CAR_Public/110610.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, June 10, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 114

                             Headlines

ALTERNATE ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Idaho
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Final Approval of "Bateman" Suit Deal
ARCA BIOPHARMA: Calif. Court Sets Final Settlement Hearing Today
AVX CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in South Carolina
BRISTOW GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Superior Offshore" Suit Pending

BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settles US Price-Fixing Class Action
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Remaining Appeals Remanded to N.Y. Court
CANADIAN SOLAR: Motions to Dismiss U.S. & Canada Suits Pending
CARDIOGENESIS CORP: Defends 2 Suits in Calif. Over CryoLife Merger
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action over Cellular Handsets

CKX INC: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Colonel Acquisition
COCA-COLA: VitaminWater Class Action Set for Mediation
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Accused in Virginia of Misleading Shareholders
COOPER COMPANIES: Defense of Securities Suit Exhausted Insurance

DOLLAR TREE: Additional Discovery in Alabama FLSA Suit Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Expects Trial in California Suit to Start This Year
DOLLAR TREE: Anticipates Appeal From Decertification Ruling
DOLLAR TREE: Expects 4th Circuit to Rule on Appeal This Year
DOLLAR TREE: Florida Court Denies Motion to Transfer to Virginia

DOLLAR TREE: Investigates Mileage Expense Claims in California
DOLLAR TREE: Defends Wage & Hour Suit in California State Court
DONALDSON CO: Discovery in Filter MDL Stayed Until Mid-July
EKSUCCESS BRANDS: Recalls 75T American Girl Crafts(TM) Kits
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: "Quinn" Case Declared as Opt-In Class Suit

EXPRESS INC: Sets Reserve to Pay Settlement Amount in Calif. Suit
FIJI WATER: Calif. Woman Can't Sue for False Advertising
FOREST LABS: Overtime Class Actions Wins Certification
GENTA INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Collins" Suit Still Pending
GULF RESOURCES: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in California

HAWTHORN BANCSHARES: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
HSBC HOLDINGS: Settles Madoff Class Action for $62.5 Million
LEFTIS FOODS: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Bikers
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Local Council Class Action Resumes
LIMITED BRANDS: IBEW Class Action Suit Dismissed

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY: Accused in New Jersey Suit of Fraud
MF GLOBAL: Awaits Court Approval of $90MM IPO Suit Settlement
MF GLOBAL: Dismissed Cases Vs. MFGI Still Subject to Appeals
MF GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Moore-Related Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Seeks Dismissal of Players' Class Suits

NATIONAL SECURITY: Class Certification Appeal Remains Pending
NATIONAL SECURITY: Continues to Defend Hurricane-Related Suits
NEW YORK, NY: Three Bench Trials Set for Discrimination Suit
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Judge Favors Moose Class Suit Certification
NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Challenges Disability Medicare Cuts

OCZ TECHONOLOGY: Defends Against Calif. Suit Over SSD Performance
POLAROID CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective LCD TVs
PT INDOSAT: District Court Decision in Class Suits Deemed Final
RED ROBIN GOURMET: "Moreno" Class Action Still Pending in Calif.
RUE LA LA: Shareholders File Class Action Over eBay Buyout

SCOTIABANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overtime Class Action
SHELL OIL: Three Law Firms File Class Action Over Benzene Spill
SIGNATURE GROUP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
SYMANTEC CORP: Unit Disburses $21.5MM "Kuck" Suit Settlement Fund
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Get Class Action Settlement Notice

VENMAR VENTILATION: Recalls 1,400 Air Exchangers
WHOLE FOODS: Remains a Defendant in "Kottaras" Suit in D.C.


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Facing 4,800 Claims at April 18
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Facing 7,876 Claims at April 18
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Subject to Mount Vernon Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Ltd. Still Subject to A&E Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Cites $1.3MM March 31 Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FutureFuel Corp. Faces Possible Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records 15,564 Abex Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 29,017 Total Cases at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 29 Injury Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 180 Cases in Md. at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Pending Against Gardner Denver
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Still Subject to Liability Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wabtec, Units Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reserves $841MM for Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arabian American Faces Exposure Suit in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Posts $158MM Receivable at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has $167MM Insurance Coverage at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO's Unit Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Inc. Still Named in Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Still Has $2.9MM March 31 Cleanup Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes Dredge Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Involved in Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Subject to Injury Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tuxford Contractor Fined for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deculus Case v. 15 Firms Filed in Jefferson Cty.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poloka Case v. 91 Firms Filed in Kanawha Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ted RJ Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon Local's Death Related to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liversedge Driver's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Completes Cleanup at Camden, N.J. Facility

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appellate Court Urged to Decide on McLean Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waukesha Firm Charged over Fraudulent Documents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Inverbrackie Detention Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Emge Meat Packing Site to Cost $350T
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Hullinger's Claim




                             *********

ALTERNATE ENERGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., is defending itself against a
securities class action suit in Idaho, according to the Company's
May 17, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 11, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the District of Idaho on behalf of purchases of
the common stock of the Company between September 20, 2006 through
December 14, 2010, against the Company and certain officers by
Lance Teague.  On March 7, 2011, plaintiff moved to appoint John
O'Brien as Lead Plaintiff.  The compliant alleges claims against
the Company and certain senior officers and directors for
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 there under and claims against certain of its
senior officers and directors for violations of Section 20A and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The compliant seeks
compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a result of the
defendants' alleged actions, including reasonable costs and
expenses, rescission, and other relief the Court deemed just and
proper.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intents to vigorously defend itself.  The parties are currently in
the discovery phase and management is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome.

Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc., formerly Nussentials Holdings
Inc., is a development stage enterprise focused on the purchase,
optimization and construction of green energy sources -- primary
nuclear power plants.  During fiscal year 2010 and 2011, Energy
Neutral LLC completed construction of the model "energy neutral"
home and one additional "energy neutral" home and is in the
process of constructing four other "energy neutral" homes in
Boise, Idaho, which feature unique design elements as well as
standard "energy neutral" elements, including the Energy Star
Certification and solar power generation.  The homes are designed
and built with the goal of consuming less energy than they
produce.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Final Approval of "Bateman" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Inc. is awaiting the Court's final approval of
its settlement agreement to resolve the class action lawsuit
commenced by Michael Bateman, according to the Company's June 3,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

In January 2007, a class action complaint captioned Michael
Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (No. CV07-00171), was filed
against the Company in the Central District of the United States
District Court of California alleging violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that
neither expiration dates nor more than the last 5 numbers of a
credit or debit card may be printed on receipts given to
customers.  FACTA imposes significant penalties upon violators
where the violation is deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise,
damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the card holder.
On March 21, 2011, the District Court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement, preliminarily certifying a class action for
settlement purposes only.  The settlement is not expected to have
a material adverse impact to the Company's financial condition.

