CAR_Public/110506.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 89

                             Headlines

ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Class May Proceed with Fee-Related Claims
BANK OF SMITHDOWN: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Approved
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Probiotic Claims
COMPUCREDIT: Supreme Court to Review Arbitration Class Action
CORRECTION CORP: Gag Order in Prison Abuse Class Action Lifted

ENCORE CAPITAL: Court Denies Motions to Dismiss TCPA Class Suits
EQUITITRUST CAPITAL: Faces Winding-Up Bid Amid Class Action
IPEX INC: Settles Class Action Over Kitec Plumbing Systems
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Players File Amended Lockout Class Action
NETFLIX INC: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Hearing on ERISA Suit Set for May 16
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeal From Pension Plan Suit Ruling Pending
NVIDIA: Bumpgate Victims to Get Low-End Laptops as Replacements
O.K. INDUSTRIES: Loses Appeal in Chicken Growers' Class Action
PFF BANCORP: Dist. Ct. Approves $3MM Settlement of ERISA Suit

QANTAS AIRWAYS: May 27 Hearing Set for Fuel Surcharge Class Action
QUANTCAST: June 13 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
SAVVIS INC: Being Sold to CenturyLink for Too Little, Suit Claims
SHENGDATECH INC: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SONY CORP: Canadians File Class Action Over Data Breach

SONY CORP: Faces Fourth Suit Over Private Data Breach
STORM FINANCIAL: Class Action Lawyer Balks at Deputy PM's Shirt
UNITED STATES: Army Faces Class Action Over Levee Explosion
UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Immigration Law
WELLPOINT INC: Expects Class Action Payment Completed by 2Q 2011

WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend AIC Demutualization Suits
WELLPOINT INC: Appeal Over Dismissal of "ADA" Suit Still Pending
WELLPOINT INC: OON-Related Litigation Still Pending in Calif.
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Remains a Defendant in Compressor-Related Suits


                       Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: CLC Contractors Fined GBP10T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Accrues $249MM for Future, Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2T New Claims Filed v. Crown Unit From 2009-2010
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. High Court Reverses Ruling in Robinson Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Posts $1.78-Bil Dec. 31 Net Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xcel Energy Inc. Posts $93.63MM AROs at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Records $82.7MM Net Reserves for A&E
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Posts $2.223-Bil. Net Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records 4,933 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $853M Dec. 31 Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Ohio Still Named in Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Still Facing Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Unit Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Facing La. Insurance Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Subject Antoine Lawsuit in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Still Subject to Lawsuits in Canada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Subject to Cryovac Transaction Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse, Units Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DryShips Subject to Potential Exposure Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Facing 64,646 Open Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baccus Case Settled During 4th Qtr.-2010 in Pa.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Brewer Case Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Woodard Claim Pending in Calif. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeals in Bell, Nelson Claims Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Incurred $27.6MM for Settlement, Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Long-Term March 31 Liability at $600.50MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veolia Eau Units Still Facing Lawsuits in U.S.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. AG Obtains Judgment v. Springfield Resident
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 159 Firms Named in 5 Suits Filed in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Records $43.44MM for Tort Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Has $9MM Current Reserves at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaglestone Agreement With NICO Entered April 19
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Facing Coverage Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Posts $2.502-Bil Reserves at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Party to Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific March 31 Liability Totals $160MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Posts $594MM March 31 Settlement Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saltz Lawsuit v. 37 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Bristol Factory Worker's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frisco Hotel Indicted for Breaching Safety Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renaissance Equity Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borrowash Resident's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petersfield Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D.C. Appeals Court Favors Boyd in Conrail Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court OKs McDonnell's Bid in Vest Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Long-Term Liability at $1.556-Bil.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $714MM March 31 NARCO Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Subject to Travelers Coverage Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces 22,604 Unresolved Bendix Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Still Subject to AMSF's Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Posts $43.4MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Decision in Belvedere
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Morgan Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DePaoli Lawsuit Against 14 Firms Filed March 22

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Lawsuit v. 56 Firms Filed Last March 29
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lange Case v. 184 Firms Filed March 30 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crossmolina Carpenter's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spondon Woman's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weaver, Neill Cases Filed March 22 in St. Clair

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. DEQ Issues $8,400 Penalty to Medford Local
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $5MM Litigation Charge at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Long-Term March 31 Reserves at $813MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. U.S. Steel Rise to 585 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 508 Exposure Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $1.1MM March 31 Administration Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Helens Nurse Seeks GBP200T for Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bracknell Local Sues Mars, Nestle for GBP200T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central West Family Sues Over Approval of Quarry

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Withrow Action v. 136 Firms Filed March 28




                             *********

ASBURY AUTOMOTIVE: Class May Proceed with Fee-Related Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled that the plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit against Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., may proceed
with claims with respect to certain document fees collected by the
Company, according to the Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to a class
action filed in December 2002 in the Pulaski County Circuit Court
in Arkansas.  The complaint relates to the Company's Arkansas
dealerships' charging certain document preparation fees and
receiving certain interest rate participation amounts from lenders
related to customer arranged financing from November 2000 through
November 2006.  These document preparation fees were charged in
reliance upon an Arkansas Attorney General Opinion and state
statute specifically authorizing a document preparation fee.
After various motions and judgments, in October 2008, the circuit
court ruled in favor of the Company on all class action claims and
found the Company had no liability.  On March 11, 2010, the
plaintiff appealed the circuit court's decisions.

On April 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled that the
class may proceed with claims with respect to certain document
fees collected by the Company from November 2000 to November 2006.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas also reversed the circuit court's
decision not to certify a subclass relating to the dealerships'
interest rate participation.  The case will be remanded to the
circuit court for further proceedings.  The Company says it is in
the process of evaluating its available defenses and will
vigorously pursue all defenses at trial.


BANK OF SMITHDOWN: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Phillips, writing for Newsday, reports that the final chapter
of the Bank of Smithtown's demise ended on May 2 with approval of
a settlement in a class-action suit.

Last year several shareholders sued over the takeover of the
troubled bank by Connecticut-based People's United Financial
announced in July.  State Supreme Court Judge Emily Pines said in
a Riverhead courtroom on May 2 that the final agreement was "a
fair and reasonable settlement."


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Probiotic Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Daniells, writing for NutraIngredients.com, reports that
the surge class action complaints against health claims on food,
beverage and dietary supplements shows no sign of calming, as
Bayer is targeted in a new class action lawsuit in California
against claims made on some of its probiotic products.

On April 22, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit in California
against Bayer HealthCare LLC accusing the company of false and
deceptive advertising regarding benefits of its Phillips
Probiotics Colon Health supplement purchased on April 7 for
$15.99.

The complaint states: "Bayer manufactures, markets and sells
health products known as Phillips Probiotics Colon Health,
Probiotics + Fiber and Probiotics Caps. Through an extensive and
comprehensive nationwide marketing campaign, Bayer claims that the
products help 'support' consumers' health benefits that other
products cannot.

"Bayer claims in its advertising that these exclusive health
benefits result from the combination of strains of 'probiotic'
bacteria that are unique to the products.  Bayer's representations
are false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the
public," adds the complaint.

Bayer were unable to comment at the time of publishing.

Surging class actions?

Leading lawyers in the food, beverage and dietary supplements
segment recently pointed to an upsurge in class actions.
Commenting recently as General Mills lost its bid to derail a
class action lawsuit over digestive health claims for Yo-Plus
yogurts at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Seattle-based
attorney Ken Odza, who heads up the food liability practice at law
firm Stoel Rives, noted: "I think these kind of cases are going to
explode".

Marc Ullman, a partner at New York-based firm Ullman, Shapiro &
Ullman LLP, added that it was "procedurally easier" to file such
suits in certain states, he added.  "California and New Jersey
come to mind."

Mr. Ullman may be reached at:

          Marc S. Ullman, Esq.
          ULLMAN, SHAPIRO & ULLMAN, LLP
          299 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: 212-571-0068
          Fax: 212-571-9424

High profile cases include Dannon regarding its probiotic yogurts
Activia and DanActive, Wrigley for claims made about its Eclipse
fresh breath gum, and General Mills for its Yo-Plus product.

Increased risk?

Virginia-based food law attorney Jonathan Emord, concurred on the
ease of submitting such claims in California.

"California's very liberal construction of unfair competition,
consumer protection, and deceptive advertising laws has made it a
Mecca for plaintiffs' lawyers intent on gathering tidy sums from
large industry because the costs and risks of suit outweigh those
of settlement," Mr. Emord told NutraIngredients-USA.com "The
ultimate victims of this liberality are consumers who lose access
to potentially valuable nutritional products."

Mr. Emord also noted that probiotics are backed by "sound but
inconclusive science" and that the industry needs to rely on claim
qualifications that accurately reveal the shortcomings.

"Those who sell probiotics with unqualified claims of health
benefit are definitely at an increased risk of attack from
plaintiffs' attorneys and district attorneys in California and
from the FTC," he added.

Overstepping the boundaries?

Commenting on the class action, Cara Welch, PhD, VP of scientific
& regulatory affairs for the Natural Products Association (NPA)
told NutraIngredients-USA.com that "it's pretty obvious the topic
of probiotics is hot these days -- both in the science of
probiotics and in figuring how to appropriately market their
effect.

"There are definitely issues lately where companies overstepped
the boundaries of probiotics but there is also a real opportunity
with these products.

"I don't think this case will have that much effect in the long
run but it's always a good idea, when you're in this industry, to
keep an eye on these cases," she added.

Basis of the claim

The new complaint alleges that Bayer does not provide references
to the data on which its claims are based.  The class action
states that the plaintiffs have reviewed the literature on the
topic of probiotics; particularly the strains and doses used in
the Bayer formulation, and they allege the science is lacking.

"Bayer's claims about the benefits of Phillips Colon Health are
not substantiated by the vast majority of generally accepted
scientific literature currently available relating to probiotics,"
reads the complaint.

"Despite Bayer's advertisements and websites depicting the
benefits of Phillips Colon Health, few if any studies have looked
at beneficial effects on health children and adults to determine
if probiotics at the concentration of 1.5 billion per capsule
convey any health benefits whatsoever."

Money back

"In addition to making untested and unsubstantiated claims,
Bayer's nationwide advertising claim that 'it works or its free'
is likely to deceitfully induce a placebo effect on consumers,
irrespective of any actual probiotic effect," added the complaint.

Fast action class action

In the FDA Law Blog, Riette van Laack, an attorney with Hyman,
Phelps & McNamara, PC, notes that: "Bayer's offer of a 3-week
money back guarantee for its [Phillips Probiotics Colon Health]
products carried no weight with plaintiff (if a consumer takes
[Phillips Probiotics Colon Health] as part of a balanced diet and
healthy lifestyle every day for three weeks and is not completely
satisfied, Bayer offers to refund the purchase price).

"Plaintiff claims that this money back guarantee is just another
ploy to 'deceitfully induce a placebo effect on consumers
irrespective of any actual probiotic effect.'  But plaintiff was
not to be fooled. She purchased a bottle of PPCH on April 7, 2011
and filed the complaint on April 22, 2011 -- in time to avoid any
possible placebo effect," added Mr. van Laak.


COMPUCREDIT: Supreme Court to Review Arbitration Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a motion to compel
arbitration that the Unite States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected will face U.S. Supreme Court review, the justices
said on May 2.

Wanda Greenwood and two others had filed a class action against
CompuCredit and Columbus Bank and Trust over Aspire Visa subprime
credit cards that the defendants marketed to consumers with low or
weak credit scores.

Though CompuCredit and Columbus advertised that there was "no
deposit required" for the cards, which would help them rebuild
their credit, they charged about $257 in fees during the first
year, against a $300 credit limit, the class claimed.

After the consumers filed their class action suit, CompuCredit and
Columbus moved to compel arbitration.  A federal judge ruled,
however, that the arbitration clause in the Aspire Visa credit
card agreements was invalid and void under a provision of the
Credit Repair Organization Act, which prohibits the waiver of a
consumer's right to sue in court.

A federal appeals court panel sitting in San Francisco affirmed
that decision in August.


CORRECTION CORP: Gag Order in Prison Abuse Class Action Lifted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge lifted a gag order in the civil-rights case against a
private-prison company that runs an Idaho corrections facility
that is so violent, it is allegedly known as the "Gladiator
School."

Inmates say Correction Corporation of America's Boise-area Idaho
Correctional Center failed to protect them from violence and was
"indifferent" to their medical needs.

Prison officials used inmate-on-inmate violence as a management
tool and refused to X-ray those injured, the prisoners claim.

Inmate Marlin Riggs initiated a lawsuit against the Nashville,
Tenn.-based company in 2009.

As a host of additional complaints that raised similar claims
against the prison's officials were filed, a federal judge
consolidated them with Mr. Riggs' case.

Mr. Riggs and his attorneys then filed an amended complaint that
essentially combines his individual claims for monetary damages
with a potential class action seeking only equitable relief.

Correction Corporation of America, however, won a sweeping gag
order after it argued that Mr. Riggs' counsel, ACLU attorney
Steven Pevar, made "inflammatory and prejudicial comments" in
press releases and interviews.  The company said Mr. Pevar's
remarks made a fair trail impossible and asked the court to bar
attorneys, witnesses and other parties from speaking to news
media.

The Associated Press, hounding the lawsuit, demanded the gag order
be lifted.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge agreed on April 27.

The Court is persuaded that the AP has shown a sufficient First
Amendment interest in the outcome of this Motion, and the Court
will grant its request to intervene," Judge Lodge wrote.

"The Court is not persuaded that a restraining order is necessary
or advisable at this time," the ruling states.  "A sweeping order
of the type that Defendants have proposed would be a prior
restraint on free speech . . . and Defendants have not justified
the infringement that such an order would have on the First
Amendment rights of the parties, counsel, the media, and the
public."

"Moreover, while the Court is concerned by the nature and tone of
some of Mr. Pevar's public statements, he appears to have made
those statements on isolated occasions separated by several months
over the course of the last year to year and a half," Judge Lodge
wrote.  "And though the Court is not entirely convinced by
Mr. Pevar's assertion that there is no longer any risk of
prejudice to Defendants simply because he will not represent Riggs
in the damages case, it agrees that the risk has been diminished
somewhat by that turn of events."

The judge added that he may split the lawsuit, allowing Mr. Riggs
to seek monetary damages independent of the class action.
Mr. Pevar announced he will no longer represent Riggs, though he
will still serve as counsel in the class action.

Judge Lodge said he was confident that voir-dire examinations
would yield impartial jurors.

"From this point forward, the Court trusts that all counsel will
exercise discretion and refrain from making statements that might
violate their ethical duties or jeopardize the fair administration
of justice in this or any other case," he wrote.  Mr. Riggs seeks
about $155 million in damages, the prison company's entire net
profit for 2009.  His outcome will be decided by a jury, while
Lodge will decide the class action.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Court Denies Motions to Dismiss TCPA Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s motions to dismiss
or stay two national class action lawsuits alleging that the
Company's subsidiaries violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On November 2, 2010, and December 17, 2010, two national class
actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v.
Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaints allege that the Company's subsidiaries violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers' cellular
phones without their prior express consent.  The complaints seek
monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief and other
relief, including attorney fees.  In December 2010, and January
2011, the Company filed motions to dismiss or stay these cases.
On April 13, 2011, those motions were denied.


EQUITITRUST CAPITAL: Faces Winding-Up Bid Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Kruger, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
a court application has been made to wind up the Gold Coast
mortgage fund operator Equititrust, adding to a list of woes for
the company that faces a potential class action by investors and
is at the mercy of its banks.

Equititrust confirmed on May 3 that the application was filed by
Rural Security Holdings, a company associated with Ian Lazar.

"Equititrust is not indebted to RSH in any way," said the
Equititrust chief executive, David Kennedy, by email on May 3
evening.

"Their alleged debt is AU$200,000, which we can satisfy many times
over from available cash but will not as there is no debt due."

Mr. Kennedy said Equititrust advised RSH's solicitors it would be
making an application for an injunction to restrain them from
advertising and notifying ASIC of the application, but RSH filed
anyway.  "The case is a clear abuse of process and is simply
commercial terrorism," he said.

Equititrust has other troubles to worry about.

