CAR_Public/110520.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 99

                             Headlines

APEX OIL: Judge Approves $4MM Hartford Class Action Settlement
BATTEA - CLASS ACTION SERVICES: NY Court Dismisses Infinity Case
CHUCK E. CHEESE'S: Faces Class Action Over Children's Games
CNA FINANCIAL: Reaches MOU to Settle Consolidated New Jersey Suit
DIRECTBUY INC: Connecticut Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement

FELTEX CARPETS: Former Directors Face Investor Class Action
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Unit Still Face Claims in New Jersey Suit
FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Appeal in Geauga County Suit Still Pending
INTERNATIONAL COAL: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Merger
JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Hepatitis C Victims Mount Class Action

LORILLARD INC: Certiorari Petition in "Scott" Suit Remains Pending
LORILLARD INC: New Trial Date in "Brown" Suit Not Yet Set
LORILLARD INC: Appeal in "Cleary" Suit Remains Pending
MCKESSON CORP: Gets $51MM Share in Settlement of Antitrust Suit
PGA NATIONAL RESORT: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Charges

SONY COMPUTER: Faces 16th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SONY ONLINE: Faces 17th Suit Over Private Data Breach
SYNGENTA CROP: Judge to Review Class Action Documents in June
TJX COMPANIES: Removes "Nelson" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed

VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Still Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: "Gluzman" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $25.48MM March 31 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $79.80MM Liabilities at April 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Sees May 2011 Settlement in Aqua-Chem
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers' March 31 Current Liabilities at $8.56MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $638MM Liability at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Posts $10MM-$20MM Coverage for A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 28 Exposure Cases Open v. Minerals Technologies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,841 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Involved in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 228 Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,678 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Cannon Electric Slated for August 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Facing 22,500 Claims in 8 U.S. States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Rogers Corp. Surge to 214 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Group's Liability at $3.91MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Posts $18MM ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11.2T Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt at March 25

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.1MM April 1 Litigation Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.49MM Liabilities at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Facing to 21,774 Claims at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $425.8MM for Claims at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 8 Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Subject to 52,230 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Posts $16.2MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Issues Split Ruling in Lucas Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court Upholds Ruling in Vicknair's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Appeals Court OKs Ruling In Falk Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Shipwright's Death Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartlepool Supervisor's Death Related to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Awarded $322MM in Lawsuit v. Chevron, UCC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark Action v. 9 Firms Filed April 27 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Casey Injury Action V. Kaiser Settled on May 11

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimble Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 6 in Ill.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hemphill Case v. 10 Firms Filed May 4 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abbott and Mason Penalized for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Lorillard Cases Set for Trial as of April 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $400T Net Claims Provisions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Party to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Greenspoon Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Dismisses Garner, Palermo Action




                             *********

APEX OIL: Judge Approves $4MM Hartford Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that eight years of class action litigation over petroleum
pollution in Hartford ended on May 2, when Madison County Circuit
Judge William Mudge approved a $4 million settlement of claims
against Apex Oil and Sinclair Oil.

The settlement brought total recovery to $39 million, Judge Mudge
wrote.

BP, Shell Oil subsidiary Equilon, and Premcor Refining had
previously settled class action claims that they created a lake of
petroleum beneath Hartford.

Apex and Sinclair agreed to pay $1,563,000 for property damage and
loss of property value, and $1,042,000 for loss of enjoyment and
use.

Lawyers who represented village residents and property owners will
collect the remainder -- about $1.4 million.

The class includes all who resided in Hartford or owned property
there since 1984.

"These automatic payments will provide record owners of property
with significant individual benefits on top of those already
received in the former Premcor, Equilon and BP settlements,"
Judge Mudge wrote.

"All settlement class members will be compensated based upon
proximity of their residence to the underground accumulation of
hydrocarbons and other petroleum products and the number of years
in their residence," he wrote.

"The settlement benefits allocated to property damage will be
calculated based upon individual property value and the location
of the property in proximity to the underground accumulation of
hydrocarbons and other petroleum products and paid out
automatically to all owners of record in the village," he wrote.

About 1,500 persons live in Hartford.

Thirteen Hartford residents who represented the class will receive
$7,500 each.

The village is represented by:

          Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Holly A. Reese, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG, HELLER, ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C.
          2227 S. State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: 618-656-5150
          E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
                  holly@ghalaw.com

            - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7112
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com

            - and -

          Teresa A. Woody
          THE WOODY LAW FIRM PC
          1044 Main Street, Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816-421-4246

            - and -

          Philip C. Graham, Esq.
          HELFREY, NEIERS & JONES P.C.
          120 S. Central Ave, Ste. 1500
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-9100
          E-mail: pgraham@hnjlaw.com

            - and -

          Christopher W. Dysart
          DYSART LAW FIRM, P.C.
          100 Chesterfield Business Pkwy
          Second Floor
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 812-0191
          E-mail: cdysart@dysart-law.com

Apex is represented by:

          James O'Brien, Esq.
          Richard A. Ahrens, Esq.
          LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH, L.C.
          600 Washington, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-1317
          E-mail: jobrien@lewisrice.com
                  rahrens@lewisrice.com

            - and -

          Theodore H. Lucas, Esq.
          FOX GALVIN, LLC
          One Memorial Drive, 12th Floor
          St. Louis, MO  63102
          Telephone: 314-588-7000 x 156
          E-mail: TLucas@FoxGalvin.com

            - and -

          William J. Knapp, Esq.
          KNAPP, OHL & GREEN
          6100 Center Grove Road, P.O. Box 446
          Edwardsville, IL  62025
          Telephone: 618-656-5088

Sinclair is represented by:

          Joseph G. Nassif, Esq.
          Michael D. Montgomery, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          The Plaza in Clayton
          190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314-480-1500
          E-mail: joseph.nassif@huschblackwell.com
                  michael.montgomery@huschblackwell.com

            - and -

          Bernard J. Ysursa, Esq.
          COOK, YSURSA, BARTHOLOMEW, BRAUER & SHEVLIN, LTD.
          12 West Lincoln Street
          Belleville, IL  62220-2085

Telephone: 618-235-3500

BATTEA - CLASS ACTION SERVICES: NY Court Dismisses Infinity Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Battea - Class Action Services, LLC disclosed that a New York
Court has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Company in New
York by Infinity Financial Partners, Inc., and its principal, Jeff
Doria.

In its lawsuit, Infinity had claimed that Battea was obligated to
pay Infinity and Doria certain client referral fees.  However,
Justice O. Peter Sherwood of the Supreme Court of New York, in
Manhattan, disagreed and ordered dismissal of all of Infinity's
claims against the Company on the grounds that it had not entered
into the referenced contract with Infinity or Doria.  As a result,
the Court held that the Company had no obligation to pay any
monies to Infinity or Doria.

This is not the first time a lawsuit filed by Infinity and Doria
against the Company has been dismissed.  Infinity's prior lawsuits
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and the Southern District of New York were also dismissed
in 2008 and 2010, respectively.

Peter K. Hansen, Chairman of the Company stated, "Our Company has
an impeccable record and in its ten year history has never been
sued in any other matters.  This was nothing short of an
opportunistic suit that became a nuisance for the Company.  We are
gratified that the Court recognized that Infinity's and Doria's
claims against Battea-Class Action Services were baseless and
without any merit."

            About Battea - Class Action Services, LLC

Through its proprietary technology platform, The Claims Engine(R),
Battea ? Class Action Services -- http://www.battea.com--
optimizes class action settlement award recovery across all asset
classes for more than 200 institutional investors, including hedge
funds, asset management firms, sovereign and pension funds,
endowments and family offices.  The Company provides a full-
service solution for the entire securities class action award
recovery process -- from calculating recognized loss for every
claim through the confirmation, receipt and delivery of settlement
payouts.

Battea is the industry leader and has been recovering funds for
clients since 2001.  Through significant on-going, focused
investments in its case claims algorithms, advanced technology
platform, infrastructure, and human capital, the Company continues
to set new standards that other industry participants aspire to
achieve.  Battea is the only securities class action recovery firm
that is fully SAS-70 compliant across all internal operations and
external data center/networking partners.


CHUCK E. CHEESE'S: Faces Class Action Over Children's Games
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a San
Diego mom has filed a potential class action against Chuck E.
Cheese's that claims its games are illegal gambling devices.

The federal suit by real-estate agent Denise Keller claims the
games are similar to slot machines, the San Diego Union Tribune
reports.  Children play with tokens that cost 25 cents each, and
the machines dispense tickets that can be redeemed for prizes.

California generally bans gambling, but it makes an exception for
games of skill.  The suit claims the games at Chuck E. Cheese's
are based mostly on chance and they "create the same highs and
lows experienced by adults who gamble their paychecks or the
mortgage payment."

Lawyers for the company that owns the restaurant chain, CEC
Entertainment Inc., are seeking dismissal of the case.  They claim
the games aren't illegal, but if they were, Ms. Keller
participated in the gambling and should be barred from collecting
damages.


CNA FINANCIAL: Reaches MOU to Settle Consolidated New Jersey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation reached a memorandum of settlement
understanding, subject to negotiation of additional terms and
court approval, with plaintiffs in a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in a New Jersey court, according to the Company's
May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In August 2005, CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries were
joined as defendants, along with other insurers and brokers, in
multidistrict litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, Civil No. 04-5184 (GEB).  The plaintiffs'
consolidated class action complaint alleges bid rigging and
improprieties in the payment of contingent commissions in
connection with the sale of insurance that violated federal and
state antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act and state common law.  After discovery,
the District Court dismissed the federal antitrust claims and the
RICO claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the state law claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal
of their complaint to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In
August 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the antitrust claims and the RICO claims against CNAF
and certain insurance subsidiaries, but vacated the dismissal of
one portion of those claims against some other parties and
remanded them for further proceedings on motions to dismiss.  The
Court of Appeals also vacated and remanded the dismissal of the
state law claims against CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries
and other parties to allow for further proceedings relating to
motions to dismiss before the District Court.  In November 2010,
CNAF and certain insurance subsidiaries filed in the district
court a motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims pending
against them.  In March 2011, CNAF and certain insurance
subsidiaries, along with certain other defendants, entered into a
memorandum of settlement understanding with the plaintiffs to
settle all claims asserted, or which could have been asserted, in
the class action lawsuit.  The settlement is subject to
negotiation of additional terms, execution of a settlement
agreement and court approval of the settlement.  As currently
structured, the settlement will not have a material impact on the
Company's results of operations.