On May 14, 2009, Harout Jarchafjian filed a similar lawsuit
alleging that the Company willfully violated FACTA and seeking
statutory damages, but without alleging any actual injury
(Jarchafjian v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Case No.
CV09-03434).  The parties have reached a tentative settlement,
subject to court approval, which is not expected to have a
material adverse impact to the Company's financial condition.


ARCA BIOPHARMA: Calif. Court Sets Final Settlement Hearing Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has set a June 10, 2011 hearing date to consider final approval of
the settlement in the consolidated lawsuit against ARCA biopharma,
Inc., according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On January 27, 2009, ARCA Colorado completed a merger with Nuvelo
Inc., in which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuvelo merged with and
into ARCA Colorado, with ARCA Colorado continuing after the Merger
as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Nuvelo.  Immediately following the Merger, the Company changed its
name from Nuvelo, Inc. to ARCA biopharma, Inc.

On February 9, 2007, Nuvelo and certain of Nuvelo's former and
then current officers and directors were named as defendants in a
purported securities class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
related to the clinical trial results of alfimeprase, which Nuvelo
announced on December 11, 2006, and seeks damages on behalf of
purchasers of Nuvelo's common stock during the period between
January 5, 2006 and December 8, 2006.  Specifically, the suit
alleges that Nuvelo misled investors regarding the efficacy of
alfimeprase and the drug's likelihood of success.  The plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  Three additional
lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of New York on
February 16, 2007, March 1, 2007 and March 6, 2007, respectively.
In July 2007, the Court granted Nuvelo's motion to transfer the
cases to the Northern District of California.  The cases were
consolidated with the original lawsuit, and plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint in the Northern District of California on
November 9, 2007.  Nuvelo filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint on December 21, 2007.  On June 12, 2008,
the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  On December 4,
2008, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint,
and granting leave to amend.

On January 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging similar claims.  On March 24, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 15, 2009, the
Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.  On August 17,
2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion.  ARCA filed its answer to plaintiff's complaint on
October 1, 2009.

On December 29, 2010, ARCA and the other defendants reached a
settlement of the litigation with the plaintiffs, after
participating in mediation before a retired federal judge.  On
February 25, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which has been submitted to the Court for approval.
ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to fund the settlement,
subject to a reservation of rights by one carrier.  On March 24,
2011, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a
June 10, 2011 hearing date for final approval of the settlement.

If the Court approves the settlement, the Company says the
litigation will be dismissed against all the defendants.  Members
of the class who participate in the settlement will provide a
release to the defendants, which prevents them from ever asserting
any related claims against the defendants.  Members of the class,
if any, who opt out of the settlement, would not be bound by this
release.  Although ARCA's insurance carriers have agreed to pay
most of the legal fees that have been incurred in defending this
litigation, ARCA has separately agreed with its legal counsel to
pay $167,000 in legal defense costs incurred on or before
December 29, 2010, but only if ARCA obtains additional funding of
at least $10 million in 2011.  If ARCA does not obtain such
additional funding in 2011, ARCA will have no such payment
obligation.


AVX CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to defend a class action lawsuit arising
from alleged migration of certain pollutants from the Company's
property, according to the Company's May 20, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2007, the Company received notice from Horry Land
Company, the owner of property adjacent to the Company's South
Carolina factory, that Horry Land Company's property value had
been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain
pollutants from the Company's property and demanding $5.4 million
in compensatory damages, exclusive of unspecified costs.  This
suit has now been resolved. Such resolution did not have a
material impact on the Company's results of operations or cash
flows.

In addition, two other suits have been filed against the Company
relating to the same contamination. One suit was filed in the
South Carolina State Court on November 27, 2007 by certain
individuals seeking certification as a class action which has not
yet been determined.  The other suit is a commercial suit filed on
January 16, 2008, currently pending in South Carolina State Court,
by John H. Nance and JDS Development of Myrtle Beach, Inc. The
Company intends to defend vigorously the claims that have been
asserted in these two lawsuits. At this stage of the litigation,
there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of
damages. Accordingly, the potential impact of the lawsuits on the
Company's financial position, results of operations, and cash
flows cannot be determined at this time.

AVX Corporation is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of a
broad line of passive electronic components and interconnect
products.


BRISTOW GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Superior Offshore" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group Inc.'s motion to dismiss a purported class action
captioned Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow Group
Inc., et al. is still pending before a Delaware court, according
to the Company's May 20, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2011.

On June 12, 2009, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v. Bristow
Group Inc., et al, Case No. 1:09-cv-00438, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware. The purported class
action complaint, which also named other providers of offshore
helicopter services in the Gulf of Mexico as defendants, alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Among other things,
the complaint alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired to
raise and maintain the price of offshore helicopter services
between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005. The plaintiff was
seeking to represent a purported class of direct purchasers of
offshore helicopter services and was asking for, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages and injunctive relief.
In September 2010, the court granted the Company and the other
defendants' motion to dismiss the case on several grounds. The
plaintiff then filed a motion seeking a rehearing and seeking
leave to amend its original complaint which was partially granted
to permit limited discovery. Such limited discovery has now been
completed and the Company and the other defendants have again
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The Company intends to
continue to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. The Company is
currently unable to determine whether it could have a material
effect on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.

Bristow Group Inc. -- http://www.bristowgroup.com--
is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1969.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Settles US Price-Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Caroline Binham, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
British Airways has settled a class-action lawsuit in the US for
US$89.5 million over fixing the prices of air cargo.

The airline will also pay US$500,000 to cover administrative costs
in the lawsuit, which was brought by direct purchasers of
airfreight services.

A number of US lawsuits were brought after global regulators and
prosecutors uncovered alleged price-fixing by at least 15 airlines
between 2000 and 2006.  BA's settlement follows those paid by
rivals such as Air France-KLM, which paid US$87 million last year.
A total of US$279 million has been paid by the airlines.

"BA has now taken an important step toward paying damages for its
admitted price-fixing conduct," said Michael Hausfeld, founder of
Hausfeld, the law firm that advised purchasers in the class
action.  "We will continue our efforts to pursue recoveries for
the huge number of victims of this cartel both in the US and
around the world."

BA's settlement comes as profits are predicted to narrow in the
airline industry this year after a spike in oil prices, political
unrest and natural disasters.

BA said in a statement: "We are pleased that we have reached a
settlement over these claims made by cargo customers in the US."

The lawsuit stems from action taken by the US Department of
Justice, which alleged that some of the world's biggest airlines
conspired between 2000 and 2006 to fix cargo prices.  US
investigations have led to the prosecution of 15 airlines and
resulted in fines of more than US$1.6 billion.

BA pleaded guilty in the US four years ago to being involved in
the cartel and was fined US$300 million for its role in separate
conspiracies to fix cargo rates and passenger fares.  The European
Commission in its investigation fined the airline EUR104 million
(GBP92.7 million)

The class action over air cargo price-fixing is separate to a UK
investigation and subsequent criminal case against former and
current BA executives over fixing the price of passenger fuel
surcharges.  The trial, brought by the OFT, collapsed last year.