The company has frozen investor redemptions and income
distributions at its AU$260 million Equititrust Income Fund and
recently confirmed that investors face large losses as well as a
restructure.

Equititrust was forced to suspend payments and renegotiate terms
with NAB on the loan earlier this year when EIF was almost out of
cash.

NAB agreed to defer repayments for last December until February
while it considered a new proposal that would match bank
repayments with loan repayments by Equititrust clients.

EIF said that while the bank had not waived its rights under the
facility, it had "agreed to not take further action in relation to
them".

Last month Equititrust blamed delayed property sales settlements
for the need to stop paying income distributions for the
foreseeable future and reported a AU$12.3 million loss for the
half-year ending December 31.

Earlier this year Equititrust had to pull plans to raise
AU$50 million via the Equititrust Priority Class Income Fund to
refinance EIF's debt and fund distribution payments after ASIC
expressed concerns about the proposal.


IPEX INC: Settles Class Action Over Kitec Plumbing Systems
----------------------------------------------------------
IPEX Inc. and IPEX USA LLC and Counsel for the Plaintiffs in In
re: Kitec Plumbing System Products Liability Litigation, MDL
Docket NO. 2098 (N.D. Tx.) and the Canadian actions of Rosati, et
al. v. IPEX Inc., et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, File
No. CV-09-13459 and Cooke, et al. v. IPEX Inc., et al., Quebec
Superior Court of Justice, File No. 200-06-000121-098 on May 3
disclosed that they have entered into an agreement to settle class
actions alleging that the Kitec Plumbing System manufactured by
IPEX may be subject to premature failure and otherwise may not
perform in accordance with the reasonable expectations of users.
IPEX denies these allegations.  It asserts that the System is not
defective and the vast majority of the systems will last
throughout the warranty period.  The parties have agreed to the
settlement to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and distraction of
further protracted litigation and to fully resolve this matter.

The settlement relates to systems sold under various brand names,
including Kitec, PlumbBetter, IPEX, AQUA, WARMRITE, Kitec XPA,
AmbioComfort, XPA, KERR Controls and Plomberie Amelioree.  The
settlement covers class members throughout the U.S. and Canada.

Because this is a class action settlement, the agreement has been
preliminarily approved by United States District Court Judge Royal
Furgeson on April 29, 2011.  Ontario Justice Terrence Patterson
and Quebec Justice Jean-Francois Emond will consider preliminary
approval in May 2011.

The settlement agreement provides a Settlement Fund and Claims
Process for those who file claims related to any structures they
own, have owned, lease, or have leased that contain a Kitec
System.  The amount paid per claimant depends upon the type and
extent of any possible failure, the size and type of Kitec System
and its installation, and the available funds in the Settlement
Fund.

Potential class members have legal rights under the settlement:
they must decide whether to stay in the class and obtain the
settlement's benefits or, if they do not want to participate, they
must opt out by September 30, 2011.  If they do not opt out, they
will be automatically bound by the terms of the settlement.  If
they want to stay in the class, they need do nothing at this time,
although class members who want a distribution from the Settlement
Fund must file a claim form by the claims deadline, which is eight
years from the Effective Date of the settlement.  The parties
estimate the Effective Date will take place late this year or
early next year, such that the claims period will likely end in
2019.

People who own or owned or lease or leased structures with the
Kitec System and believe they may qualify for a payment under this
settlement can obtain additional information about the settlement
by checking the Web site -- http://www.kitecsettlement.com/-- by
calling 1-877-337-1293, or by writing to the following for the:

United States:

          Kitec Claims Administrator
          PO Box 6001
          Larkspur, CA 94977-6001

Canada:

          Canadian Kitec Claims Administrator
          633 Colbourne Street, Suite 300
          London ON N6B 2V3

The United States Classes are represented by: Robert K. Shelquist
of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. (Minneapolis), Charles J.
LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP (Washington, D.C.), Michael
McShane of Audet & Partners, LLP (San Francisco), Michael Ram of
Ram Olson (San Francisco), and Jeffrey B. Cereghino of Merrill
Nomura & Molineaux LLP (Danville, CA).

The Canadian Classes are represented by: Charles Wright of
Siskinds LLP (Toronto) and Simon Hebert of Siskinds Desmeules LLP
(Quebec City).

The IPEX Defendants are represented by Richard L. Josephson and
Van H. Beckwith of Baker Botts, LLP (Houston and Dallas offices,
respectively) in the United States.  In Canada, the IPEX
Defendants are represented by Ben Zarnett, Jessica Kimmel, and
Suzy Kauffman of Goodmans (Toronto office), and Christopher
Richter of Woods (Montreal Office).

For Further Information:

For IPEX:

          Van H. Beckwith, Esq.
          Baker Botts, LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214.953.6505
          E-mail: van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com

For Class Plaintiffs:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          E-mail: Charles@cuneolaw.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Players File Amended Lockout Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Tom Brady and other football
greats filed an amended class action against the NFL and its 32
teams on May 3, claiming that the league has engineered an
anticompetitive conspiracy and lockout that will irreparably harm
players.  Though a federal judge enjoined the league's lockout,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said the
measure could stay in force while the court considers a stay
pending appeal.

The original complaint was filed in March.

A copy of the Complaint in Brady, et al. v. National Football
League, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00639 (D. Minn.), is available at
http://is.gd/GhOTzo

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barbara P. Berens, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER, P.A.
          3720 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-6171
          E-mail: Bberens@berensmiller.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. Thornton, Esq.
          BRIGGS & MORGAN, P.A.
          2200 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 977-8550
          E-mail: Pvolk@briggs.com

               - and -

          James W. Quinn, Esq.
          Bruce S. Meyer, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com
                  bruce.meyer@weil.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          David G. Feher, Esq.
          David L. Greenspan, Esq.
          DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 259-8000
          E-mail: jkessler@dl.com
                  dfeher@dl.com
                  dgreenspan@dl.com

               - and -

          DeMaurice F. Smith, Esq.
          NFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
          1133 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-759-9101


NETFLIX INC: Awaits Ruling on Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc., is awaiting a decision on its motion for summary
judgment with respect to anti-trust class action lawsuits brought
on behalf of Blockbuster Inc. subscribers, according to the
Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action suits were filed against the Company in various
United States Federal Courts.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and
Walmart.com USA LLC were also named as defendants in these suits.
These cases have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of California to
be consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes, and have
been assigned the multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029.  A
number of substantially similar suits were filed in California
State Courts, and have been consolidated in Santa Clara County.
The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers,
generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an
agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of
DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix
subscription prices.  On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class consisting of "any person or entity in the
United States that paid a subscription fee to Netflix on or after
May 19, 2005 up to and including the date of class certification"
with certain exceptions.  The Court granted the motion for class
certification on December 23, 2010.  A number of other cases have
been filed in Federal and State courts by current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc., alleging injury arising from similar facts.
These cases have been related to MDL 2029 or, in the case of the
California State cases, coordinated with the cases in Santa Clara
County.  On March 8, 2011, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment in Federal Court with respect to the suits brought on
behalf of Blockbuster subscribers.  The summary judgment motion
was heard on April 20, 2011.

On August 27, 2010, Wal-Mart stated that it had settled the cases
with both the Netflix and Blockbuster plaintiffs.  A hearing on
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
was heard on February 9, 2011.  On March 9, 2011, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.  On
April 18, 2011, Wal-Mart stated that it had entered into a revised
settlement agreement in principle with the Netflix plaintiffs
only.  Netflix is not part of the settlement and continues to
litigate these cases.  With respect to this matter, management has
determined that a potential loss is not probable and accordingly,
no amount has been accrued.  Management has determined a potential
loss is reasonably possible as it is defined by ASC 450; however,
based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that
the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is
reasonably estimable.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Hearing on ERISA Suit Set for May 16
------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on summary judgment motions filed in a consolidated
lawsuit against committees for two 401(k) Plans sponsored by
Northrop Grumman Corporation is scheduled for May 16, 2011,
according to the Company's April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 27, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California consolidated two Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits that had been separately filed on
September 28, 2006, and January 3, 2007, into In Re Northrop
Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation.  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated Amended Complaint on September 15, 2010, alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Administrative Committees and
the Investment Committees (as well as certain individuals who
served on or supported those Committees) for two 401(k) Plans
sponsored by Northrop Grumman Corporation.  The Company is not a
defendant in the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs claim that these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties caused the Plans to incur excessive
administrative and investment fees and expenses to the detriment
of the Plans' participants.  On August 6, 2007, the District Court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the
plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision on class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On September 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated the Order denying
class certification and remanded the issue to the District Court
for further consideration.  As required by the Ninth Circuit's
Order, the case was also reassigned to a different judge.  The
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification was rejected on
a procedural basis, and they re-filed on January 14, 2011.

The District Court postponed the trial date of April 12, 2011, to
an as yet undetermined date after resolution of the then pending
class certification motion and summary judgment motions.  By order
dated March 29, 2011, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  All briefing on the summary
judgment motions was to be completed by May 2, 2011, with the
hearing scheduled for May 16, 2011.


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Appeal From Pension Plan Suit Ruling Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from a court ruling granting summary judgment
in favor of a Northrop Grumman Pension Plan remains pending,
according to Northrop Grumman Corporation's April 27, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2007, a putative class action was filed against the
Northrop Grumman Pension Plan and the Northrop Grumman Retirement
Plan B and their corresponding administrative committees, styled
as Skinner et al. v. Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, etc., et al.,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The putative class representatives alleged violations of ERISA and
breaches of fiduciary duty concerning a 2003 modification to the
Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B.  The modification relates to
the employer funded portion of the pension benefit available
during a five-year transition period that ended on June 30, 2008.
The plaintiffs dismissed the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, and in
2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of all
remaining defendants on all claims.  The plaintiffs appealed, and
in May 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the
matter back to the District Court for further proceedings, finding
that there was ambiguity in a 1998 summary plan description
related to the employer-funded component of the pension benefit.
After the remand, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class.  The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On January 26, 2010, the District Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Plan and denied plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.  The District Court also denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and struck the trial date of March 23, 2010,
as unnecessary given the District Court's grant of summary
judgment for the Plan.  Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
order to the Ninth Circuit.


NVIDIA: Bumpgate Victims to Get Low-End Laptops as Replacements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Latif, writing for The Inquirer, reports that chip
designer Nvidia has managed to get away with giving Compaq CQ-56
laptops as replacements to those bumpgate victims involved in the
class action lawsuit against it.

Last year Nvidia came to a settlement in which it agreed that it
would repair or replace computers that were affected by bumpgate,
where some of its GPUs overheated and failed due to semiconductor
packaging defects.

However, later the firm found that it was unable to repair some of
the machines.  In those cases it offered a replacement laptop, but
not any laptop, a gleaming Compaq CQ-56 for each of those machines
it couldn't repair.

Compaq's CQ-56 laptop comes in a number of configurations but
high-end it isn't, not by far.  One specification of the machine
retails at Comet for less than GBP280.

Not surprisingly some of those involved in the class action
settlement complained that Nvidia had essentially pulled the old
bait and switch trick on them.  Sadly for them, US District Court
Judge James Ware overruled their objections, writing that they
were "without merit".

Outlining the reasons for his ruling, Judge Ware wrote, "the
[Compaq] CQ-56 meets or exceeds nearly all of the specifications
of the original computers", adding that "it comes with an advanced
operating system, new warranty and other programs".  As for
missing peripherals, Judge Ware said, "the Court finds that they
can be easily and inexpensively added".

Remember that this is the laptop that will be offered to users
including those with Apple Macbook Pros.  It's not hard to see why
those who had shelled out the best part of GBP2,000 on an Apple
notebook might be somewhat upset to end up receiving a low-priced
Compaq laptop, even though the judge apparently thinks it "meets
or exceeds the specifications of the original computers".

Then there is the question whether Apple Macbook Pro owners should
be forced to accept a 'similar specification machine' that can't,
legally or operationally, run the same operating system as their
original computer.

It's a poor show from Nvidia, which could have scored some points
if it had offered those affected a decent replacement, perhaps
with some games thrown in for good will and to show off the
graphics capabilities of the machines.  Instead, this whole sad
story makes the company look like it is short-changing customers
who ended up with its faulty equipment.

If Nvidia had hoped that its legal settlement of the bumpgate
fiasco would be the end of the story, its decision not to offer
like-for-like replacements could end up costing it further damage
to its already bruised reputation.


O.K. INDUSTRIES: Loses Appeal in Chicken Growers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a $14.5 million judgment will
stand against an Arkansas poultry producer accused of using its
near-monopoly market position to force Oklahoma growers into
lopsided contracts, after the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on
May 2.

About 300 poultry growers in southeastern Oklahoma filed a class
action in 2002 against O.K. Industries, which hires growers to
raise broiler chickens.

The growers said O.K. abused its position as the area's largest
poultry producer to drive prices down for raising chickens.

To become one of O.K.'s growers, the plaintiffs had to build
$160,000 chicken houses, agree to use only chicks, feed and
medicine supplied by O.K., and absorb the costs of diseased birds
or inadequate supplies.  In exchange, they got one flock of
chicks, with replacements promised "from time to time."

The growers accused O.K. of deducting costs for medicine and
supplies from their pay, delivering dead chicks that they had to
pay for, reducing their incomes by giving them fewer birds each
year, and paying them according to an unconscionable competitive
ranking system.

In July 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit ruled that the growers could proceed with their claim that
O.K.'s actions injured competition.

A federal jury in 2008 awarded the growers $21.1 million, which a
federal judge then reduced to $14.5 million.

The 10th Circuit in Denver upheld the award in October 2010.

As is its custom, the Supreme Court did not comment on its
decision to reject the company's petition for review.


PFF BANCORP: Dist. Ct. Approves $3MM Settlement of ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen V. Wilson signed off on an agreement
settling a proposed class action filed by participants in
PFF Bancorp, Inc.'s 401(k) Plan against the Company and its
banking subsidiary and other entities in exchange for payment of
$3 million plus the proceeds of a $400,000 bankruptcy claim.

The Court certified the lawsuit as a Class Action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1).  The Class is defined as persons,
excluding Individual Defendants, who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the PFF 401(k) Plan or the PFF employees' stock
ownership plan whose individual Plan accounts were invested in
Bancorp Stock at any time during the period from March 1, 2003,
through and including September 8, 2010.  Plaintiffs Pauline
Perez, Bruce Bonanomi, and Tiffany Woodward are appointed as Class
Representatives, and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
and Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC, are appointed as Co-Lead
Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g).  Marlin & Saltzman is appointed as Liaison Counsel for
the Plaintiffs in the Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The lawsuit, among others, allege that the Defendants breached
fiduciary obligations to the Plans and their participants by
causing the Plans to offer the Bancorp Stock as an investment
option in the 401(k) Plan and/or continue to invest in Bancorp
Stock in both Plans at a time when the Defendants knew or should
have known that the stock was not a prudent investment for the
Plans.

As reported by the Troubled Company Reporter on Feb. 9, 2011, Bill
Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News, said the
provider of directors' and officers' insurance for PFF Bancorp
agreed to pay $3 million to settle the ERISA suit.  The settlement
requires approval from both the Bankruptcy Court and the District
Court overseeing the class action.

The case is PFF Bancorp, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 08-cv-01093
(C.D. Calif.).  A copy of the Court's April 27, 2011 Order and
Final Judgment is available at http://is.gd/0FOD8wfrom
Leagle.com.

                        About PFF Bancorp

PFF Bancorp Inc. -- http://www.pffbank.com/-- was a non-
diversified unitary savings and loan holding company within the
meaning of the Home Owners' Loan Act with headquarters formerly
located in Rancho Cucamonga, California.  Bancorp is the direct
parent of each of the remaining Debtors.

Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Bancorp was also the direct parent
of PFF Bank & Trust, a federally chartered savings institution,
and said bank's subsidiaries.  PFF Bank & Trust was taken over by
regulators in November 2008, with the deposits transferred by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to U.S. Bank NA.