Chicago-based CNA Financial Corporation is a commercial insurance
writer and a property and casualty company.  The Company's
insurance products include standard commercial lines, specialty
lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages.


DIRECTBUY INC: Connecticut Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge in Connecticut issued an order on May 16 rejecting a
proposed class action settlement with wholesale buying club
DirectBuy Inc.

Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper led the 40-state
effort opposing the settlement with the company, which claims to
sell home improvement items and furnishings at a "direct insider"
price through a paid membership.

The attorneys general, in a 36-page amicus brief filed in the U.S.
District Court in Connecticut last month, said the company offered
no real benefit to consumers.

The lawsuit at issue accuses DirectBuy of fraudulent
misrepresentation because the company implied that its paid
memberships would entitle customers to purchase goods from
manufacturers and suppliers at actual cost.

However, DirectBuy allegedly received kickbacks and incentives
from suppliers and manufacturers of goods purchased by DirectBuy
members, which inflated the cost of the goods.

According to the lawsuit, which names DirectBuy Inc., United
Consumers Club Inc. and DirectBuy Holdings Inc. as defendants, the
company did not disclose this arrangement to customers until early
2009.

Under the proposed DirectBuy agreement, current and former
customers would be eligible to receive a "free" two-month
membership to DirectBuy.

The attorneys general argued the memberships offered were not
fair, reasonable and adequate settlement for most of the customers
harmed.

"The scant relief offered under the proposed settlement to
hundreds of thousands of absent class members nationwide stands in
stark contrast to the $4,000 cash incentive payments to each of
the named plaintiffs (totaling $28,000), the $350,000 to $1
million in attorneys' fees to class counsel provided under the
proposed settlement . . . and the initial membership fees
themselves, which ranged from $1,000 to $5,000 plus additional
charges with financing," the attorneys general wrote in last
month's brief.

The attorneys general also had argued the proposed settlement
would not prohibit similar future conduct by DirectBuy.

According to the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, the
multistate effort is the largest collective action by the
attorneys general opposing a class-action settlement since the
passage of the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005.

"I want to make sure that consumers are treated fairly in class-
action settlements," Mr. Cooper said in a statement on May 16.


FELTEX CARPETS: Former Directors Face Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gregor, writing for NZ Herald News, reports that the former
directors of Feltex Carpets have reached a settlement with the
company's liquidators but still face a class action brought by
aggrieved investors who collectively lost millions when the
company collapsed in 2006.

Liquidators McDonald Vague announced on May 12 that they had
reached a "full and final" settlement with the former directors --
Peter Hunter, Peter Thomas, Tim Saunders, Michael Feeney and John
Hagen -- and that the terms of the settlement were confidential.

A case between the two parties was supposed to have started
yesterday in the High Court at Auckland.

Liquidators were appointed to Feltex in December 2006 after its
main lender, ANZ, placed it into receivership in September because
of a NZ$100 million debt.  McDonald Vague said the settlement was
entered into without any admission of liability by the directors.

The directors pleaded not guilty to charges brought by the
Securities Commission -- now the Financial Markets Authority --
alleging they had breached the Securities Act.

The directors were acquitted last August.

Both the liquidators and the commission's case against Feltex
centered on the company's six-month accounts to December 31, 2005,
which incorrectly classified its debt with ANZ as non-current when
it should have been current -- meaning it was on call.

But the class action against the directors, which excludes Hagen,
is centered on the company's float in 2004.

The investors claim Feltex's registered prospectus in 2004, the
same year it floated, contained information that was misleading or
wrong, or omitted to make information available that would have
affected a person's decision to invest in the company.

The defendants have denied the allegations.  Also targeted is
Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, Credit Suisse
Private Equity and joint lead float managers First New Zealand
Capital and Forsyth Barr.

An update on how the plaintiffs' case is progressing is due to be
filed this month.


FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Unit Still Face Claims in New Jersey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An affiliate of FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. continue to face
claims in a consolidated lawsuit filed in New Jersey, according to
the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat
wave, which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including Jersey Central
Power & Light Company.  Two class action lawsuits (subsequently
consolidated into a single proceeding) were filed in New Jersey
Superior Court in July 1999 against JCP&L, GPU Inc. and other GPU
companies, seeking compensatory and punitive damages due to the
outages.  After various motions, rulings and appeals, the
Plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud, common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, strict product liability and punitive damages
were dismissed, leaving only the negligence and breach of contract
causes of actions.  On July 29, 2010, the Appellate Division
upheld the trial court's decision decertifying the class.
Plaintiffs have filed, and JCP&L has opposed, a motion for leave
to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  In November 2010, the
Supreme Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs' motion.  The
Court's order effectively ends the class action attempt, and
leaves only 9 plaintiffs to pursue their respective individual
claims.  The remaining individual plaintiffs have not taken any
affirmative steps to pursue their individual claims.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Appeal in Geauga County Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of a ruling dismissing a class action lawsuit filed in
Geauga County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Solutions
Corp.'s parent remains pending, according to the Company's May 3,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in Geauga
County Court of Common Pleas against FirstEnergy Corp., The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and Ohio Edison Company
seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory, incidental and consequential damages, on behalf of a
class of customers related to the reduction of a discount that had
previously been in place for residential customers with electric
heating, electric water heating, or load management systems.  The
reduction in the discount was approved by the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio.  In March 2010, the named-defendant companies
filed a motion to dismiss the case due to the lack of jurisdiction
of the court of common pleas.  The court granted the motion to
dismiss on September 7, 2010.  The plaintiffs appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, which has not yet
rendered an opinion.

FirstEnergy Corp. is a diversified energy company headquartered in
Akron, Ohio.  Its subsidiaries and affiliates are involved in the
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.  Its seven
electric utility operating companies comprise the nation's fifth
largest investor-owned electric system, based on 4.5 million
customers served within a 36,100-square-mile area of Ohio,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey; and its generation subsidiaries
control more than 14,000 megawatts of capacity.


INTERNATIONAL COAL: Shareholder Files Class Action Over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
another common stock shareholder has filed a complaint alleging
"inadequate compensation" in International Coal Group Inc.'s
planned merger with Arch Coal Inc.

Timothy Eyster filed the potential class-action lawsuit in Putnam
County Circuit Court on May 13 on behalf of himself and other
common stock shareholders.  He is suing ICG, its board of
directors and Arch.

Mr. Eyster, like Damian Walker, who filed a potential class-action
suit against ICG, its board and Arch on May 9, takes issue with
the proposed sale of ICG to Arch at $14.60 per share.

On May 2, ICG and Arch issued a joint statement announcing they
entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger in
connection with the proposed acquisition.  Arch would acquire ICG,
a Delaware corporation headquartered in Scott Depot, W.Va., in an
all-cash transaction valued at $3.4 billion.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that ICG's board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties to its shareholders in merging with
Arch.

Mr. Eyster, in his complaint, calls the sale process "flawed."

He points to the merger agreement's $115 million termination fee,
which requires that ICG pay $115 million should it decide to
accept a competing offer.

"The Termination Fee impairs (ICG's) Board of Directors from
freely and effectively exercising their business judgment in the
interests of (ICG's) shareholders and also discourages other
potential bidders from emerging, including those who would be
willing to pay more than $14.60 per share for the Company,"
Mr. Eyster wrote.

He continued, "If the Proposed Transaction is consummated, Arch
and (ICG) insiders will enrich themselves by acquiring the public
shareholders' interest in the Company without paying a fair and
adequate price, thereby irreparably harming Plaintiff and the
other (ICG) shareholders not affiliated with Arch."

ICG, its board and Arch are forcing "an oppressive and
fundamentally unfair transaction" onto ICG's shareholders,
Mr. Eyster says.

Like Mr. Walker, Mr. Eyster is seeking to enjoin the close of the
proposed acquisition, which is scheduled to close at the end of
the second quarter of 2011.

Mr. Eyster also is asking that the board "diligently avail
themselves of all material information necessary to make an
informed judgment concerning the fairness of the proposed
transaction," and that it "fully and accurately disclose all
material information to (ICG's) public shareholders so they can
make an informed decision" on whether to tender their shares.

Counsel for the plaintiff include:

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          Smith & Thompson
          Huntington Square Building
          900 Lee Street, Suite 804
          P.O. Box 11178
          Charleston, WV 25339
          Telephone: (304) 343-6383

          David R. Barney Jr., Esq.
          2030 Kanawha Blvd., E.
          Charleston, West Virginia

            - and -

           Joseph E. White III, Esq.
           Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
           SAXENA WHITE PA
           2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
           Boca Raton, FL 33431
           Telephone: 561-394-3399

            - and -

           Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
           Law Office of Jonathan M. Stein, P.L.
           1 West Ames Court, Suite 201,
           Plainview, NY 11803
           Telephone: 561-961-2244
           E-mail: jstein@jonathansteinlaw.com

ICG is one of the leading producers of coal in Northern and
Central Appalachia.  It has 12 mining complexes located in West
Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland.  It was founded in 2004
and was taken public in 2005.

Arch is one of the world's largest coal producers.  According to
its Web site, it contributes roughly 15% of America's coal supply.
It has mining complexes in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, West Virginia,
Kentucky and Virginia.


JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Hepatitis C Victims Mount Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Herald Sun reports that victims of an anaesthetist accused of
infecting his patients with hepatitis C are calling for him to be
charged after health bosses said it was "hard to believe" it was
an accident.