The company is still to pay the GBP121.5 million fine it initially
agreed with the OFT in 2007 before the criminal investigation.
The OFT will publish its statement of objections, where it sets
out its case against the company, in the third quarter of this
year.  At that point, BA will have to pay the fine or challenge
it.

The settlement does not necessarily mean that BA can draw a line
under the air-cargo cartel investigation.  Mr. Hausfeld said that
it was advising indirect purchasers of air cargo, such as
shippers, on whether they could bring a similar lawsuit in London
over the EU investigation.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Remaining Appeals Remanded to N.Y. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remanded to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
remaining appeals in the coordinated litigation over alleged
federal securities law violations of Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc., and other parties, according to the Company's
June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class actions
for violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Brocade, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters for Brocade's initial public offering
of securities.  A consolidated amended class action captioned, In
re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 6613, was filed on April 19,
2002.  The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters
engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in Brocade's initial public offering and
seeks unspecified damages for claims under the Exchange Act on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from
May 24, 1999, to December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit against Brocade
was coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a number of other
pending litigations challenging underwriter practices in over 300
cases as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21
MC 92 (SAS), including actions against McDATA Corporation, Inrange
Technologies Corporation (which was first acquired by Computer
Network Technology Corporation and subsequently acquired by McDATA
as part of the CNT acquisition), and Foundry (collectively, the
"Brocade Entities"), and certain of each entity's respective
officers and directors, and initial public offering underwriters.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation, under which the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Brocade Entities, and the
Brocade Entities will bear no financial liability.  In 2009, the
Court granted final approval of the settlement and certain
objectors filed appeals.  A number of those appeals have now been
dismissed.

In May 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order remanding the
remaining appeals to the district court for determination of
certain matters.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Motions to Dismiss U.S. & Canada Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motions to
dismiss lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada alleging that the
Company's financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were
false or misleading, according to the Company's May 17, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On June 1, 2010, the Company announced that it would postpone the
release of its financial results for the first quarter ended
March 31, 2010 and its quarterly earnings call pending the outcome
of an investigation by the Audit Committee of the Company's Board
of Directors that had been launched after the Company received a
subpoena from the SEC requesting documents relating to, among
other things, certain sales transactions in 2009.  Thereafter, six
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and another class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The "New York cases" were
consolidated into a single action in December 2010.  On January 5,
2011, the California case was dismissed by the plaintiff, who
became a member of the lead plaintiff group in the New York
action.  On March 11, 2011, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed with respect to the New York action.  The consolidated
amended complaint alleges generally that the Company's financial
disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading;
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and names the
Company, its chief executive officer and its former chief
financial officer as defendants.  The Company filed its motion to
dismiss in May 2011.

In addition, a similar class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company certain of its executive officers in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice on August 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges
generally that the Company's financial disclosures during 2009
and/or 2010 were false or misleading and brings claims under the
shareholders' relief provisions of the Canada Business
Corporations Act, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as
well as claims based on negligent misrepresentation.  In December
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on
the basis that the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the
claims and potential claims advanced by the plaintiff.  The motion
was argued in the Ontario Court on May 10 and 11, 2011, and the
court scheduled additional hearing in June 2011 on this.

The Company believes the claims, both in the United States and in
Canada, are without merit and intend to defend against the
lawsuits vigorously.

Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- is one of
the world's largest solar companies.  As a leading vertically
integrated provider of ingot, wafer, solar cell, solar module and
other solar applications, Canadian Solar designs, manufactures and
delivers solar products and solar system solutions for on-grid and
off-grid use to customers worldwide.  With operations in North
America, Europe and Asia, Canadian Solar provides premium quality,
cost-effective and environmentally-friendly solar solutions to
support global, sustainable development.


CARDIOGENESIS CORP: Defends 2 Suits in Calif. Over CryoLife Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardiogenesis Corporation is defending itself against two
purported class action lawsuits in California over its proposed
merger with CryoLife Inc. and CL Falcon, Inc., according to the
Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 28, 2011, Cardiogenesis, CryoLife, Inc. ("Parent") and CL
Falcon, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, which was
subsequently amended and restated on April 14, 2011.

On April 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against the Company, its directors, and Parent and Merger Sub, in
connection with the proposed Offer and Merger.  These suits were
filed in California Superior Court for Orange County and allege
that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the breach
of their fiduciary duties to the Company by seeking to sell the
Company through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair
price and on unfair terms.  The suits seek various equitable
relief that would delay or enjoin the Merger based on allegations
regarding the process by which offers or potential offers were
evaluated by the Company, as well as fees and expenses of the
plaintiffs' attorneys and experts.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action over Cellular Handsets
---------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on June 7 disclosed that a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company and three other cellular
operators was filed in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by an
Israeli citizen, in connection with the allegation that the
defendants mislead customers who buy accessories for carrying
cellular handsets or do not disclose to them relevant data
concerning radiation hazards associated with the usage of
accessories for carrying cellular handsets, allegedly contrary to
the cellular handsets manufacturers' instructions and warnings and
the Israeli Ministry of Health' recommendations.

The total amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS1 billion (out of a total sum of approximately
NIS2.7 billion against all defendants), substantially all for non
monetary damages.

In addition, the plaintiff notes his intention to seek interim
remedies to prevent further sale of such accessories by the
defendants or to require them to take necessary precautionary
measures, including by complying with alleged disclosure duties
and by ceasing alleged misleading, if the defendants would not do
so voluntarily within 15 days, given, among others, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer's press release dated
May 31, 2011, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as
possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased
risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated
with wireless phone use.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is an Israeli cellular
provider.


CKX INC: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Colonel Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that CKX Inc. on June 7 said it agreed in
principle to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit brought
against it and each of its directors in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County.  The class
action is a consolidation of four lawsuits related to the pending
acquisition of CKx by Colonel Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of certain equity funds managed by Apollo Management
VII, L.P.

Upon approval of the settlement by the Court, all claims asserted
in the litigation in Delaware and one additional claim asserted in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York would be dismissed with
prejudice.

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs' claims would be
extinguished and Parent would agree voluntarily that the amount
due in the event the termination fee is payable to Parent under
the merger agreement would be $17.5 million, that the reference to
"80%" in the definition of "Superior Proposal" in the merger
agreement would be deemed to be "75%"; and to extend the
expiration of the tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of CKx common stock at an offer price of $5.50 per share
launched by an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent on
May 17, 2011, by one day to June 15, 2011.

As part of the proposed settlement, CKx has amended its
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 to include
additional disclosures sought by the plaintiffs in the litigation.


COCA-COLA: VitaminWater Class Action Set for Mediation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought against Coca-Cola by advocacy group
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) over Coke's
VitaminWater range is set to go to mediation, FoodNavigator-USA
has learned.