PFF Bancorp Inc. and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
on December 5, 2008 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 08-13127 to
08-13131).  Chun I. Jang, Esq., and Paul N. Heath, Esq., at
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., serve as the Debtors' bankruptcy
counsel.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC serves as the Debtors'
claims agent.  Jason W. Salib, Esq., at Blank Rome LLP, represents
the official committee of unsecured creditors as counsel.


QANTAS AIRWAYS: May 27 Hearing Set for Fuel Surcharge Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Jones, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that travel
agents will learn later this month how much they will receive from
Qantas in back commission on fuel surcharges.

A court hearing in the long running fuel surcharge class action
has been set down for May 27 where "final orders" will be made
against the airline.

Upon settlement, the focus will then turn to other airlines
involved in the original class action -- Singapore Airlines,
British Airways, Cathay Pacific and Air New Zealand.

Qantas was viewed as a test case in the saga and while an out of
court settlement is viewed as likely in most cases, Air New
Zealand is vowing to fight on.

The carrier is pressing ahead with its motion to strike out the
claim, which effectively means it believes the class action
against it has no merit.

Air NZ's legal counsel believe conditions within the carrier's
travel agency contract exclude it from any liability to back pay
the commission dating to 2004, the year Air NZ introduced a fuel
surcharge.


QUANTCAST: June 13 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
John Lahtinen, Community Development Editor for TMCnet, reports
that pending court approval of a proposed $3.25 million settlement
deal, a class action lawsuit accusing three companies --
Quantcast, Clearspring, and Videoegg -- of utilizing Flash cookies
to continue to track users' Internet activities without their
knowledge or permission, would be dismissed.

Under the agreement, Quantcast and Clearspring would pay a
combined total of $2.4 million and Videoegg (now SAY Media) would
pay $825,000 into settlement funds.  All have continued to deny
any wrongdoing, but do not want to pursue prolonged and costly
defenses and potential appeals.

"The Court granted preliminary approval of both the
Quantcast/Clearspring settlements, as well as the Videoegg
settlement," said Scott Kamber of KamberLaw, LLC, which represents
the plaintiffs.  "Thus far there have been no objections to either
settlement received by class members.  We are confident that we
can satisfy our burden at the final fairness hearings to
demonstrate that the settlements are fair and reasonable to the
Class."

The settlement funds would not be paid out directly to members of
the class action.  Rather, much of the settlement will be donated
to several non-profit groups whose mission is to educate consumers
about online privacy.

The Adobe Corporation originally created Flash cookies,
technically known as "Local Shared Objects" (LSOs), to control its
Flash player settings across multiple browsers.  Web firms soon
realized they could use the same technology to restore deleted
browser cookies and track users' online activity.  Adobe has
publicly decried this practice.

Actions such as erasing the browser cookies or the cache on your
computer, or even clearing the history, has no effect on Flash
cookies as they are stored in a separate area and are designed to
be used by several different browsers.

As part of the settlement, Quantcast, Clearspring, and Videoegg
would agree that they currently do not and will not in the future,
use Flash cookies to: (1) "Respawn" browser cookies (Respawning is
when a company uses a Flash storage device to back up browser
cookies and restore them after a user has deleted them); (2) Serve
as an alternative to browser cookies for storing information about
a user's web browsing history, unrelated to the delivery of
content through the Flash Player or the performance of the Flash
Player in delivering such content, without adequate disclosure;
and/or; (3) Otherwise counteract any computer user's decision to
either prevent the use of or to delete previously created browser
cookies.

Mr. Kamber feels the settlement is beneficial for everyone
involved.

"I think it is particularly meaningful to the public," Mr. Kamber
said.  "It removes a non-disclosed method of tracking from the
arsenal of ad networks and puts several major players in this area
on record as being opposed to the use of LSO's for tracking.  It
clearly sets a standard that says that using LSO's for tracking is
out of bounds.  For defendants, it provides closure and is
demonstrative of their leadership in recognizing the injury caused
by such tracking methods."

The final approval hearing for the Quantcast/Clearspring
settlements is scheduled for June 13, while the approval hearing
for the Videoegg settlement is slated for July 18.

Mr. Kamber may be reached at:

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street 23rd floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 920-3072
          Fax: (212) 202-6364
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com


SAVVIS INC: Being Sold to CenturyLink for Too Little, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Savvis, a
tech company, is selling itself too cheaply to CenturyLink, for
$2.5 billion, or $40 a share, in a cash and stock swap deal.

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

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/03/Savvis.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim E. Dollar, Esq.
          Michael S. Kilgore, Esq.
          DOLLAR, BURNS & BECKLER L.C.
          110 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876-2600

               - and -

          Mark J. Gaertner, Esq.
          HOLLORAN WHITE SCHWARTZ & GAERTNER LLP
          2000 So. 8th Street
          St. Louis MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 772-8989
          E-mail: mgaertner@holloranlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Carolina C. Torres, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  JReise@rgrdlaw.com
                  ctorres@rgrdlaw.com


SHENGDATECH INC: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ShengdaTech between
March 15, 2010 and March 15, 2011.

The lawsuit alleges that ShengdaTech did not disclose to
shareholders that it was operating with material deficiencies in
the system of internal control over its financial reporting and
that ShengdaTech's financial statements, during at least 2010,
were not recorded in conformity with a recognized accounting
system such as GAAP.

Trading of ShengdaTech shares were halted on March 15 after the
company announced that it had appointed a special committee of the
Board of Directors to investigate "potentially serious
discrepancies and unexplained issues relating to the company and
its subsidiaries' financial records identified by the company's
auditors" in the course of their examination of ShengdaTech's
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2010.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 17,
2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
of whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the overall
recovery for class members.  You do not need to contact us or
retain individual counsel if you are a class member.   If this
action is certified as a class action, class members will be
automatically represented by court-appointed counsel.  The action
discussed here was not filed by Milberg.

Milberg LLP has been representing individual and institutional
investors for more than four decades and serves as lead counsel in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.  Please
visit the Milberg Web site -- http://www.milberg.com/-- for more
information about the firm.  If you wish to discuss this matter
with us, or have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact the following attorney:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com


SONY CORP: Canadians File Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Stefania Moretti, writing for MONEY, reports that lawyers in
Toronto have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Sony,
seeking more than $1 billion on behalf Canadian PlayStation
customers whose data may have been stolen by hackers.

It's been alleged that Sony was aware of the security breach on
the accounts of some 77 million global users but didn't advise
gamers until days later.

Names, addresses, e-mail addresses, birth dates, passwords and
credit and debit card information were stolen.  Some one million
Canadians may have been affected.

Sony has since apologized for the breach and offered free short-
term memberships.

It has also advised Americans about the availability of a free
credit report, but has yet to detail a similar option to
Canadians, lawyers from McPhadden Samac Tuovi LLP said.

A Sony spokesperson declined comment.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Natasha Maksimovic, is a 21-year-
old Mississauga, Ont. resident and avid PlayStation user.

"If you can't trust a huge multi-national corporation like Sony to
protect your private information, who can you trust?  It appears
to me that Sony focuses more on protecting its games than its
PlayStation users," she said in a media release.  Ms. Maksimovic
has not noticed fraudulent activity on her credit card to date.

The lawsuit claims damages in excess of $1 billion, which includes
having the company cover the costs of monitoring services and
fraud insurance coverage for two years.

A lawyer working on the case said hundreds of Canadians have
already signed on to the suit as participants, which has yet to be
granted official class action status by a judge.

It follows a separate class action earlier filed in the U.S.

The electronic giant's chief executive Howard Stringer came under
fire again on May 23 as Sony revealed hackers may have stolen data
from another 25 million accounts in a second attack on its Sony
Online Entertainment network.


SONY CORP: Faces Fourth Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Ian McCoy, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case No.
11-cv-02153 (N.D. Calif. May 2, 2011), seeks damages and other
relief as a result of the failure of the Sony defendants to
protect otherwise private credit card and personal data for its
over 70 million subscribers/users of PlayStation.

Mr. McCoy alleges that as a result of the the defendants' lack of
appropriate security measures, third party "hackers" have
compromised and otherwise gained access to private data
information of over 70 million class members.  Mr. McCoy says
that, for at least a week, defendants covered up the security
breach and waited more than a week before disclosing the breach in
its blog.  Mr. McCoy states that defendants' actions violated
state and federal law, including violations of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, the Electronic Communications  Privacy Act,
California's Computer Crime Law, and California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Mr. McCoy, a resident of the State of California, relates that on
April 26, 2011, learned that his personal data, as provided to
defendants, had been accessed by a third party.

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC and Sony Network
Entertainment International LLC are Delaware limited liability
companies with corporate headquarters in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
          HERSH & HERSH
          A Professional Corporation
          601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2080
          San Francisco, CA 94102-6316
          Telephone: (415) 441-5544

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555


STORM FINANCIAL: Class Action Lawyer Balks at Deputy PM's Shirt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that the Deputy
Prime Minister has angered members of a Storm Financial class
action over his choice of t-shirt.

The legal team behind a Storm Financial class action has
questioned the federal government's relationship with the
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) after the Deputy Prime
Minister was seen wearing a t-shirt carrying the banking group's
logo.

In an open letter to Wayne Swan, Levitt Robinson Solicitors and
Attorney principal solicitor Stewart Levitt said the appearance of
Mr. Swan along the Cairns waterfront with the CBA logo across his
shirt was "an affront to many hundreds of your own constituents".

"The appearance of you, Deputy Prime Minister, openly 'waving the
CBA flag' on your tee-shirt, has engendered skepticism among my
clients concerning the true intentions of the government and ASIC
towards CBA with regard to the Storm debacle, which both the
government and the opposition have so far failed properly to
address by bringing the culprits to account," the letter said.

"[It is] both demoralizing and hurtful -- given the pendency of
significant litigation both by ASIC and my clients against the
CBA."

Mr. Levitt claims the photograph of Mr. Swan published twice in
2008, and again last month in the Brisbane Courier Mail wearing a
CBA branded tee-shirt was a concern to the 3000 margin loan
borrowers who lost more than $3 billion in the collapse of Storm.

In the letter, Levitt informed Mr. Swan that the claims the
group's clients has brought against the CBA include allegations
the banking group engaged "unconscionable conduct towards Storm-
referred customers under both ASIC and Trade Practices
legislation" as well as allegedly engaging in conduct which was
misleading and deceptive.

Storm Financial collapsed in January 2009.


UNITED STATES: Army Faces Class Action Over Levee Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys on May 3 filed a class action complaint on behalf of
farmers whose land was flooded when the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers exploded a levee on the Mississippi River, sending a
torrent of water onto 130,000 acres of prime Missouri farmland.

The complaint filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims
against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends that the
property rights of the farmers and landowners under the 5th
Amendment to the Constitution were violated when a 15 foot high
wall of water was released and flooded their property.  The
government exploded the Birds Point levee on May 2 in an attempt
to protect the small southern Illinois town of Cairo from rising
flood waters.

"In the process of breaching the levee, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers also destroyed, or is in the process of destroying, 90
households and more than 100,000 acres of the country's richest
farmland," said attorney J. Michael Ponder of Cook, Barkett,
Ponder & Wolz in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.  "This occurred despite
the fact that the Corps lacked the easement over the affected
property in the floodway.  What these property owners and farmers
are seeking is just compensation for the land and livelihood they
have lost -- possibly forever or for decades."

The complaint charges that the action violated the "takings
clause" of the 5th Amendment which bars the government from taking
private property without due process of law.  The complaint
asserts that the Corps did not have easements over property in the
floodway that are required before the Corps could be allowed to
breach the levee at Birds Point.  As a result, property owners are
due compensation for the illegal taking of their property and
violation of their constitutional rights.

Large tracts of land in Mississippi and New Madrid Counties in
Missouri were inundated with water flowing at a rate of 550 feet
per second, utterly destroying everything in its wake, including
acres of farmland for corn, wheat and soybeans, said co-counsel
Benjamin D. Brown of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll.  "The river was allowed to scour away
large sections of land, which will leave huge holes, silt and
deposits of sand and gravel on formerly productive cropland," he
said. "This land may never recover from this destruction."

At the time the levee was breached, acreage in the affected area
was selling for between $4,000 and $6,000 an acre.  Corn prices
were about $6.75 a bushel and the land was producing about 200
bushels an acre.  Wheat was selling for between $8 and $9 a bushel
and the land was producing about 75 bushels an acre.  Soybeans
were selling for between $12 and $14 a bushel and the land was
producing about 70 to 75 bushels an acre.

The Corps of Engineers' own estimates place damage to the property
at Birds Point at more than $300 million.  The plaintiffs have not
yet determined whether they will accept that estimate, attorneys
said.

The complaint names 14 farming operations and their owners as
plaintiffs but seeks certification as a class action on behalf of
all individuals and entities affected by the government's
intentional flooding of their property.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in
Washington, D.C., because lawsuits for damages against the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers must be filed in a federal claims court.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are:

          J. Michael Ponder, Esq.
          Phillip J. Barkett, Jr., Esq.
          Kathleen A. Wolz, Esq.
          COOK, BARKETT, PONDER & WOLZ
          715 N. Clark
          P.O. Box 1180
          Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
          Tel: (573)335-6651
          Fax: (573)335-6182

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Tel: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com


UTAH: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Immigration Law
-----------------------------------------------------
Dennis Romboy, writing for Deseret News, reports that Alicia
Cervantes fears Utah's new illegal immigration enforcement law
will subject her to police questioning because she is Latina.

A U.S. citizen born in Utah, Ms. Cervantes also believes the
passage of HB497 has already led to anti-immigrant sentiment in
the state. Recently, her daughter's classmates have said things
such as "send the Mexicans home."

For those reasons, Ms. Cervantes signed on as a plaintiff in a
federal class-action lawsuit filed on May 3 against the state of
Utah over the law set to take effect May 15.  It argues the
measure is unconstitutional and will lead to racial profiling.

The ACLU and National Immigration Law Center filed the complaint
on behalf of several individuals and organizations including Utah
Coalition of La Raza and the Latin American Chamber of Commerce.
Lawyers last week intend to seek an injunction in U.S. District
Court to stop the law from being enforced, said Karen McCreary,
ACLU of Utah executive director.

Meantime, the Department of Justice sounds more and more like it
might sue the state over the package of illegal immigration bills
the Legislature approved this year.  The federal government has
already gone to court to stop Arizona's enforcement law.

In a committee meeting on May 3, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
said if Utah doesn't make some adjustments, the DOJ would probably
have to take action, according to Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.

That caught Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff off guard because
he met with DOJ attorneys earlier to go over the bills point by
point.

"I was hoping that we had them convinced to wait," he said.

Mr. Shurtleff said he was encouraged that Mr. Holder appears
willing let the state make changes to the measures.  HB116, the
most controversial of the Utah bills, doesn't take effect until
summer of 2013.

On HB497, however, the ACLU chose to go to court now because the
law is scheduled to be enforced this month.

Ms. McCreary contends it will turn Utah into a "show-me-your-
papers" state.  And she said though billed as kinder, gentler
version of Arizona's law, it is substantively the same.

Juan Manuel Ruiz, president of the Latin American Chamber of
Commerce, called HB497 "a harassing law for the Hispanic community
and others who look foreign. . . . If you don't look very
mainstream, you will have to worry about this law."

The law requires police to verify the immigration status of people
arrested for felonies and class A misdemeanors and those booked
into jail on class B and class C misdemeanors.  It also says
officers may attempt to verify the status of someone detained for
class B and class C misdemeanors.