Almost 50 women have the same strain of hepatitis C as Dr. James
Latham Peters after having abortions at the Croydon Day Surgery.

A further 19 women treated by Dr. Peters showed signs of past
infection but there was not enough virus present for a definitive
ruling.

The public health inquiry, which resulted in 4,312 women being
tested, has concluded -- but it could not prove -- it was a
deliberate act.

Victoria's Chief Health Officer Dr. John Carnie said it was hard
to believe the 49 women had been "accidentally" infected.

"It would be very hard to determine some accidental means that
would involve this number of patients at just the one clinic,"
Dr. Carnie said.

Slater & Gordon lawyer Paula Shelton, Esq., mounting a class
action on behalf of victims, said they were disappointed by the
slow progress.

Many are undergoing a punishing regime of weekly injections and
tablets.

"It's pretty tough for them looking down the barrel of a serious
chronic illness, which can cause liver failure," she said.

One of the victims, a woman in her 30s, has a 99.8% match to
Dr. Peters.

The mother of two said she wants Victoria Police to charge him.

"I'm blown away that it has taken this long.  I'm mortified, I
just feel let down," she said.

Dr. Peters has been banned from practicing medicine.

The case began in April 2010, with revelations of 12 women being
infected at the Croydon Centre but that quickly grew as more women
tested positive.

No other cases have been found at any of Dr. Peters' other
abortion clinics.

The police taskforce set up to investigate, Taskforce Clays, has
faced significant obstacles with the number of victims and
witnesses interviewed and the complexity and breadth of the case.

Supt. Gerry Ryan said the police investigation was ongoing and
methodical.

"We are progressing," Supt. Ryan said.

He said the taskforce would not be rushed into completing its
inquiries.

Dr. Peters had a history of drug use and was last year convicted
of possessing images of child pornography.


LORILLARD INC: Certiorari Petition in "Scott" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for writ of certiorari filed by defendants in the class
action captioned Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al.
(District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996),
remains pending, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s May 3, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In one of the class actions pending against Lorillard Tobacco,
Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), the Louisiana
Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, issued a decision in April 2010
that modified the trial court's 2008 amended final judgment.  The
April 2010 Decision reduced the judgment amount from approximately
$264 million to approximately $242 million to fund a ten year,
court-supervised smoking cessation program.  The April 2010
Decision also changed the date on which the award of post-judgment
interest will accrue to July 2008.  Interest awarded by the
amended final judgment will continue to accrue from July 2008
until the judgment either is paid or is reversed on appeal.  As of
April 27, 2011, judicial interest totaled approximately $34.6
million.  Lorillard, Inc., which was a party to the case in the
past, is no longer a defendant.

In its April 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeal expressly
preserved defendants' right to assert claims on unspent or surplus
funds, should any such funds be present, at the conclusion of the
ten-year smoking cessation program.

The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review of the petitions that
were filed by the defendants and the plaintiffs.  The U.S. Supreme
Court has granted defendants' application to stay execution of the
amended final judgment until defendants' petition for writ of
certiorari is resolved.  As of April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme
Court had not determined whether it would grant review of
defendants' certiorari petition.

In 1997, Scott was certified a class action on behalf of certain
cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to
participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs
and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began
smoking prior to May 24, 1996 and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.

Trial in Scott was heard in two phases. At the conclusion of the
first phase in July 2003, the jury rejected medical monitoring,
the primary relief requested by plaintiffs, and returned
sufficient findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II
trial on plaintiffs' request for a statewide smoking cessation
program. Phase II of the trial, which concluded in May 2004,
resulted in an award of $591 million to fund cessation programs
for Louisiana smokers.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reduced the amount
of the award by approximately $328 million; struck an award of
prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $440 million as
of December 31, 2006; and limited class membership to individuals
who began smoking by September 1, 1988, and whose claims accrued
by September 1, 1988. In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court
denied plaintiffs' and defendants' separate petitions for review.
In May 2008, U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants' request that it
review the case. The case was returned to the trial court, which
subsequently entered an amended final judgment that ordered the
defendants to pay approximately $264 million to fund the court-
supervised smoking cessation program for the members of the
certified class. The Court of Appeal's April 2010 Decision was an
appeal from this judgment.

Should the amended final judgment be sustained on appeal,
Lorillard Tobacco's share of that judgment, including the award of
post-judgment interest, has not been determined. In the fourth
quarter of 2007, Lorillard, Inc. recorded a pretax provision of
approximately $66 million for this matter which was included in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income and was reclassified from other liabilities
to accrued liabilities in the second quarter of 2010 on the
consolidated balance sheets.

The parties filed a stipulation in the trial court agreeing that
an article of Louisiana law required that the amount of the bond
for the appeal be set at $50 million for all defendants
collectively. The parties further agreed that the plaintiffs have
full reservations of rights to contest in the trial court the
sufficiency of the bond on any grounds. Defendants collectively
posted a surety bond in the amount of $50 million, of which
Lorillard Tobacco secured 25%, or $12.5 million, which is
classified as restricted cash within other current assets on the
consolidated balance sheet. While Lorillard Tobacco believes the
limitation on the appeal bond amount is valid as required by
Louisiana law, in the event of a successful challenge the amount
of the appeal bond could be set as high as 150% of the judgment
and judicial interest combined. If such an event occurred,
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the appeal bond has not been
determined.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging.  Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: New Trial Date in "Brown" Suit Not Yet Set
---------------------------------------------------------
A new trial date in the class action lawsuit captioned Brown v.
The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San
Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), has not been set,
according to Lorillard, Inc.'s May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In the Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Brown
v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San
Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the California
Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had previously
decertified a class and returned Brown to the trial court for
further activity.  The trial court has informed the parties that
it believes the class previously certified in Brown has been
reinstated as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling.
The class previously certified in Brown is composed of residents
of California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes
between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.
The trial court also has ruled that it will permit plaintiffs to
assert claims regarding the allegedly fraudulent marketing of
"light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes.  Trial in Brown had been
scheduled for May 2011, but the court vacated (or canceled) this
setting.  As of April 27, 2011, a new date for trial had not been
set.  Trial dates are subject to change.  Lorillard, Inc. is not a
defendant in Brown.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging.  Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Appeal in "Cleary" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling dismissing claims in the class action
lawsuit captioned Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al.
(U.S. District Court, Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3,
1998), remains pending, according to Lorillard, Inc.'s May 3, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In the Class Action Case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Cleary
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court,
Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), a court allowed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint in an existing class action to
assert claims on behalf of a subclass of individuals who purchased
"light" cigarettes from the defendants, but it subsequently
dismissed the "light" cigarettes claims asserted against Lorillard
Tobacco.  In June 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining
claims, and it entered final judgment in defendants' favor.
Plaintiffs have noticed an appeal from the final judgment,
including the prior ruling that dismissed plaintiffs' "lights"
claims against Lorillard Tobacco, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.  Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in
Cleary.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging.  Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


MCKESSON CORP: Gets $51MM Share in Settlement of Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation disclosed in its May 3, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that cost of
sales for the year ended March 31, 2011, includes an asset
impairment charge of $72 million in its Technology Solutions
segment for capitalized software held for sale, and a credit of
$51 million in its Distribution Solutions segment representing the
Company's share of a settlement of an antitrust class action
lawsuit brought against a drug manufacturer.

McKesson Corporation -- http://http://www.mckesson.com/-- is a
healthcare services and information technology company dedicated
to helping its customers deliver high-quality healthcare by
reducing costs, streamlining processes, and improving the quality
and safety of patient care.  Over the course of its 177-year
history, McKesson has grown by providing pharmaceutical and
medical-surgical supply management across the spectrum of care;
healthcare information technology for hospitals, physicians,
homecare and payors; hospital and retail pharmacy automation; and
services for manufacturers and payors designed to improve outcomes
for patients.


PGA NATIONAL RESORT: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
The PGA may be a stickler for fairness on the golf course, but
when it comes to honestly disclosing guest fees at its nationally
renowned resort hotel in Palm Beach, the organization's practices
are tantamount to kicking the ball to get a better lie, according
to Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP.

That's the assertion at the heart of a $25 million class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on May 16 by New York residents Alison Handwerker and Jeffrey
Greenburg, two of the tens of thousands of customers who were hit
with a daily resort fee charge by the PGA Resort.  The class
comprises all individuals who were charged the daily resort fee
that was not disclosed to them prior to, or at the time they made
their reservations using the PGA's Web site or by calling the PGA
Resort directly.

Ms. Handwerker, Mr. Greenberg and the class are represented by:

          Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          SANFORD WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 723-2947
          E-mail: swittels@swhlegal.com
                  jheisler@swhlegal.com

Florida-based PGA National Resort & Spa and Illinois-based Walton
Street Capital LLC are named as defendants in the suit.

"Guests at the PGA's Palm Beach Resort expect courteous treatment
and hospitality," said Mr. Wittels.  "But instead, the
organization tees up deceit and trickery by forcing its departing
guests to pay an undisclosed and surprise 'resort fee' of $25 for
each day of their stay, plus taxes on that fee.  The PGA keeps
this fee hidden until guests check out, despite purporting to
provide 'full-pricing' information to potential customers over the
telephone and on the resort's reservation Web site."

The Complaint alleges that the PGA's undisclosed charges violate
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and also
constitute common law breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The complaint asks the Court to certify the Plaintiff Class, issue
a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from continuing to
charge the undisclosed fees, and award the Plaintiffs actual
damages, punitive damages, and restitution for the undisclosed
fees they have already been forced to pay.

"There's no place in the legitimate tourism business for the kind
of chicanery PGA Resorts perpetrates on its customers every day in
the Palm Beach Hotel," said Mr. Heisler.  "Resort owners can
charge any legal fees they wish.  But they can't hide the fee and
then charge customers at check-out time.  That flim-flammery has
to end, and we hope this lawsuit does exactly that."

