Group, LLC,
Case No. 1:10-cv-2590 (S.D.N.Y.).

Additional information about the case is located at
http://www.overtimecases.com/or may be obtained by calling
Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492.


HOWREY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Employee Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Am Law Daily by Brain
Baxter, Stephanie Langley, a former records specialist at Howrey,
has sued the firm for failing to pay WARN Act wages after she was
terminated on March 31.  The putative class action seeks an
undetermined amount in salary and benefits for the plaintiffs, as
well as attorneys' fees.

According to the eight-page complaint filed on April 4 in U.S.
district court in Manhattan, Ms. Langley claims that Howrey
violated its obligations under the WARN Act by firing her last
week without providing 60 days written notice of termination.  The
complaint states that the persons in the putative class "are so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable."

As previously reported by The Am Law Daily, Howrey sent 702 WARN
notices to its employees last month before the firm officially
dissolved on March 15.  Employees were told they would be paid
until May 9 if they could not find new jobs before that date.

But last week Citibank, a secured lender owed roughly $75 million
by Howrey, informed the firm that it would no longer fund payroll
services for employees outside of a select group of individuals
assisting Howrey's dissolution committee.  That led Howrey to
terminate most of its staffers and close all U.S. offices after
the close of business on March 31.

Ms. Langley's complaint states that she worked as a records
specialist in a Howrey facility located in Falls Church, Va.
Representing her are partners Jack Raisner and Rene Roupinian from
New York employment firm Outten & Golden.

Outten won a landmark discrimination case against Morgan Stanley
in 2004 and was hired by former Lehman employees in November 2008
for a class action against the bankrupt investment bank over a
failure to pay WARN wages.  The Lehman case later settled.

Mr. Raisner tells The Am Law Daily that Ms. Langely contacted him
after receiving her WARN letter from Howrey on March 9.  He says
that other former Howrey employees have contacted Outten & Golden
about pursuing their own claims against their former employer.
Mr. Raisner declined to give an exact number on how many Howrey
employees have reached out to him.

Latham & Watkins restructuring partner Peter Gilhuly in Los
Angeles is representing Howrey in its wind down efforts.
Mr. Gilhuly declined to comment on Langley's suit.  Howrey
dissolution committee members Martin Cunniff, who joined Arent Fox
last month, and Gregory Commins, Jr., now at Baker & Hostetler,
did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the filing
by Langley.

Howrey said in a memo sent to employees last week that Citi's
decision to slash funding for payroll was unexpected and left the
firm no choice but to terminate employees ahead of the May 9
schedule put forth in March.  It said the firm's ability to
continue to pay salary and benefits pursuant to its WARN
obligations, "was contingent upon the approval of Citibank."

Mr. Raisner, who cochairs Outten & Golden's WARN practice, says
that in cases like Langley's, "the lender is not the employer and
the lender is not responsible" for employment decisions.
Mr. Raisner says that when a lender pulls the plug, it's a non-
event under the WARN.

Mr. Raisner describes Howrey's decision to stop making payroll
payments as a "funding" and "business decision" by management on
how to allocate its resources as the firm winds down its
operations.

Other lawyers representing former Howrey employees, such as Los
Angeles firm Blum Collins, have stated that they expect to file
suits against Howrey over WARN wage claims.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in "Gilmor" Case to Begin Aug. 13, 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action against IMPAC Mortgage Holdings, Inc.,
filed by Michael P. and Shellie Gilmor and others is scheduled to
commence on August 13, 2012, according to the Company's March 31,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Gilmor, et al. v. Preferred Credit Corp., et. al., Case No. 4:10-
CV-00189, currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, is a putative class action
against Preferred Credit and others charging violations of
Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan Act.  In a Sixth Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs Michael P. and Shellie Gilmor and others
bring suit against Preferred Credit, as the originator of various
second mortgage loans in Missouri, and against: IMPAC Funding
Corporation; IMPAC Mortgage Holdings; IMPAC Secured Assets; IMPAC
Secured Assets CMN Trust Series 1998-1 Collateralized Asset-Backed
Notes, Series 1998-1; IMH Assets Corp; Impac CMB Trust Series
1999-1; Impac CMB Trust Series 1999-2; Impac CMB Trust Series
2000-1; Impac CMB Trust Series 2000-2; Impac CMB Trust Series
2001-4; Impac CMB Trust Series 2002-1; Impac CMB Trust Series
2003-5, among numerous others, as alleged holders of notes
associated with second mortgage loans originated by Preferred
Credit.

Plaintiffs complain that at closing Preferred Credit charged them
fees and costs in violation of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loan
Act.  Additionally, Plaintiffs obtained certification of a class
of all persons similarly situated.  Plaintiffs allege that the
IMPAC Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and members of the
putative class as alleged holders of notes associated with second
mortgage loans originated by Preferred Credit.

Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the
putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of
all improperly collected charges, the right to rescind all
affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance
charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the
principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted.  In March 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended
Complaint.

On February 26, 2010, U.S. Bank National Association ND and other
defendants removed the case to federal court.  The case remains
pending in federal court.  Trial is scheduled to commence on
August 13, 2012.

The Gilmor class action allege that Impac Funding Corporation was
a purchaser, and is a holder, along with other affiliated
entities, of second mortgage loans originated by other lenders.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking damages that include
disgorgement of interest paid, restitution, rescission, actual
damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment
interest and punitive damages.  No specific dollar amount of
damages is specified in the complaint.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Continues to Defend "Baker" Suit
------------------------------------------------
IMPAC Mortgage Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself and its
affiliates from the class action lawsuit filed by James and Jill
Baker in Missouri, according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Baker, et al. v. Century Financial Group, et al., Case No. 4:04-
CV-W-0201-SOW, currently pending in the Circuit Court of Clay
County, Missouri, is a putative class action against Century
Financial and others charging violations of Missouri's Second
Mortgage Loan Act.  In particular, in a Fourth Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs James and Jill Baker and others bring suit against
Century Financial, as the originator of various second mortgage
loans in Missouri, and against IMPAC Funding Corporation, IMH
Assets Corporation, IMPAC Mortgage Holdings, Inc., IMPAC Secured
Assets Corporation, and two terminated IMPAC trusts, among others,
as alleged holders of notes associated with second mortgage loans
originated by Century Financial.

Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the members of the
putative class, among other things, disgorgement or restitution of
all allegedly improperly-collected charges, the right to rescind
all affected loan transactions, the right to offset any finance
charges, closing costs, points or other loan fees paid against the
principal amounts due on the loans if rescinded, actual and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The case was subsequently removed to federal court and later
remanded by the federal court to the Circuit Court of Clay County,
Missouri.  The IMPAC Defendants filed an Answer on March 7, 2005.
Limited discovery has taken place since this date, including
additional discovery responses by certain IMPAC Defendants during
2008.

The Baker class action lawsuit allege that Impac Funding
Corporation was a purchaser, and is a holder, along with other
affiliated entities, of second mortgage loans originated by other
lenders.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking damages that
include disgorgement of interest paid, restitution, rescission,
actual damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages, pre-judgment
interest and punitive damages.  No specific dollar amount of
damages is specified in the complaint.


MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, is awaiting a decision from the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action against it,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

In the first half of 2008, the Company was named as a defendant in
11 (subsequently reduced to nine) purported class action lawsuits
and six (subsequently reduced to two) derivative suits.  In each
of these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs claim to represent
a class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were
injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between
May 3, 2004, and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the
class they purport to represent.  The class action lawsuits have
been consolidated into a single legal proceeding pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  By
court order, a single consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the class actions on December 5, 2008, and the cases will proceed
as one consolidated case.  Similarly, a single consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the derivative cases on
December 12, 2008, and these cases will likewise proceed as a
single case.  In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claim, among
other things, that the Company was injured because its directors
and certain named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the
accuracy of its financial disclosures.  A derivative suit is a
lawsuit brought by a shareholder of a corporation, not on the
shareholder's own behalf, but on behalf of the corporation and
against the parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation.
Any proceeds of a successful derivative action are awarded to the
corporation, except to the extent they are used to pay fees to the
plaintiffs' counsel and other costs.  The derivative cases and the
class action cases have all been consolidated before the same
court.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the class action
and the motion is before the court for decision.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because these
specific actions are still in a preliminary stage, the Company
says it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these matters at
this time.


NUTRACEA: Arizona Court Okays Settlement in Consolidated Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona entered separate
orders in October 2010 approving the settlement agreement in the
consolidated class action lawsuit against NutraCea, according to
the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On February 27, 2009, and on April 27, 2009, securities class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.  On May 29, 2009, the cases
were consolidated into a single action (the Federal Action) and
lead plaintiff was appointed.  On July 1, 2009, lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 2,
2007 and February 23, 2009.  The complaint alleged that the
Company filed material misstatements in publicly disseminated
press releases and SEC filings misstating the Company's financial
condition and certain transactions during the period in question.
An amended consolidated complaint was filed on September 25, 2009.

The case has been settled in its entirety with the settlement to
be funded by the Company's directors and officers insurance
carrier.  On October 1, 2010, the District Court of Arizona issued
an order approving the settlement, certifying the class and
entering judgment dismissing the matter.  On October 27, 2010, the
Bankruptcy Court also entered an order approving the settlement.


PACIFIC MERCANTILE: Gets Approval of $225,000 TILA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Mercantile Bancorp has obtained final court approval of a
$225,000 class settlement it negotiated in a California lawsuit
over "TILA" violations, the Company disclosed in its March 31,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A lawsuit, captioned James Laliberte, et al. vs. Pacific
Mercantile Bank, was filed in May 2003 in the California Superior
Court for the County of Orange, Case No. 030007092.  The lawsuit
was initially filed as an individual action by two plaintiffs for
alleged violations by the Bank of the Federal Truth in Lending Act
or TILA.  The two plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint
on three occasions, between November 2003 and May 2005, seeking to
convert their individual action into a class action suit and
adding additional allegations and seeking rescission of all loans
made to the members of the class and damages based on allegations
of fraud in the inducement of certain loans, unfair business
practices and violations of TILA.  In each case, the Bank filed
demurrers asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a
legal basis for any recovery and in each case the trial court
sustained the Bank's demurrers and dismissed the plaintiffs'
lawsuit, without prejudice.  Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the
trial court's rulings.  In January 2007, the appellate court, in a
published decision, affirmed the trial court's order dismissing
the plaintiffs' suit, finding that plaintiffs had no right to
assert class-wide claims of rescission.  Plaintiffs then appealed
this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court which, in May 2007, denied
plaintiffs' petition for review, effectively sustaining the
appellate court's ruling.

Plaintiffs, abandoning their claims of fraud and unfair business
practices on the part of the Bank, then filed a motion with the
trial court for class certification limited to the TILA and
certain related statutory claims.  In January 2008, the trial
court denied the motion for class certification, finding that
plaintiffs had not shown evidence that there were common questions
of law or fact to justify certifying a class and had been unable
to introduce any admissible evidence establishing that any
statutory violations had occurred during the relevant class
period.

However, in April 2008, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial
court's denial of their motion for class certification on the
claims under TILA and the related statutory claims.  In April
2009, the appellate court issued an order certifying plaintiff's
class action with respect to the TILA claims and remanded the case
back to the trial court for further proceedings.

In November 2010, without any admission of any of plaintiffs'
allegations or any wrongdoing on its part, the Bank entered into
an agreement with the plaintiffs providing for settlement of all
of the claims that were the subject of the class action suit,
subject to the approval of the settlement terms by the trial
court.  The trial court granted final approval of the settlement
on March 22, 2011.