Asked whether this meant Coca-Cola was likely to settle, CSPI
litigation director Stephen Gardner told FoodNavigator-USA.com:
"There is no predicting whether it will result in a settlement."

He added: "We've done some paper discovery, but no depositions [of
Coca-Cola executives] yet.  However, the real development is that
the case is going to mediation in July.  Until that is concluded,
the discovery process is largely on hold."

He added: "Mediation is fairly common in complex cases, including
class actions.  A mediator is usually a paid disinterested party
who attempts to mediate a settlement.  On a case like this,
mediation is likely to last a day."

             Name could reinforce belief that
         product contains only water and vitamins

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2009 and brought together class
actions in New Jersey, New York and California, alleged that Coca-
Cola had misled consumers over the health benefits of
VitaminWater.

Coca-Cola immediately filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which
was rejected last summer.

Federal judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn
also rejected Coca-Cola's argument that by listing the sugar
content of VitaminWater in the nutrition panel, it could not be
accused of misleading consumers: "The fact that the actual sugar
content of VitaminWater was accurately stated in a Food and Drug
Administration-mandated label on the product does not eliminate
the possibility that reasonable consumers may be misled."

Meanwhile, the description of the product as a 'vitamin-enhanced
water beverage' and the phrases 'vitamins + water = all you need'
also had "the potential to reinforce a consumer's mistaken belief
that the product is comprised of only vitamins and water," added
Judge Gleeson.

                       Jelly bean rule

He also found that Coca-Cola's use of health claims and the word
'healthy' violated FDA regulations on vitamin-fortified foods (the
so-called 'jelly bean rule' rule that prohibits companies from
making health claims on foods that only meet various nutrient
thresholds via fortification).

"In finding VitaminWater's marketing and labeling to be
potentially misleading, I have given substantial weight to the
FDA's determination that fortification of a food in a manner that
is not consistent with FDA's fortification policy may be
misleading because it may lead consumers to consume foods that
contain sugar or other sources of calories, but lack any inherent
nutrients other than those that have been added through
fortification."

The plaintiffs in the class action, who are also represented by
Reese Richman LLP and Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC, argue that
"VitaminWater is Coke's attempt to dress up soda in a physician's
white coat".

Coca-Cola has also run into problems in the UK with its
VitaminWater range, most recently over ads claiming the beverages
were 'delicious and nutritious', a claim which UK ad watchdog the
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled to be misleading given
the drinks' high sugar content.

"Because VitaminWater contained about a quarter of a consumer's
recommended daily intake of sugar, we considered that the
description of VitaminWater as "nutritious" was misleading," said
the ASA in January 2011.

The ASA accepted Coca-Cola's point that 23g of sugar per 500ml
bottle delivered an energy density of just 19 calories per 100ml,
which meant it also qualified as a 'low calorie' drink under EU
regulations.

However, it "also noted the drink was only available in 500 ml
servings that contained 23g of sugar, which comprised over a
quarter of a consumer's guideline daily amount for sugar [based on
a 2,000 calorie diet]".

Coca-Cola, which acquired the VitaminWater range in 2007 through
its acquisition of Energy Brands (Glaceau), declined to comment on
the US-based class action, adding: "We do not comment on specifics
of pending litigation."


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: N.Y. Court Certifies Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The overtime lawyers at Morgan and Morgan on June 7 disclosed that
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
certified Aponte vs. Comprehensive Health Management, Inc. as a
class action.  The certified class includes all benefit
consultants who worked for Comprehensive Health Management, Inc.
(d/b/a Wellcare) within the past three years, or six years for New
York employees, and were not paid at a rate of time-and-a-half for
all hours worked over 40 in one or more workweeks.  To find out if
you can become a member of this class action, visit
http://www.usovertimelawyers.com/and complete the free case
review form.

The overtime case alleges that the defendant failed to pay its
benefit consultants overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as New York labor law.  Allegedly, the
denial of overtime wages stemmed from the company's
misclassification of benefit consultants as exempt, or ineligible,
to collect time-and-a-half pay when working more than 40 hours in
a single workweek.  The overtime suit also claims that the
defendant failed to maintain proper time records as required by
state and federal law.

According to the overtime case, the primary duty of Wellcare
benefit consultants is to market or promote either Medicare or
Medicaid plans in specific geographic markets.  If you worked as a
Wellcare benefit consultant within the past three years, or six
years for New York employees, and were not paid for your overtime
hours, you may be able to participate in this class action
lawsuit.  Federal overtime law prohibits employers from
retaliating against employees who elect to assert their legal
rights, so do not hesitate to visit USOvertimeLawyers.com today to
receive a free evaluation of your claim.

                     About Morgan and Morgan

Morgan and Morgan is one of the largest plaintiff firms in the
country with multiple office locations throughout Florida and the
Southeast.  The firm has a department solely devoted to helping
employees in disputes with their employers, and also handles auto
accident cases, personal injury cases, product liability cases and
medical malpractice cases.  Visit Morgan and Morgan online at
http://www.forthepeople.com/for a free case evaluation and
information about your legal rights.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Accused in Virginia of Misleading Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Computer Sciences Corp.
inflated its share price through false and misleading statements,
shareholders say in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00610 (E.D. Va.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/ComputerSciences.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG C. REILLY
          111 Oronoco Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 549-5354
          E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com
                  tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


COOPER COMPANIES: Defense of Securities Suit Exhausted Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 4, 2010, Cooper Companies, Inc., announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle to settle for $27.0 million a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit titled In re Cooper
Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
SACV-06-169 CJC, against the Company, A. Thomas Bender, its
chairman of the board and a director, Robert S. Weiss, its chief
executive officer and a director, and Gregory A. Fryling,
CooperVision's former president and chief operating officer.  The
Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on
August 16, 2010, and final approval on December 13, 2010.  The
Company said in its December 17, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
October 31, 2010, that it has exhausted its insurance coverage in
defense of this litigation, and if the settlement were to be
overturned as a result of an appeal, general and administrative
expenses will increase.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 3, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.