WELLPOINT INC: Expects Class Action Payment Completed by 2Q 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., expects to complete payments under the terms of a
class action settlement in California by the conclusion of the
second quarter of 2011, according to the Company's April 27, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In various California state courts, the Company is defending a
number of individual lawsuits, including one filed by the Los
Angeles City Attorney, and one purported class action alleging the
wrongful rescission of individual insurance policies.  The suits
name WellPoint as well as Blue Cross of California, or BCC, and BC
Life & Health Insurance Company, or BCL&H (which name changed to
Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company in July 2007),
both WellPoint subsidiaries.  The lawsuits generally allege breach
of contract, bad faith and unfair business practices in a
purported practice of rescinding new individual members following
the submission of large claims.  The parties agreed to mediate
most of these lawsuits and the mediation resulted in the
resolution of some of these lawsuits.  Final approval of the class
action settlement was granted on July 13, 2010, and no appeals
were filed.  Payments pursuant to the terms of the settlement
commenced in the first quarter of 2011, and are expected to be
completed by the conclusion of the second quarter of 2011.  The
payments will not have a material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position or results of operations.  The Los
Angeles City Attorney filed an amended complaint in October 2010,
adding claims of misrepresentation arising from several public
statements made by the Company during 2010.  The Company's
demurrer, challenging the new allegations in the amended
complaint, was recently denied by the court.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this suit;
however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Continues to Defend AIC Demutualization Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint, Inc., continues to defend several certified or putative
class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc. demutualization, according to the Company's April
27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is currently defending several certified or putative
class actions filed as a result of the 2001 Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., or AICI, demutualization.  The suits name AICI as
well as Anthem, Inc., or Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.  The suits
are captioned as Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.; Mary
E. Ormond, et al. v. Anthem, Inc,. et al.; Ronald E. Mell, Sr., et
al. v. Anthem, Inc., et al; and Jeffrey D. Jorling, et al., v.
Anthem, Inc. (n/k/a WellPoint, Inc.) et al.  AICI's 2001 Plan of
Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from
a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant
to Indiana law.  Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value
of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory
Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in
exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company.
The lawsuits generally allege that AICI distributed value to the
wrong ESMs or distributed insufficient value to the ESMs.  In
Gold, cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part with regard to the issue of sovereign immunity
asserted by co-defendant, the State of Connecticut.  The State
appealed this denial to the Connecticut Supreme Court.  The
Company filed a cross-appeal.  Oral argument was held in November
2008.  On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the
trial court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims under sovereign immunity.  The Company's cross-appeal was
dismissed by the Court.  The case was remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings.  In the Ormond suit, the Company's Motion
to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on March 31,
2008.  The Court dismissed the claims for violation of federal and
state securities laws, for violation of the Indiana
Demutualization Law and for unjust enrichment.  On September 29,
2009, a class was certified.  The class consists of all ESMs
residing in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky or Connecticut who received
cash compensation in connection with the demutualization.  The
class does not include employers located in Ohio and Connecticut
that received compensation under the Plan.  On May 8, 2010, the
Company moved for summary judgment on the certified claims.  That
motion is fully briefed and was argued on April 14, 2011.  As a
result of certain theories advanced by plaintiffs in connection
with their opposition to summary judgment, the Company filed a
conditional motion to decertify the class and plaintiffs have
filed a motion to redefine the class certified.

On December 23, 2010, a motion for class certification was denied
in the Jorling suit.  On November 4, 2009, a class was certified
in the Mell suit.  That class consists of persons who were
employees or retirees who were continuously enrolled in the health
benefit plan sponsored by the City of Cincinnati between the dates
of June 18, 2001, and November 2, 2001.  On March 3, 2010, the
Court issued an order granting the Company's motion for summary
judgment.  As a result, the Mell suit has been dismissed.  The
plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which is pending.  The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome
cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Appeal Over Dismissal of "ADA" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling dismissing a putative class action lawsuit
captioned American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health
Networks, Inc. and Blue Cross of California remains pending,
according to WellPoint Inc.'s April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in a putative class action
relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement of dental claims
called American Dental Association v. WellPoint Health Networks,
Inc. and Blue Cross of California.  The lawsuit was filed in March
2002 by the American Dental Association, and three dentists who
are suing on behalf of themselves and are seeking to sue on behalf
of a nationwide class of all non-participating dental providers
who were paid less than their actual charges for dental services
provided to WellPoint dental members.  The complaint alleges that
WellPoint Health Networks Inc., BCC and other WellPoint affiliates
and subsidiaries (collectively, WellPoint) improperly set usual,
customary and reasonable payment for OON dental services based on
HIAA/Ingenix data.  The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that
the HIAA/Ingenix databases fail to account for differences in
geography, provider specialty, outlier (high) charges, and
complexity of procedure.  The complaint further alleges that
WellPoint was aware that this data was inappropriate to set usual,
customary and reasonable rates.  The dentists sue as assignees of
their patients' rights to benefits under WellPoint's dental plans
and assert that WellPoint breached its contractual obligations in
violation of ERISA by routinely paying OON dentists less than
their actual charges and representing that its OON payments were
properly determined usual, customary and reasonable rates.  The
suit is currently pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.  The district court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: OON-Related Litigation Still Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit relating to out-of-network
(OON) reimbursement is still pending in Central California,
according to WellPoint, Inc.'s April 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to "OON" reimbursement.  The cases have been made
part of a WellPoint-only multi-district litigation called In re
WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation and are
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The first lawsuit (Darryl and Valerie Samsell v. WellPoint, Inc.,
WellPoint HealthNetworks, Inc. and Anthem, Inc.) was filed in
February 2009 by two former members on behalf of a putative class
of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid
less than billed charges.  The plaintiffs in that case allege that
the defendants violated RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
and federal regulations by relying on databases provided by
Ingenix in determining OON reimbursement.  The second lawsuit (AMA
et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in March 2009 by the
American Medical Association, or AMA, four state medical
associations and two individual physicians on behalf of a putative
class of OON physicians.  The third lawsuit (Roberts v.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in March 2009 by a
WellPoint member as a putative class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who have paid premiums for OON health
insurance coverage.  The fourth lawsuit (JBW v. UnitedHealth
Group, Inc. et al.) was brought in April 2009 by a WellPoint
member as a putative class action on behalf of all persons who
have paid premiums for OON health insurance coverage.  The fifth
lawsuit (O'Brien, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was brought
in May 2009 by three WellPoint members as a putative class action
on behalf of all persons who received OON services.  The sixth
lawsuit (Higashi, D.C. d/b/a Mar Vista Institute of Health v. Blue
Cross of California d/b/a WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in June
2009 by an OON chiropractor as a putative class action on behalf
of all OON chiropractors.  The seventh suit (North Peninsula
Surgical Center v. WellPoint, Inc., et al.) was brought in June
2009 by an OON surgical center as a putative class action on
behalf of all OON surgical centers.  The eighth lawsuit (American
Podiatric Medical Association, et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was
brought in June 2009 by the American Podiatric Medical
Association, California Chiropractic Association, California
Psychological Association and an OON clinical psychologist as a
putative class action on behalf of OON podiatrists, chiropractors
and psychologists.  The ninth lawsuit (Michael Pariser, et al. v.
WellPoint, Inc.) was brought in July 2009 by an OON psychologist
as a putative class action on behalf of all OON providers who are
not medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy.  The tenth lawsuit
(Harold S. Bernard, Ph.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.) was brought
in July 2009 by an OON psychologist as a putative class action on
behalf of all non-medical doctor health care providers.  The
eleventh lawsuit (Ken Unmacht, Psy.D., et al. v. WellPoint, Inc.)
was brought in August 2009 by an OON licensed psychotherapist as a
putative class action on behalf of all non-medical doctor health
care providers.

A consolidated complaint was filed for the eleven cases, and then
was amended to broaden the allegations in the lawsuit to OON
reimbursement methodologies beyond the use of Ingenix.  The
Company filed a revised motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint, which is pending.  At the end of 2009, the Company
filed a motion to enjoin the claims brought by the medical doctors
and doctors of osteopathy based on prior litigation releases.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment
asking the Court to find that these claims are not barred by the
releases from the prior litigation.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss in response.  The district court granted the Company's
motion to enjoin and the Company's motion to dismiss the
declaratory judgment action.  The court ordered that the
plaintiffs dismiss the claims that are barred by the release.  The
physician and medical association plaintiffs filed an emergency
motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal and for
an expedited appeal, to which the Company filed a response.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcomes cannot be presently determined.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Remains a Defendant in Compressor-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Government authorities in various jurisdictions are conducting
antitrust investigations of the global compressor industry,
including Whirlpool Corporation's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil (Embraco).  In 2010, Embraco sales
represented approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

In February 2009, competition authorities in Brazil, the United
States and Europe began to seek documents from the Company in
connection with their investigations.  A grand jury subpoena from
the United States Department of Justice requested documents for
the time period from 2003 to 2009.  Competition authorities in
other jurisdictions have sought similar information.

In September 2009, the Brazilian competition commission (CADE)
agreed to terminate the administrative investigation of the
Company's compressor business.  Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, Whirlpool affiliates and certain executives located in
Brazil acknowledged a violation of Brazilian antitrust law in the
Brazilian compressor market by some Embraco employees.  The
settlement agreement provides for the affiliates to make
contributions totaling 100 million Brazilian reais to a Brazilian
government fund.  The contributions translated to approximately
$56 million, all of which was recorded within interest and sundry
income (expense) in 2009.  The payments are to be made in twelve
equal semiannual installments of $5 million through 2015.  As of
March 31, 2011, approximately $15 million has been paid.

In September 2010, the DOJ and Embraco entered into a plea
agreement related to the DOJ's investigation which was approved by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in December 2010.  Under the plea agreement, the DOJ
recognized Embraco's substantial assistance in the investigation
and agreed not to bring further charges against Embraco or any
related entities for any conspiracy involving compressor pricing
during the investigation period.  Pursuant to the plea agreement,
Embraco (1) acknowledged that it violated United States antitrust
law with respect to the sale of certain compressors from October
2004 through December 2007 and (2) agreed to pay a fine totaling
$91.8 million to the United States government.  The full amount of
the fine was recorded within interest and sundry income (expense)
in the third quarter of 2010.  Embraco made the first payment of
$16.8 million in January 2011.  The five remaining annual payments
of $15 million plus interest will be made during each fourth
quarter through 2015.

Since the government investigations became public in February
2009, the Company has been named as a defendant in related
antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in
connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.
Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the
government investigations have also been named as defendants in
the litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on
behalf of purported purchasers and containing class action
allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
Company continues to cooperate with ongoing government
investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the related
antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize the
Company's potential exposure.

The Company says the final outcome and impact of these matters,
and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the
future are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted.
The Company establishes accruals only for those matters where the
Company determines that a loss is probable and the amount of loss
can be reasonably estimated.  As a result, the Company has not
accrued for any liability with respect to the investigation by the
European Commission or for any other matters related to these
investigations, other than the amounts disclosed.  As of March 31,
2011, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of
approximately $217 million related to the Brazilian, United States
and other government actions, defense costs and other expenses.
At March 31, 2011, $129 million remains accrued related to
government actions.  While it is currently not possible to
reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs which the
Company may incur in connection with these matters, such costs
could have a material adverse effect on its financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: CLC Contractors Fined GBP10T for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLC Contractors Ltd, a contracting firm from Vincent Avenue,
Shirley, Southampton, on April 18, 2011, was sentence after
workers at a major renovation site in Plymouth, England, were
exposed to asbestos containing material, according to a Health and
Safety Executive press release dated April 18, 2011.

CLC Contractors was fined a total of GBP10,000 and ordered to pay
GBP3,064 in costs in a case brought by the HSE at Plymouth
Magistrates on April 18, 2011.

The incident happened in May 2009 when employees of CLC
Contractors were working on the refurbishment of three student
blocks at the College of St Mark and St John in Plymouth.

CLC had agreed with a specialist asbestos removal company that
they would work simultaneously in parts of the building already
cleared by the asbestos removal workers.

However, the builders began work in an area of the building which
had not been cleared of asbestos.  Four employees were exposed to
fibers and had to go through a specialist decontamination process.

The Company pleaded guilty to exposing four employees to asbestos
under Regulation 11 (1) (a) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations
2006 and pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6(1)(a) of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.  They were fined GBP5,000
for each charge.

HSE inspector, Barry Trudgian, said, "This incident could have
been avoided if an adequate risk assessment had been made before
the work started and communicated clearly to the workforce.

"Exposure to asbestos can have serious long-term consequences for
your health and precautions must be taken to minimize any risks
when working on buildings."

COMPANY PROFILE:
CLC Contractors Ltd
21 Desborough Lane
Plymouth
Devon, England
Telephone: 01752 671120
Fax: 01752 600273

Description:

The Company is a multi-trade contractor offering the complete
building solutions package; from high-class internal and external
painting and decorating, planned maintenance, building
refurbishment, DDA Adaptations, electrical installation and fire
protection upgrades.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Accrues $249MM for Future, Pending Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s accrual for pending and future asbestos-
related claims and related legal costs was US$249 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, including US$196 million for unasserted claims.

The Company's accrual includes estimates for probable costs for
claims through the year 2020.  Potential estimated additional
claims costs of US$30 million beyond 2020 have not been included
in the Company's accrual.

Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging
products for consumer goods.  The Company's primary products
include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household, and
other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps.  The
Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2T New Claims Filed v. Crown Unit From 2009-2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork and Seal Company,
Inc., received 2,000 new asbestos claims during 2010 and 2009 and
3,000 claims during 2008.

Crown Cork settled or dismissed 2,000 claims during 2010 and 2009
and 3,000 claims during 2008.

Crown Cork is one of many defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims
arose from the insulation operations of a U.S. company, the
majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.

About 90 days after the stock purchase, the U.S. company sold
its insulation assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.  At
Dec. 31, 2010, the Company had 50,000 claims outstanding.

Of these claims, about 15,000 relate to claimants alleging first
exposure to asbestos after 1964 and 35,000 relate to claimants
alleging first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964, of
which about 12,000 were filed in Texas, 2,000 were filed in
Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states that have enacted
asbestos legislation and 15,000 were filed in other states.

Of the 50,000 claims outstanding at the end of 2010, about 18%
relate to claims alleging serious diseases (primarily mesothelioma
and other malignancies).

Of about 15,000 claims related to claimants alleging first
exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 that were filed in
states that have not enacted asbestos legislation and were
outstanding at the end of 2010, about 31% relate to claims
alleging serious diseases.

Of the 50,000 claims outstanding at the end of 2010, about 96%
were filed by plaintiffs who do not claim a specific amount of
damages or claim a minimum amount as established by court rules
relating to jurisdiction; about 2% were filed by plaintiffs who
claim damages of less than US$5 million; about 2% were filed by
plaintiffs who claim damages from US$5 million to less than US$100
million (87% of whom claim damages from $10 to less than US$25)
and five were filed by plaintiffs who claim damages ranging from
US$106 million to US$185 million.

The outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2010 exclude 33,000 pending
claims involving plaintiffs who allege that they are, or were,
maritime workers subject to exposure to asbestos, but whose claims
the Company believes will not have a material effect on its
consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash
flow.

The outstanding claims at Dec. 31, 2010 also exclude about 19,000
inactive claims.

Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging
products for consumer goods.  The Company's primary products
include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household, and
other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps.  The
Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. High Court Reverses Ruling in Robinson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. says that on Oct. 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme
Court, in a 6-2 decision, reversed a lower court decision, Barbara
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV,
Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal
of an asbestos-related case against Company unit Crown Cork and
Seal Company, Inc.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was
unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to
asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the
legislation was enacted in June 2003.

The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of US$15 million including
estimated legal fees to increase its accrual for asbestos related
costs for claims pending in Texas on June 11, 2003.

The Company said it believes that the decision of the Texas
Supreme Court is limited to retroactive application of the Texas
legislation to asbestos-related cases that were pending against
Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

Crown Holdings, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells packaging
products for consumer goods.  The Company's primary products
include steel and aluminum cans for food, beverage, household, and
other consumer products and metal vacuum closures and caps.  The
Company is based in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Posts $1.78-Bil Dec. 31 Net Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos-related
liability amounted to US$1.787 billion during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1.892 billion during the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is an insurance and
financial services company.  The Company provides investment
products and life, property, and casualty insurance to both
individual and business customers in the United States of America.
The Company is headquartered in Hartford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xcel Energy Inc. Posts $93.63MM AROs at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc.'s asset retirement obligations for steam
production asbestos were US$93,629,000 during the 12 months ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$95,093,000 during the 12 months
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's AROs for common general plant asbestos were
US$1,077,000 during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared
with US$1,021,000 during the 12 months ended Dec. 31, 2009.

AROs have been recorded for plant related to nuclear production,
steam production, wind production, electric transmission and
distribution, natural gas transmission and distribution and office
buildings.  The steam production obligation includes asbestos,
ash-containment facilities, radiation sources and decommissioning.