The settlement agreement provides for the Bank to establish a
settlement fund in the amount of $225,000 for payment to the
members of the class in full settlement of the class action
lawsuit.  The settlement agreement further provides that any
individual who was eligible to become a member of the class, but
elected not to participate in the class action, had the right to
receive a payment from the Bank in the same amount received by
each of the members of the class, provided that the individual
submitted a claim form to the Class Administrator and the claim
was accepted by the Bank.  A handful of claims were received, but
all were rejected by the Bank.  No claimant filed an appeal with
the Court, so the final settlement amount approved by the court
remains at $225,000.

The settlement agreement expressly provided for a complete release
of all claims against the Bank arising out of the subject matter
of the class action suit, except for certain individual claims of
the named plaintiffs which were pending in a separate trial
proceeding.  The settlement also permitted plaintiffs to apply for
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiffs filed such a
motion, and on March 22, 2011, the trial court issued an order
requiring the Bank to pay fees and costs in the aggregate amount
of $738,200.  Notice of the ruling was issued on March 25, 2011,
and the Bank has a period of 60 days from that date to file an
appeal of the trial court's ruling; but has not yet decided
whether to do so.

In March 2011, the named plaintiffs agreed to a stipulated
settlement of and a complete release of their individual claims
against the Bank in exchange for the payment to them of an
aggregate of $76,000.

The Bank said it previously established reserves in case of an
adverse result in the class action suit and, therefore, the
settlement payment and attorneys' fee award are not expected to
materially affect its future operating results or its cash or
capital resources.

Pacific Mercantile Bancorp -- https://www.pmbank.com/ -- is a
California state chartered commercial bank.  The company owns all
of the stock of Pacific Mercantile Bank (Bank).  The capital
stock of the Bank is the company's principal asset and
substantially all of its business operations are conducted by the
Bank, which as a result, accounts for substantially all of its
revenues and income.  The Bank conducts a commercial banking
business in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego
counties in Southern California.


PUR MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Bio-Alcamid Injectable Gel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that a man says he
was disfigured from an infection he got from an injectable gel
used to treat "facial wasting" in HIV patients.  The class action
seeks punitive damage from the makers of Bio-alcamid, which is
used to treat lipoatrophy, loss of fat in the face caused by
anti-retroviral drug treatments.

Named plaintiff Victor Chapdelaine sued Pur Medical Corp., SkinRx
Distribution, Basis Medical Technologies, and Polymekon S.R.L. (of
Italy).  He also sued John McCahill, "director and controlling
mind" of Basis Medical Technologies and Pur Medical; Allan Ward
and Chantal Ward, "director and controlling mind[s]" of Pur
Medical and SkinRx; and the Universities Dpt. and International
Centers of Research On Innovative Materials, of Italy, which is
"engaged in research, development and marketing of various
products, including Bio-alcamid."

Mr. Chapdelaine says the defendants marketed the product as safe
and nontoxic after it received approval from Health Canada in
2006.

But Mr. Chapdelaine says the treatment was not "subject to any
studies that would show long term safety and complications."

He says that Bio-alcamid can cause infections and inflammation
months or years after being injected, and that implanted material
can migrate from the injection point and cause granulomas, or
unsightly bumps, to form around the material.

"The defendants knew or ought to have known that there were risks
associated with the use of Bio-alcamid, that there were
significant adverse reactions to this product, that they performed
no long term safety research, and that the adverse reactions
occurred in such a frequency and were of a serious nature so that
utility of this cosmetic product was far outweighed by the risks,"
the complaint states.

Mr. Chapdelaine adds: "Bio-alcamid does not treat any health or
life-threatening condition and is purely a cosmetic product."

Mr. Chapdelaine says that within 3 years of receiving the
injection, he suffered "significant migration of the implanted
material into his chin and neck, and severe infection and
inflammation caused by the Bio-alcamid, accompanied by significant
pain." He underwent "a procedure" to remove the stuff, and 8
months later underwent "a full face lift . . . to allow the
removal of the remaining Bio-alcamid."  He says the operation was
not successful and his prognosis is uncertain.

Mr. Chapdelaine seeks class certification, punitive damages for
pain and suffering, medical monitoring and expenses, and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Chapdelaine v. Pur Medical Corporation,
et al., Case No. S-112152 (B.C. Sup. Ct., Vancouver Registry), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/05/Wasting.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Lemer, Esq.
          GRANT KOVACS NORELL
          400-900 Howe Street
          Vancouver, BC V6Z 2M4
          Tel: (604) 642- 6363
          E-mail: blemer@gkn.ca


RADIENT PHARMA: Cohen Milstein Sellers Conducting Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, is conducting an investigation
to determine whether Radient Pharmaceuticals Corp. and certain of
its officers and directors made false and misleading statements
and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California by another law firm on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Radient between
January 18, 2011 and March 4, 2011, inclusive.  The Complaint
alleges that Radient and certain of its officers and directors
made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
regarding the involvement of the Mayo Clinic in a clinical trial
of the company's Onko Sure(R) product, a diagnostic cancer test.
Radient issued a press release on January 18, 2011, to report:
"progress on its clinical study with Mayo Clinic ("Mayo") for the
validation of the Company's US FDA-cleared Onko-Sure(R) in vitro
diagnostic (IVD) cancer test as a useful tool in the detection of
colorectal cancer in all stages of CRC . . . RPC anticipates it
will complete the clinical trial with Mayo in the first quarter of
2011."  In an article issued by TheStreet.com on March 7, 2011,
the claim that the Mayo Clinic was conducting a clinical trial
with Radient was refuted and the Mayo Clinic was quoted as
stating: "Mayo is not engaged in clinical studies with Radient and
does not have a partnership agreement with Radient."  The
complaint alleges that as a direct result of Defendants' false
statements, Radient's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and dropped substantially after the
truth was revealed.

Cohen Milstein encourages purchasers of Radient stock or former
employees with information concerning this matter to contact the
firm.

If you are a Radient shareholder and would like to discuss your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without any cost
or obligation, call Cohen Milstein's Managing Partner, Steven J.
Toll at (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, or e-mail him at
stoll@cohenmilstein.com

If you purchased the common stock of Radient between
Jan. 18, 2011, and March 4, 2011, and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 10, 2011 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  To be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that you will adequately
represent the class.  Your share in any recovery will not be
enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as
a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may retain
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as
your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/-- has significant experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving
securities fraud.  The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New
York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.

The firm's reputation for excellence has repeatedly been
recognized by courts which have appointed the firm to lead
positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has taken a lead role in
numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has
been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in
the aggregate, total over a billion dollars.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Tyler Gaffney
          Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775
                     (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  tgaffney@cohenmilstein.com


RAYTHEON CO: Judge Says Evidence Not Enough to Support Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Douglas, writing for News Channel 8, reports that a federal
judge made it clear on April 5 that without more evidence, a
pollution suit filed against Raytheon on behalf of hundreds of St.
Petersburg property owners is in danger of failing.

"I think you can read the handwriting on the wall as well as I
can," U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington told
attorneys in the case.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to
Judge Covington with a finding that "there is not enough evidence
to support a class action."

"I can't ignore that sentence," Judge Covington said.

She gave the plaintiffs a series of questions to answer before a
weeklong evidentiary hearing begins June 20.

"We plan on presenting the evidence the judge wants," attorney
Brian Barr said after the hearing. "We still feel very strongly
about this case."

Raytheon's lawyers had little to say after their courtroom
victory.

The lawsuit was filed 3-1/2 years ago on behalf of hundreds of
property owners near the now-vacant Raytheon defense plant at
1501 72nd St. N. in St. Petersburg.

Toxic waste spread from underneath the plant property for decades
and formed a large plume of polluted groundwater extending up to a
mile away.

The industrial chemicals have contaminated at least 19 private
irrigation wells but Florida officials say there is no health
threat.  A cleanup plan will take up to 78 years to carry out.

The homeowners say the pollution has decimated the value of 1,350
land parcels. Raytheon lawyers say the area is much smaller.  They
also argue that home sales in the area are booming.

The two legal issues now in contention involve the size of the
area and the science used to determine how the stigma of pollution
lowers property values.

The appeals court questioned the testimony of expert witnesses,
saying it wasn't enough to support class action certification.


ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Employee Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Baucher, writing for WTAP News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit charges that St. Joseph's Hospital failed to pay benefits
to hourly and salaried employees terminated prior to its merger
with Camden-Clark Memorial Hospital and West Virginia United
Health System.

The suit, filed in Wood County Circuit Court, names St. Joseph's
Healthcare System Limited Partnership and Signature Hospital, LLC.
It does NOT name Camden-Clark or West Virginia United Health
System.

The suit, which seeks punitive damages, charges the benefits
include accumulated sick leave and fringe benefits for each hour
they worked.

The complaint also says the failure to do so was a breach of
contract it had agreed to with its employees.

While the suit names nine people as plaintiffs . . . the suit is a
class action involving all the hospital's employees prior to the
merger, which was completed last month to form Camden-Clark
Medical Center.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Dismisses Sudden Acceleration Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xinhua reports that a U.S. federal judge on April 4 dismissed
class-action lawsuits filed by foreign consumers against Toyota
over sudden-acceleration problems.

U.S. District Judge James Selna gave the ruling in an Orange
County court near Los Angeles.

But Judge Selna gave attorneys representing 41 plaintiffs from 13
countries another two months to amend their case.

Judge Selna said the attorneys should offer more proof related to
their claims.

Judge Selna also refused to lift an order prohibiting the foreign
plaintiffs from being part of the domestic lawsuits, meaning the
attorneys cannot share their discovery.

The class-action lawsuits filed across the United States allege
that Toyota failed to install acceleration override systems, as
the company's competitors did.

Toyota has blamed the problems on sticky accelerator pedals and
poorly fitted floor mats.

The foreign plaintiffs are also alleging Toyota violated
racketeering laws by conspiring to keep the public from finding
out about mechanical or electronic problems that caused the
vehicles to suddenly accelerate.

Like the domestic class-action lawsuits, the foreign plaintiffs
also allege some consumers lost value on their vehicles while
others suffered wrongful death or injury because of the sudden-
acceleration problems.

Attorney Monica R. Kelly, who represents the foreign plaintiffs,
said she will argue in the updated complaint that the California
court is the best forum for the class-action lawsuits because so
much progress has already been made here and it would be
inefficient to have each case handled in various places all over
the globe.

"We're saying the U.S. is a better forum," Ms. Kelly said after
the April 4 hearing.

Toyota attorney Lisa Gilford argued that the claims from outside
the United States should be heard in the country where the
consumer lives.

"We do not see how they overcome the fundamental problem that
these claims should be brought in the plaintiffs' home countries,
not in the U.S.," Toyota said in a statement.

"While Toyota's U.S. entities were named as defendants, they have
little connection to the foreign plaintiffs' claims, as the vast
majority of the Toyota models in question are neither designed,
nor manufactured, nor sold in the U.S.," the statement said.

"In fact, Toyotas are manufactured in at least 26 countries
worldwide, and more than 170 corporate entities market and sell
Toyotas in at least 170 countries."


TRAILER BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Puerto Rico Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Trailer Bridge, Inc., continues to defend itself against civil
class actions arising from a 2008 investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice relating to the Puerto Rico trade lane,
according to the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On April 17, 2008, the Company received a subpoena from the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice seeking
documents and information relating to a criminal grand jury
investigation of alleged anti-competitive conduct by Puerto Rico
ocean carriers.  Company representatives have met with United
States Justice Department attorneys and pledged the Company's full
and complete cooperation with the DOJ investigation.  The Company
has made document submissions to the DOJ in response to the
subpoena.  To date, neither the Company nor any of its employees
has been charged with any wrongdoing in this investigation and the
Company will continue to cooperate with government officials.