DOLLAR TREE: Additional Discovery in Alabama FLSA Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against
Dollar Tree, Inc., in Alabama federal court.  She claims that she
and other store managers should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and received overtime
compensation.  The Court preliminarily allowed nationwide (except
California) certification.  At present, approximately 265
individuals are included in the collective action.  The Company's
motion to decertify the collective action has been dismissed
without prejudice to refile at a later date.  Additional
discovery, pursuant to the Court's direction, is presently
ongoing. There is no scheduled trial date.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 19, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Expects Trial in California Suit to Start This Year
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, two store managers filed a class action against Dollar
Tree Inc. in California federal court, claiming they and other
California store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under California and federal law.  Following a
partial decertification order, plaintiffs filed a Petition for
Reconsideration of the Decertification Order alleging the
existence of new facts relevant to the ruling.  That motion is
scheduled to be argued on May 27, 2011.  A pretrial conference has
been set for June 2011 at which time a new trial date will be
established.  The class size is now 185 members.  It is
anticipated the case will go to trial in calendar year 2011,
according to the Company's May 19, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Anticipates Appeal From Decertification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, Dollar Tree Inc. was sued under the Equal Pay Act in
Alabama federal court by two female store managers alleging that
they and other female store managers were paid less than male
store managers.  Among other things, they seek monetary damages
and back pay.  On March 31, 2011 the Court granted in part the
company's motion to decertify the class finding that plaintiffs
could not maintain a nationwide collective action against the
company.  Instead, only those plaintiffs, believed to be four in
number, who were employed by Dollar Tree in its district where the
court is located, may proceed with the case.  The company
anticipates that plaintiffs will appeal the decertification ruling
to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, according to the
Company's May 19, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Expects 4th Circuit to Rule on Appeal This Year
------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, 34 plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint
against Dollar Tree Inc. in a federal court in Virginia alleging
gender pay and promotion discrimination under Title VII.  On
March 11, 2010, the case was dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs
have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.  It is anticipated the Court will hand down a decision in
2011, according to the Company's May 19, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Florida Court Denies Motion to Transfer to Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, two former assistant store managers filed a collective
action against Dollar Tree Inc. in a Florida federal court.  Their
amended claim is that they were required to work off the time
clock without compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  An additional 22 party plaintiffs have joined the
suit.  The Company's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was recently overruled
without prejudice pending future case developments.  There is no
trial date, according to the Company's May 19, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Investigates Mileage Expense Claims in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, an assistant store manager, on behalf of himself
and all store managers and assistant managers employed by Dollar
Tree Inc. in the state of California for the past four years,
instituted a class action in a California state court, primarily
alleging that the Company failed to reimburse him and others
similarly situated for mileage expense incurred in the use of
their personal vehicles for Company business.  The Company has
just commenced its investigation of the allegations and will
respond appropriately, according to the Company's May 19, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Defends Wage & Hour Suit in California State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in
a California state court primarily alleging a failure by Dollar
Tree Inc. to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours
worked, and to pay overtime compensation.  The Company has just
commenced its investigation of the allegations and will respond
appropriately, according to the Company's May 19, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 30, 2011.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter.  The
Company does not believe that this will have a material adverse
effect on its business or financial condition.  The Company cannot
give assurance, however, that the lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in
which they are resolved.


DONALDSON CO: Discovery in Filter MDL Stayed Until Mid-July
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted a stay on discovery and depositions until mid-July 2011 in
the consolidated multidistrict litigation against filter
manufacturers, including Donaldson Company, Inc., according to the
Company's June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including the Company,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate U.S.
Customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit seeks
various remedies including injunctive relief and monetary damages
of an unspecified amount and is a purported class action on behalf
of direct purchasers of automotive aftermarket filters from the
defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf
of a variety of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket
filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of
jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.  The U.S. cases
have been consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation in
the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 14, 2011, the Court granted a stay on discovery and
depositions until mid-July.  The Company denies any liability and
intends to vigorously defend the claims raised in these lawsuits.


EKSUCCESS BRANDS: Recalls 75T American Girl Crafts(TM) Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
EKSuccess Brands, a division of Wilton Brands Inc., of Woodbridge,
Illinois, announced a voluntary recall of about 75,000 American
Girl Crafts(TM) Pearly Beads & Ribbon Bracelets kit.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The surface coating on some of the beads contains excessive levels
of lead, which is prohibited under federal law.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Pearly Beads & Ribbon Bracelets kit
distributed under the American Girl Crafts name with a SKU number
of 30-585331.  The SKU number is located on the back of the
package in the lower right corner.  The kit contains 56 pieces.
The beads in the jewelry kit are pink, blue, orange and white.
Some pink beads have darker pink butterflies imprinted on them.
The ribbons in the kit are orange, red, blue and purple.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11239.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Michaels Stores and other retailers nationwide from September 2009
through June 2011 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled kits and any
finished bracelets made from the kits away from children and
contact the company for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact EKSuccess Brands toll-free at (855) 535-2099
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Thursday and between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Central Time on
Fridays or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.eksuccessbrands.com/


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: "Quinn" Case Declared as Opt-In Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
conditionally certified the lawsuit captioned Susan S. Quinn, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. as an "opt-in" class action, according to the
Company's June 3, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

A number of pharmaceutical companies are defendants in litigation
brought by their own current and former pharmaceutical sales
representatives, alleging that the companies violated wage and
hour laws by misclassifying the sales representatives as "exempt"
employees, and by failing to pay overtime compensation.  The
Company is subject to one such case, Susan S. Quinn, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc., which was conditionally certified as an "opt-in" class
action on June 1, 2011, and is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Depending on developments in this ongoing and any future
litigation, the Company says there is a possibility that it will
suffer an adverse decision or verdicts of substantial amounts, or
that the Company will enter into monetary settlements.  Any
unfavorable outcome as a result of such litigation could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.


EXPRESS INC: Sets Reserve to Pay Settlement Amount in Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Inc., in its balance sheet as of April 30, 2011, set a
reserve of the amount it will be required to pay under its
settlement agreement of a purported class action lawsuit alleging
various California state labor law violations, according to the
Company's June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

Express Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit alleging various California state labor law violations.
The complaint was originally filed on February 18, 2009, and
amended complaints were filed on March 18, 2009, and April 5,
2010.  To avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation
with respect to this matter, on March 31, 2011, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims of
plaintiff and other similarly situated class members that were
asserted or could have been asserted based on the factual
allegations in the final amended complaint for the case.  The
settlement was approved by the court on April 25, 2011.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the Company will make up to a total of
$4.0 million available to pay (i) current California employees who
worked during the period commencing January 1, 2007, and ending on
April 25, 2011, (ii) former California employees who worked during
the class period and submit valid claims, and (iii) certain legal
fees and expenses on behalf of the plaintiff and the class.  After
deducting legal fees and expenses from the $4 million settlement
amount, the proposed settlement will require the Company to pay at
least 55% of the remaining amount to class members, irrespective
of how many valid claims are submitted.

The Company says its unaudited Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
April 30, 2011, includes a reserve for its best estimate of the
amount that it will be required to pay under the terms of the
settlement.  If the number of former employees submitting valid
claims differs from the Company's expectations, then the amount of
the reserve may increase or decrease.  The amount of any such
change is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.


FIJI WATER: Calif. Woman Can't Sue for False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service reports that a
California woman cannot sue Fiji Water for false advertising based
on the company's use of a green drop on the label.

Ayana Hill filed a class action against Fiji and Roll
International, claiming that Fiji used the green drop to
characterize its water as environmentally superior to other brands
and as endorsed by an environmental organization.

Ms. Hill sued Fiji and Roll for fraud, unjust enrichment and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  Though Roll is
a holding company for various businesses owned by the trust that
owns Fiji, it has no actual relationship with Fiji.