                            About SWH

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


SONY COMPUTER: Faces 16th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Obregon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, et al., Case No.
11-cv-02342 (N.D. Calif. May 11, 2011), accuses the Sony
defendants of failing to protect otherwise private credit card and
personal data of its U.S. based subscribers/users of PlayStation,
in violation of state and federal law.

The Plaintiff says that as a result of the Sony defendants' lack
of appropriate security measures, third party "hackers" have
compromised and otherwise gained access to private data
information of millions of class members.

Furthermore, plaintiff avers that defendants covered up the
security breach and only disclosed the breach in its blog more
than a week after the breach first occurred.

Mr. Obregon, a citizen of the State of Georgia, was recently
advised that his personal data, as provided to defendants, had
been accessed by an unauthorized third party.

Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC is a Delaware
Limited Liability Company with its headquarters in Foster City,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron H. Darsky, Esq.
          AARON DARSKY, P.C.
          345 Franklin Street, Suite 103
          San Francisco. CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 515-4220
          E-mail: aaron@darskylaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Kevin L. Thomason, Esq.
          Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: WAudet@audetlaw.com
                  KThomason@audetlaw.com
                  JEzrin@audetlaw.com
                  jmann@audetlaw.com


SONY ONLINE: Faces 17th Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
George Thompson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sony Online Entertainment, LLC, et al., Case No.
11-cv-02340 (N.D. Calif. May 11, 2011), brought a class action
complaint against Sony for failing to secure and safeguard its
users' private personal and financial data, including e-mail
addresses, passwords, login credentials, home addresses, dates of
birth, and credit card information.

According to the Complaint, because of Sony's lax security,
information was stolen from all of the approximately 24.6 million
Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) accounts including to the extent,
the information was provided to SOE, the names, addresses, e-mail
addresses, birthdates, genders, phone numbers, login names, and
hashed passwords.  Moreover, credit card information from certain
account holders was also obtained by the hackers.

Mr. Thompson is a resident of Patchogue, New York.  In 2004,
plaintiff purchased retail box versions of the SOE games EverOuest
and Star Wars Galaxies.  Plaintiff Thompson also purchased a
retail boxed version of the SOE games EverOuest II in 2007 and DC
Universe Online in January 2011.

On May 3, 2011, plaintiff Thompson received a notice from SOE via
e-mail informing him that his personal data may have been
compromised in connection with a breach of SOE's security.  The
security breach occurred after plaintiff Thompson canceled his
subscriptions.

Defendant Sony Online Entertainment LLC (formerly Sony Online
Entertainment, Inc.) is a Delaware limited liability company with
its executive offices and principal place of business and
corporate headquarters in San Diego, California.  SOE is a game
development and game publishing Company that is best known for
creating massive multiplayer online role playing games.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 461-1426
          E-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Judge to Review Class Action Documents in June
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge has set a June
date to privately review documents in a 2004 proposed class action
against Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. over alleged water
contamination caused by atrazine.

According to the case docket sheet, Judge Mudge has set June 22 as
the day he will review documents in the suit in camera, or in
private.

A number of discovery disputes and other matters have been pending
before Judge Mudge in the suit filed by lead plaintiff Holiday
Shores Sanitary District Shores.

Holiday Shores currently leads six proposed class actions against
Syngenta and other groups over virtually identical claims.

Holiday Shores contends that it and a possible class of Illinois
water providers have been forced to remediate their water supplies
after atrazine made by Syngenta and other companies runs off farm
fields into those water supplies.

Atrazine is a weed killer commonly used by farmers.

The 2004 Madison County case has sparked a nearly identical
federal class action against Syngenta and its parent company.

That case, led by the City of Greenville, Ill., is pending in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

None of the Madison County cases have been certified to date nor
has the proposed multi-state federal class.

Judge Mudge canceled a May 6 hearing in the suit after ruling that
Syngenta must turn over documents related to work done on its
behalf by a public relations firm in Chicago.

Other disputes in the case have centered on discovery from non-
parties on the case and when an expert witness was retained by
Syngenta.

The plaintiffs' lead counsel is:

          Stephen Tillery, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO  63101-1625
          Telephone: 314-241-4844
          E-mail: STillery@koreintillery.com

The defendants' team is represented by:

          Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq.
          REEG LAWYERS, LLC
          One North Brentwood Boulevard Suite 950
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: 314-446-3350
          E-mail: kreeg@reeglawfirm.com

The Syngenta case is Madison case number 04-L-710.

The atrazine suits are case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-L-713.


TJX COMPANIES: Removes "Nelson" Song-Beverly Suit to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Nelson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-11-508954 (Calif.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on March 4, 2011.  The
plaintiff accuses defendants' cashiers of requesting and recording
personal identification information, in the form of zip codes, and
credit card numbers from customers using credit cards at the
point-of-sale in defendants' retail establishments, a practice
that is prohibited under California Civil Code section 1747.08
(Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971).

According to the plaintiff, The TJX Companies, Inc., and Marshalls
of CA, LLC, operate retail stores under the names Marshalls, T.J.
Maxx and HomeGoods throughout California.

Mr. Nelson is a resident of California, and entered into a retail
transaction with defendants at one of defendants' California
stores.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the defendants, on May 12,
2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern District of California,
and the Clerk assigned Case No. 11-cv-02358 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          A Professional Corporation
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle C. Doolin, Esq.
          Leo P. Norton, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: doolinmc@cooley.com
                  lnorton@cooley.com


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Mornay" Suit Remains Administratively Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit captioned Mornay v. Travelers Ins.
Co., et al., remains administratively closed pending completion of
the appraisal process, according to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s
May 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

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

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


VERISK ANALYTICS: Appeal in "Cook" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a ruling dismissing a class action captioned Janice
Cook, et al. v. ACS State & Local Solutions, et al. remains
pending, according to Verisk Analytics, Inc.'s May 3, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

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

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


VERISK ANALYTICS: "Gluzman" Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in the class action lawsuit filed against Verisk
Analytics, Inc.'s subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., received final
approval in February 2011, according to the Company's May 3, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2009, the Company's subsidiary, Interthinx, Inc., was
served with a putative class action entitled Renata Gluzman v.
Interthinx, Inc.  The plaintiff, a former Interthinx employee,
filed the class action on August 13, 2009, in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on behalf of all
Interthinx information technology employees for unpaid overtime
and missed meals and rest breaks, as well as various related
claims claiming that the information technology employees were
misclassified as exempt employees and, as a result, were denied
certain wages and benefits that would have been received if they
were properly classified as non-exempt employees.  The pleadings
included, among other things, a violation of Business and
Professions Code 17200 for unfair business practices, which
allowed plaintiffs to include as class members all information
technology employees employed at Interthinx for four years prior
to the date of filing the complaint.  The complaint sought
compensatory damages, penalties that are associated with the
various statutes, restitution, interest costs, and attorney fees.
On June 2, 2010, plaintiffs agreed to settle their claims with
Interthinx and the court granted final approval to the settlement
on February 23, 2011.

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


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law firms Seeger Weiss LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
on May 16 disclosed that the U.S. District Court of New Jersey has
granted final approval to a proposed settlement of a consumer
class action against telecom provider Vonage Holdings Corp.
challenging the company's sales and marketing practices.  The
final settlement of In re Vonage Marketing and Sales Practice
Litigation follows a fairness hearing on May 12, 2011.  The
settlement will likely provide dollar-for-dollar recovery to most
settlement class members.

This multi-district litigation involved Vonage's promotional "one
month free" and "money back guarantee" offers and application of
certain charges (including disconnect, cancellation and
termination fees), and subscription fees despite requests for
cancellation, which allegedly violated the law.  Seeger Weiss
partner, Jonathan Shub, Esq., and associate, Scott George, Esq.,
served as co-lead counsel in this case, along with Andrew
Friedman, Esq., and Victoria Nugent, Esq., of Cohen, Milstein.

Vonage agreed to pay $4.75 million to fund the settlement, which
offers eligible class members reimbursements for certain payments
made by Vonage subscribers.  Class members includes anyone in the
United States who subscribed to Vonage services on or before
January 3, 2011, with certain exclusions, and who was unable to
receive a full month of free service; did not receive a full money
back guarantee under certain circumstances; was charged
disconnection fees after cancellation; or paid for monthly service
after requesting cancellation.

For more details regarding the class and also the benefits
available to class members, visit http://www.settlementvonage.com
The settlement's claims administrator can be reached by calling
toll free (877) 810-7292.  Eligible class members must fill out a
claim form before July 11, 2011, to qualify for reimbursement.

Seeger Weiss LLP -- http://www.settlementvonage.com-- is trial
law firm handling complex individual, mass and class action
litigation on behalf of consumers, investors and injured persons.
The firm, with offices in New York, Philadelphia, Newark and Los
Angeles, represents plaintiffs in a variety of practice areas,
including pharmaceutical injury, securities and investment fraud,
consumer protection, environmental and asbestos exposures,
personal injury and medical malpractice, product defect,
antitrust, and commercial disputes.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC -- http://www.cmht.com-- has
been a pioneer in plaintiff class action lawsuits on behalf of
victims of such abuses.  The firm handles major complex class
actions.  Cohen Milstein, with more than 60 attorneys and offices
in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago, is a
firm that specializes in cases concerning antitrust, securities
fraud and investor protection, civil rights, human rights,
consumer protection and unsafe products, employee benefits and
public client.


WAFFLE HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
asserts that Waffle House failed to pay its employees a minimum
wage.

A copy of the Complaint in Spears v. Mid-America Waffles, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-02273 (D. Kan.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/17/waffle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
          Kevin Koc, Esq.
          REAVEY LAW LLC
          Livestock Exchange Building
          1600 Genessee, Suite 303
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 474-6300
          E-mail: patrick@reaveylaw.com
                  kkoc@reaveylaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $25.48MM March 31 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc.'s accrued asbestos liabilities
amounted to US$25,480,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with
US$24,792,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press
release dated May 4, 2011.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Records $79.80MM Liabilities at April 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. says that subsidiary Leslie Controls,
Inc. recorded asbestos- and bankruptcy-related liabilities of
US$79,801,000 as of April 3, 2011, compared with US$79,831,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated
May 5, 2011.