Following publicity about the DOJ investigation, beginning on
April 22, 2008, shippers in the Puerto Rico trade lane, and in one
case indirect consumer purchasers within Puerto Rico, have filed
at least 40 purported class actions against domestic ocean
carriers, including Horizon Lines, Sea Star Lines, Crowley Liner
Services and the Company.  The actions alleged that the defendants
inflated prices and engaged in other allegedly anti-competitive
conduct in violation of federal antitrust laws and seek treble
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  The actions,
which were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, and the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico, were consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL 1960) in the
District of Puerto Rico for pretrial purposes.

On April 30, 2010, in a non-final order, the Court granted the
Company's motion to be dismissed with prejudice as to the claims
of the named plaintiffs against the Company.  This order will not
become final and appealable until further order or judgment is
entered by the Court.  The Company intends to continue its
vigorous defense of these actions, if necessary.

Horizon Lines, Crowley Liner Services, Sea Star Lines, LLC,
Saltchuck Resources, an affiliate of Sea Star Lines, LLC, and
their related companies entered into settlement agreements with
certain named direct purchaser plaintiffs on behalf of a purported
class of claimants in the MDL 1960 proceeding, while denying any
liability for the underlying claims.  All of these settlements
received Preliminary Approval from the court in August 2010, and
notices to the putative class members were mailed in September,
2010.  The settling defendants have reported that enough potential
claimants have opted-out of the settlement class that the settling
defendants have the option to terminate the settlement agreements.
The Court has set a date of April 29, 2011, for the settling
defendants to declare whether they will terminate all or some of
the settlement agreements.  It is not clear what impact, if any,
such a termination and subsequent class litigation may have on the
Company, which is not a party to any of the settlement agreements.

Even if the settlement agreements are not terminated, the opt-outs
are likely to pursue claims against the settling defendants.  It
is not clear whether an individual opt-out plaintiff would attempt
to bring an action against the Company in such a proceeding or
even whether they could do so in light of the Company's dismissal
with prejudice from the underlying MDL.  Moreover, it is not clear
what, if any, impact these settlements, whether or not ultimately
terminated or finally approved, will have on further prosecution
of the MDL 1960 or other claims on the Company, or on the trade,
in general.

On March 15, 2011, Horizon Lines, LLC, plead guilty to a charge of
violating federal antitrust laws with respect to the Puerto Rico
trade lane in which the Company operates.  Horizon Lines, LLC was
sentenced to pay a fine of $45 million over five years and was
placed on criminal probation.  It is unclear what, if any, impact
the Horizon Lines, LLC plea will have on the civil actions, on the
Company, or on the trade, in general.

On October 9, 2009, the Company received a Request for Information
and Production of Documents from the Puerto Rico Office of
Monopolistic Affairs.  The request relates to an investigation
into possible price fixing and unfair competition in the Puerto
Rico domestic ocean shipping business.  The Company has indicated
to the Puerto Rican authorities that it will cooperate fully with
this investigation and have provided requested documents to such
authorities.

The Company understands that on February 22, 2011, all currently
named defendants in the indirect purchaser action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
and attorneys representing a putative class of indirect purchasers
to resolve all of the alleged claims of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico and the indirect purchasers related to ocean shipping
services in the Puerto Rico trade lane.  The exact terms of that
agreement have not been reported.  The Company is not a party to
the indirect purchaser litigation, nor is it a party to the
reported Memorandum of Understanding.  It is unclear what, if any,
impact this Memorandum of Understanding will have on the future
course of the investigation by the Puerto Rican authorities.

Significant legal fees and costs are expected to be incurred in
connection with the DOJ investigation, the class actions, and the
Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs investigation.  During
the three-month periods ended December 31, 2010, and 2009, costs
were approximately $37,000 and $676,000, respectively.  During the
twelve month periods ended December 31, 2010, and 2009, costs were
approximately $679,000 and $1,728,000, respectively.

The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the DOJ investigation, the civil class actions, or the
Puerto Rico Office of Monopolistic Affairs investigation.
However, should this result in an unfavorable outcome for the
Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position and future operations.


UNITED STATES: Republicans Seek Legal Fee Cap in Cobell Case
------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike
Scarcella, two House Republicans on April 5 continued their effort
to prevent the plaintiffs' lawyers in the Cobell class action from
getting more than $50 million in attorney fees for their work in a
15-year-old case.

Congressmen Doc Hastings of Washington and Don Young of Alaska,
who introduced legislation in March to cap the fees in the class
action, accused the plaintiffs' lawyers of deception in statements
presented at a Natural Resources subcommittee hearing.

Messrs. Hastings and Young said the plaintiffs' attorneys insisted
for months that they would not seek more than $99.9 million in
fees.  Lawyers for lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell -- who is
represented by Washington solo practitioner Dennis Gingold and a
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton team -- agreed in a landmark
settlement to a range of fees between $50 million and
$99.9 million.

After Congress approved legislation to authorize the settlement,
Ms. Cobell's lawyers announced in Washington's federal trial court
that they are entitled to at least $223 million in fees.  The
attorneys maintain a $223 million award, based on a 14.75%
contingency fee arrangement, is consistent with controlling law.
The attorneys argue the outcome of the case, and the complexity of
the litigation, justify such an award.

Messrs. Young and Hastings expressed surprise about the revelation
of the contingency arrangement.  "Is this a bait-and-switch, a
game of Three Card Monte, or a ploy to convince the court that
$100 million should be a kind of consolation prize?" Mr. Young
said in a prepared statement.

In a statement, Mr. Hastings said he wants to ensure that "what is
owed to individual Indians under the law isn't fleeced away by a
handful of lawyers demanding over $200 million based on a secret
deal known only to themselves."

Justice and Interior department lawyers declined to participate in
the April 5 hearing.

In a joint statement, Ms. Cobell's lawyers said: "The settlement
terms were vetted for 12 months by members of Congress and their
staffs.  Each member of Congress who was involved in that
extraordinary vetting process understood the terms."

The legal fee dispute, Ms. Cobell's attorneys said, is pending in
front of a federal judge in Washington.  "Political interference
in the judicial process would harm 500,000 individual Indians,
undermine our system of government and jeopardize the settlement
in its entirety," the lawyers said.

                   Fee Hearing Later This Month

According to a separate article posted at The Blog of Legal Times
by  Mike Scarcella, a federal judge on April 5 said he will hold a
hearing this month over whether the plaintiffs' lawyers who
represent a class of Native American farmers and ranchers should
receive $60.8 million in legal fees.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of Washington's federal trial court asked the
Justice Department to submit court papers addressing why he should
not grant the plaintiffs' request for $60.8 million for their work
in steering the litigation to a $760 million settlement.

DOJ Civil Division lawyer Joshua Gardner told Judge Sullivan the
government will file the papers in about a week.

DOJ lawyers and the plaintiffs' team, led by Joseph Sellers of
Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, agreed in a settlement
to a range of fees from $30.4 million to $60.8 million.  Last
month, Justice attorneys said the plaintiffs' lawyers should
receive $30.4 million for their work in the suit, Keepseagle v.
Vilsack, which resolved allegations of discrimination in loan
processing.

"There's a fundamental disagreement between the parties,"
Judge Sullivan said during a status hearing in federal district
court in Washington.

In court papers filed April 1, Sellers said $60.8 million -- 8% of
the settlement -- is "fully justified."  (In addition to Sellers,
the plaintiffs' lawyers include David Frantz of Washington's
Conlon, Frantz & Phelan, Patton Boggs' Anurag Varma and Sarah
Vogel, a solo practitioner in Bismark, N.D.)

"The USDA's reference to 8% being the 'top of the range' the
parties agreed to in the settlement is irrelevant," Mr. Sellers
said.  "The plaintiffs sought an award of fees and costs permitted
by the settlement, and the factors by which the fee request must
be evaluated all favor the award sought."

Judge Sullivan, who preliminarily approved the settlement last
November, set the legal fee proceeding for April 26, two days
before he is scheduled to preside over a hearing to determine the
settlement's fairness.

The claims process will not begin until 60 days after final
approval of the settlement.  Judge Sellers said in court he is
hopeful the process will begin in this summer.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, bankruptcy columnist at Bloomberg News, reports
that although Washington Mutual Inc. says the suit is "entirely
without merit," the bank holding company agreed to pay $13 million
in settlement of a class action on behalf of individuals who
allegedly paid improper fees when they paid off home loans.

The suit began in 2005.  The bankruptcy court modified the so-
called automatic stay to allow the suit to go forward and
determine the amount of WaMu's liability.  The district judge in
the Eastern District of New York certified the lawsuit as a class
action in September 2009.

WaMu later filed a motion to decertify the class and lost. While
an appeal was pending, the parties settled.

If the bankruptcy court approves the settlement at a May 2
hearing, WaMu will pay $13 million into a trust to pay customers
who allegedly were overcharged for fees when they paid off home
loans.


XO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Zheng" Derivative Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a derivative
class action commenced by Youlu Zheng in New York, according to
the Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On or about June 3, 2010, Youlu Zheng filed a class action
complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York against Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's
Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Adam Dell, Fredrik Gradin,
Vincent J. Intrieri, Keith Meister, Robert Knauss, David S.
Schechter, Peter Shea, Harold First, ACF Industries Holding Corp.,
Arnos Corporation, High River Limited Partnership, Starfire
Holding Corp., and XO Holdings, Inc., alleging that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties in connection with the financing
transaction consummated in July 2008 and other related matters.
The 2008 transaction refers to the July 2008 Stock Purchase
Agreement entered into by XO Holdings and certain affiliates of
the Chairman in connection with the issuance and sale of Series A
and B Preferred Stock to affiliates of the Chairman.  The
plaintiffs request that the court rescind the July 2008 financing
transaction, award compensatory damages to the class of
plaintiffs, award the plaintiff expenses, costs and attorneys'
fees, and impose a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff
and the class upon benefits improperly received by the defendants.
On July 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on
September 23, 2010.  On December 21, 2010, plaintiffs requested
that the court permit them to again amend their complaint to
include the 2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split.  On
January 5, 2011, defendants filed an opposition to the class
certification.  Then, on January 28, 2011, plaintiffs filed
another request to amend their complaint, this time requesting
that the court enjoin the defendants from proceeding with ACF
Holding's 2011 Proposal.  The 2011 Proposal refers to ACF
Holding's January 21, 2011, bid to acquire all of the outstanding
XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF Holding or its affiliates for
$0.70 per share.

The case is under consideration and the effect of this case on the
Company, if any, is not known at this time.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based,
competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a
comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business
customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and
service and internet content providers.  It offers customers a
broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85
metropolitan markets across the United States.  The Company earned
revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue
growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past
three years.


XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Henzel" Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., defends itself against a class action lawsuit
commenced by Henzel in Delaware, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On or about January 26, 2011, Henzel, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings,
Inc., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of
Directors, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel
Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and David Schechter
alleging that XO Holdings and its Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, and due
care.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
adequately consider ACF Industries Holding Corp.'s 2011 Proposal.
The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the transaction.  The Company notes
that the case under consideration and the effect of the case on
its business, if any, is not known at this time.

The 2011 Proposal refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid to
acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF
Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based,
competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a
comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business
customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and
service and internet content providers.  It offers customers a
broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85
metropolitan markets across the United States.  The Company earned
revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue
growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past
three years.


XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Murphy" Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit commenced by Murphy in New York, according to the
Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On or about January 28, 2011, Murphy filed a shareholder class
action complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York against XO Holdings, Inc., Carl C. Icahn, as
the chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner,
Vincent Intrieri, Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin,
Robert Knauss, David Schechter, and ACF Industries Holding Corp.,
alleging that the individually named defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to engage in an honest and fair sale
process and failure to disclose material information to the class
concerning ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal; and that the Chairman, XO
Holdings, and ACF Holding aided and abetted the Board's breach of
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiff asks the court to direct
defendants to carry out their fiduciary duties; to declare that
the defendants committed a gross abuse of trust; and to enjoin the
consummation of the proposed transaction.  The Company notes that
the case is under consideration and the effect of the case on its
business or operations, if any, is not known at this time.

The 2011 Proposal refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid to
acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by ACF
Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based,
competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a
comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business
customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and
service and internet content providers.  It offers customers a
broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85
metropolitan markets across the United States.  The Company earned
revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue
growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past
three years.


XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Fast" Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit commenced by Fast in Delaware, according to the Company's
March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 11, 2011, Fast filed a class action complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against XO Holdings. Inc., ACF
Industries Holding Corp., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the
Company's Board of Directors, Carl Grivner, Vincent Intrieri,
Harold First, Daniel Ninivaggi, Fredrik Gradin, Robert Knauss, and
David Schechter, alleging that the individually named defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by abandoning
the 2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split in favor of ACF
Holding's 2011 Proposal.  The complaint also challenges the
independence of the Special Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors and the application of the provision contained in the
July 2008 Stock Purchase Agreement entered into by XO Holdings and
certain affiliates of the Chairman in connection with the issuance
and sale of Series A and B Preferred Stock to affiliates of the
Chairman and which places certain restrictions on the Chairman's
ability to effect a transaction that would result in the Chairman
obtaining a 90% ownership share in XOH unless such transaction
were approved by a special committee of disinterested directors --
the "Standstill Provision".  Plaintiff also asks the Court to
enjoin the consummation of ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal until the
transaction's "financial and procedural unfairness" is rectified;
asks the Court to declare that Special Committee process in the
Standstill Provision does not satisfy the entire fairness
requirement; and asks the Court to declare that the Special
Committee is incapable of reviewing ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal.
The Company notes that the case is under consideration and the
effect of the case on its business or operations, if any, is not
known at this time.

The "2011 Proposal" refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid
to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by
ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

The "2010 Rights Offering and Reverse Stock Split" transaction
refers to XO Holdings' plans, as announced in October 2010, to
offer to holders of the Company's common stock rights to purchase
shares of a new class of non-convertible preferred stock (up to
$200 million of non-convertible preferred stock).  Prior to any
issuance of rights, the Company intended to apply for listing of
XOH common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market.  The Company's
application for the Nasdaq listing of XOH common stock would
follow a one-for-twenty reverse split of the Company's common
stock intended to bring the share price to the level required for
Nasdaq listing.

The 2008 transaction refer to the July 2008 Stock Purchase
Agreement entered into by XO Holdings and certain affiliates of
the Chairman in connection with the issuance and sale of Series A
and B Preferred Stock to affiliates of the Chairman.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based,
competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a
comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business
customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and
service and internet content providers.  It offers customers a
broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85
metropolitan markets across the United States.  The Company earned
revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue
growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past
three years.


XO HOLDINGS: Defends Against "Borden" Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
XO Holdings, Inc., is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit commenced by Borden in Delaware, according to the
Company's March 31, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On February 25, 2011, Borden filed a class action complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against XO Holdings,
Inc., Carl C. Icahn, as the chairman of the Company's Board of
Directors, Carl Grivner, Robert Knauss, Harold First, Fredrik
Gradin, Vincent Intrieri, David Schechter, Daniel Ninivaggi, and
ACF Holding on behalf of the public stockholders of XO Holdings.
The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by
defendants related to ACF Holding's 2011 Proposal including
allegations that the Special Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors lacked independence to consider and review ACF Holding's
2011 Proposal and that defendants placed personal interests of the
individual board members and/or the interests of the Chairman
ahead of the interests of the shareholders.  The case is under
consideration and the effect of this case on the Company, if any,
is not known at this time.

The "2011 Proposal" refers to ACF Holding's January 21, 2011 bid
to acquire all of the outstanding XO Holdings' stock not owned by
ACF Holding or its affiliates for $0.70 per share.

XO Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.xo.com/-- is a facilities-based,
competitive telecommunications services provider that delivers a
comprehensive array of telecommunications solutions to business
customers, government agencies, telecommunications carriers and
service and internet content providers.  It offers customers a
broad range of managed voice, data and IP services in more than 85
metropolitan markets across the United States.  The Company earned
revenues in excess of $1.5 billion for 2010 with continued revenue
growth and improvement in operating losses over each of the past
three years.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Has $3.4MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire & Casualty Company had US$3.4 million at Dec. 31,
2010, and US$3.8 million at Dec. 31, 2009, in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves.

In addition, the Company had ceded asbestos and environmental loss
reserves of US$500,000 at Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

United Fire & Casualty Company reports its operations in two
business segments: property and casualty insurance and life
insurance.  Its property and casualty insurance segment is
comprised of commercial lines insurance, including surety bonds,
personal lines insurance and assumed insurance.  The Company is
based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Facing 485 Pending Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 485 individuals who were never employees of Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company have
pending asbestos claims, each seeking several million dollars in
compensatory and punitive damages.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are
based on the theory of "premises liability" and allege that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.  In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other
parties are defendants in these cases.

Cross-claims and third party claims brought by other defendants
may also be filed against BGE and the Company in these actions.

Constellation Energy Group, Inc.'s utility, Baltimore Gas and
Electric, distributes electricity and natural gas in central
Maryland.  The Company trades and markets wholesale energy through
subsidiary Constellation Energy Commodities Group.  The Company is
based in Baltimore, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Named in Injury and Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc., has been named as a co-defendant in
numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2011.

These cases are pending in courts in various states.  In most of
these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense.  These cases are in various pre-trial stages.

Bucyrus International, Inc. designs and manufactures mining
equipment for the extraction of coal, copper, oil sands, iron ore
and other minerals in major mining centers throughout the world.
The Company is based in South Milwaukee, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Americas Posts $54MM Non-Current Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Americas Generation, LLC has identified certain asset
retirement obligations within its power generating operations and
has a non-current liability of US$54 million recorded at Dec. 31,
2010.

GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC has identified certain retirement
obligations with its power generating operations and has a non-
current liability of US$18 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010.

These asset retirement obligations are primarily related to
asbestos abatement at some of GenOn's generating facilities, the
removal of oil storage tanks, equipment on leased property and
environmental obligations related to the closing of ash disposal
sites.

During 2010, a third-party consulting firm completed a study on
behalf of GenOn to determine the extent of asbestos present at
certain of GenOn's generating facilities.

The consulting firm also provided GenOn with cost estimates for
the removal of the asbestos.  As a result, the Company revised the
cost estimates associated with its asset retirement obligations
for asbestos removal at all of its generating facilities.

GenOn Americas Generation, LLC provides energy, capacity,
ancillary and other energy services to wholesale customers in
competitive energy markets in the United States through ownership
and operation of, and contracting for, power generation capacity.
The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has Net Reserves of $532.9MM for A&E
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s net reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims were US$532.9 million during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$613.1 million during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's gross reserves for A&E claims were US$554.8 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$638.7
million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's gross reserves for A&E claims
represented 5.9% of its total reserves.  The Company's A&E
liabilities stem from Mt. McKinley's direct insurance business and
the Company's assumed reinsurance business.

Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s principal business, conducted through its
operating segments, is the underwriting of reinsurance and
insurance in the United States, Bermuda and international markets.
The Company is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Still Named in Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, California Water Service Group has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011.

Several of these cases against the Company have been dismissed
without prejudice.  In other cases, the Company's contractors and
insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on
the Company's financial statements.

California Water Service Group's business is conducted through its
operating subsidiaries.  The bulk of the business consists of the
production, purchase, storage, treatment, testing, distribution
and sale of water for domestic, industrial, public and irrigation
uses, and for fire protection.  The Company is based in San Jose,
Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PICO Holdings Facing 28 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
PICO Holdings, Inc. says that, at Dec. 31, 2010, about 28 of its
111 open claims were asbestos-related, according to the Company's
annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2011.

A significant number of the claims received in the past three
years relate to asbestos.  During 2010, all 16 new claims related
to asbestos, and in 2009 all five new claims related to asbestos.

The Company's actuaries expect the asbestos claims to develop in a
different pattern to workers' compensation claims.  Typically, the
asbestos claims are shared among numerous insurance carriers and
result in relatively small loss and loss adjustment expense
payments, with Citation Insurance Company's share of the total
settlements being less than 10%.

A US$500,000 reserve for late reported asbestos claims was
established in 2008.  This reserve stood at US$450,000 at Dec. 31,
2010.

PICO Holdings, Inc.'s business, as of Dec. 31, 2010, is separated
into five operating segments: Water Resource and Water Storage
Operations; Real Estate Operations; Insurance Operations in "Run
Off;" Corporate; and Agribusiness Operations.  The Company is
based in La Jolla, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenOn Energy Records $128MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc. has a non-current liability of US$128 million
recorded at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's annual
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 1, 2011.

These asset retirement obligations are primarily related to
asbestos abatement at some of the Company's generating facilities,
the removal of oil storage tanks, equipment on leased property and
environmental obligations related to the closing of ash disposal
sites.

During 2010, a third-party consulting firm completed a study on
behalf of the Company to determine the extent of asbestos present
at certain of the Company's generating facilities.  The consulting
firm also provided it with cost estimates for the removal of the
asbestos.

As a result, the Company revised the cost estimates associated
with its asset retirement obligations for asbestos removal at all
of its generating facilities.

GenOn Energy, Inc. provides energy, capacity, ancillary and other
energy services to wholesale customers in competitive energy
markets in the United States through ownership and operation of,
and contracting for, power generation capacity.  The Company is
based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parker Drilling Has 16 Injury Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 16 asbestos-related lawsuits at Dec. 31, 2010, in
which Parker Drilling Company is one of many defendants, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2011.

From time to time, the Company is party to various lawsuits that
are incidental to its operations in which the claimants seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury,
including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos
on drilling rigs and associated facilities.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the State
of Mississippi.  The subsidiaries named in these asbestos-related
lawsuits intend to defend themselves vigorously.  No amounts were
accrued at Dec. 31, 2010.

Parker Drilling Company is an international provider of contract
drilling and drilling-related services currently operating in 12
countries.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enterprise Products Has $97.1MM ARO at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Product Partners L.P.'s asset retirement obligations
amounted to US$97.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$54.8 million.

The Company's AROs may result from regulatory requirements
associated with the renovation or demolition of certain assets
containing hazardous substances such as asbestos.

Enterprise Product Partners L.P.'s operations include natural gas
processing, NGL fractionation, petrochemical services, and crude
oil transportation, including 50,200 miles of pipelines and 27
billion cu. ft. of natural gas storage capacity.  The Company is
based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Comments on Inaccurate Dow Jones Article
---------------------------------------------------------------
At 5:18 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 28, 2011, the Dow Jones Daily
Bankruptcy Review incorrectly reported that the North Carolina
bankruptcy judge presiding over the chapter 11 bankruptcy case of
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, had denied Garlock's motion to
obtain asbestos claims data from asbestos trusts, according to an
EnPro Industries, Inc. press release dated Feb. 28, 2011.

Contrary to the Dow Jones report, Judge George R. Hodges has not
yet ruled on Garlock's request.  Instead, he ordered that
Garlock's motion would be set for hearing after a Delaware
bankruptcy court ruled on certain of the trusts' requests for an
injunction blocking Garlock from pursuing its motion for trust
data before Judge Hodges.