Ms. Hill said she paid 15% more for Fiji water than other brands
at Walgreens cost, and that the green drop symbol is deceptively
similar to other products' "seals of approval" from environmental
groups.

She also cited Fiji's "Every Drop Is Green" slogan and Web site,
Fijigreen.com.

The trial court ruled against Ms. Hill, claiming that she failed
to state a claim.  The San Francisco-based First District
California Court of Appeals agreed.

"The problem for Hill is that she cannot show from the green drop,
the website reference or the 'Every Drop Is Green' slogan, a
representation in Fiji advertising that would mislead a reasonable
person," Justice James Richman wrote for the court.

A copy of the ruling in Hill v. Roll International Corporation et
al., No. A128698 (Calif. App. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A128698.PDF


FOREST LABS: Overtime Class Actions Wins Certification
------------------------------------------------------
The Ottinger Firm, P.C. on June 7 disclosed that a class action
alleging Forest Labs pharmaceutical sales representatives were
unlawfully denied overtime pay has been certified by a New York
federal court.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley of the Southern District of
New York, granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
collective action certification under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The national "opt-in" class includes Forest Labs sales
representatives who were employed by the company in the three
years before the case was filed in August 2010.  The Ottinger Firm
is the proposed counsel for members of the class.

The case is "Elmaria Martinez, et al., v. Forest Laboratories,
Inc., et al.," Civil Action No. 10 cv 6032 (WHP) in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York.

The defendants are New York-based Forest Laboratories, Inc. and
subsidiary Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The named plaintiff,
Ms. Martinez, was employed by the defendants between 2002 and
2011.

Attorney Robert W. Ottinger said, "This is a notable victory for
Ms. Martinez and the Forest Labs pharmaceutical sales
representatives covered by this class action.  We believe the
strength of this case and recent appellate court rulings confirm
the overtime eligibility for these pharmaceutical sales
representatives under the FLSA.  We are pleased the Court
conditionally certified this class action and look forward to
moving forward with the case."

The Court determined that Ms. Martinez and the putative class were
similarly situated in light of their common classification as
exempt from overtime under the FLSA, because they shared common
job descriptions and because they were subject to common
employment policies, Mr. Ottinger said.

Attorney Contacts: Robert W. Ottinger, Esq.
                   Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
                   The Ottinger Firm, P.C.
                   Telephone: (212) 571-2000
                   Web site: http://www.ottingerlaw.com


GENTA INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Collins" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey's order granting
Genta Incorporated's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
captioned Collins v. Warrell, remains pending, according to the
Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2008, several of the Company's stockholders, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a
class action complaint against the Company, its Board of
Directors, and certain of its executive officers in Superior Court
of New Jersey, captioned Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08.
The complaint alleged that in issuing convertible notes in June
2008, the Company's Board of Directors, and certain officers
breached their fiduciary duties, and the Company aided and abetted
the breach of fiduciary duty.  On March 20, 2009, the Superior
Court of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
class action complaint and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division.  On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for relief from judgment based on a claim of new evidence,
which was denied on June 12, 2009.  The plaintiffs also asked the
Appellate Division for a temporary remand to permit the Superior
Court judge to resolve the issues of the new evidence plaintiffs
sought to raise and the Appellate Division granted the motion for
temporary remand.  Following the briefing and a hearing, the
Superior Court denied the motion for relief from judgment on
August 28, 2009.  Thus, this matter proceeded in the Appellate
Division.  Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was
filed on October 28, 2009, and the Company's responsive brief was
filed on January 27, 2010.  The plaintiffs' reply brief was filed
on March 15, 2010.

The Company says it is currently awaiting a decision from the
Appellate Division on this matter.  At this time, the Company says
it cannot estimate when the Appellate Division will rule on the
appeal.  The Company intends to continue its vigorous defense of
this matter.


GULF RESOURCES: Faces Two Shareholder Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf Resources, Inc., is facing two class action lawsuits in
California commenced separately by Albert Snellink and the law
firm Bernstein Liebhard LLP, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from March 16, 2009, through April 26, 2011,
according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On April 30, 2011, the Company became aware that a class action
lawsuit had been filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's stock from March 16, 2009 through April 26, 2011.  In
the complaint, the plaintiff, Albert Snellink, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, asserts claims against the
Company, Xiaobin Liu, Min Li, and Ming Yang for alleged violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff contends that
certain of the Company's SEC filings contain material
misstatements and omissions.  Plaintiff's claims are based upon
allegations contained in a report issued by Glaucus Research
Group, which has reported holding a short position in the
Company's stock.  The Company has issued various press releases to
dispute the allegations in the anonymous report and the Company
denies the allegations made in the Glaucus Research Group report.

On May 2, 2011, the Company became aware, through a press release
issued by the law firm Bernstein Liebhard LLP, that a second class
action lawsuit had been filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's stock from March 16, 2009 through
April 26, 2011.  The press release states that the plaintiffs
allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
against Gulf Resources and certain individual defendants.  As of
May 16, 2011, the Company has not been able to obtain a copy of
the lawsuit.

The Company's management believes that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit.  The Company says it intends to defend itself
vigorously against the claims.  However, the Company's management
is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
possible losses that will result from the ultimate resolution of
this matter.  In the operation of management of the Company, the
probability of incurring any losses arising from these allegations
is remote and no provision for loss has been made in the
consolidated financial statements.


HAWTHORN BANCSHARES: Unit Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawthorn Bank is awaiting a decision on its motion to dismiss a
purported class action lawsuit alleging violation of Missouri's
usury laws, according to Hawthorn Bancshares, Inc.'s May 16, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 18, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Hawthorn Bank
(the Bank) in the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the Eastern
Division of Missouri state court by a customer alleging that the
fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.

The Company owns all of the issued and outstanding capital stock
of Union State Bancshares, Inc., which in turn owns all of the
issued and outstanding capital stock of Hawthorn Bank.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have
paid overdraft fees on their checking accounts.  The Bank has
filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

At this early stage of the litigation, the Company says it is not
possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Settles Madoff Class Action for $62.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews reports that HSBC Holdings Plc said it has entered into an
agreement to pay $62.5 million to settle claims against it in the
class action pending in New York against various HSBC companies
and numerous other defendants on behalf of investors in the Thema
International Fund Plc, an Irish incorporated and authorized UCITS
fund whose assets were invested with Bernard L Madoff Securities
LLC.

The settlement is subject to various conditions to its
effectiveness as described in the proposed notice to class
members, including the U.S. Court's certification of a settlement
class of investors worldwide, resolution of any objections that
may be filed, and approval of the Settlement as fair and
reasonable.

HSBC noted that claims against the non-HSBC defendants are not
released by the Settlement and may be pursued on behalf of the
class by the lead plaintiff as part of the Class Action or outside
the United States under an assignment of claims from settling
class members.


LEFTIS FOODS: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Bikers
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that hotels, motels
and restaurants in the Myrtle Beach area have discriminated
against African-Americans for years by refusing to open during
Black Bike Week, the NAACP charges in a pair of federal lawsuits.