During the three months ended April 3, 2011, Leslie's asbestos and
bankruptcy charges were US$1.001 million.  During the three months
ended April 4, 2010, Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy recoveries
were US$648,000.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Sees May 2011 Settlement in Aqua-Chem
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company anticipates that a final settlement with
certain of those insurers in litigation involving Aqua-Chem, Inc.
(n/k/a Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.) will be finalized in May 2011.

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

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

Aqua-Chem demanded that the Company reimburse it for about
US$10 million for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses.

Aqua-Chem also demanded that the Company acknowledge a continuing
obligation to Aqua-Chem for any future liabilities and expenses
that are excluded from coverage under the applicable insurance or
for which there is no insurance.  The Company disputes Aqua-Chem's
claims.

The parties entered into litigation in Georgia to resolve this
dispute, which was stayed by agreement of the parties pending the
outcome of litigation filed in Wisconsin by certain insurers of
Aqua-Chem.  In that case, five plaintiff insurance companies filed
a declaratory judgment action against Aqua-Chem, the Company and
16 defendant insurance companies seeking a determination of the
parties' rights and liabilities under policies issued by the
insurers and reimbursement for amounts paid by plaintiffs in
excess of their obligations.

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

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

The judgment directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered
is jointly and severally liable for 100% of Aqua-Chem's losses up
to policy limits.  The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation.  The Georgia litigation remains
subject to the stay agreement.

The Company and Aqua-Chem have continued to negotiate with various
insurers that were defendants in the Wisconsin coverage litigation
over those insurers' obligations to defend and indemnify Aqua-Chem
for the asbestos-related claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers' March 31 Current Liabilities at $8.56MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities were
US$8,563,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010,
according to a Company press release dated May 2, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$21,159,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Current asbestos-related insurance receivables were US$8,563,000
as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  Long-term asbestos-
related insurance receivables were US$20,733,000 as of both
March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Rogers Corporation's products include advanced circuit materials
for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, radar systems, high
speed digital; power electronics for high-voltage rail traction,
hybrid-electric vehicles, wind and solar power conversion; and
high performance foams for sealing and energy management in
smartphones, aircraft and rail interiors, automobiles and apparel;
and other advanced materials for diverse markets including defense
and consumer products.  The Company is headquartered in Rogers,
Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $638MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated says the liability for Amended Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation Plan and non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated
to be US$638 million at March 31, 2011, compared with an estimate
of the liability of US$633 million at December 31, 2010.

The Company and PPG Industries, Inc. each own 50% of the capital
stock of PCC.  Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and
several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos.

On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were about
11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court lawsuits
alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's
asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in
excess of US$1 million per claim.

The Company is also currently involved in about 10,300 other cases
(about 38,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar
amounts of monetary damages per case.  Those cases have been
covered by insurance without material impact to the Company to
date.

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 and equipment; optical biosensors;
and other advanced optics and specialty glass solutions.  The
Company is headquartered in Corning, N.Y.


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

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

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

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

Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT) has a primary
investment focus on retail shopping malls located in the eastern
half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region.
As of March 31, 2011, the Company's portfolio consisted of a total
of 49 properties in 13 states.  The Company is headquartered in
Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 28 Exposure Cases Open v. Minerals Technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 305 pending silica cases
and 28 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 29, 2011.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to
silica or to asbestos containing materials.

One new asbestos case was filed in the first quarter of 2011.  To
date, 1,160 silica cases and five asbestos cases have been
dismissed.

The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception was about US$200,000, the majority of
which has been reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. under the terms of
certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992.

Minerals Technologies Inc. is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces and markets worldwide a broad
range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic mineral
products and supporting systems and services.  The Company has two
reportable segments: Specialty Minerals and Refractories.  The
Company is based in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Has 16,841 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at March 31, 2011, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,841 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of
24 claims from those previously reported.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company faced cases alleging asbestos
induced illness involving claims by about 16,865 plaintiffs, which
is a net increase of 23 claims from those previously reported.
(Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2011)

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

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 39,014 of those
claims were dismissed, 17 were tried to defense verdicts, seven
were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 578 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary business is the design
and manufacture of arc welding and cutting products, manufacturing
a broad line of arc welding equipment, consumable welding products
and other welding and cutting products.  The Company is
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Involved in Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, PPG Industries, Inc. has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2011.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known as
Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC).

The Company and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of
PC.  The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended,
all claims for any injuries caused by PC products.

As of the April 16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos
claims against the Company, the Company was one of many defendants
in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about 114,000
claims served on the Company.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Facing 228 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 228 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation,
LLC was potentially liable and that had not been settled and
dismissed at March 31, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2,
2011.

There were about 223 asbestos cases for which the Company was
potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at
Dec. 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2011)

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

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

As a general matter, Commonwealth Edison and the Company apportion
responsibility for future asbestos-related claims based upon the
number of exposure sites that are Commonwealth Edison locations or
Midwest Generation locations.

The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum
liability.  The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year
term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year
terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate); under
the automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until
February 2012.

The Company had recorded a liability of US$56 million at March 31,
2011 related to this contract indemnity, included in benefit plans
and other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance
sheets.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 103,678 Claims Pending v. ITT Corp. at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation faced 103,678 pending asbestos claims as of
March 31, 2011, compared with 103,575 pending claims as of
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2011.

The Company, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been
joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in product
liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.

These claims allege that certain products sold by the Company or
its subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.  In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT
companies were distributors for other manufacturers' products that
may have contained asbestos.

Between Dec. 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
1,339 new claims; 475 settlements; and 761 dismissals.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
product as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, in a large
majority of the 103,678 pending claims against the Company, the
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate any injury.

Many of those claims have been placed on inactive dockets
(including 39,680 claims in Mississippi).  The Company's
experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved
claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company.

As a result, management believes that a large majority of the
103,678 open claims has little or no settlement value.

ITT Corporation is a high-technology engineering and manufacturing
company operating in three vital markets: water and fluids
management, global defense and security, and motion and flow
control.  The Company is headquartered in White Plains, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Cannon Electric Slated for August 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation says a trial on several insurers coverage
obligations for Goulds Pumps, Inc., is scheduled for August 2011.

On Feb. 13, 2003, the Company commenced an action, Cannon
Electric, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., Sup. Ct., Los Angeles
County, seeking recovery of costs related to asbestos product
liability losses.

During this coverage litigation, the Company entered into
coverage-in-place settlement agreements with ACE, Wausau and Utica
Mutual dated April 2004, September 2004, and February 2007,
respectively.

These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's
legacy asbestos liabilities.

The Company continues to negotiate coverage in place agreements
with other insurers.  Where those negotiations are not productive,
the Company will request that a trial be scheduled.

ITT Corporation is a high-technology engineering and manufacturing
company operating in three vital markets: water and fluids
management, global defense and security, and motion and flow
control.  The Company is headquartered in White Plains, N.Y.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Anadarko Petroleum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation continues to be a defendant in
various personal injury claims, including claims by employees of
third-party contractors alleging exposure to asbestos, silica, and
benzene while working at refineries previously owned by acquired
companies.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 2, 2011.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation explores for, develops, produces,
and markets natural gas, crude oil, condensate, and natural gas
liquids (NGLs).  The Company also engages in the gathering,
processing, and treating of natural gas, and the transporting of
natural gas, crude oil, and NGLs.  The Company is headquartered in
The Woodlands, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eastman Chemical Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Eastman Chemical Company and its operations are
parties to lawsuits and claims including asbestos matters,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011.

Eastman Chemical Company produces chemicals, fibers, and plastics.
Among the Company's operating segments are its CASPI (coatings,
adhesives, specialty polymers, and inks), Specialty Plastics
(engineering polymers), and Fibers (acetate tow and textile
fibers) units.  The largest segment manufactures Performance
Chemicals and Intermediates (PCI).  The Company is headquartered
in Kingsport, Tenn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairmont Facing 22,500 Claims in 8 U.S. States
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc.'s subsidiary, Fairmont Supply Company (which
distributes industrial supplies) is named as a defendant in about
22,500 asbestos-related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania,
Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Texas and
Illinois.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied
by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought
protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases.

CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal mining company with some 4.5 billion
tons of proved reserves, mainly in northern and central Appalachia
and the Illinois Basin, and produces about 59 million tons of coal
annually.  The Company is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Rogers Corp. Surge to 214 at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 214 asbestos claims pending against Rogers
Corporation as of March 31, 2011, compared with about 194 pending
claims at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3,
2011.

A significant number of asbestos-related product liability claims
have been brought against numerous United States industrial
companies where the third-party plaintiffs allege personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing products.

The Company did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos;
rather it made a limited number of products, which contained
encapsulated asbestos.  Such products were provided to industrial
users.  The Company stopped manufacturing these products in the
late 1980s.  The Company has been named in asbestos litigation
primarily in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Of the 214 claims pending as of March 31, 2011, 60 claims do not
specify the amount of damages sought, 151 claims cite
jurisdictional amounts, and three claims (less than 2% of the
total pending claims) specify the amount of damages sought not
based on jurisdictional requirements.

Of these three claims, one claim alleges compensatory and punitive
damages of US$20,000,000 each; one claim alleges compensatory
damages of US$65,000,000 and punitive damages of US$60,000,000 and
one claim alleges compensatory and punitive damages of
US$1,000,000 each.  These three claims name between 10 and 109
defendants.

Cases involving the Company typically name 50-300 defendants,
although some cases have had as few as one and as many as 833
defendants.  The Company has obtained dismissals of many of these
claims.  For the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company
was able to have 30 claims dismissed and settled one claim.