On Feb. 22, 2011, the Delaware court denied the trusts' injunction
request, clearing the way for Judge Hodges to hear Garlock's
motion.  Garlock anticipates that Judge Hodges will set a hearing
in the near future to consider its motion for trust data.

The Dow Jones article misinterpreted an order, entered on Feb. 25,
2011, on a separate preliminary discovery dispute as denying
Garlock's request for trust data.  The order quoted by Dow Jones
denied as premature Garlock's attempt to take a discovery
deposition of trust representatives regarding trust allegations
that producing trust data requested by Garlock would be
burdensome.

Judge Hodges ruled that the burden issue was not properly before
the court until he determines whether Garlock's request for trust
data is appropriate and necessary.

The trust motion is one of a series of requests Garlock filed in
its North Carolina chapter 11 case to obtain information relevant
to determination of Garlock's responsibility for asbestos claims.

On Feb. 18, 2011, Judge Hodges issued a bench ruling on the first
of those motions, preliminarily granting Garlock's request that
each of over 5,000 individuals who, as of the June 5, 2010
petition date, filed a complaint seeking damages from Garlock's
based on mesothelioma, complete a questionnaire providing Garlock
with certain information regarding such claimant's claim.

Judge Hodges directed Garlock, the official claimants' committee
and a legal representative for unknown asbestos disease claimants
to meet and confer regarding the form of the questionnaire.

The Dow Jones story also misstated the number of pending asbestos-
related claims that Garlock seeks to resolve as part of its
chapter 11 case.  As of the filing date, there were about 100,000
such claims, about 5,000 of which involve claimants alleging the
disease mesothelioma.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, Inc. is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of EnPro Industries, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Posts $24.79MM Dec. 31 Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. accrues asbestos liabilities of
US$24,792,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$24,874,000
as of Dec. 31, 2009, according to a Company press release dated
March 3, 2011.

Standard Motor Products, Inc. manufactures and distributes engine
management and air conditioning replacement parts for auto
aftermarkets.  The Company is based in Long Island City, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Facing Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal actions, governmental investigations, claims and proceedings
are pending against General Motors Company or MLC including a
number of shareholder class actions, bondholder class actions and
class actions under ERISA and other matters arising out of alleged
product defects, including asbestos-related claims.

Other issues include employment-related matters; governmental
regulations relating to safety, emissions, and fuel economy;
product warranties; financial services; dealer, supplier and other
contractual relationships; tax-related matters not recorded under
ASC 740 and environmental matters.

General Motors Company develops, produces and markets cars, trucks
and parts worldwide.  The Company also provides automotive
financing services through General Motors Financial Company, Inc.
The Company is based in Detroit, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BP Plc Subject to Asbestos Exposure Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal proceedings are pending or may be brought against BP p.l.c.
group entities arising out of current and past operations,
including matters related to general environmental claims and
allegations of exposures of third parties to toxic substances,
such as lead pigment in paint, asbestos and other chemicals.

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 2, 2011.

BP p.l.c. explores for oil and gas in 30 countries and has proved
reserves of 18.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent.  The Company
is the largest oil and gas producer in the United States and also
a top refiner, with stakes in 16 refineries, processing four
million barrels of crude oil per day.  The Company is based in
London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Appeals Court OKs Ruling in Arnold Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, affirmed the
ruling of the Pierce County Superior Court, in a case involving
asbestos filed by Reuben Arnold.

Judges Worswick, Armstrong and Van Deren entered judgment in Case
No. 40015-4-II on Jan. 11, 2011.

This case was the second appeal stemming from a suit against
Lockheed Shipbuilding Corporation and other companies, including
Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. for asbestos-related injury claims.  In
the first appeal, this court reversed a summary judgment order
granted in favor of Lockheed.

This appeal arose out of the trial court's denial of a CR 60(b)(3)
motion to vacate the trial court's original summary judgment order
based on new evidence.

Reuben Arnold died of mesothelioma in March 2008 and his son
Daniel also recently died from it.  Reuben worked as an insulator
with asbestos and was exposed to asbestos at several sites,
including Lockheed Shipyard.  The plaintiffs in this case sued
Lockheed both for Reuben's exposure directly and Daniel's exposure
through his father.

Lockheed moved for summary judgment, which the trial court
granted.  After that, the Arnolds' attorneys uncovered new
evidence unavailable to them at the time to support its contention
that Lockheed owed a duty of care to Rueben Arnold and Daniel
Arnold under its status as a government contractor under the
Walsh-Healey Act.

After considering the plaintiff's CR 60(b)(3) motion, declarations
in support and opposition to the motion, and Lockheed's response,
the trial court denied it.  The Arnolds then filed this appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Could be Subject to Potential Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, FutureFuel Corp. may be parties to, or targets
of, lawsuits, claims, investigations, and proceedings, including
product liability, personal injury, asbestos, patent and
intellectual property, commercial, contract, environmental,
antitrust, health and safety, and employment matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2011.

FutureFuel Corp. manufactures biodiesel and other biofuels;
however, its core business is specialty chemicals, which include
herbicides, detergent additives, colorants, photographic and
imaging chemicals, and food additives.  The Company is based in
Clayton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chinea Action v. Ballantyne Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is currently a defendant in an asbestos
case entitled Manuel H. Chinea and Janet M. Chinea v. American
Optical Company, Ballantyne Strong, Inc. a/k/a Ballantyne of
Omaha, Inc. et al.

The case was filed Aug. 17, 2010, in the Superior Court of the
State of New York, according to the Company's annual report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2011.

The Company is one of 25 defendants.  The Plaintiffs have agreed
to dismiss the Company.  The dismissal will be final assuming no
defendant objects.

Ballantyne Strong, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor, integrator
and service provider to the theatre exhibition industry on a
worldwide basis.  The Company is based in Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $30.33MM Net A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Plc's net reserves for asbestos and environmental
losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$30,333,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$31,677,000 during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Gross reserves for A&E losses and LAE were US$49,151,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$51,170,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company has exposure to A&E claims.  The asbestos exposure
primarily arises from the sale of product liability insurance, and
the environmental exposure arises from the sale of general
liability and commercial multi-peril insurance.

Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were
IBNR reserves of US$20.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared
with US$21.6 million as of Dec. 31, 2009.  The Company recorded
US$10.1 million as of both Dec. 31, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2009 as case
reserves for known A&E claims.

In 2009, one of the Company's insurance companies was dismissed
from a lawsuit seeking coverage from it and other unrelated
insurance companies.  The suit involved issues related to about
3,900 existing asbestos-related bodily injury claims and future
claims.  The dismissal was the result of a settlement of a
disputed claim related to accident year 1984.

The survival ratio on a gross basis for the Company's open A&E
claims was 5.5 years as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 5.1 years as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

The survival ratio on a net basis for the Company's open A&E
claims was 6.0 years as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 5.7 years as of
Dec. 31, 2009.

Global Indemnity Plc, a specialty property and casualty insurer,
provides its insurance products across a full distribution
network: binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance.
The Company manages the distribution of these products in two
segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations.  The
Company is based in Dublin.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,081 Open Claims Ongoing v. Ampco at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced 8,081 open asbestos-related
claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 8,168
claims during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 16, 2011.

The Company faced 8,262 open asbestos-related claims during the
nine months ended Sept. 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 12, 2010)

The Company recorded 1,377 resolved claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 3,336 resolved claims during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.  Gross settlement and defense costs were
US$18,085,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$28,744,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos-containing components historically used in some
products of predecessors of the Company's Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation subsidiary and of an inactive subsidiary in
dissolution and another former division of the Company.

Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Company, are defendants
(among a number of defendants, typically over 50) in cases filed
in various state and federal courts.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some first-layer excess insurance coverage
for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).

Under the Coverage Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept
financial responsibility, subject to the limits of the policies
and based on fixed defense percentages and specified indemnity
allocation formulas, for pending and future claims for Asbestos
Liability.

The claims against the Company's inactive subsidiary that is in
dissolution proceedings, numbering about 400 as of Dec. 31, 2010,
are not included within the Coverage Arrangement.  The one claim
filed against the former division also is not included within the
Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
North America, Inc. is entitled to coverage under policies
covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the
historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge,
a former subsidiary of the Company.

The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization
on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than
the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access
the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a
Product.

In general, access by Howden to the policies covering the Products
will erode the coverage under the policies available to the
Company and the relevant subsidiaries for Asbestos Liability
alleged to arise out of not only the Products but also other
historical products of the Company and its subsidiaries covered by
the applicable policies.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Cleared in Howden Last Dec. 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and a certain carrier concluded a
settlement generally consistent with a Coverage Arrangement in a
lawsuit filed by Howden North America, Inc. and all claims between
that carrier and the Company were dismissed with prejudice on
Dec. 8, 2010.

On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In the lawsuit, Howden raised claims against certain insurance
companies that allegedly issued policies to Howden that do not
cover the Company or its subsidiaries, and also raised claims
against the Company and two other insurance companies that issued
excess insurance policies covering certain subsidiaries of the
Company (Excess Policies), but that were not part of the Coverage
Arrangement.

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks, as respects the Company, a
declaratory judgment from the court as to the respective rights
and obligations of Howden, the Company and the insurance carriers
under the Excess Policies.

One of the excess carriers and the Company filed cross-claims
against each other seeking declarations regarding their respective
rights and obligations under Excess Policies issued by that
carrier.

The Company's cross-claim also sought damages for the carrier's
failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.  The
litigation remains pending with respect to the other carrier that
issued one of the Excess Policies.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Filed Case in Pa. Last Feb. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation subsidiary, on Feb. 24, 2011, filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
against 13 domestic insurance companies, certain underwriters at
Lloyd's, London and certain London market insurance companies, and
Howden North America, Inc.

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the respective
rights and obligations of the parties under excess insurance
policies not included within a Coverage Arrangement that were
issued to the Company from 1981 through 1984 as respects claims
against the Company and its subsidiary for Asbestos Liability and
as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against Howden arising
from the Products.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Long-Term Liability at $193.6M at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos liability was
US$193,603,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with
US$147,093,000 during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$138,729,330 as
of Sept. 30, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 12, 2010)

Current asbestos liability was US$25 million during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$30 million during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$124,089,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$95,430,000 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Current asbestos insurance receivable was US$18 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$20 million during the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Subject to Potential Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Reading International, Inc. has claims brought
against it relating to the exposure of former employees of its
railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust.

These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in
September 1990 with the Company's insurance carriers.  However,
this insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who
were not Company employees and who may claim second hand exposure
to asbestos, coal dust and/or other chemicals or elements now
recognized as potentially causing cancer in humans.

In connection with the development of the Company's 50.6 acre
Burwood site, it will be necessary to address certain
environmental issues.  That property was at one time used as a
brickworks and the Company has discovered petroleum and asbestos
at the site.

During 2007, the Company developed a plan for the remediation of
these materials, in some cases through removal and in other cases
through encapsulation.  As of Dec. 31, 2010, the Company estimates
that the total site preparation costs associated with the removal
of this contaminated soil will be US$12.3 million (AU$12.2
million) and as of that date the Company  had incurred a total of
US$8.4 million (AU$8.3 million) of these costs.

Reading International, Inc. is an internationally diversified
"hard asset" company principally focused on the development,
ownership, and operation of entertainment and real property assets
in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.  The Company
currently operates in two business segments: Cinema Exhibition and
Real Estate.  The Company is based in Commerce, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allis-Chalmers Energy Named in Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since its reorganization under the U.S. federal bankruptcy laws in
1988, Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. has been regularly named in
products liability lawsuits primarily resulting from the
manufacture of products containing asbestos.