Xcel Energy Inc. is a holding company, with subsidiaries engaged
primarily in the utility business.  In 2010, the Company's
continuing operations included the activity of four wholly owned
utility subsidiaries that serve electric and natural gas customers
in eight states.  The Company is headquartered in Minneapolis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Records $82.7MM Net Reserves for A&E
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.'s net loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims amounted to US$82.7 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$93 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Gross loss reserves for A&E claims amounted to US$90.2 million
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$122.7
million during the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Through its subsidiary Argonaut Insurance Company, the Company is
exposed to asbestos liability at the primary level through claims
filed against its direct insureds, as well as through its position
as a reinsurer of other primary carriers.

Argonaut Insurance Company has direct liability arising primarily
from policies issued from the 1960s to the early 1980s which pre-
dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos exposure.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 1,179
A&E claims closed during the year, 438 claims opened during the
year, and 2,690 open claims at the end of the year.

During the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 1,633
A&E claims closed during the year, 655 claims opened during the
year, and 3,431 open claims at the end of the year.

Total gross payments for A&E claims were US$40.3 million during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$51 million during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. is an international
underwriter of specialty insurance and reinsurance products in the
property and casualty market.  The Company is based in Pembroke,
Bermuda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Posts $2.223-Bil. Net Liability at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s net asbestos liability for
unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense was US$2.223 billion
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$1.151 billion
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The Company's gross asbestos liability for unpaid claims and
claims adjustment expense was US$5.526 billion for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$3.236 billion for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Net asbestos-related IBNR included in the liability was US$2.002
billion at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$934 million at Dec. 31,
2009.  Gross asbestos-related IBNR included in the liability was
US$4.520 billion at Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$2.072 billion
at Dec. 31, 2009.

American International Group, Inc. is an international insurance
organization with operations in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.  The AIG companies serve commercial, institutional
and individual customers through one of the most extensive
worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer.  The Company
is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Records 4,933 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. recorded 4,933 asbestos claims
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 5,417 claims for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 502 claims
opened, 247 claims settled and 739 claims dismissed or otherwise
resolved.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2009, the Company recorded 615 claims
opened, 243 claims settled and 735 claims dismissed or otherwise
resolved.

American International Group, Inc. is an international insurance
organization with operations in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.  The AIG companies serve commercial, institutional
and individual customers through one of the most extensive
worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer.  The Company
is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation is, from time to time, party to
litigation that arises in the normal course of its business
operations, including asbestos litigation matters.

The Company's products are used in a variety of industrial,
commercial and residential applications that subject the Company
to claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted
in injury or other damage.

Regal Beloit Corporation manufactures electric motors and
controls, electric generators and controls, and mechanical motion
control products.  The Company is headquartered in Beloit, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $853M Dec. 31 Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amounts recognized as asbestos-related reserves related to Duke
Energy Corporation' subsidiary, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
totaled US$853 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and US$980 million as
of Dec. 31, 2009.

Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for
indemnification and medical cost reimbursement relating to damages
for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from the exposure to or
use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance
activities conducted by Duke Energy Carolinas on its electric
generation plants prior to 1985.

As of Dec. 31, 2010, there were 284 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$69
million, and 119 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to US$37 million.

Duke Energy Carolinas has a third-party insurance policy to cover
certain losses related to its asbestos-related injuries and
damages above an aggregate self insured retention of US$476
million.  Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to
exceed the self insurance retention on its insurance policy during
the second quarter of 2008.

Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by Duke
Energy Carolinas' third party insurance carrier.  The insurance
policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries for
indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$1.005
billion in excess of the self insured retention.

Insurance recoveries of US$850 million and $984 million related to
this policy are classified in the respective Consolidated Balance
Sheets in Other within Investments and Other Assets and
Receivables as of Dec. 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

Duke Energy Corporation has four million electricity customers and
about 500,000 gas customers in the South and Midwest.  Its U.S.
Franchised Electric and Gas unit operates primarily through its
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and
Duke Energy Kentucky regional businesses.  The Company is
headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Ohio Still Named in Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., has
been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to
asbestos at its electric generating stations.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning
uncertainties, such as: (i) the number of contractors potentially
exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke
Energy Ohio generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of
various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential
settlement costs without federal or other legislation that
addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Ohio estimates that
the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and future
suits over the foreseeable future is not material.

Duke Energy Corporation has four million electricity customers and
about 500,000 gas customers in the South and Midwest.  Its U.S.
Franchised Electric and Gas unit operates primarily through its
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and
Duke Energy Kentucky regional businesses.  The Company is
headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Still Facing Injury Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's subsidiary, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.,
has been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related
to asbestos at its electric generating stations.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning
uncertainties, such as: (i) the number of contractors potentially
exposed to asbestos during construction or maintenance of Duke
Energy Indiana generating plants; (ii) the possible incidence of
various illnesses among exposed workers, and (iii) the potential
settlement costs without federal or other legislation that
addresses asbestos tort actions, Duke Energy Indiana estimates
that the range of reasonably possible exposure in existing and
future suits over the foreseeable future is not material.

Duke Energy Corporation has four million electricity customers and
about 500,000 gas customers in the South and Midwest.  Its U.S.
Franchised Electric and Gas unit operates primarily through its
Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and
Duke Energy Kentucky regional businesses.  The Company is
headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Unit Still Involved in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inactive subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no
remaining assets other than the proceeds from insurance
settlements received.  To date, the overwhelming majority of these
claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been
no adverse judgments against the subsidiary.

Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is about US$7.7 million (excluding costs of defense).

Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain
of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the
Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or
settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary.

These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess
insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be
responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary
arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the
aggregate limits of the policies.

A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was
provided by an insurer that is now insolvent, and the other
primary insurers have asserted that the aggregate limits of their
policies have been exhausted.  The subsidiary has challenged the
applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against
the subsidiary.

In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate
settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005
and in the first quarter of 2007 for US$15 million and US$20
million, respectively.  The payments under the latest settlement
and release agreement were structured to be received over a four-
year period with annual installments of US$5 million, the final
installment of which was received in the first quarter of 2010.

The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be
used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the
subsidiary's asbestos litigation.  During the third quarter of
2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier
entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which
the carrier will pay 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred
by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos
bodily injury claims for a minimum of five years beginning July 1,
2007.

At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose
to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the
application of the policy limits.

Quaker Chemical Corporation develops, produces, and markets
formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy
industrial and manufacturing applications.  The Company also
offers and markets chemical management services.  The Company is
headquartered in Conshohocken, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Facing La. Insurance Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are
involved in an asbestos-related declaratory judgment action
entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. et al.

The suit was filed on or about Aug. 23, 2004, by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (London Insurers), in the 23rd Judicial District Court,
Assumption Parish, La., against the Company, J. Ray McDermott,
Inc. (JRMI) and two insurer defendants, Travelers and INA, seeking
a declaration that the London Insurers have no obligation to
indemnify the Company and JRMI for certain bodily injury claims,
including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume personal injury
which have been filed by claimants in various state courts, and an
environmental claim involving Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation
Group, Inc., a subsidiary of B&W (B&W PGG).

Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a
declaration of non-coverage in about 20 underlying matters. This
proceeding was stayed by the court on Jan. 3, 2005.

McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation (EPCI) company focused on designing
and executing complex offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.
The Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Subject Antoine Lawsuit in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. subsidiaries are defendants in an
asbestos lawsuit entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et
al., which is pending in Texas court.

In a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al., filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson
Parish, La., about 88 plaintiffs sued about 215 defendants,
including J. Ray McDermott, Inc. (JRMI) and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation (DHEC), another Company affiliate,
generally alleging injuries for exposure to asbestos, and
unspecified chemicals, metals and noise while the plaintiffs were
allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
claims, without prejudice to their right to refile their claims.
On Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al., originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, 21 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and about
30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes,
industrial paints and noise.  Boudreaux was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
May 2, 2007.

The District Court entered an order in September 2007 staying the
matter until further order of the court due to the bankruptcy
filing of one of the co-defendants.  Additionally, on Jan. 29,
2007, in a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et
al., filed in the 164th Judicial District Court for Harris County,
Tex., 43 plaintiffs originally named in the Antoine matter filed
suit against JRMI, MI and about 65 other employer defendants and
42 maritime products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status
and generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos
and noise.

On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all
activity and deadlines in this matter other than service of
process and answer/appearance dates until further order of the
court.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on Feb. 20,
2009, which is pending before the District Court.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in
both cases and attorneys' fees in the new Antoine case.

McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation (EPCI) company focused on designing
and executing complex offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.
The Company is headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Still Subject to Lawsuits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation continues to be subject to asbestos-related
actions filed in Canadian courts.

In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air
(Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the
case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File
No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's
Bench.

W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. are also named as
defendants.  The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class
proceeding and seeks recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any
Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a
result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing,
distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing
products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction.

A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the
Manitoba Court of The Queen's Bench naming the Company and
specified subsidiaries as defendants.

The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the
Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al.
(File No. CI05-01-41069), seeks the recovery of the cost of
insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of
Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the
Thundersky proceeding.

In October 2005, the Company learned that six additional putative
class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and
federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its
subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as
well as other defendants including Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-
Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident,
other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one
of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling,
manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos
or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac
transaction.

Grace and W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. have agreed to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any
liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these
actions.

In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the
Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (Canadian
Court), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of
America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and
other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new
actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada,
Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act.  That order has been renewed repeatedly.

In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian
Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions
involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate
and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of
staying all of the Canadian actions.

The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian
actions (except for claims against the Canadian government).  That
settlement, which has subsequently been amended (Canadian
Settlement), will be entirely funded by Grace.  The Canadian Court
issued an Order on Dec. 13, 2009 approving the Canadian
Settlement.

Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-
based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  Its operations
generate about 54% of its revenue from outside the United States
and about 16% of its revenue from developing regions.  The Company
is headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Subject to Cryovac Transaction Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the beginning of 2000, Sealed Air Corporation has been
served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the
Cryovac transaction, the Company is responsible for alleged
asbestos liabilities of W. R. Grace & Co. and its subsidiaries,
some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these
actions.

Among these lawsuits are several purported class actions and a
number of personal injury lawsuits.  Some plaintiffs seek damages
for personal injury or wrongful death, while others seek medical
monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an
attic insulation product.

Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever
produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that are
the subjects of these cases.

None of these cases has reached resolution through judgment,
settlement or otherwise.

Sealed Air Corporation manufactures packaging and performance-
based materials and equipment systems that serve an array of food,
industrial, medical and consumer applications.  Its operations
generate about 54% of its revenue from outside the United States
and about 16% of its revenue from developing regions.  The Company
is headquartered in Elmwood Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse, Units Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation (d/b/a Wabtec Corporation) and certain of its
affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by
persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

Most of these claims have been made against the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC),
and are based on a product sold by RFPC prior to the time that the
Company acquired any interest in RFPC.

Most of these claims, including all of the RFPC claims, are
submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue.

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation provides equipment
and services for the global rail industry.  Its products, which
are intended to enhance safety, improve productivity and reduce
maintenance costs for customers, can be found on virtually all
U.S. locomotives, freight cars, subway cars and buses.  In 2010,
the Company had sales of about US$1.5 billion and net income of
about US$123 million.  The Company is headquartered in Wilmerding,
Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DryShips Subject to Potential Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
DryShips Inc., may be, from time to time, involved in various
litigation matters, which may include contract disputes, personal
injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and
other toxic tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims
for taxes or duties.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's annual report, on Form 20-F, filed on April 15, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

DryShips Inc.'s vessels carry commodities like coal, iron ore, and
grain, as well as bauxite, fertilizers, and steel products.  The
fleet, which is made up mainly of Panamax vessels but also
includes Capesize and Supramax units, has an overall capacity of
more than 3.1 million deadweight tons (DWT).  The Company is
headquartered in Athens.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Facing 64,646 Open Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. faced 64,646 asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2011, compared with 67,479 claims during
the three months ended March 31, 2010, according to a Company
report, on Form 8-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 18, 2011.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
965 new claims filed, 340 settlements, and 817 dismissals.  During
the three months ended March 31, 2010, the Company recorded 913
new claims filed, 290 settlements, and 467 dismissals.

Of the 64,646 pending claims as of March 31, 2011, about 21,100
claims were pending in New York, about 13,700 claims were pending
in Mississippi, about 10,000 claims were pending in Texas and
about 3,000 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in
which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims
that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements.  To date, the Company
has paid two judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters.

The first payment, in the amount of US$2.54 million, was made on
July 14, 2008, about two years after the adverse verdict, in the
Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.  The second
payment in the amount of US$20,000 was made in June 2009 after an
adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles on April 21,
2009.

During the fourth quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008,
the Company tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by
the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court, one of
which, the Patrick O'Neil claim in Los Angeles, was reversed on
appeal and is currently the subject of further appellate
proceedings before the Supreme Court of California, which accepted
review of the matter by order dated Dec. 23, 2009.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baccus Case Settled During 4th Qtr.-2010 in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The James Baccus asbestos claim was concluded by settlement in the
fourth quarter of 2010 during the pendency of Crane Co.'s appeal
to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

On March 14, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
James Baccus claim in Philadelphia with compensatory damages of
US$2.45 million and additional damages of US$11.9 million.  The
Company's post-trial motions were denied by order dated Jan. 5,
2009.

The settlement is reflected in the settled claims for 2010.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Brewer Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is continuing to pursue an appeal in the Chief Brewer
asbestos-related claim.

On May 16, 2008, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Chief Brewer claim in Los Angeles.  The amount of the judgment
entered was US$680,000 plus interest and costs.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Woodard Claim Pending in Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that plaintiffs' appeal regarding a ruling in the
Dennis Woodard asbestos continues to be pending.

On Feb. 2, 2009, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
Dennis Woodard claim in Los Angeles.  The jury found that the
Company was responsible for one-half of one percent (0.5%) of
plaintiffs' damages of US$16.93 million.

However, based on California court rules, judgment was entered
against the Company in the amount of US$1.65 million, plus costs.

Following entry of judgment, the Company filed a motion with the
trial court requesting judgment in the Company's favor
notwithstanding the jury's verdict, and on June 30, 2009 the court
advised that the Company's motion was granted and judgment was
entered in favor of the Company.

The plaintiffs have appealed that ruling.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane's Appeals in Bell, Nelson Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. says that all appeals in the Larry Bell and James Nelson
asbestos claims are pending.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia County state court jury found
the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a US$14.5 million
verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share of a
US$3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.

On Feb. 23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in
the amount of US$200,000 against the Company, only, in Bell, and
in the amount of US$4 million, jointly, against the Company and
two other defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the
amount of US$10,000 being assessed against the Company, only, in
Nelson.

All defendants (including the Company) and the plaintiffs have
taken timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Incurred $27.6MM for Settlement, Defense
---------------------------------------------------------------
The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for Crane Co. totaled US$27.6 million
for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011, compared with
US$27.5 million for the three-month period ended March 31, 2010.

The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense
costs, net of funds received from insurers, totaled US$12.7
million for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011, compared
with US$11.1 million for the three-month period ended March 31,
2010.

Cumulatively through March 31, 2011, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) about 70,000 claims, not including the
MARDOC claims.  The related settlement cost incurred by the
Company and its insurance carriers is about US$300 million, for an
average settlement cost per resolved claim of US$4,000.

The average settlement cost per claim resolved was US$7,036 during
the year ended Dec. 31, 2010 and US$4,781 during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Long-Term March 31 Liability at $600.50MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s long-term asbestos liability amounted to
US$600,506,000 as of March 31, 2011 and US$619,666,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2011.