For the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, about 163 claims were dismissed
and 20 were settled.  The majority of costs have been paid by the
Company's insurance carriers, including the costs associated with
the small number of cases that have been settled.

Those settlements totaled about US$5.5 million for 2010, and
US$400,000 for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Rogers Corporation's products include advanced circuit materials
for wireless infrastructure, power amplifiers, radar systems, high
speed digital; power electronics for high-voltage rail traction,
hybrid-electric vehicles, wind and solar power conversion; and
high performance foams for sealing and energy management in
smartphones, aircraft and rail interiors, automobiles and apparel;
and other advanced materials for diverse markets including defense
and consumer products.  The Company is headquartered in Rogers,
Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare Group's Liability at $3.91MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s asbestos abatement liability
amounted to US$3,908,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with
US$3,871,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 3, 2011.

Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. is a holding company that owns
subsidiaries that operate skilled nursing facilities, assisted
living facilities, hospices, home health providers and a
rehabilitation therapy business.  The Company is headquartered in
Foothill Ranch, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Holdings Corp. Posts $18MM ARO at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
UIL Holdings Corporation's asset retirement obligations, as
of March 31, 2011, including estimated conditional AROs, were
US$18 million and consisted primarily of obligations related to
removal or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas mains.

The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are gas storage
property, distribution property and other property.  As of Dec.
31, 2010, the Company's ARO was US$200,000.

UIL Holdings Corporation's primary business is ownership of its
operating regulated utilities.  The Company is headquartered in
New Haven, Conn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Subject to Potential Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various claims and other legal proceedings incidental to the
normal course of business are pending or threatened against
General Dynamics Corporation and relate to such issues like
asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2011.

General Dynamics Corporation operates in four business groups:
Aerospace, Combat Systems, Marine Systems and Information Systems
and Technology.  The Company is headquartered in Falls Church, Va.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 11.2T Cases Pending v. Mallinckrodt at March 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company says that, as of March 25, 2011,
there were about 11,200 asbestos liability cases pending against
subsidiary Mallinckrodt Inc., according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3,
2011.

As of Dec. 24, 2010, there were about 11,300 asbestos liability
cases pending against Mallinckrodt.  (Class Action Reporter,
Feb. 11, 2011)

Mallinckrodt is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims, based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
incorporating asbestos.

A limited number of the cases allege premises liability, based on
claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on
Mallinckrodt's property.  Each case typically names dozens of
corporate defendants in addition to Mallinckrodt.

The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury
or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products
containing asbestos.

The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited
because Mallinckrodt did not mine or produce asbestos.
Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of
these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed
by the courts.

The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court
proceeding related to asbestos claims.  When appropriate, the
Company settles claims.

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sells
healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings.  The
Company manages and operates its business through three segments:
Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Supplies.  The
Company is based in Dublin, Ireland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Posts $2.1MM April 1 Litigation Expense
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's asbestos coverage litigation expense amounted
to US$2,066,000 during the three months ended April 1, 2011,
compared with $3,881,000 during the three months ended April 2,
2010.

Asbestos coverage litigation expenses were US$2,433,000 during the
three months ended Dec. 31, 2010, compared with US$2,904,000
during the three months ended Dec. 31, 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 25, 2011)

Asbestos liability and defense costs were US$1,333,000 during the
three months ended April 1, 2011, compared with 1,435,000 during
the three months ended April 2, 2010.

Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including
pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves.
The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production
facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide
sales and distribution channels.  The Company is headquartered in
Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.49MM Liabilities at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos liability was US$37,487,000
as of April 1, 2011, compared with US$37,875,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$388,314,000 as
of April 1, 2011, compared with US$391,776,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010.

Current asbestos insurance asset was US$33,678,000 as of April 1,
2011, compared with US$34,117,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.  Current
asbestos insurance receivable was US$44,677,000 as of April 1,
2011, compared with US$46,108,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Long-term asbestos insurance asset was US$336,671,000 as of
April 1, 2011, compared with US$340,234,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.
Long-term asbestos insurance receivable was US$5,736,000 as of
April 1, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including
pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves.
The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production
facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide
sales and distribution channels.  The Company is headquartered in
Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Facing to 21,774 Claims at April 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 21,774 unresolved asbestos claims during
the three months ended April 1, 2011, compared with 25,306 claims
during the three months ended April 2, 2010, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2011.

During the three months ended April 1, 2011, the Company recorded
926 claims filed and 3,916 claims resolved.  During the three
months ended April 2, 2010, the Company recorded 1,330 claims
filed and 1,319 claims resolved.

Two of the Company's subsidiaries are each one of many defendants
in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos.

Of the 21,774 pending claims as of April 1, 2011, about 3,400 of
such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York
County, New York; about 900 of such claims have been brought in
and the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of
Michigan; about 200 of such claims have been brought in the
Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and about 100 claims have
been brought in various federal and state courts in Mississippi.

The remaining pending claims have been filed in state and federal
courts in Alabama, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Washington.

For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
on Oct. 14, 2009, that asbestos-related costs should be allocated
among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation (which allows
an insured to collect all sums paid in connection with a claim
from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the policy's
applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to excess
insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the business.

The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella
carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the
subsidiary for 20 that the limits of liability of its primary and
umbrella layer policies had been exhausted.  Since then, the
subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer insurers
whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella carrier.

Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or
indemnified the subsidiary and/or agreed to defend and/or
indemnify the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of rights
and their applicable policy limits.  Litigation between this
subsidiary and its excess insurers is continuing and it is
anticipated that the trial phase will be completed in 2011.

The subsidiary continues to work with its excess insurers to
obtain defense and indemnity payments while the litigation is
proceeding.

In 2003, the other subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large
number of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety
of disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims asserted against it.

For this subsidiary it was determined by court ruling in 2007,
that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts
will apply.  Further court rulings in December 2009 clarified the
allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from
insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed
for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods.

In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special
master to review the appropriate information and recommend an
allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts
of the case.

During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation master made
its recommendation which has not yet been accepted by the court.
The Company currently anticipates that the trial phase in this
litigation will be complete during the remainder of 2011.

Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including
pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves.
The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production
facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide
sales and distribution channels.  The Company is headquartered in
Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $425.8MM for Claims at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established reserves of US$425.8 million as
of April 1, 2011 and US$429.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for the
probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost
it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years.

The Company has also established recoverables of US$370.4 million
as of April 1, 2011 and US$374.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for
the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same
time period.

Net of these recoverables, the expected cash outlay on a non-
discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over
the next 15 years was US$55.4 million as of April 1, 2011 and
US$55.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Colfax Corporation supplies fluid-handling products, including
pumps, fluid-handling systems and controls, and specialty valves.
The Company has a global manufacturing footprint, with production
facilities in Europe, North America and Asia, as well as worldwide
sales and distribution channels.  The Company is headquartered in
Fulton, Md.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., 8 Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and eight of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2011.

Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and were
not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.  To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts.  One case has been tried, resulting in a
verdict for the Company's business unit.

IDEX Corporation has four reportable business segments: Fluid &
Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies, Dispensing
Equipment and Fire & Safety/Diversified Products.  The Company is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Subject to 52,230 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had about 52,230 pending asbestos claims as of
March 31, 2011, as compared with about 52,220 as of Dec. 31, 2010
and 62,340 as of March 31, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 3, 2011.

The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.

The Company is typically named as one of a large number of
defendants in both state and federal cases.  In the majority of
asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the
Company's products is the basis of a claim.

Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified
principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-
containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-
generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-containing
grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in commercial ships.

During the first quarter of 2011, the Company received about 1,440
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 1,430
claims.

CBS Corporation is comprised of these segments: Entertainment,
Cable Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor.  The
Company is headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Posts $16.2MM Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation's liabilities for asbestos legal actions amounted
to US$16.2 million at March 31, 2011 and US$18.1 million at
Dec. 31, 2010.

These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation.

The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in various legal
actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to
asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities.

Olin Corporation is a manufacturer concentrated in two business
segments:  Chlor Alkali Products and Winchester.  Chlor Alkali
produces chlorine and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite,
hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium
hydroxide.  Winchester produces and distributes sporting
ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military
ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges.  The
Company is headquartered in Clayton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Issues Split Ruling in Lucas Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Charlotte Lucas, Ron
Lucas, Gilbert Lucas and Adam Lucas, individually and on behalf of
their Deceased Husband and Father, Respectively, Lois Gilbert
Lucas v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc., Foster Wheeler
Corporation, Crown Cork and Seal Company, Inc., Viacom, Inc.,
Eagle, Inc., Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Charles Johnson, General
Electric Corporation, and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company.

Judges Charles R. Jones, Terri F. Love, and Max N. Tobias, Jr.
entered judgment in Case No. 2010-CA-1037 on Feb. 16, 2011.  This
was an appeal from Civil District Court, Orleans Parish.

The plaintiffs, Charlotte Lucas, Ron Lucas, Gilbert Lucas, and
Adam Lucas, in this matter are, respectively, the spouse and adult
children of the deceased, Lois G. Lucas.  The Lucases filed this
suit in January 2004 alleging that the decedent contracted
asbestosis from his occupational exposure to asbestos-containing
materials from various contractors, product manufacturers, and
product suppliers during his employment at Avondale Shipyards,
Inc. as a pipefitter helper from 1966 to 1975, and subsequently
died from the disease in January 2003.

Discovery in this matter ended on Dec. 25, 2009.  Defendants,
Hopeman Brothers, Westinghouse/CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Reilly
Benton, separately filed motions for summary judgment seeking
dismissal from the case.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of each of the
defendants finding there was insufficient evidence to overcome the
plaintiffs' burden of proof at trial.  The Lucases have appealed
that ruling.  Additionally, the Lucases averred that the trial
court erred by failing to infer the decedent's proximity to
asbestos-containing products during his years at Avondale as
supported by circumstantial evidence contained in the record.
They request that this court reverse the trial court judgment and
remand the case for a trial on the merits.