In connection with the Company's bankruptcy, a special products
liability trust was established and funded to address products
liability claims.  This product liability trust is in the process
of being dissolved.

The Company said it believes that product liability claims
relating to its business prior to bankruptcy are barred by
applicable bankruptcy law.  Since 1988, no court has ruled that
the Company is responsible for products liability claims.

The Company has not manufactured products containing asbestos
since its reorganization in 1988.

Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc. provides services and equipment to oil
and natural gas exploration and production companies throughout
the United States including Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, and
internationally primarily in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and
Mexico.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Still Facing Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation or its former subsidiary,
NATCO Limited Partnership, is still party to asbestos-related
lawsuits.

The Company (or NATCO) is named as a defendant in 251 lawsuits,
the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000.  In these
lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege personal injury, primarily pleural
abnormality and/or asbestosis, and/or death, from exposure to
asbestos on the Company's vessels.

The vast majority of these lawsuits have been filed in the
Northern District of Ohio and a few in the Eastern District of
Michigan.  All cases filed in federal courts were consolidated in
Philadelphia in 1990 under the multi-district litigation process.

All of the maritime cases, including those filed against the
Company prior to 1996, were administratively dismissed in May 1996
and any cases filed since that time have similarly been
administratively transferred to the inactive docket.

Over the last year, the Philadelphia presiding judge has
reactivated hundreds of lawsuits in an effort to clean out the
administrative docket.  Before commencing discovery in any of the
reactivated cases, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name a group
of cases that they intended to pursue and to dismiss the remaining
cases without prejudice.

Plaintiffs have now named 3,384 cases that they intend to pursue,
including 33 cases against the Company, each of which involves one
plaintiff.  No discovery schedule has been set to date.  The
remaining cases against the Company either have been or will be
dismissed.

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation provides dredging services
in the United States.  The Company operates in two reporting
segments: dredging and demolition.  The Company is based in Oak
Brook, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Facing Injury Cases in Four States
----------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of
Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that
certain wire and cable, which may have contained asbestos caused
injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.

These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek
unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy.  The
Company maintains general liability insurance that has applied to
these claims.

To date, all costs associated with these claims have been covered
by the applicable insurance policies and all defenses of these
claims have been handled by the applicable insurance companies.

In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and
cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from
the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of
the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos
which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs.

In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL
provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated
with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if
its insurance coverage proves inadequate.

Houston Wire & Cable Company provides wire and cable and related
services to the U.S. market.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Suits Pending v. American Locker at March 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
The balance of unresolved asbestos cases against American Locker
Group Incorporated as of March 9, 2011, the most recent date
information is available, is about 39 cases, according to the
Company's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 15, 2011.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through March 15, 2011,
the Company has been named as an additional defendant in about 226
cases pending in state court in Massachusetts and one in the state
of Washington.

The plaintiffs in each case assert that a division of the Company
manufactured and furnished components containing asbestos to a
shipyard during the period from 1948 to 1972 and that injury
resulted from exposure to such products.  The assets of this
division were sold by the Company in 1973.

During the process of discovery in certain of these actions,
documents from sources outside the Company have been produced
which indicate that the Company appears to have been included in
the chain of title for certain wall panels which contained
asbestos and which were delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards.

Defense of these cases has been assumed by the Company's insurance
carrier, subject to a reservation of rights.  Settlement
agreements have been entered in about 31 cases with funds
authorized and provided by the Company's insurance carrier.

Further, over 157 cases have been terminated as to the Company
without liability to the Company under Massachusetts procedural
rules.

American Locker Group Incorporated manufactures lockers, locks and
keys with a wide-range of applications for use in numerous
industries.  The Company is best known for manufacturing and
servicing the widely-utilized key and lock system with the iconic
plastic orange cap.  The Company is based in Grapevine, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southern Star Has $1.6MM Dec. 31 ARO Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
At Dec. 31, 2010, Southern Star Central Corp.'s regulatory asset
was US$1 million and its related asset retirement obligation
liability was US$1.6 million.

In 2005, in accordance with the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB), Interpretation concerning Accounting for Conditional
Asset Retirement Obligations, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline,
Inc. recorded an asset retirement obligation for the remediation
of asbestos existing on its system.

The asbestos existing on Central's system is primarily in building
materials and pipe coatings used prior to the Clean Air Act of
1973 that established the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), that regulates the use of
asbestos.

Central began recovering asset retirement obligations in its rates
in 2008.

Southern Star Central Corp. operates as a holding company for its
regulated natural gas pipeline operations and development
opportunities.  The Company is based in Owensboro, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Has $277T Reserve for Gradall Plant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue in Gradall's facility in New
Philadelphia, Ohio that is expected to be remediated over time.

On Dec. 31, 2010, the Company had an environmental reserve in the
amount of US$1,495,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
facility.  Three specific remediation projects that were
identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation
with a remaining reserve balance of US$30,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.

Alamo Group Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes and services
high quality equipment for right-of-way maintenance and
agriculture.  The Company's products include tractor-mounted
mowing and other vegetation maintenance equipment, street
sweepers, excavators, vacuum trucks, snow removal equipment,
pothole patchers, zero turn radius mowers, agricultural implements
and related aftermarket parts and services.  The Company is based
in Seguin, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendant's Motion Denied in Aultman Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi,
Hattiesburg Division, denied defendant's motion in a case
involving asbestos styled Aultman, Tyner & Ruffin, Ltd. v. Capital
Rubber & Specialty Co., Inc., et al.

District Judge Keith Starret entered judgment in Civil Action No.
2:10cv223KS-MTP on Jan. 21, 2011.

This litigation was a suit for breach of contract, wherein the
defendant Capital Rubber & Specialty Co., Inc. allegedly breached
its agreement to pay to Aultman Tyner attorneys fees and out of
pocket expenses in relation to representation in asbestos
litigation.

CR & S is a Louisiana corporation not licensed to conduct business
in the State of Mississippi.  Aultman Tyner & Ruffin, Ltd. is a
licensed Mississippi law firm.

Aultman, Tyner initially filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Forrest County, Miss.  In response to the state suit, CR & S filed
a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer
to challenge personal jurisdiction and to raise the issue with the
inconvenience of the forum.

After the issues were briefed the State Court received evidence in
the form of affidavits and counter-affidavits and heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss on June 25, 2010.  Circuit Judge
Robert Helfrich took the matter under advisement after the
hearing.  Aultman, Tyner asserts that no discovery, or other
action had occurred in the state court case and it remained
pending in the Circuit Court of Forrest County as the parties
await Judge Helfrich's decision on the Motion to Dismiss.

On Sept. 10, 2010, Aultman Tyner filed the Complaint in the
instant matter asserting diversity jurisdiction.  The Complaint in
the instant matter was identical to the Amended Complaint filed in
State Court.

CR & S had filed a Motion to Stay or to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative to Transfer this matter to Louisiana in this
litigation.  Defendant's Motion for Stay and/or to Dismiss or in
the Alternative to Transfer was Denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Issues $6,075 Fine to Keystone Contracting
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued US$6,075
in penalties to Keystone Contracting, Inc., a Ridgefield, Wash.-
based contractor, for failing to timely notify the state about
several emergency and non-emergency asbestos-removal projects it
conducted between August 2010 and January 2011 in Portland, St.
Helens, Lake Oswego and Sandy, according to an Oregon DEQ press
release dated March 24, 2011.

In mid-January 2011, DEQ issued a US$1,350 penalty to Keystone
Contracting Inc. for failing to submit a notification and fee to
DEQ within three days of conducting an emergency asbestos removal
project on Aug. 31, 2010 at a residence at 7550 SW 83rd Ave., in
Portland.

DEQ issued the penalty because timely notifications allow DEQ to
stay informed about the current status of asbestos abatement
activities in an area and throughout the state.  In issuing the
penalty, DEQ noted that Keystone Contracting committed the same
violation for an emergency asbestos removal project in Milwaukie
in December 2009.

DEQ had issued a warning letter for the violation, stating that
the notification and payment of fee were required for any such
projects in the future.  Keystone Contracting paid the above-
listed US$1,350 penalty in full on March 16, 2011.

On March 7, 2011, DEQ issued additional penalties to Keystone
Contracting as the state discovered the company committed
additional violations at four other locations.  DEQ issued a
US$1,350 penalty for failing to notify DEQ at least 10 days before
starting a non-emergency asbestos removal project at a house at
4333 SE 104th Ave. in Portland.

The DEQ then issued another US$3,375 in penalties for failing to
submit notification and a fee for at least three days before
starting work on three emergency asbestos removal projects, at 375
NE Fifth St., St. Helens; 12442 27th Place in Lake Oswego; and at
18080 Tupper Road in Sandy.

Keystone Contracting has appealed its latest penalties, which
amount to US$4,725.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mansell, Woodlands Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd, an Ickleton, England-based plant hire
company, and Mansell Construction Services Ltd, a Croydon,
England-based construction services firm, have been fined for
exposing employees and members of the public to asbestos,
according to a Health and Safety Executive press release dated
March 28, 2011.

An HSE investigation found Mansell and Woodlands put workers and
the public at risk by failing to properly manage the presence of
asbestos during the refurbishment of a residential block of flats,
between Nov. 24, 2009 and Dec. 8, 2009.

During the work in an occupied London Borough of Hackney block of
flats, asbestos insulation board was disturbed and removed by
Woodlands, an unlicensed contractor, potentially releasing the
asbestos into the air.

A previous survey, identifying the presence of asbestos insulation
board in a number of the properties, had been provided to Mansell,
but had not been acted upon or passed to their sub-contractors.

Mansell Construction Services Ltd pleaded guilty and was fined
GBP50,000 at the Old Bailey for breaching Regulation 22(1)(a)
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Woodlands Plant Hire Ltd pleaded guilty of breaching regulations
5, 8(1) and 11(a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, and
was fined GBP50,000.  The companies were ordered to pay joint
costs of GBP20,690.

HSE Inspector Dominic Ellis said, "Despite recent high profile
campaigns on the dangers of working with asbestos, this case sadly
illustrates some companies are still failing to manage the risks
robustly.

"Mansell had information that asbestos was present, yet neglected
to act on it, meaning a licensable asbestos material was removed
in an uncontrolled manner, needlessly risking the health of
contractors and members of the public."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quarnmill Construction Fined for Safety Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quarnmill Construction Ltd, an Aston-on-Trent, England-based
construction company, has been fined for its role in exposing
workers to asbestos in Derby, according to a Health and Safety
Executive press release dated March 23, 2011.

Quarnmill Construction was preparing the former Allens Printers
building in Webster Street for demolition in October 2009 and had
employed a contractor to remove asbestos-containing materials.

The Company provided the contractor with a survey detailing the
work to be done, but did not check his suitability to carry out
the work, or that he held a license to remove asbestos, as
required by law.

Once work was underway, Quarnmill informed the HSE that they
thought the site had become contaminated with asbestos as a result
of the work the contractor had carried out.

Quarnmill Construction Ltd, of Derby Road, Aston on Trent, pleaded
guilty to breaching regulation 4(1)(a) of the Construction (Design
and Management) Regulations 2007 for allowing such failings at a
site it controlled.  On March 23, 2011, the Company was fined
GBP13,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP2,700 by Derby
magistrates.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Carol Southerd commented,
"Quarnmill did not check the competence of the contractor to do
this job nor that he had a suitable license.  This check is
required by law.

"His unsuitability was eventually discovered after a consultant
checked the HSE website and reported him, but by this time it was
too late."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Local Fined for Disposal Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Yi, a 45-year old resident of Santa Clarita, Calif., was
convicted on March 29, 2011 of five environmental charges related
to the improper renovation of a San Fernando Valley, Calif.,
apartment complex -- work that caused asbestos to be released into
the complex and the surrounding community, according to a U.S.
Department of Justice press release dated March 29, 2011.