Current asbestos liability amounted to US$100 million as of both
March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable amounted to
US$174,253,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$180,689,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Current asbestos insurance receivable amounted to US$33 million as
of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Crane Co. is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered
industrial products.  The Company provides products and solutions
to customers in the aerospace, electronics, hydrocarbon
processing, petrochemical, chemical, power generation, automated
merchandising, transportation and other markets.  The Company is
headquartered in Stamford, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veolia Eau Units Still Facing Lawsuits in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veolia Environnement says that several current and former indirect
subsidiaries of Veolia Eau in the United States are defendants in
lawsuits in the United States in which the plaintiffs seek
recovery for personal injuries and other damages allegedly due to
exposure to asbestos, silica and other potentially hazardous
substances.

With respect to the lawsuits against Veolia Eau's former
subsidiaries, certain of Veolia Eau's current subsidiaries retain
liability and in certain cases manage the defense of the lawsuits.

In addition, in certain instances, the acquirers of the former
subsidiaries benefit from indemnification obligations provided by
Veolia Eau or the Company in respect of these lawsuits.  These
lawsuits typically allege that the plaintiffs' injuries resulted
from the use of products manufactured or sold by Veolia Eau's
current or former subsidiaries or their predecessors.

There are generally numerous other defendants, in addition to
Veolia Eau's current or former subsidiaries, which are accused of
having contributed to the injuries alleged.

Reserves have been booked for the possible liability of current
subsidiaries in these cases, based on the nexus between the
injuries claimed and the products manufactured or sold by these
subsidiaries or their predecessors, the extent of the injuries
allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs, the involvement of other
defendants and the settlement history in similar cases.

Veolia Environnement's Veolia Eau unit provides water and
wastewater services to more than 80 million people in more than 60
countries.  The Company is headquartered in Paris.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. AG Obtains Judgment v. Springfield Resident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster has obtained a consent
judgment against Robert Peterson, of Springfield, for alleged
violations of the Missouri Air Conservation Act, according to a
Mo. AG press release dated April 13, 2011.

AG Koster said Mr. Peterson, doing business as Accurate Building
Inspections, performed asbestos abatement work at a commercial
building in Springfield.  Mr. Peterson falsely advertised that he
was a registered asbestos abatement contractor and failed to give
the Department of Natural Resources advance notification of the
project.

In addition, Mr. Peterson took dangerous asbestos-containing
material to a landfill in unlabeled trash bags and provided
documentation to the landfill incorrectly asserting that the
material was safe.

AG Koster said, "Missouri's Air Conservation Law was enacted to
protect both citizens' health and our environment.  The Attorney
General's Office will not look the other way when these violations
occur."

AG Koster said under the judgment, the court:

-- assessed a civil penalty of US$10,000;

-- issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Mr. Peterson from
   violating the Air Conservation Act;

-- prohibited the defendant from conducting any work related to
   asbestos abatement without obtaining the required
   registration from DNR; and

-- ordered Mr. Peterson to provide DNR a detailed accounting of
   all work or services he has performed as an asbestos
   abatement contractor.

The court suspended US$8,000 of the penalty contingent on Mr.
Peterson's compliance with the terms of the judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 159 Firms Named in 5 Suits Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to five asbestos complaints filed in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., on March 25, 2011, Ronald W. Cloherty and Debra L.
Cloherty; David Edgell and Loretta Edgell; Betty I. Kucera; Livio
M. Miller and Linda K. Miller; and Nathan Shrewsbury claim 159
defendant corporations are responsible for asbestosis and lung
cancer diagnoses, The West Virginia Record reports.

Mr. Cloherty, Mr. Edgell, Ms. Kucera and Mr. Shrewsbury were
diagnosed with asbestosis and lung cancer, while Mr. Miller was
diagnosed with asbestosis.

The plaintiffs seek jury trials to resolve all issues involved.
They are being represented by David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E.
Mattock, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case Nos. 11-C-485, 11-C-487, 11-C-488,
11-C-489, 11-C-490 have been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Records $43.44MM for Tort Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp.'s net loss and loss adjustment for environmental,
asbestos and mass tort claims were US$43,438,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010, compared with US$33,905,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009.

Net unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses were US$35,348,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$48,056,000 as of Dec. 31,
2009.

The Company is subject to environmental site cleanup, asbestos
removal and mass tort claims and exposures through its commercial
umbrella, general liability and discontinued assumed casualty
reinsurance lines of business.  The majority of the exposure is in
the excess layers of its commercial umbrella and assumed
reinsurance books of business.

During 2010, the Company experienced elevated payment activity
relative to previous years on both a direct and net basis.  Most
of this activity was driven by mass tort claim activity from the
1980s associated with Underwriter's Indemnity Company (UIC) which
the Company purchased in 1999.  The most significant claims from
this book were settled in 2010.

The Company recorded US$3.9 million direct and US$700,000 net of
incurred losses on these claims in 2010.  The resulting payment
served to decrease ending reserves.

Additionally, there were significant payments associated with the
Company's assumed run-off book of reinsurance.  Four asbestos
claims had payments totaling US$1.5 million gross and US$1.2
million net.

The significant increase in ceded reserves in 2010 was largely due
to adjustments for a 2007 marine liability claim as well as the
UIC mass tort claims.

RLI Corp. underwrites selected property and casualty insurance
through major subsidiaries collectively known as RLI Insurance
Group.  The Company conducts operations principally through three
insurance companies.  The Company is based in Peoria, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Corp. Has $9MM Current Reserves at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation's current asbestos reserves amounted to
US$9 million as of both April 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 20, 2011.

Long-term asbestos reserves were US$65 million as of April 1, 2011
and US$72 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Asbestos claims are from employees alleging exposure to asbestos
in the workplace.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaglestone Agreement With NICO Entered April 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eaglestone Reinsurance Company, a subsidiary of American
International Group, Inc., and National Indemnity Company, a
subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., entered into a Master
Transaction Agreement on April 19, 2011, under which, at closing,
Eaglestone and NICO will enter into a Loss Portfolio Retrocession
Agreement, according to an AIG report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2011.

The Loss Portfolio Retrocession Agreement will transfer the bulk
of AIG's U.S. asbestos liabilities to NICO.  The transaction does
not cover asbestos accounts that AIG believes have already been
reserved to their limit of liability or certain other ancillary
asbestos exposure assumed by AIG insurance company subsidiaries.

Eaglestone, and certain other AIG insurance company subsidiaries,
will also enter into certain other related agreements with NICO at
closing.

Under the Agreements:

-- In exchange for a payment of about US$1.65 billion, NICO will
   assume from Eaglestone the bulk of the asbestos loss
   portfolio Eaglestone previously assumed from certain AIG
   insurance company subsidiaries under a separate reinsurance
   agreement;

-- NICO will obtain the benefit of, and assume the risk of
   collection on, AIG's third-party reinsurance recoverables of
   about US$2.8 billion in respect of the ceded asbestos
   reserves;

-- NICO will assume responsibility for certain administrative
   services, including claims handling, for the portfolio it
   will assume;

-- NICO, in order to secure its obligations to Eaglestone, will
   deposit the aforementioned US$1.65 billion payment into a
   collateral trust; and

-- Berkshire will provide a limited guarantee of NICO's payment
   obligations to Eaglestone.

In addition, under a Capital Maintenance Agreement between AIG and
Eaglestone, AIG has committed to provide capital to Eaglestone in
the event that Eaglestone's statutory capital falls below a
certain defined level.  NICO's overall limit of liability under
the Agreements, net of third party reinsurance it actually
recovers, is US$3.5 billion.

This transaction will be accounted for as retroactive reinsurance
in AIG's consolidated financial statements and is expected to
result in a deferred pre-tax gain of about US$200 million in the
second quarter of 2011.

The closing of the transaction contemplated by the Master
Transaction Agreement is subject to receipt of required regulatory
approvals, execution of definitive transaction documentation, and
satisfaction of other conditions.

American International Group, Inc. is an international insurance
organization with operations in more than 130 countries and
jurisdictions.  The AIG companies serve commercial, institutional
and individual customers through one of the most extensive
worldwide property-casualty networks of any insurer.  The Company
is headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Still Facing Coverage Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. continues to be subject to
aggressive asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 21, 2011.

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

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

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

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  Lawsuits seeking similar
relief and raising similar allegations, primarily violations of
purported common law duties to third parties, have also been
asserted in various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims
asserted in these suits are collectively referred to as the Common
Law Claims.

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

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

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

On Aug. 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving
the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders barred the
pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially all Common
Law Claims pending against TPC (the Clarifying Order).

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

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
Feb. 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating on
jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On Feb. 29, 2008, TPC and certain other parties to the appeals
filed petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, requesting
reinstatement of the district court's judgment, which were denied.
TPC and certain other parties filed Petitions for Writ of
Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second
Circuit's decision, and on Dec. 12, 2008, the Petitions were
granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's Feb. 15, 2008 decision, finding
that the 1986 Orders are final and generally bar the Statutory and
Hawaii actions and substantially all Common Law Claims against
TPC.  The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit
for further proceedings on those specific issues.  On Oct. 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

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

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

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on Sept. 2, 2010 and Sept. 3, 2010, respectively.  On Sept.
30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs' Motions to
Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to the
settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.

On Dec. 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs'
motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the settlements.
On Jan. 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its Dec. 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to pay
the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.

On Jan. 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
Jan. 20, 2011 judgment.  On Jan. 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's Jan. 20, 2011 judgment that denied their
request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.  The appeals
are pending.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance
for auto, home and business.  Its diverse business lines offer its
customers a wide range of coverage sold primarily through
independent agents and brokers.  The Company is headquartered in
New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Posts $2.502-Bil Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves amounted to
US$2.502 billion during the quarter ended March 31, 2011, compared
with US$2.684 billion during the quarter ended March 31, 2010,
according to a Company report, on Form 8-K, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2011.

The Travelers Companies, Inc. provides property casualty insurance
for auto, home and business.  Its diverse business lines offer its
customers a wide range of coverage sold primarily through
independent agents and brokers.  The Company is headquartered in
New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich, Units Still Party to Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation and some of its subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in various actions by plaintiffs alleging damages as
a result of exposure to asbestos fibers in products or at formerly
owned facilities.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2011.

Goodrich Corporation supplies aerospace components, systems and
services to the commercial and general aviation airplane markets.
The Company also supplies systems and products to the global
defense and space markets.  The Company is headquartered in
Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific March 31 Liability Totals $160MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos liability totaled
US$160 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$169 million for the three months ended March 31,
2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits in which
current and former employees and other parties allege exposure to
asbestos.  The Company assesses its potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims.

The Company's liability for asbestos-related claims is not
discounted to present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the
timing of future payments.  About 21% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and about 79% related to unasserted
claims at March 31, 2011.

For the three months ended March 31, 2011, asbestos payments were
US$2 million and current asbestos liability was US$11 million.
For the three months ended March 31, 2010, asbestos payments were
US$5 million and current asbestos liability was US$13 million.

Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific Railroad subsidiary is a
rail carrier that operates more than 77,000 freight cars and about
8,000 locomotives.  The Railroad transports automobiles;
chemicals; energy (fuel); and industrial, agricultural, and other
bulk freight over a system of some 32,000 rail miles in 23 states
in the western two-thirds of the United States.  The Company is
headquartered in Omaha, Nebr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Posts $594MM March 31 Settlement Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc.'s current asbestos settlement liability
amounted to US$594 million for the three months ended March 31,
2011, compared with US$544 million for the three months ended
March 31, 2010.

Net asbestos settlement was US$3 million for both the three months
ended March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010, according to a Company
press release dated April 21, 2011.

PPG Industries, Inc. produces coatings and specialty products
company.  It serves customers in industrial, transportation,
consumer products, and construction markets and aftermarkets.
With headquarters in Pittsburgh, the Company operates in more than
60 countries around the globe.  The Company is headquartered in
Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Saltz Lawsuit v. 37 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Layman B. Saltz and Patricia K. Saltz, of Lufkin, Tex., filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 37 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., on March 22, 2011, The West Virginia Record
reports.

According to the suit, on Dec. 29, 2010, Mr. Saltz was diagnosed
with mesothelioma.  He claims he previously smoked a pipe
occasionally from 1954 until 1962, and smoked six cigars a day
from 1968 until 1995, but has since stopped.

The Saltz couple seeks jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
They are being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Aaryn
Kemp, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-470 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Rules on Bristol Factory Worker's Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest held on April 20, 2011 at Flax Bourton Coroner's Court
heard that the death of 73-year-old Helen Moody-Grant, of
Bedminster Road, Bristol, England, was related to workplace
exposure to asbestos, the Evening Post reports.

Mrs. Moody-Grant died on Feb. 10, 2011 at St Peter's Hospice in
Brentry.  She had been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in
October 2008.

Mrs. Moody-Grant prepared a life statement in October 2010.  It
details periods when she may have come into contact with asbestos.

The inquest heard that on her 16th birthday, Mrs. Moody-Grant had
started work at Moreton Sundoor, a fabrics factory in Carlisle.
Philip Howells, assistant deputy coroner, was told that she was
employed as a machinist.

Mrs. Moody-Grant stated that the factory's heating pipes were
lagged with asbestos fabric that would need to be removed by
maintenance workers when the heating broke down.  She explained
that dust would often fall onto her desk and onto the floor.  She
also said that asbestos paste was mixed near to where she worked.

The inquest heard Mrs. Moody-Grant went on to work at a Ministry
of Defence base at RAF Innsworth and later at Quedgeley.  When at
Innsworth, she was required to move boxes that were covered in
asbestos dust.

Dr. David Paterson, who conducted the post-mortem examination,
said that although no asbestos fibers were found in Mrs. Moody-
Grant's lungs, this was not uncommon with an asbestos-related
death.  A verdict of industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Frisco Hotel Indicted for Breaching Safety Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced on April 20,
2011, that his office has obtained an indictment against four
Coloradans and two businesses, New Vision Hotels and NVH
Construction, on suspicion that they failed to properly abate and
dispose of asbestos at a Frisco, Colo., hotel, according to a
Colorado AG press release dated April 20, 2011.

Because of their alleged actions, two dozen individuals who worked
at and stayed at the hotel were exposed to asbestos.  According to
the three-count indictment, Adam Pietraszek (DOB: Dec. 24, 1961),
Nikolai Semenshin (DOB: Jan. 27, 1972), Yarek Gora (DOB: April 11,
1966) and Richard Para (DOB: Jan. 2, 1964) are suspected of
failing to obtain a permit in October 2009 for asbestos abatement
related to renovations they were performing at the Holiday Inn
located at 1129 North Summit Boulevard in Frisco.

Once the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
learned of the renovations, which resulted in asbestos
contaminating rooms at the hotel, they prohibited the owner of the
hotel, Mr. Pietraszek, from renting out the affected rooms.

Despite the prohibition, Mr. Pietraszek, the owner of the hotel,
is suspected of ordering the housekeeping staff to clean the
affected rooms.  According to the indictment, in addition to
exposing the housekeeping staff to the asbestos contamination Mr.
Pietraszek also continued to rent out the rooms to unsuspecting
guests.

According to the indictment, the defendants are suspected of
causing or contributing to a hazardous substance incident, a
class-four felony; violating the Air Quality Control Act, an
unclassified felony; and violating the Air Quality Control Act, an
unclassified misdemeanor.  If convicted of causing or contributing
to a hazardous substance incident, the defendants could face up to
six years in prison or a US$500,000 fine.

Lori Hanson, special agent-in-charge of the Denver office of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Enforcement Division,
said, "Exposure to asbestos can cause serious -- even fatal --
respiratory diseases, so it must be handled safely and legally to
protect the public.  EPA takes allegations of asbestos-related
violations very seriously and we will continue to work with the
state on this prosecution."

The Office of the Attorney General investigated the case and
secured the indictment with the assistance of the Colorado
Environmental Crime Task Force, the Air Quality Unit of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the
EPA's Criminal Investigations Division.

Prosecutors for the Office of the Attorney General will present
the state's case against the defendants in Summit County District
Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renaissance Equity Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has cited Renaissance Equity Holdings for 20
alleged violations of workplace safety and health standards
affecting maintenance workers at the Flatbush Gardens apartment
complex located at 3301 Foster Ave. in Brooklyn, N.Y., according
to an OSHA press release dated April 19, 2011.

The property management company faces a total of US$51,100 in
proposed fines following OSHA inspections conducted in response to
employee complaints.