The Appeals Court concluded the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment in favor of Hopeman Brothers.  The Appeals Court
reversed the trial court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs'
claims against Hopeman Brothers and remanded this case to the
trial court for further proceedings.  The Appeals Court affirmed
the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor
of Westinghouse/CBS, Foster Wheeler, and Reilly Benton.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.D. Court Upholds Ruling in Vicknair's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the ruling of the
District Court, South Central Judicial District, in an asbestos
case involving Joseph Vicknair and 12 other plaintiffs.

Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle, Dale V. Sandstrom, William F.
Hodny, Allan L. Schmalenberger, and Lawrence A. Leclerc entered
judgment in Case No. 20100029 on Feb. 18, 2011.

Joseph Vicknair and 12 other plaintiffs appealed from a district
court summary judgment dismissing their asbestos-related product
liability actions against Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. and
numerous other companies on the grounds that the applicable
statutes of limitations had run on their claims.

The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not
err in ruling North Dakota's six-year statute of limitations for
personal injury actions did not apply to the plaintiffs' claims
and in refusing to allow additional time for discovery before
ruling on the summary judgment motion.

In December 2002, the plaintiffs were part of a group of
individuals who brought actions in district court against
manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of asbestos-containing
products, claiming they were injured by exposure to those
products.  All of the plaintiffs involved in this appeal are
residents of states other than North Dakota and did not claim that
their exposure to asbestos-containing products occurred in North
Dakota.

The numerous corporate defendants are residents of various states,
including North Dakota.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing
North Dakota was an inconvenient forum to conduct the litigation.
The district court granted the motions and dismissed the claims
without prejudice.  The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court
erred in dismissing the claims based upon forum non conveniens
because the statutes of limitations had run in all other
jurisdictions except North Dakota.

The Court reversed the judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
and remanded for further proceedings, concluding the availability
of an alternate forum is a prerequisite to application of forum
non conveniens and "an adequate alternative forum does not exist
if the statute of limitations has expired in the proposed
alternative forum."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mich. Appeals Court OKs Ruling In Falk Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the ruling of the
Calhoun Circuit Court, which granted summary judgment in favor of
various defendants, in an asbestos lawsuit filed on behalf of Earl
Falk.

Judges Servitto, Gleicher and Shapiro entered judgment in Case No.
296012 on Feb. 17, 2011.

In this products liability action involving asbestos exposure,
plaintiffs appealed as of right the trial court's order granting
summary disposition in defendants' favor based upon the applicable
statute of limitations and dismissing, with prejudice, plaintiffs'
claims.  Because plaintiffs' claims were time barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, the Appeals Court affirmed

Plaintiff was a pipefitter and steamfitter and was exposed to
asbestos-containing products supplied by the defendants from 1954
to 1992.  Plaintiff first became aware of the dangers associated
with asbestos in the 1980s at a union meeting.

At that time, plaintiff was told that asbestos could settle in
one's lungs and that "[t]hey thought it might [cause cancer] at
that time and then we find out later that yes, it would."

Plaintiff testified that he was first informed that he had a
disease caused by asbestos in 1993, but to his knowledge, he was
not diagnosed with asbestosis.  Plaintiff was diagnosed with
cancer in his right lung in 1999, but he did not file a lawsuit
related to this injury.  In 1999, plaintiff's oncologist noted
that plaintiff "had previous asbestos exposure."

In March 2006, plaintiff's oncologist diagnosed cancer in
plaintiff's left lung and noted that plaintiff's history included
"1999 right lung cancer, 'related to asbestos'."  Plaintiff's
expert witness opined that the cancers were each "primary cancers
of the lung."

Plaintiff filed the underlying action against the named defendants
in May 2006, alleging negligence.  In October and November 2009,
various defendants moved for summary disposition based on the
three-year statute of limitations arguing that plaintiff did not
file suit within three years of being diagnosed with lung cancer
in 1999.

Plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing that he had a new cause of
action based on the 2006 lung cancer diagnosis.  The circuit court
denied summary disposition, holding that there were questions of
fact concerning whether plaintiff knew in 1999 that his lung
cancer was related to asbestos exposure.

Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. moved for reconsideration
(in which other defendants joined), citing plaintiff's deposition
testimony which indicated that he was aware, in 1999, that his
first lung cancer was possibly related to asbestos exposure.  The
circuit court concluded that plaintiff's claims were time-barred,
and summary disposition was proper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Shipwright's Death Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucestershire Deputy Coroner David Dooley heard that the death
of Keith Hoskins, a former shipwright from Plymouth, England, was
due to workplace exposure to asbestos, The Herald reports.

Mr. Dooley was told that Mr. Hoskins had a very high level of
asbestos fibers in his lungs.  Mr. Dooley recorded a verdict of
industrial disease on Mr. Hoskins, who died from mesothelioma.

The inquest was told that Mr. Hoskins, who was 82 and from
Gloucestershire, originally came from Plymouth and first worked as
an apprentice shipwright at the Royal Naval Dockyard there.  His
wife Barbara said he had started working in the dockyard in 1944
and worked on both steel and wooden-hulled ships.

Mr. Hoskins was discharged from the Navy in 1962 and then went to
work in Bermuda because he could not find a job in Britain.  After
he took early retirement as manager of a factory he and his wife
moved to live in Churchdown.  Mrs Hoskins said he had been
generally well until 2010 when he started suffering shortness of
breath and loss of appetite.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartlepool Supervisor's Death Related to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 88-year-old Thomas Allison, a
retired gas board mains supervisor, was related to workplace
exposure to asbestos, Peterlee Mail reports.

Mr. Allison died from diffuse malignant mesothelioma.  Hartlepool
coroner Malcolm Donnelly gave the verdict at a hearing at
Hartlepool Coroner's Court after receiving the results of a post
mortem examination carried out by consultant pathologist Dr.
Catherine Hobday.

Mr. Allison?s daughter, Janice Royal, provided Mr. Donnelly with
details of her father's work history.  This included time as an
apprentice joiner with a company called Prouds, serving as an
aircraftsman with the RAF during the Second World War and working
on American ships at Haverton Hill.

The inquest heard the ships had to be fire-proofed with asbestos
and the wood Mr. Allison used was fire-proofed.  He had also
worked at the steelworks in Greatham in the late 1950s before
going to work for the water board.

Mr. Donnelly said the fiber count in Mr. Allison's lungs was
207,000 per gram of tissue.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brown Awarded $322MM in Lawsuit v. Chevron, UCC
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 2011, a jury at Smith County District Court has awarded
US$322 million to Thomas C. Brown who sued Chevron Phillips
Chemical and Union Carbide Corp., claiming he inhaled asbestos
dust while mixing drilling mud sold and manufactured by the
companies, Forbes.com reports.

Allen Hossley, Esq., a Dallas attorney who represented Thomas C.
Brown of Brookhaven, said he believes it is the largest single
plaintiff's asbestos verdict in the U.S.

Mr. Hossley says Mr. Brown mixed asbestos drilling additive in
oilfields from 1979 to the mid-80s and now has a lung condition.
The suit claims the companies defectively designed the product and
failed to provide adequate warnings to workers.

Alex Cosculluela, Esq., of Houston says CP Chem will appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Clark Action v. 9 Firms Filed April 27 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter and Sharon Clark, on April 27, 2011, filed an asbestos
lawsuit against nine defendant corporations in Jefferson County
District Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The nine defending companies named in the complaint are: Chevron,
Exxon Mobil Corp., Gulf Oil Corporation., Huntsman Petrochemical
Corporation, Mobil Chemical, Mobil Oil Refining Corp., Temple-
Inland Forest Products Corporation, Texaco and Union Oil Company
of California.

The Clarks seek actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest and other relief to which they may be
entitled.  Bryan O. Blevins Jr., Esq., of Provost and Umphrey Law
Firm in Beaumont is representing them.

Case No. D189-896 has been assigned to Judge Milton Shuffield,
136th District Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Casey Injury Action V. Kaiser Settled on May 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
After a three-week trial and a half day of deliberations, a jury
in San Francisco, on May 11, 2011, found Kaiser Gypsum Company,
Inc., a manufacturer of joint compounds and wallboard materials,
guilty of acting with oppression or malice by clear and convincing
evidence in an asbestos case filed by John Casey, the San
Francisco Chronicle reports.

The jury levied a US$20,000,000 punitive damages verdict against
Kaiser Gypsum.  This followed a previous verdict on Marcy 17, 2011
after a fourteen-week trial and two and a half weeks of
deliberations, when a San Francisco jury ruled against Kaiser
Gypsum and FDCC California, Inc. (formerly known as Dinwiddie
Construction Company), a general contractor, in a negligence and
products liability trial.

The jury found that both FDCC and Kaiser Gypsum were negligent, in
addition to determining that Kaiser Gypsum's asbestos-containing
joint compounds and wallboards were defectively designed and
contained a failure to warn product defect.

The jury assessed US$1,273,421 in economic damages, US$15,000,000
in non-economic damages, and US$5,000,000 in loss of consortium
damages.  The jury assigned 7% of the liability to defendant FDCC
and 3.5% of the liability to Kaiser Gypsum.

Mr. Casey has been battling mesothelioma since his diagnosis on
Jan. 24, 2010.  He worked as a plumber at numerous high-rise
commercial buildings throughout San Francisco between 1961 and
2001 when he retired from working at the University of California
San Francisco.

Mr. Casey worked directly with asbestos-containing products and
near other workers who used and disturbed asbestos-containing
products. (John Casey, et al. v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et
al., San Francisco Superior Court No. CGC-10-275517)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimble Case v. 41 Firms Filed April 6 in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra L. Trimble, on April 6, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 41 defendant corporations in St. Clair County Circuit
Court, Ill., The Madison/St. Clair Record reports.