Following a two-week trial in U.S. District Court, Mr. Yi was was
found guilty of five felony offenses, including conspiring to
violate the Clean Air Act.

The jury also convicted Mr. Yi of failing to notify the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District about a renovation containing asbestos,
failing to provide a properly trained person during a renovation
containing asbestos, failing to properly remove asbestos and
failing to properly dispose of asbestos wastes.

Mr. Yi faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in federal prison when
he is sentenced on June 6, 2011, by U.S. District Judge Percy
Anderson.

Mr. Yi was the owner of the now-defunct Millennium Pacific Icon
Group, which owned the Forest Glen apartment complex, a 204-unit
complex in Winnetka, Calif., that was being converted into
condominiums in 2006.  Knowing that asbestos was present in the
ceilings of apartments in the Forest Glen complex, Mr. Yi and his
co-conspirators hired a group of workers who were not trained or
certified to conduct asbestos abatements.  The workers scraped the
ceilings of the apartments without knowing about the asbestos and
without wearing any protective gear.

The illegal scraping resulted in the repeated release of asbestos-
containing material throughout the apartment complex and the
surrounding area because Santa Ana winds were blowing during the
time of the illegal work.  After the illegal asbestos abatement
was shut down by an inspector from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the asbestos was cleaned up at a cost of
about US$1.2 million.

Assistant Attorney General Ignacia S. Moreno for the Environmental
and Natural Resources Division said, "Mr. Yi knowingly violated
federal laws that set standards for proper disposal of asbestos
and placed the workers that he hired at an unacceptable risk of
exposure.  As this conviction shows, we will aggressively
prosecute those who deliberately ignore the nation's Clean Air
Act."

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

Nick Torres, Special Agent in Charge of the EPA's criminal
enforcement program in California, said, "Exposure to asbestos can
be fatal.  The defendant knew his operation produced waste
material that contained asbestos and, despite being told by
inspectors to stop removing it, the illegal asbestos removal
continued."

Previously in this case, two co-conspirators pleaded guilty.

The 40-year-old John Bostick, of Santa Clarita, who was the vice
president of Millennium Pacific Icon Group, pleaded guilty on
Feb. 23, 2011, to conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act.  Mr.
Bostick, who faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal
prison, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Anderson on May 2,
2011.

On June 14, 2010, the 33-year-old Joseph Yoon, of Studio City,
Calif., who was the project manager on the Forest Glen conversion,
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act.  He,
who is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Anderson on April 25,
2011, faces a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.

The jury that convicted Mr. Yi on the five counts on March 29,
2011 also acquitted Yi of one count of failing to inspect for
asbestos prior to conducting an asbestos renovation.

The case against Mr. Yi, Mr. Bostick and Mr. Yoon was investigated
by the EPA's Office of Criminal Enforcement, the California South
Coast Air Quality Management District and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bayron T.
Gilchrist of the Environmental Crimes Section and Senior Trial
Attorney David P. Kehoe of the U.S. Justice Department's
Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural
Resources Division.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Gilsonite Files for Chap. 11 Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Gilsonite Laboratories, a Scranton, Pa.-based manufacturer
of paints, coatings and sealants, has filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy reorganization, The Times Tribune reports.

UGL cited the continuing burden of asbestos-related litigation in
its petition for protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The Company employs about 150
people, including about 80 at its plant on Jefferson Avenue in
Dunmore, Pa.

Company spokeswoman Michele Margotta Neary said, "Since the 1980s,
these asbestos lawsuits have been coming little by little.  We
went into this financially sound with absolutely no debt.  As far
as we are concerned, it's business as usual."

The Company seeks court approval to establish a trust fund to
settle outstanding claims and an injunction preventing asbestos-
related awards except though the trust.

UGL used asbestos in joint compound, a cement-like construction
sealant, but halted the practice in the late 1970s, Company
President Thomas White said in a court document.

Nevertheless, Mr. White's declaration says, UGL and its insurers
have paid more than US$25 million in asbestos-related claims,
including more than US$2 million over the last three months.  He
added that UGL faces more than 900 ongoing asbestos claims.

If the court approves the establishment of a trust, UGL and its
insurers would create a pool of revenue and claimants would
petition a committee for payments, Mrs. Neary said.

UGL recorded sales of US$49 million in 2010, Mr. White's statement
said.  The Company did not submit required schedules of assets
and liabilities, but estimates assets at US$10 million to
US$50 million and liabilities of US$1 million to US$10 million.

UGL filed documents indicating it owes more than US$1.1 million to
its 20 largest unsecured creditors, including US$280,783 to
Ashland Distribution, a chemical company based in Dublin, Ohio,
and US$202,922 to Momentive Specialty Chemicals, which is based in
Columbus, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swindon Local Fined GBP500 for Disposal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Marsh, a 53-yaer-old resident of Swindon, England, has been
fined GBP500 after admitting dumping a bag of asbestos outside a
business in the Cheney Manor Industrial Estate, the Swindon
Advertiser reports.

At Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr. Marsh pleaded guilty to the
charge.

The court heard that Mr. Marsh left the bag on land at unit 2 in
Darby Close on Feb. 13, 2010, after being spotted unloading the
rubbish from his car.  When the owner of the premises approached
him to ask what he was doing, Mr. Marsh drove off.  The matter was
then reported to Swindon Council's Environmental Health
Department.

Following their investigations, Mr. Marsh was prosecuted under
section 33(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  When
interviewed by environmental enforcement officers, he said he had
gone to the Household Waste Recycling Centre with the rubbish
unaware there was asbestos in one of the bags.

Mr. Marsh was advised he needed to seal the bag and pay a fee for
the disposal of the asbestos.  However, Mr. Marsh said he did not
have any money on him or material to seal the bag.

Mr. Marsh said he did not think leaving the rubbish was fly-
tipping and that he had intended to collect the bag of asbestos
later on, but had forgotten to do so.

After hearing Mr. Marsh's guilty plea and listening to the facts
of the case, magistrates ordered him to pay a GBP500 fine and full
costs of GBP727.50.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cirencester Resident's Death Related to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Cheltenham heard that the death of 75-year-old James
Cordell, a retired engineer from Bowling Green Lane, Cirencester,
England, was related to occupational exposure to asbestos, this is
Gloucestershire.com reports.

The inquest heard Mr. Cordell was exposed to asbestos when he
oversaw extensive work in the boiler house and dye shop at the
plant.  The former managing director died from mesothelioma on
Aug. 15, 2011.

Mr. Cordell's widow, Sheila Cordell, told Gloucestershire
assistant deputy coroner Sally Scanlon that he latterly ran his
own company in Cirencester until he retired at the age of 65.

Mr. Cordell made a statement before his death in which he outlined
the various places where he had been employed over the years.  He
was an engineering draftsman and designer and from 1962 to 1967
and worked for Pasolds, the company that made Ladybird children's
clothing at Langley, near Slough.  He was also maintenance manager
for the plant, and oversaw a major refit of the boiler and dye
houses on the site.

Consultant oncologist at Cheltenham General Hospital Dr. David
Ferrugia first saw Mr. Cordell when he was referred with chest
pain and weight loss.  He said a tumor was found on Mr. Cordell's
lung and a biopsy found that it was malignant mesothelioma.  A
post mortem found that he had asbestos fibers in his lungs.

Recording a verdict of death from industrial disease, the coroner
said, "His work history shows a clear link with asbestos in the
1960s and this led to his death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.2MM OK'd for Fort Wayne Renovation, Abatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allen County Board of Commissioners in Fort Wayne, Ind.,
awarded US$4.2 million in bids for City-County Building
renovations and asbestos abatement on March 25, 2011, wane.com
reports.

According to Allen County Commissioners, the work will be done as
part of the relocation of many County administrative offices to
200 East Berry Street and the eventual occupation of the CCB by
City and County Police.

The project's construction manager, W.A. Sheets & Sons, will now
begin preparing contracts between the Board of Commissioners and
each of the low bidders.  Moreover, Environmental Management
Specialists, Inc. was awarded the asbestos abatement work with a
bid of US$1,066,371.

Including management and consulting fees and other costs
associated with the projects, the total cost of the CCB renovation
and asbestos abatement stands at about US$4.8 million.

The CCB renovation work is expected to start later in the spring
once renovation of the City-owned building at 200 East Berry is
finished and offices have relocated.

The abatement of asbestos-containing materials will involve areas
of the CCB directly affected by the renovation project. Those
materials include floor tile and adhesive, transite wall panels,
fireproofing material and thermal system insulation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCJ Probes Zurbrugg Site for Disposal Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Peter Aseltine, spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney
General, the Division of Criminal Justice is investigating
allegations of improper handling and disposal of asbestos at the
site of the former Zurbrugg Hospital in Riverside, N.J.,
phillyBurbs.com reports.

Mr. Aseltine said, "We're working with a number of agencies,
including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Health, the Department of Labor and the Department of
Corrections."  The state also has hired Atlantic Response, a New
Brunswick contractor experienced in handling asbestos.

Township Administrator Meghan Jack said she learned of the
investigation on March 28, 2011. Local officials are awaiting the
state's results before taking any action.

Mr. Aseltine did not identify the root of the investigation,
citing its ongoing status, and would not name any individual or
parties being scrutinized for possible wrongdoing.  No criminal
charges have been filed.

Neighbors of the Franklin Street site have complained about it for
months.  Most recently, residents approached the Township
Committee to air their concerns about what they have witnessed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HUD Probes Youngstown's $11T Fee for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development investigator is
looking into whether the city of Youngstown, Ohio, paid US$11,000
to a company to remove asbestos without first receiving proper
documentation that the work had been done, Vindy.com reports.

Steve Novotny, a former city consultant, filed the complaint with
HUD through its website in November 2010.  He contended the city
paid US$11,000 in federal funds to a company to remove asbestos
from eight properties without providing proper documentation for
the work.

Mayor Jay Williams confirmed on March 29, 2011 that an HUD
official contacted the city about three weeks ago and that an
investigator from the federal agency is reviewing documentation in
connection to a complaint filed with the agency by Mr. Novotny.

At the time of the complaint, Mr. Novotny served as the city's
housing deconstruction program coordinator.  He received US$30,000
from a federal grant he wrote while a city planning department
intern to serve as the program's coordinator.  The money ran out
at the end of 2010.

Mr. Novotny contended the city paid a company about US$11,000 in
federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program money to remove
asbestos from eight houses -- three on West Ravenwood, two on
Idlewood, and one each on East Lucius, East Philadelphia and
Trenton -- without providing proper documentation.

Mr. Novotny confirmed on March 29, 2011 that he's been interviewed
by an HUD investigator.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawrence Company Penalized for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said that a lawsuit
has been filed against Environmental Restoration Services
Corporation (ERSC), a Lawrence, Mass.-based company, and its
president for failing to follow proper procedures and safety
precautions while removing asbestos-containing materials from a
senior center in Gardner, Mass., according to a Mass. AG press
release dated March 29, 2011.

The lawsuit, filed on March 29, 2011 in Suffolk Superior Court
against ERSC and its president, Jorge Elias, seeks civil penalties
for violations of the Massachusetts Clean Air Act.

According to the complaint, ERSC, a licensed asbestos removal
contractor, and Mr. Elias engaged in the illegal removal of
asbestos-containing materials from the Gardner Senior Center
during its conversion renovation in June 2009.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in the removal
process without the authorization or approval from the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) or
the City of Gardner's consultant.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Elias and ERSC completely gutted
the first floor of the Senior Center and partially removed vinyl
asbestos floor tiles from the basement.