Kay Gee, OSHA's Manhattan area director, said, "Our inspections
found maintenance workers exposed to a variety of health and
safety hazards while performing their duties, including stripping
paint, removing drywall and clearing basements of raw sewage that
had backed up during heavy rains.  The violations uncovered are
basic safety and health issues that should have been addressed and
were not. We expect thorough, effective and expeditious corrective
action."

OSHA found that Renaissance Equity Holdings failed to:

-- keep basements clear of raw sewage;
-- provide protective equipment such as waders to employees
   required to enter those basements;

-- determine the presence of and inform employees about asbestos
   contained in pipe insulation;

-- provide employees with asbestos awareness training;

-- conduct an exposure assessment for lead;

-- train workers involved in stripping paint and replacing
   drywall about lead hazards;

-- guard basement windows to prevent the entry of rodents and
   vermin; and

-- have a hazard communication program and training to inform
   employees about the hazardous chemicals with which they work.

Additional violations included a broken stepladder, uncovered
floor holes and several electrical hazards.  These conditions
resulted in the issuance of 16 serious citations with US$48,300 in
fines.  A serious violation occurs when there is substantial
probability that death or serious physical harm could result from
a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.

The Company also was issued four other-than-serious citations,
with US$2,800 in fines, for failing to accurately record all on-
the-job injuries and illnesses.  An other-than-serious violation
is one that has a direct relationship to job safety and health,
but probably would not cause death or serious physical harm.

"One means of preventing hazards such as these is for employers to
establish an injury and illness prevention program through which
workers and management jointly work to identify and eliminate
hazardous conditions on a continual basis," said Robert Kulick,
OSHA's regional administrator in New York.

Renaissance Equity Holdings has 15 business days from receipt of
its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA's
area director or contest the findings before the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

The inspection was conducted by OSHA's Manhattan Area Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Borrowash Resident's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Derbyshire, England, heard that the death of Raymond
Stanley, a welder from Borrowash, England, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Telegraph reports.

Mr. Stanley spent years welding and fitting pipes in power
stations across the country.  As protection, he wore gloves and
overalls made from, or lined with, asbestos.  However, he died at
the age of 80 from asbestosis.

Joyce Stanley, Mr. Stanley's wife, told the hearing her husband
started as a welder in 1956.  The Derby Coroner's Court heard he
was responsible for welding pressure valves inside nuclear
reactors.

Welding blankets, gloves and aprons were previously made from, or
lined with, asbestos to protect people working with high
temperatures.  That was before the full, potentially fatal impact
of breathing in deadly asbestos dust was known.  Modern welding
equipment contains asbestos substitutes.

In June 2010, Mr. Stanley first started to show signs of
asbestosis.  He later worked at Boots, working inside an asbestos-
lined boiler.

Pathologist Andrew Hitchcock carried out a postmortem examination.
He said Mr. Stanley's lungs were "abnormal" and both showed signs
of heavy scarring.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Petersfield Worker's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Portsmouth Coroner's Court ruled that the death of
73-year-old Martin Harbord, an IT engineer from Petersfield,
England, was linked to workplace exposure to asbestos, the
Petersfield Post reports.

Mr. Harbord passed away in July 2010 from mesothelioma.

The inquest heard that Mr. Harbord, who used to work for Marconi
and IBM, had spent time working on submarines and ships during the
early 1950s while completing his national service with the Royal
Navy.

Coroner David Horsley established Mr. Harbord's time spent on the
vessels during his youth was when he was most likely to have been
exposed to asbestos.  He said, "It is a terrible thing that hides
itself for decades in people who are in pretty good shape, and
then it appears."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D.C. Appeals Court Favors Boyd in Conrail Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, upheld
the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, which favored Harold F. Boyd in an asbestos case styled
Consolidated Rail Corporation, Appellant v. James T. Ray, for the
Estate of Harold F. Boyd, deceased, Appellee.

Judges Ginsburg, Henderson and Rogers entered judgment in Case No.
10-7029 on Feb. 4, 2011.

In 1973, the Congress passed the Rail Act to reorganize the
"railroads in this region into an economically viable system
capable of providing adequate and efficient rail service."  In
1976, the Special Court issued an order conveying to Consolidated
Rail Corporation a majority of the rail assets of several failed
railroads, including the Erie Lackawanna Railway Company, which in
1972 had initiated a conventional reorganization proceeding under
s 77 of the Bankruptcy Act then in effect.

Upon the conveyance of its rail assets to Conrail, the Erie
discontinued operations; it later emerged from the s 77
proceedings solely for the purpose of liquidating any remaining
non-rail assets.

The late Harold Boyd worked for the Erie from 1942 until it ceased
operating in 1976, at which point he began working for Conrail; he
retired in 1978.  James Ray, the executor of Mr. Boyd's estate,
filed suit against Conrail and others in an Ohio state court,
seeking damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for
injuries allegedly arising from his exposure to asbestos while on
the job.

Conrail then filed the present action in the district court,
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Rail Act precludes
Conrail's liability for FELA claims based upon an employee's
exposure to asbestos while working for a predecessor railroad.
That court denied Conrail's motion for summary judgment and
granted the estate's motion for judgment on the pleadings,
whereupon Conrail appealed.

The Appeals Court held the Rail Act did not preclude Conrail's
liability for an employee's pre-conveyance exposure to asbestos.
Accordingly, the Ohio court may proceed to evaluate the merits of
Mr. Ray's claim and the judgment of the district court was
affirmed.

Laurence Z. Shiekman, Esq., argued the cause and filed the briefs
for appellant.

David B. Rodes, Esq., argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellee.  Betsy E. Lehrfeld, Esq., entered an appearance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court OKs McDonnell's Bid in Vest Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, granted
McDonnell Douglas Corporation's (MDC) motion to stay pending
transfer in an asbestos case styled Timothy Vest, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Allied Packing and Supply, Inc., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Jeffrey S. White entered judgment in Case No. C
11-00061 JSW on Jan. 31, 2011.

On Dec. 17, 2009, Timothy and Caroline Vest filed their original
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Alameda.  On Jan. 22, 2010, Plaintiffs amended
the complaint to add MDC in place of Doe Defendant 3.  On May 3,
2010, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and on May 28,
2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Vest was exposed to asbestos and
asbestos containing products when his father, who worked for World
Airways, Inc., transported them home from work on his clothes,
shoes, person and on other items.  He also alleges that he was
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products when he
visited his father at work.

While the case was pending in Alameda County Superior Court, the
parties engaged in motion practice and discovery.  On Jan. 6,
2011, however, MDC removed the action on the basis of federal
officer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. s 1442, based on materials
submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition to MDC's motion for summary
judgment.

MDC also filed a Notice of Tag Along Action, in which it asserted
that the action should be transferred to Multidistrict Litigation
No. 875, In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. 6),
which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs immediately filed an emergency motion to remand, while
MDC immediately filed a motion to stay, pending transfer to MDL
No. 875.  Each party argues that their motion should be resolved
first.

Accordingly, MDC's motion to stay pending transfer was granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Long-Term Liability at $1.556-Bil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$1.556 billion as of both March 31, 2011
and US$1.557 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 21, 2011.

The Company's long-term insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$825 million as of both March 31, 2011
and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's asbestos-related litigation charges, net of
insurance, were US$38 million during both the three months ended
March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010.

Of the Company's total asbestos liabilities of US$1.718 billion as
of March 31, 2011, about US$592 million related to its Bendix
friction materials business and US$1.126 billion related to its
former North American Refractories Company (NARCO) subsidiary.

Of the Company's total insurance recoveries for asbestos-related
liabilities of US$875 million as of March 31, 2011, about
US$161 million related to Bendix and US$714 million related to
NARCO.

Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate,
with four segments; the largest are Automation and Control (HVAC
and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines,
and flight safety and landing systems).  Other segments include
Honeywell Specialty Materials (thermal interconnects, fibers, and
chemicals) and Transportation Systems (engine boosting systems,
brake materials, car care products).  The Company is headquartered
in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $714MM March 31 NARCO Receivable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s consolidated financial statements
reflect an insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future North American Refractories
Company-related asbestos claims of US$714 as of March 31, 2011 and
US$718 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  NARCO produced
refractory products (high temperature bricks and cement) that were
sold largely to the steel industry in the East and Midwest.  Less
than 2% of NARCO'S products contained asbestos.

When it sold the NARCO business in 1986, the Company agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement).  NARCO retained all liability for all
other claims.  On Jan. 4, 2002, NARCO filed for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, all of the claims
pending against NARCO are automatically stayed pending the
reorganization of NARCO.  In addition, the bankruptcy court
enjoined both the filing and prosecution of NARCO-related asbestos
claims against the Company.  The stay has remained in effect
continuously since Jan. 4, 2002.

In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, the Company paid
NARCO's parent company US$40 million and agreed to provide NARCO
with up to US$20 million in financing.  The Company also agreed to
pay US$20 million to NARCO's parent company upon the filing of a
plan of reorganization for NARCO acceptable to the Company (which
amount was paid in December 2005 following the filing of NARCO's
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization), and to pay NARCO's parent
company US$40 million, and to forgive any outstanding NARCO
indebtedness to the Company, upon the effective date of the plan
of reorganization.

In November 2007, the Bankruptcy Court entered an amended order
confirming the NARCO Plan without modification and approving the
524(g) trust and channeling injunction in favor of NARCO and the
Company.

In December 2007, certain insurers filed an appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court Order in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  The District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court Order in July 2008.

In August 2008, insurers filed a notice of appeal to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeal is fully briefed, oral
argument took place on May 21, 2009, and the matter was submitted
for decision.

In connection with the settlement of an insurance coverage
litigation matter, the insurer appellants withdrew their appeal
regarding the NARCO Plan.  On Aug. 3, 2010 the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals entered an order formally dismissing the NARCO appeal.

The NARCO Plan of Reorganization cannot become effective, however,
until the resolution of an appeal of the Chapter 11 proceedings of
NARCO affiliates.  The Third Circuit reheard this appeal en banc
on Oct. 13, 2010.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for settlement of pending and future NARCO-
related asbestos claims of US$1.126 billion as of March 31, 2011
and Dec. 31, 2010.  About US$100 million of payments due under
these settlements is due only upon establishment of the NARCO
trust.

Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate,
with four segments; the largest are Automation and Control (HVAC
and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines,
and flight safety and landing systems).  Other segments include
Honeywell Specialty Materials (thermal interconnects, fibers, and
chemicals) and Transportation Systems (engine boosting systems,
brake materials, car care products).  The Company is headquartered
in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Subject to Travelers Coverage Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. continues to face Travelers Casualty
and Insurance Company's lawsuit, disputing obligations for North
American Refractories Company-related asbestos claims under high
excess insurance coverage issued by Travelers and other insurance
carriers.

In the second quarter of 2006, Travelers filed a lawsuit against
the Company and other insurance carriers in the Supreme Court of
New York, County of New York, disputing obligations for NARCO-
related asbestos claims under high excess insurance coverage
issued by Travelers and other insurance carriers.

In July 2010, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
resolving all asbestos coverage issues with certain plaintiffs.
About US$180 million of unsettled coverage under these policies is
included in the Company's NARCO-related insurance receivable at
March 31, 2011.

In the third quarter of 2007, the Company prevailed on a critical
choice of law issue concerning the appropriate method of
allocating NARCO-related asbestos liabilities to triggered
policies.  The plaintiffs appealed and the trial court's ruling
was upheld by the intermediate appellate court in the second
quarter of 2009.

Plaintiffs' further appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the
highest court in New York, was denied in October 2009.  A related
New Jersey action brought by the Company has been dismissed, but
all coverage claims against plaintiffs have been preserved in the
New York action.

Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate,
with four segments; the largest are Automation and Control (HVAC
and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines,
and flight safety and landing systems).  Other segments include
Honeywell Specialty Materials (thermal interconnects, fibers, and
chemicals) and Transportation Systems (engine boosting systems,
brake materials, car care products).  The Company is headquartered
in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces 22,604 Unresolved Bendix Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials business
faced 22,604 unresolved asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2011 and 22,480 claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
798 claims filed and 674 claims resolved.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 4,302 claims filed and 1,782
claims resolved.

Bendix manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.  Existing and
potential claimants consist largely of individuals who allege
exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being
in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through March 31, 2011, the Company has resolved about
156,000 Bendix related asbestos claims.  The Company had 131
trials resulting in favorable verdicts and 19 trials resulting in
adverse verdicts.

Four of these adverse verdicts were reversed on appeal, five
verdicts were vacated on post-trial motions, three claims were
settled and the remaining has been or will be appealed.

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending and future Bendix
related asbestos claims of US$592 million at March 31, 2011 and
US$594 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company currently has about US$1.9 billion of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending and potential future
Bendix related asbestos claims, of which US$161 million at March
31, 2011 and US$157 million at Dec. 31, 2010 are reflected as
receivables in its consolidated balance sheet.

Honeywell International Inc. is a diverse industrial conglomerate,
with four segments; the largest are Automation and Control (HVAC
and manufacturing process products) and Aerospace (turbo engines,
and flight safety and landing systems).  Other segments include
Honeywell Specialty Materials (thermal interconnects, fibers, and
chemicals) and Transportation Systems (engine boosting systems,
brake materials, car care products).  The Company is headquartered
in Morris Township, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Still Subject to AMSF's Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company continues to be subject to litigation
involving asbestos, of which the Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund is the lead plaintiff.

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

In the weeks that followed, about 20 similar class actions were
filed against the Company.  Several of those lawsuits also named
as defendants several of the Company's present or former officers
and directors.  The class action cases were later consolidated,
and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled
Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et al., was filed
and served upon the Company in April 2003.

As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is now
styled Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund v. Halliburton
Company, et al. AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. (Erica P. John Fund).  The Company settled with the SEC in
the second quarter of 2004.

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

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

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

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

In September 2007, Erica P. John Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company's response was filed in November
2007.  The court held a hearing in March 2008, and issued an order
Nov. 3, 2008 denying Erica P. John Fund's motion for class
certification.  Erica P. John Fund appealed the district court's
order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying
class certification.  On May 13, 2010, Erica P. John Fund filed a
writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.  In early January
2011, the Supreme Court granted Erica P. John Fund's writ of
certiorari and accepted the appeal.

The Court will hear oral arguments on April 25, 2011.  The appeal
is limited to review of the legal ruling of the Fifth Circuit
affirmance of the district court's order denying class
certification and will not include review of the facts of the
underlying lawsuit.

Halliburton Company is an oilfield services company that serves
the upstream oil and gas industry in 80 countries with a complete
range of services, from the location of hydrocarbons to the
production of oil and gas.  It operates in two segments: Drilling
and Evaluation and Completion and Production.  The Company is
headquartered in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Ind. Posts $43.4MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc.'s asbestos liability was US$43.4 million at
March 31, 2011 and US$43.5 million at Dec. 31, 2010, and the
insurance receivable related to the liability as well as claims
for past payments was US$23.2 million at March 31, 2011 and
US$23.8 at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company, like many other industrial companies, has been named
as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in
the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos.  The
claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the
Company owns or formerly owned, or from products that it formerly
manufactured for specialized applications.

The Company faced 8,000 asbestos claims during the three months
ended March 31, 2011 and the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Cytec Industries Inc. produces the building-block chemicals from
which it makes engineered materials -- composites and adhesives
for the aerospace industry -- specialty chemicals (resins and
coatings for metal, plastic, and wood), and additives used in
industrial processes.  The Company is headquartered in Woodland
Park, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Issues Split Decision in Belvedere
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, California, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Noella L. Belvedere et
al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. G.S. Blodgett Corporation,
Defendant and Respondent.

Judges Turner, Mosk and Armstrong entered judgment in Case No.
B221702 on Feb. 4, 2011.

Ottavio Belvedere and his wife Noella Belvedere brought an action
for negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium against
various companies alleging that Ottavio contracted malignant
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos contained in the companies'
products.

Following Ottavio's death, plaintiffs and appellants Noella, on
behalf of herself and Ottavio's estate, and the Belvedere children
-- Julia Belvedere-Thomason, Ricardo Belvedere, and Leonardo
Belvedere -- filed a first amended complaint alleging wrongful
death and a survival action on theories of negligence and strict
liability.