The civil rights group contrasts the behavior of defendants Molly
Darcy's on the Beach, a restaurant and bar, and the American
Pancake and Omelet House, with their business practices during the
annual Harley Davidson Spring Bike Rally, which is attended almost
exclusively by white bikers.

Black Bike Week is the only time of year when most of the tourists
visiting the popular beachfront destination are nonwhite,
according to the NAACP.

"For the past few years, Molly Darcy's on the Beach has refused to
serve visitors of Black Bike Week by closing during its otherwise
customary business hours," the complaint states.  The same is
allegedly true of the American Pancake and Omelet House.

Had the establishments been open, class members would have eaten
at both establishments, the NAACP said.

Compounding the organization's anger is that fights and skirmishes
-- including an armed confrontation between Myrtle Beach police
and white biker gangs -- have occurred during the Harley Week
event, but not during Black Bike Week, yet businesses continue to
cater to white bikers and refuse to serve black ones.

In 1994, one complaint states, a portion of Ocean Boulevard, a
major thoroughfare in Myrtle Beach, was closed for an entire
afternoon to control fighting between the Pagans and Hell's Angels
motorcycle gangs.

"Despite these problems, resorts and business in the Myrtle Beach
area, including Molly Darcy's on the Beach, have continued to
offer service and cater to the bikers who attend Harley Week," the
complaint states.

From its inception, Black Biker Week has been a more modest -- and
notably tamer -- affair, the NAACP said, with no major skirmishes
between police and bikers.

Nevertheless, as the event expanded from tourist sites in nearby
Atlantic Beach, S.C., "the leaders of the Myrtle Beach government
and hospitality industry -- most of whom are white -- exhibited
overt hostility to the Black Bike Week Festival because it
attracted a large number of African Americans to the area during
Memorial Day weekend," the complaint states.

In the late 1990s, a candidate for mayor, Mark McBride, campaigned
on eliminating the event, and after he was elected, lobbied
unsuccessfully to have the National Guard deployed during the
event.

The city has adopted a "traffic management plan" to limit traffic
on Ocean Boulevard where bikers during Black Bike Week gather to
view each other's rides.

"The effect of the 'Plan' was to make it more difficult and less
enjoyable for tourists and motorcycle enthusiasts to travel along
Ocean Blvd.," the complaint states.

"The traffic 'plan' was not originally imposed during Harley
Week," the NAACP says.  When it was, "the owners and operators of
local businesses complained vociferously about the change, and
Myrtle Beach lifted the restrictions after only three days," the
complaint states.  "By contrast, the traffic 'plan' was retained
unchanged for Black Bike Week."

The NAACP seeks declaratory judgment and permanent injunctions
against discrimination and a minimum award of $5,000 in statutory
damages for each class member.

A copy of the Complaint in The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, Inc., et al. v. Leftis Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-01295 (D. S.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/05/31/NAACP1.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Peters Wilborn, Jr., Esq.
          DERFNER, ALTMAN & WILBORN, L.L.C.
          575 King Street
          P.O. Box 600
          Charleston, SC 29402
          Telephone: (843) 723-9804
          E-mail: pwilborn@dawlegal.com

               - and -

          Anthony Herman, Esq.
          Henry Liu, Esq.
          Andrew Soukup, Esq.
          Jihad Beauchman, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2401
          E-mail: aherman@cov.com
                  hliu@cov.com
                  asoukup@cov.com
                  jbeauchman@cov.com

               - and -

          Emily Read, Esq.
          Richard Ritter, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Local Council Class Action Resumes
---------------------------------------------------
Yass Tribune reports that a class action by councils, including
Yass Valley Council, charities and churches has resumed after a
two-month hiatus.

The local council is one of 72 clients suing the Australian arm of
the collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers over losses incurred
on products known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations, or
CDOs.

Together they invested a total of AU$390 million and lost AU$250
million in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market -- the
amount they are claiming from Lehman Brothers Australia.

To date, Yass Valley Council has crystallized losses of AU$367,000
according to general manager, David Rowe.  This figure includes a
AU$100,000 holding in Starts Blue Gum Security, which defaulted in
February.

Council has warned there could be further losses in store.

The case resumed in the Federal Court last week.  One allegation
is that Lehman Brothers Australia did not tell its clients that
synthetic CDOs carrying a Triple-A credit rating were not as
secure as a floating rate note issued by a bank or a corporate
bond carrying the same rating.

Lehman denies liability but argues that if Justice Steven Rares
finds against the company, it should only have to pay a proportion
of any damages awarded to the members of the class action.

In relation to the ratings allegation, it says it should pay only
half, with ratings companies such as Moody's to be liable for the
other half.  Mr. Rowe remains hopeful of recouping at least some
of the investments lost during the global financial crisis.

"Like all councils we are hopeful of a positive outcome but we are
at the whim of the legal system," he said.

Following the crash of Lehman Brothers, Council amended its
investment policy to minimize financial risk by only allowing
investments in cash and short term deposits.

Council has since adopted an investment policy based on guidelines
developed by the Department of Local Government.


LIMITED BRANDS: IBEW Class Action Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697
Pension Fund did not take an appeal from the dismissal of its
class action lawsuit against Limited Brands Inc., et al., and
hence, the case is now concluded, according to Limited Brand's
June 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On November 6, 2009, a class action (International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension Fund v. Limited Brands, Inc.
et al.) was filed against the Company and certain of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased
or acquired shares of Limited Brands common stock between
August 22, 2007, and February 28, 2008.  On August 24, 2010, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss.  On March 29, 2011, the United
States District Court of the Southern District of Ohio dismissed
the case with prejudice.  The plaintiffs did not appeal the
decision and, therefore, the case is now concluded.


MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY: Accused in New Jersey Suit of Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------
Nestor F. Sebastian at Courthouse News Service reports that nine
students say in a class action that the Medical Technology
Institute, in Edison, N.J., made last-minute pitches for extra
tuition payments for additional courses before it "abruptly closed
the doors" on them last summer.

The nine named plaintiffs estimate that 100 ex-students suffered
the same fate.  They say the defendants -- which include Bright
Horizon Institute, of Newark, and three individuals -- lured them
in with promises they knew they could not keep.

The promises included that the students could take certification
exams in their medical-technology specialties, and that they would
be placed in "externships" to train for their careers.

None of that was true, the students say.

"The defendants abruptly closed the doors of the Medical
Technology Institute located in Edison, New Jersey on July 1,
2010," according to the complaint in Monmouth County Court.
"Prior to the closing of their doors, the defendants made requests
of additional tuition fees from the plaintiffs and required
plaintiffs to take unnecessary courses in order to extract payment
from the plaintiffs before the business closed. . .."