According to the complaint, the defendants dumped the broken
pieces of dry vinyl asbestos floor and other asbestos-containing
materials with demolition debris removed from the first floor into
a 40-yard roll-off open top container in the parking lot of the
Senior Center.  The complaint further alleges that the defendants
did not cover or contain, wet, label, or seal the asbestos-
contaminated demolition debris that was stored in the container,
in the parking lot, or on the ground, as required by law.

AG Coakley said, "Asbestos is a dangerous material that when
improperly removed can remain suspended in the air for long
periods of time.  Exposure to asbestos can create a serious health
risk.  It is extremely important that the proper removal and
disposal procedures are followed to ensure the health and safety
of the public and our office will aggressively pursue those who
violate the laws."

MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell said, "The actions taken
here were under the guise of licensed asbestos removal, but, in
fact, broke the very laws covering the removal and disposal of
asbestos that are in place to protect public health and the
environment.  Most licensed contractors do the job right, so those
who try to cut corners need to be rooted out."

The City hired the consultant to ensure that the asbestos removal
was completed in accordance with MassDEP regulations.  Under
MassDEP regulations, the removal of asbestos must be performed by
a licensed contractor with notification as to when the removal
will occur and requires certain methods and standards for removal,
safety, storage, and disposal of the asbestos throughout the
abatement process.

Assistant Attorney General Betsy Harper of AG Coakley's
Environmental Protection Division is handling the case.  Mary Jude
Pigsley, Greg Levins, and Don Heeley are working on the case for
MassDEP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. to Fund Trust for Asbestos Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Gordon, Esq., said on March 29, 2011 that RPM
International Inc. will contribute an unspecified amount of money
to win protection from future asbestos lawsuits, Bloomberg
reports.

Mr. Gordon said before a U.S. Judge at a hearing in Wilmington,
Del., that the Company "understands" that it must put money into a
court-approved trust for asbestos victims in order to win immunity
from future lawsuits aimed at its bankrupt subsidiaries.  The
units mentioned are Specialty Products Holding Corp. and Bondex
International Inc.

Specialty Products and Bondex filed for bankruptcy in 2010 without
saying how they would fund an asbestos trust.  Since then, the
judge overseeing the case, Judith K Fitzgerald, has asked
Specialty and Bondex whether the Company and its related operating
companies would contribute to an asbestos trust.

RPM Chief Financial Officer Robert L. Matejka did not immediately
return a call or e-mail requesting a comment.

The bankruptcy case is In re Specialty Products Holdings Corp.,
10-11780, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware
(Wilmington).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: JM Realty, McGrail Issued Penalty of $200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that JM
Realty Management, Inc., a Boston-based real estate development
and property management company and president John McGrail pled
guilty and were sentenced on March 24, 2011 for the improper
removal and disposal of asbestos and for failing to provide pay
records and evading unemployment insurance payments, according to
a Mass. AG press release dated March 25, 2011.

The pleas are the result of an investigation by the Massachusetts
Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF), an interagency unit
which is overseen by AG Coakley, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Commissioner Kenneth L. Kimmell
and Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K.
Sullivan, Jr.

The ECSF comprises prosecutors from the Attorney General's Office,
Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Attorney General's
Office, and investigators and engineers from the MassDEP who
investigate and prosecute crimes that harm or threaten the state's
water, air, or land and that pose a significant threat to human
health.

Following the changes of plea, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Regina
Quinlan ordered the 44-year-old Mr. McGrail, of Boston and, JM
Realty collectively to pay US$200,000 in fines and sentenced the
defendants to three years probation under the condition that they
not violate applicable federal, state or local laws including
those governing protection of the environment, unemployment
insurance, withholding taxes, and fair labor practices.

The defendants must also provide all employees involved with the
development of real estate with asbestos awareness training and
retain the services of an independent auditor to review the
actions of the defendants and associated companies to ensure their
compliance with environmental and labor laws.

Mr. McGrail pled guilty to charges of violating the Massachusetts
Clean Air Act for failure to file notices of asbestos removal with
the MassDEP and failure to comply with procedures for asbestos
emissions control.  He also pled guilty to charges of evasion of
unemployment insurance (four counts) and failure to provide pay
records (four counts).

JM Realty pled guilty to charges of violating the Massachusetts
Clean Air Act for failure to file notices of asbestos removal with
the MassDEP (two counts), failure to comply with procedures for
asbestos emissions control (two counts), and improper disposal of
asbestos waste.  JM Realty also pled guilty to charges of evasion
of unemployment insurance (four counts) and failure to provide pay
records (four counts), and failure to withhold income tax (four
counts).

For three years between 2005 and 2007, Mr. McGrail, the principal
of JM Realty and the founder of a group of businesses known as the
Mayo Group, instructed his employees to perform demolition and
renovation services at three different Mayo Group properties in
Lynn, Boston, and Worcester, that had asbestos containing
materials and other building components, according to former Mayo
Group employees.

Those employees informed the Attorney General's Office that
asbestos containing materials were transferred to a warehouse in
South Boston, and thereafter asbestos debris was distributed in
dumpsters at various Mayo Group properties around Boston for
regular trash disposal.  None of these locations were permitted
for the disposal of asbestos waste.

Mr. McGrail and JM Realty violated the Massachusetts Clean Air Act
by failing to notify MassDEP of asbestos demolition, failing to
follow mandated asbestos removal procedures during the demolition
and renovation, and improperly disposing of asbestos waste.
During the time this work was going on, Mr. McGrail's employees
paid workers, failed to withhold taxes, make unemployment
insurance contributions, or provide pay stubs for the workers.

A Suffolk County Grand Jury returned indictments against JM Realty
and Mr. McGrail on March 25, 2010.  He was arraigned in Suffolk
Superior Court on April 2, 2010, at which time he entered a plea
of not guilty and was released on personal recognizance.  JM
Realty was arraigned on May 11, 2010, in Suffolk Superior Court at
which time a plea of not guilty was entered.  Mr. McGrail and JM
Realty pled guilty on March 23, 2011, and were sentenced.

Worcester Commons, LLC, a company owned by Mr. McGrail, also pled
guilty to charges of violating the Clean Air Act for failure to
file notices of asbestos removal with the MassDEP (two counts),
failure to comply with procedures for asbestos emissions control
(two counts), and improper disposal of asbestos waste (one count).

In February 2007, MassDEP employees observed demolition debris
being thrown out of a window at Worcester Commons, a property
owned by Worcester Commons, LLC, a limited liability company owned
by the Mayo Group.

A subsequent inspection conducted by authorities resulted in the
discovery of impacted asbestos containing material within the
building and in a waste pile and disposal trailer on the
property's premises.  Asbestos from the site was scheduled for
disposal at a landfill that was not a designated site for the
disposal of asbestos waste.

MassDEP issued a cease and desist order in the spring of 2007,
following an inspection that found impacted asbestos containing
material on the second floor of the building, and subsequently
found that unauthorized asbestos removal continued in other parts
of the 10-story building where residents continued to reside,
posing a risk to both residents and the workers involved.

Worcester Commons, LLC violated the Massachusetts Clean Air Act by
failing to notify MassDEP of asbestos demolition, failing to
follow mandated asbestos removal procedures during the demolition
and renovation, and improperly disposing of asbestos waste.

A Worcester County Grand Jury returned indictments against the
Worcester Commons, LLC, on Jan. 23, 2009.  Worcester Commons, LLC
was arraigned in Worcester Superior Court on Feb. 23, 2009, at
which time it entered a plea of not guilty.  Worcester Commons,
LLC pled guilty on March 23, 2011, and was placed on pre-trial
probation.

Assistant Attorneys General Andrew Rainer, Jesse Siegel, Wendoly
Langlois, and Brendan O'Shea of AG Coakley's Environmental Crimes
Strike Force, prosecuted this case with the involvement of
Massachusetts Environmental Police and Don Heeley, Gregory Levins,
and Mary Jude Pigsley from the MassDEP Central Regional Office and
John MacAuley, Ken Atkinson and Karen Golden Smith from the
MassDEP Northeast Regional Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Issues Rulings in Evans' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims issued rulings in a
case involving asbestos styled James I. Evans, Appellant v. Eric
K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judges Moorman, Lance and Schoelen entered judgment in Case No.
08-2133 on Jan. 28, 2011.  Judge Schoelen concurred in part and
dissented in part.

Mr. Evans appealed an April 17, 2008 Board of Veterans' Appeals
decision that denied his claim of entitlement to service
connection for the residuals of a collapsed lung, remanded his
claims of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder
and to a compensable evaluation for residuals of a fractured
distal left fibular shaft, and dismissed his claims for asbestos
exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C.

Mr. Evans served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1968
until August 1970.  In July 2003, he filed a claim with the St.
Petersburg, Fla. regional office (RO), seeking entitlement to
service connection for a back condition, bilateral wrist
conditions, hepatitis C, carpel tunnel syndrome, a collapsed lung,
drug addiction, and a lung condition due to asbestos exposure.

Mr. Evans also sought a compensable rating for his service-
connected distal left fibular shaft fracture and the reopening of
a previously denied claim for a forehead injury.  At a later date,
he added claims for an eye condition, hepatitis B, a stab wound to
the chest, and a heart condition.

In February 2004, the RO issued a rating decision that disposed of
16 separate claims.  Within that decision, the RO continued Mr.
Evans' noncompensable rating for his fibular shaft fracture,
denied entitlement to a non-service-connected pension, and also
denied reopening of his claim for the residuals of a forehead
injury.

The decision further denied entitlement to service connection for
an eye condition, the residuals of a stab wound to the chest, the
residuals of a collapsed lung, asbestos exposure, heart trouble,
drug and alcohol addiction, hepatitis B and C, a back disability,
carpal tunnel syndrome, a scar on the left wrist, and bilateral
plantar fasciitis.

Mr. Evans filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to the RO's
decision with respect to his claims for asbestos exposure, a back
disability, a collapsed lung, hepatitis B and C, and his distal
left fibular shaft fracture.  He also raised new claims for a neck
condition, migraines, and memory loss.  However, he did not
express any disagreement with the other 10 claims decided by the
RO in the February 2004 decision.

In September 2004, the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC)
with respect to the six claims referenced in Mr. Evans' NOD.  The
RO also issued a rating decision with respect to Mr. Evans' newly
filed claims for a neck condition, migraines, and memory loss.

In January 2008, the Board provided a hearing for Mr. Evans.  In
the decision now on appeal, the Board fully addressed the three
"issues" specifically outlined in Mr. Evans' Form 9; however, the
Board dismissed his claims for asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and
hepatitis C.

The Board's April 17, 2008, decision was reversed with respect to
the Board's determination that Mr. Evans' claims for asbestos
exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C were no longer in appellate
status, and the matters were remanded to the Board for further
proceedings.

The appeal as to Mr. Evans' claim for service connection for
memory loss, migraines, and plantar fasciitis was dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Facing 2.5T Individual Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to asbestos litigation, as of Dec. 31, 2010, about
2,500 individual cases and 146 class actions are pending that
allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting
from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by Graybar
Electric Company, Inc.

Additional claims will likely be filed against the Company in the
future.  Its insurance carriers have historically borne virtually
all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are
continuing to do so.

Accordingly, the Company's future liability with respect to
pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued
solvency of its insurance carriers.

Graybar Electric Company, Inc. distributes electrical,
communications and data networking products, and provides related
supply chain management and logistics services, primarily to
electrical and comm/data contractors, industrial plants, federal,
state and local governments, commercial users, telephone
companies, and power utilities in North America.  The Company is
based in St. Louis, Mo.

                            *********

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  * * *