Thereafter, the Belvederes filed an amendment to their first
amended complaint naming defendant and respondent G.S. Blodgett as
a "Doe" defendant.  The trial court granted summary judgment to
Blodgett on the ground that the Belvederes' actions are barred by
the asbestos statute of limitations and the Belvederes appeal.

The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment as to the survival claim
and Noella's wrongful death claim.  The said court reversed the
judgment as to the wrongful death claims of Julia, Ricardo, and
Leonardo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Morgan Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, reversed the
ruling of the King County Superior Court, which granted summary
judgment in favor of various companies.

Judges Spearman, Gross and Schindler entered judgment in Case No.
63923-4-I on Jan. 31, 2011.

Kay Morgan appealed the summary judgment dismissal of the Morgans'
claims against respondents Aurora Pump Co., Buffalo Pumps, Inc.,
Elliott Co., IMO Industries, Inc. -- formerly DeLaval Turbine,
Inc. -- Leslie Controls, Inc., Warren Pumps LLC, Weir Valves &
Controls USA, Inc. -- formerly Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc. -- and
Wm. Powell Co.

James Morgan worked for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard for about 37
years, at times during which he performed functions that exposed
him to asbestos.  He eventually developed mesothelioma.

On Aug. 29, 2007, Mr. Morgan filed a lawsuit in King County
Superior Court against numerous defendants for personal injuries
sustained due to asbestos exposure.  The trial court dismissed the
action on summary judgment as to Respondents.  Mrs. Morgan
appealed.

On Aug. 29, 2007, the Morgans sued 50 defendants for personal
injuries sustained by Mr. Morgan due to asbestos exposure. He had
been employed by PSNS from 1952 to 1989.  He worked as a
pipefitter/steamfitter from 1952 to 1957 and from 1959 to 1963,
and as a marine/mechanical engineering technician and design
division test coordinator from 1963 to 1989.

In 2006 or 2007, Mr. Morgan was diagnosed with mesothelioma.  He
died in January 2008 before his deposition could be completed.
After his death, Mrs. Morgan maintained the action.

Respondents are manufacturers of pumps and valves.  Mr. Morgan
alleged that while he was employed at PSNS, Respondents supplied
his employer with pumps and valves that included packing or
gaskets containing asbestos.  He further alleged that Respondents
supplied replacement packing or gaskets to PSNS that also
contained asbestos.  He claimed that when he and others in his
presence worked on Respondents' products, asbestos fibers were
released into the air.  He claimed that he developed mesothelioma
as a result of inhaling some of these fibers.

Respondents filed separate motions for summary judgment dismissal
of Mr. Morgan's claims.  The trial court granted the Respondents'
motions and dismissed Mrs. Morgan's claims with prejudice.  Mrs.
Morgan appealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DePaoli Lawsuit Against 14 Firms Filed March 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
William B. DePaoli Jr., of Canonsburg, Pa., filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 14 defendant corporations last March 22, 2011 in
Kanawha Circuit Court, The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the case, Mr. DePaoli was exposed to asbestos (which
led him to develop mesothelioma) during his employment at various
job sites around West Virginia.

Mr. DePaoli seeks compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and
post-judgment interest.  He is being represented by Aaron J.
DeLuca, Esq., and Carla J. Guttilla, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-464 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Lawsuit v. 56 Firms Filed Last March 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lendell C. Simmons and Patricia Simmons, on March 29, 2011, filed
an asbestos lawsuit against 56 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Simmons was diagnosed with lung cancer
on Feb. 21, 2011.

The Simmons couple seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  They are being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq.,
and Lawrence J. Tweel, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-509 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lange Case v. 184 Firms Filed March 30 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl H. Lange and Dorothy E. Lange, of Gibsonia, Pa., filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 184 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., on March 30, 2011, The West Virginia Record
reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Lange was diagnosed with asbestosis and
mesothelioma after working for the defendants throughout his
working career.

The Langes seek compensatory and punitive damages.  They are being
represented by David P. Chervenick, Esq., Bruce E. Mattock, Esq.,
Lief J. Ocheltree, Esq., and Scott S. Segal, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-519 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crossmolina Carpenter's Death Linked to Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest head last April 18, 2011 heard that that death of
79-year-old carpenter Thomas Queenan, of Crossmolina, County Mayo,
Ireland, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Irish
Times reports.

Mr. Queenan died Nov. 5, 2010 at Mayo General Hospital, Castlebar.
He had been unwell for about two weeks before coming into hospital
with a cough and loss of appetite.

Dr. Cyril Rooney, consultant respiratory physician at Mayo General
Hospital, said Mr. Queenan had possibly been exposed to asbestos
while working in Britain between the ages of 24 and 60.

The inquest on Mr. Queenan was conducted in Castlebar by the
coroner for south Mayo, John O'Dwyer, who returned a verdict of
death from an industrial disease, asbestosis.

The inquest was told that no postmortem had been held on Mr.
Queenan due to an administrative error.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spondon Woman's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Pamela Whitemore, of Spondon,
Derbyshire, England, was related to exposure to asbestos, the
Telegraph reports.

Mrs. Whitemore was married to a lorry driver who used to load
asbestos by hand.  Her family said she was a typical housewife,
"cooking, cleaning and washing."  She developed mesothelioma and
died at Royal Derby Hospital in November 2010 at the age of 80.
She was diagnosed five days earlier.

An inquest into Mrs. Whitemore's death heard how she had a job in
a bedding factory but gave it up when she married her husband,
Ronald, in 1950.

Pathologist Andrew Hitchcock said there was an "extensive" tumor
and there was evidence to show it was caused by asbestos exposure.

Louise Pinder, the deputy coroner for Derby, recorded a verdict of
death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weaver, Neill Cases Filed March 22 in St. Clair
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two asbestos lawsuits, each filed by Louis K. Weaver and Delmar
Neill on March 22, 2011, have been added to the growing list of
cases in St. Clair County, Ill.'s asbestos docket, The Madison/St.
Clair Record reports.

Mr. Weaver filed the 10th asbestos lawsuit of the year in St.
Clair County Circuit Court while Mr. Neill filed the 11th.  They
are represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., and Barry Julian, Esq., of
Gori, Julian and Associates in Edwardsville.

In his complaint, Mr. Weaver alleges 52 defendant companies caused
him to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-
containing products throughout his career.

Mr. Weaver worked as a welder at Bolland Marine from 1968 until
1969, as a welder at Dixie Machine from 1970 until 1975, as a
boilermaker/pipefitter at Buck Krish from 1970 until 1980 and as a
laborer at Shell Oil Company, according to the complaint.

In his complaint, Mr. Neill claims at least 23 defendant companies
caused him to develop lung cancer after his exposure to asbestos-
containing products throughout his career.

In his nine-count complaint, Mr. Weaver seeks compensatory damages
of more than US$100,000, a judgment of more than US$50,000,
economic damages of more than US$150,000 and punitive and
exemplary damages of more than US$100,000, plus punitive damages
in an amount sufficient to punish Sprinkmann Insulation and
Sprinkmann Sons Corporation and to deter them from committing
similar actions in the future and other relief the court deems
just.

In his five-count complaint, Mr. Neill is seeking compensatory
damages of more than US$100,000, punitive and exemplary damages of
more than US$100,000 and a judgment of more than US$50,000, plus
punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Sprinkmann
Insulation and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation and to deter them from
committing similar actions in the future.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ore. DEQ Issues $8,400 Penalty to Medford Local
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued an
US$8,400 penalty to Medford, Ore., resident Thomas Ray Moroni for
performing an asbestos abatement project on a house in Ashland,
Ore., without the required state license, according to an Oregon
DEQ press release dated April 22, 2011.

In January 2010, Mr. Moroni, of 1457 Ramada Ave., Medford, removed
about 2,000 square feet of cement asbestos board siding from an
old house at 111 Nursery St. in Ashland.

All persons conducting asbestos projects in Oregon must have a
license certifying they are qualified to perform such projects and
able to handle, remove and dispose of asbestos in a safe manner.
Mr. Moroni did not have such a license.

DEQ reported that Mr. Moroni, in removing the asbestos siding,
crushed and pulverized the material, likely releasing asbestos
fibers into the air.

DEQ also noted that Mr. Moroni allowed a portion of the asbestos-
containing waste materials he removed to be stored unpackaged on
the ground outside the house.  A licensed asbestos abatement
contractor eventually disposed of the material properly.  DEQ did
not issue a penalty to Mr. Moroni for this violation.

Mr. Moroni has until April 25, 2011 to appeal the penalty and
request an informal meeting with DEQ.  If he does not appeal by
that date, the full penalty amount will be due.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Has $5MM Litigation Charge at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated recorded an asbestos litigation charge of
US$5 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
according to a Company press release dated April 27, 2011.

The Company recorded an asbestos litigation credit of
US$52 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010.

On March 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
resolution of all current and future asbestos claims against
Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, which might arise from
PCC products or operations.

On Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order denying
confirmation of the 2003 Plan.  On Jan. 29, 2009, a proposed plan
of reorganization -- the Amended PCC Plan -- resolving issues
raised by the Court in denying the confirmation of the 2003 Plan
was filed with the Bankruptcy Court.

Corning Incorporated creates and makes keystone components that
enable high-technology systems for consumer electronics, mobile
emissions control, telecommunications and life sciences.  Its
products include glass substrates; ceramic substrates and filters;
optical fiber, cable, hardware & equipment; optical biosensors;
and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions.  The
Company is headquartered in Corning, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Long-Term March 31 Reserves at $813MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s long-term asbestos litigation reserve was
US$813 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$841 million
as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated
April 26, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$440
million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$459 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

Ashland Inc. provides the specialty chemicals, technologies and
insights to help customers create new and improved products for
today and sustainable solutions for tomorrow.  The Company is
headquartered in Covington, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. U.S. Steel Rise to 585 at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation, as of March 31, 2011, was a
defendant in about 585 active asbestos cases involving about 3,125
plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2011.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a defendant in about 550 active
cases involving about 3,090 plaintiffs.

About 2,600, or about 83%, of these claims are currently pending
in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.

During the period ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded 55
claims dismissed, settled, and resolved and 90 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$4 million.

During the period ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 200
claims dismissed, settled, and resolved and 250 new claims.
Amounts paid to resolve claims were US$8 million.

United States Steel Corporation is an integrated steel maker,
which operates mills throughout the Midwest in the United States;
in Ontario, Canada; and in Serbia and Slovakia.  The Company makes
sheet and semifinished steel, tubular and plate steel, and tin
products.  The Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Facing 508 Exposure Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation faced 508 asbestos cases as of March 31,
2011, compared with 499 cases as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 26, 2011.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
16 new cases filed and seven resolved cases.  The Company and
several of its U.S. subsidiaries are defendants in asbestos cases.

Celanese Corporation is a global technology and specialty
materials company.  Its business involves processing chemical raw
materials, such as methanol, carbon monoxide and ethylene, and
natural products, including wood pulp, into value-added chemicals,
thermoplastic polymers and other chemical-based products.  The
Company is headquartered in Dallas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Still Facing Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, Carlisle Companies Incorporated has been named as
a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various state courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due
to exposure to asbestos-containing brakes, which the Company
manufactured in limited amounts between the late-1940s and the
mid-1980s.

In addition to compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek
punitive damages.  To date, the Company has obtained dismissals or
settlements of its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material
effect on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

On Dec. 22, 2010, the Company settled a case involving alleged
asbestos-related injury.  The total amount of the award and
related loss, inclusive of insurance recoveries, was about US$5.8
million, which was recorded in discontinued operations in the
fourth quarter of 2010.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated is a diversified manufacturing
company consisting of five segments which manufacture and
distribute a broad range of products.  The Company is
headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grace Has $1.1MM March 31 Administration Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. recorded asbestos administration costs of
US$1.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$1.6 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2010.

On April 2, 2001, the Company and 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, including its primary U.S. operating
subsidiary W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn., filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to
resolve the Company's asbestos-related liabilities.

On Jan. 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming
the Company's Joint Plan of Reorganization.  The confirmation
order must next be affirmed by the U.S. District Court.  The
District Court has scheduled a hearing for June 28, 2011 for oral
argument on appeals to the confirmation order.

The Company recorded net Chapter 11- and asbestos-related costs of
US$5.7 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$12.5 million during the three months ended March
31, 2010.

Provision for environmental remediation related to asbestos was
US$200,000 during the three months ended March 31, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance was US$500
million as of March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  The Company's
long-term asbestos-related contingencies were US$1.7 billion as of
March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Helens Nurse Seeks GBP200T for Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Potter, a 62-year-old hospital nurse who had worked at
the old St Helens Hospital for five years from 1979, has launched
a compensation claim for GBP200,000 at the High Court, the St.
Helens Star reports.

Ms. Potter has since developed malignant mesothelioma, which is
cancer of the tissues surrounding her lungs.  She says she used to
clean passages in the hospital, which were lagged with asbestos as
well as the equipment room.

Ms. Potter's writ states that workmen would be called in to patch
up the lagging, while work carried on as normal around them.  As
part of her job, she alleges that she would brush up the asbestos
dust and fibers after they finished their work.

After five years as a cleaner, Ms. Potter became a health care
assistant and after spells working at Newton Cottage Hospital and
Peasley Cross Day Centre, she returned to St Helens Hospital as a
nursing auxiliary, where she spent another 10 years.

Ms. Potter maintains that conditions there had not changed and
maintenance work carried out still disturbed asbestos dust and
fibers.  She first noticed chest problems in Christmas 2009 and
was told she had mesothelioma in July 2010.

Ms. Potter's solicitor Patrick Walsh, partner and expert in
industrial diseases at Manchester law firm Pannone, said, "The NHS
Trust is disputing that our client was exposed to asbestos,
despite the fact that we have evidence that she was."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bracknell Local Sues Mars, Nestle for GBP200T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Parker, a 66-year-old electrician from Bracknell, England,
is taking two confectionery firms (Nestle and Mars) to the High
Court for GBP200,000, claiming their negligence led to him
contracting asbestosis, getbracknell reports.

Mr. Parker's writ, which was handed to the High Court on April 14,
2011, claims he first came into contact with asbestos while
working as an electrician and technician for Nestle between 1969
and 1971.  The writ claims he was regularly made to work in dust
containing asbestos which he inhaled.

Mr. Parker worked at Mars' now-closed factory in Liverpool Road,
Slough, and its current office in Dundee Road between 1971 and
1999 when, the writ claims, he worked on pipes with asbestos.  He
has developed asbestosis in both lungs and has pleural plaques in
both lungs.

The condition has given Mr. Parker a 20% decrease in respiratory
capacity that will worsen by 10% every seven years.  He has an
increased risk of premature death as well as other conditions such
as lung cancer and mesotheolioma.

Mr. Parker said he first noticed shortness of breath and chest
pain in 1995, but claims he was given contradictory medical advice
and received a diagnosis only last February 2011.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Central West Family Sues Over Approval of Quarry
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A farming family from Central West, Australia, is taking the New
South Wales Government to the Land and Environment Court over its
approval of a basalt quarry on an old asbestos site abutting its
property, ABC News reports.

The family, which lives close to the Mitchell Highway between
Bathurst and Orange, says there is a potential health risk from
asbestos dust that will be disturbed by quarrying activities.

Farmer Heather McNair says she is concerned, saying that "Temolite
is a really dangerous asbestos, it's a known carcinogen.  It just
takes one fiber to cause mesothelioma, so my concerns are very
much that if the site is disturbed, once it comes out of solid
form and into dust, it could go into the lungs of neighboring
residents, kids, people on the highway, and, in 20 years' time,
you're dying of mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Withrow Action v. 136 Firms Filed March 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Eugene Withrow, on March 28, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against 136 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Withrow was diagnosed with
asbestosis on March 28, 2010.  He claims the defendants exposed
him to asbestos and asbestos-containing products during his
employment with various companies from 1954 until 1999.

Mr. Withrow seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  He
is being represented by Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-504 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


                            *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, 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  * * *