Ms. Trimble is represented by Randy L. Gori, Esq., of Gori, Julian
and Associates in Edwardsville.  Erik Karst, Esq., and Matthew T.
Wright, Esq., of Karst and von Oiste in Houston will serve of
counsel.

In her complaint, Ms. Trimble alleges the defendants caused her to
develop lung cancer after her exposure to asbestos-containing
products throughout her career.  She worked as a foundry worker
for General Motors from 1976 until 1999.

In her five-count complaint, Ms. Trimble is seeking a judgment of
more than US$100,000, plus punitive and exemplary damages of more
than US$100,000 and compensatory damages of more than US$50,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hemphill Case v. 10 Firms Filed May 4 in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar and Mary Hemphill, on May 4, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 10 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Aside from Chevron USA, the other defendants include Citgo,
DuPont, ExxonMobil, Huntsman Petrochemical, Neches Butane, Mobil
Chemical, Mobil Oil, Oxy USA, Texaco and Total Petrochemicals.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Hemphill was exposed to asbestos
dust and fibers while working as a carpenter on the defendants'
premises.  He now allegedly suffers from an unspecified asbestos
illness.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. D189-944.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Abbott and Mason Penalized for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd, a building
firm from Nottinghamshire, England, contaminated an elderly
resident's possessions with asbestos during bathroom renovation
work at sheltered housing in West Bridgford, according to a Health
and Safety Executive press release dated May 9, 2011.

Abbott and Mason also left asbestos-containing materials outside
the building in the open air, putting the public at risk.  The HSE
prosecuted the firm after it carried out work at the home of 96-
year-old Mrs. Ann Jenkins in Musters Road on Feb. 4, 2010.

The Company was removing asbestos insulation board (AIB) which had
been used to box in pipework behind the bath but many of Mrs.
Jenkins' possessions, including clothing and furniture was
contaminated with asbestos fibers and had to be destroyed.

The dangerous work was spotted by the warden at the complex, who
stopped the activity immediately and took Mrs. Jenkins - who had
been sitting very close to the bathroom - to a safe place.  After
staying with her family, Mrs. Jenkins was relocated to another
flat.

HSE told Nottingham Magistrates' Court the firm knew it was
dealing with asbestos-containing material and though both partners
had asbestos awareness training they failed to manage it
appropriately, exposing employees; Mrs. Jenkins; and members of
the public to asbestos fibers.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Frances Bailey said, "This
company showed a willful disregard for the health and safety of
its employees and the public.  Abbott and Mason knew the panels
contained asbestos and should have dealt with it safely.  Their
actions caused a great deal of worry and stress for Mrs. Jenkins,
who has since passed away.

"The distress caused to her and the risks to the health of the
public and the company's employees could have been easily avoided
had the company taken sensible steps to ensure the right
procedures were followed and the spread of potentially dangerous
material was prevented."

In a victim impact statement given to the court, Mrs. Jenkins'
daughter, Mary Chivers, said, "My family are appalled that this
incident had such devastating consequences for my mother.  It was
entirely preventable had proper measures been taken.

"She was very shocked and angry and found it difficult to come to
terms with her situation.  As time went on, she began missing the
things she had lost and expressed grief.  She was clearly
distressed."

Abbott and Mason Building and Joinery Contractors Ltd, of Carter
Lane, Mansfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 7, 8,
11(1), 16 and 24(1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006
and was fined a total of GBP20,000.  The Company was also ordered
to pay full costs of GBP5,741.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briggs & Stratton Subject to Liability Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briggs & Stratton Corporation is subject to various unresolved
legal actions related to product liability (including asbestos-
related liability).

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2011.

Briggs & Stratton Corporation manufactures air-cooled gas engines.
Its engine customers are lawn and garden OEMs Husqvarna Consumer
Outdoor Products, MTD, and Deere, and, to a lesser degree,
generator, pressure washer, and pump makers.  The Company is
headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are various lawsuits, claims (including claims for asbestos
exposure) and proceedings related to FirstEnergy Corp.'s normal
business operations pending against the Company and its
subsidiaries.

No other significant asbestos matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 3, 2011.

FirstEnergy Corp.'s utilities provide electricity to 4.5 million
customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.  The Company's
domestic power plants have a total generating capacity of more
than 14,170 MW, most generated by coal-fired plants.  The Company
is based in Akron, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 14 Lorillard Cases Set for Trial as of April 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. says that, as of April 27, 2011, about 14 Filter
Cases were scheduled for trial or have been placed on courts'
trial calendars.

Trial dates are subject to change.

Claims have been brought against the Company and its subsidiary,
Lorillard Tobacco Company, by individuals who seek damages
resulting from their alleged exposure to asbestos fibers that were
incorporated into filter material used in one brand of cigarettes
manufactured by Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago.

Lorillard Tobacco is a defendant in 35 Filter Cases.  The Company
is a defendant in three Filter Cases, including two that also name
Lorillard Tobacco.  Since Jan. 1, 2009, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of about US$17.9
million in settlements to finally resolve 49 claims.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, verdicts have been returned in two Filter
Cases, Cox v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al, which was tried
in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, and
Lenney v. Armstrong International, Inc., et al., tried in the
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County.  The jury in
the Cox case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco.

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Lorillard Tobacco from their
appeal to the California Court of Appeals and the Cox case is
concluded.  The jury in the Lenney trial awarded plaintiffs US$1.4
million in compensatory damages and damages for loss of consortium
from Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose.

The jury in the Lenney trial determined that plaintiffs were not
entitled to an award of punitive damages from Lorillard Tobacco or
Hollingsworth & Vose.

As of April 27, 2011, the deadline for Lorillard Tobacco to seek
review of the verdict in Lenney had not expired.

Lorillard, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes.  Its principal products are marketed under the brand
names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold with
substantially all of its sales in the United States of America.
The Company is headquartered in Greensboro, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $400T Net Claims Provisions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related provision amounted to
US$400,000 during the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2011,
according to a Company press release dated May 3, 2011.

Net asbestos-related gain amounted to US$747,000 during the fiscal
three months ended March 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery
receivable amounted to US$186,776,000 as of March 31, 2011,
compared with US$194,570,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$300,032,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$307,619,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Still Party to Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries are still subject to
asbestos-related claims, in which these claims seek damages for
illnesses alleged to have resulted from exposure to asbestos used
in certain components sold in the past by the subsidiaries.

Management said it believes that most of the claimants were
vehicle mechanics.  The vast majority of these claims name as
defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a variety of
products allegedly containing asbestos.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the
past.  Many of these cases have been dismissed without any payment
whatsoever.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. supplies automotive systems, modules
and components to global automotive original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and related aftermarkets.  The Company is
headquartered in Livonia, Mich.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Issues Split Ruling in Greenspoon Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, issued split rulings in an asbestos case styled John
Greenspoon, Plaintiff v. Sarasota County Area Transit and County
of Sarasota, Defendants.

District Judge James S. Moody, Jr. entered judgment in Case No.
8:10-cv-2512-T-30AEP on Feb. 8, 2011.

This case came before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition.  The
Court concluded that the motion should be granted.

It was therefore ordered: that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint was granted and Plaintiff's claims under Title
VII were dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Dismisses Garner, Palermo Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, dismissed
an asbestos action styled Gail Garner and the Estate of Angelo
Palermo, Plaintiffs v. DII Industries, LLC, Asbestos PI, Mark
Gleason and Marcellene Malouf, Defendants.

District Judge Charles J. Siragusa entered judgment in Case No.
10-CV-6345-CJS on Feb. 15, 2011.

Plaintiff filed her original complaint in this Court pro se in
civil action No. 08-CV6191 on April 25, 2008, alleging that
Defendants were liable to her father's estate for his death caused
by exposure to asbestos.  On Nov. 14, 2008, the Court,
interpreting Plaintiff's response to Defendants' first motion to
dismiss as a request to proceed pro se as the representative of
her father's estate, denied the request.

Plaintiff subsequently hired counsel, and on March 27, 2009, filed
an amended complaint.  On April 17, 2009, Defendants again moved
to dismiss, primarily on the ground that Plaintiff's claim against
them was barred by the statute of limitations.  The Court entered
a Decision and Order dismissing the 2008 civil action for lack of
jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs commenced the present action in New York State Supreme
Court (Index No. 10-4342), Monroe County, on April 5, 2010.
Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 28, 2010, and
moved to dismiss the original complaint on July 2, 2010.
Plaintiffs filed what they captioned as a First Amended Complaint
on July 22, 2010, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint on Aug. 4, 2010.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion to amend their First Amended Complaint on Sept. 24, 2010.

The decedent, Angelo Palermo, was a union insulation mason for 29
years from 1937 through 1966 in the construction asbestos
industry.  He spray-coated and handled asbestos-containing
products while working for one or more of the Haliburton or
Harbison-Walker entities or their predecessors at work sites in
New York State.

Mr. Palermo died on April 23, 1966, at the age of 51 years.  In
February 2000, Gail Garner, Mr. Palermo's daughter, filed a claim
with the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust.  She requested
that Dr. William Beckett, a local occupational doctor, who
specialized in pulmonary and toxic substance disease, evaluate Mr.
Palermo's medical and work history and pictures of his digital
clubbing.

On Feb. 14, 2002, Harbison-Walker, which had been acquired by DII
Industries, LLC, in 1967, then spun off in July 1992, filed for
bankruptcy.  The Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining
order staying asbestos claims.

On June 6, 2003, Plaintiffs allege that, a tribunal of asbestos
experts of the Extraordinary Claims Panel of the Manville Trust
diagnosed Angelo Palermo posthumously, with mesothelioma.  On
April 4, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a pro se asbestos personal injury
liability claim with DII Industries, LLC PI Trust.

Defendants' motions were granted and Plaintiffs' motion was denied
and this case is dismissed.

                            *********

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  * * *