"Defendants, with full knowledge that their finances were not
appropriately handled and with the knowledge that their
mismanagement and misappropriation of funds caused the financial
demise of Medical Technology Institute, insisted that the
defendants pay additional tuition fees and enroll in additional
courses."

Also named as defendants are Rajiv Vaish aka Rajivkumar Vaish,
Sanmati Vaish and Kamal Haiyder.

The students seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages for
fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and
detrimental reliance.  The complaint does not state how much they
paid in tuition, nor what has become of the individual defendants.

A copy of the Complaint in Udugampola, et al. v. Medical
Technology Institute Corporation, et al., Case No. L-2283-11 (N.J.
Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/MedTech.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Paone, II, Esq.
          LOMURRO, DAVISON EASTMAN & MUNOZ, P.A.
          Monmouth Executive Center
          100 Willow Brook Road, Suite 100
          Freehold, NJ 07728-2879
          Telephone: (732) 462-7170
          E-mail: jpaone@lomurrolaw.com


MF GLOBAL: Awaits Court Approval of $90MM IPO Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Holdings Ltd. and a group of investors is awaiting court
approval of their settlement of a consolidated class action
complaint filed in connection with the Company's initial public
offering, according to the Company's May 20, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.

The Company, Man Group plc, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the IPO has
been named as defendants in five actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
These actions, which purport to be brought as class actions on
behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the
IPO and February 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misrepresentations and omissions related to the Company's risk
management and monitoring practices and procedures.  The five
purported shareholder class actions have been consolidated for all
purposes into a single action.  The Company made a motion to
dismiss which had been granted, with plaintiff having a right to
replead and/or appeal the dismissal.  Plaintiffs made a motion to
replead by filing an amended complaint, which was denied.
Plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
the decision and remanded the case for further consideration. The
parties engaged in mediation and have agreed to a preliminary
settlement, which is subject to various customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery, preliminary approval by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, notice to class members, class member opt-out thresholds, a
final hearing, and final approval by the District Court.  The
settlement provides for a total payment of $90,000,000 to
plaintiffs.  Of this total payment, $2,500,000 relates to the
Company and has been accrued.


MF GLOBAL: Dismissed Cases Vs. MFGI Still Subject to Appeals
------------------------------------------------------------
Two dismissed class action lawsuits filed against MF Global
Holdings Ltd.'s subsidiary remain subject to possible appeals,
according to the Company's May 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011.

In May 2009, investors in a venture set up by Nicholas Cosmo sued
Bank of America and MF Global Inc., among others, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in two
separate class actions and one case brought by certain
individuals, alleging that MFGI, among others, aided and abetted
Cosmo and related entities in a Ponzi scheme in which investors
lost $400,000,000.  MFGI made motions to dismiss all of these
cases which were granted with prejudice.  The time when plaintiffs
are able to appeal the dismissal will not begin to run until the
action against the remaining defendants is decided.


MF GLOBAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Moore-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint
against a subsidiary of MF Global Holdings Ltd. remains pending,
according to the Company's May 20, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2011.

On August 4, 2010, MFGI was added as a defendant to a consolidated
class action complaint filed against Moore Capital Management and
related entities in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York which alleged claims of manipulation
and aiding and abetting manipulation in violation of the
Commodities Exchange Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleged
that, between October 25, 2007 and June 6, 2008, Moore Capital
directed MFGI, as its executing broker, to enter "large" market on
close orders (at or near the time of the close) for platinum and
palladium futures contracts, which allegedly caused artificially
inflated prices.  On August 10, 2010, MFGI was added as a
defendant to a related class action complaint filed against the
Moore-related entities on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who
traded the physical platinum and palladium commodities in the
relevant time frame, which alleges price fixing under the Sherman
Act and violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  On September 30, 2010 plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint that includes all of
the allegations and claims on behalf of subclasses of traders of
futures contracts of platinum and palladium and physical platinum
and palladium.  A motion to dismiss was heard on February 4, 2011.
Plaintiffs' claimed damages have not been quantified.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Seeks Dismissal of Players' Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The NFL on June 6 asked a federal judge to dismiss players' class
actions for failure to state a claim, or to dismiss or stay the
cases because they belong before the National Labor Relations
Board.

The NFL's complete motion to dismiss states: "Defendants hereby
move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for an order dismissing the Brady and Eller plaintiffs'
Amended Complaints (Doc. Nos. 73 & 119) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted (in whole or in part), or,
in the alternative, for an order dismissing or staying the cases
under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

"The Motion is based on all files, records and proceedings herein,
including the Memorandum in Support to be filed in accordance with
Local Rule 7.1(b) no later than August 1, 2011."

The NFL said it will seek dismissal at a Sept. 12 hearing before
U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson.

A copy of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaints in Brady, et al. v. National Football League, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00639 (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/NFLDismissMotion.pdf

The National Football League is represented by:

          Daniel J. Connolly, Esq.
          Aaron D. Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South Seventh Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7806
          E-mail: dconnolly@faegre.com
                  avanoort@faegre.com

               - and -

          Gregg H. Levy, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Block, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2401
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: glevy@cov.com
                  bblock@cov.com

               - and -

          David Boies, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200

               - and -

          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com


NATIONAL SECURITY: Class Certification Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Group, Inc.'s appeal from a trial court's
ruling certifying a class in the putative class action filed
against it in Alabama remains pending, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company has been sued in a putative class action in the state
of Alabama.  The Plaintiff alleges entitlement to, but did not
receive, payment for general contractor overhead and profit in the
proceeds received from the Company concerning the repair of the
Plaintiff's home.  Plaintiff alleges that said failure to include
GCOP is a material breach by the Company of the terms of its
contract of insurance with Plaintiff and seeks monetary damages in
the form of contractual damages.  A class certification hearing
was held on March 1, 2010, with the trial court taking the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification under advisement.  On
May 10, 2010, the trial court issued its ruling granting
Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.  The Company filed its
Appellant Brief on October 5, 2010.

The Company says it denies Plaintiff's allegations and intends to
vigorously defend this lawsuit.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Continues to Defend Hurricane-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Security Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to
defend lawsuits filed against them in connection with Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company's property & casualty subsidiaries are defending a
number of matters filed in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.  These actions include
individual lawsuits and purported statewide class action lawsuits,
although to date no class has been certified in any action.  These
actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of hurricane-
related claims, including allegations that the flood exclusion
found in the Company's subsidiaries' policies, and in certain
actions other insurance companies' policies, is either ambiguous,
unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public policy, or
inapplicable to the damage sustained.  The various suits seek a
variety of remedies, including actual and/or punitive damages in
unspecified amounts and/or declaratory relief.  All of these
matters are in various stages of development and the Company's
subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend them.  The outcome of
these disputes is currently uncertain.


NEW YORK, NY: Three Bench Trials Set for Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Black and
Latino firefighters, and an organization representing them, kept
their class certification to join a trial for damages following a
finding that minority applicants face discrimination in New York
City's screening tests for fire department admission.

In a 48-page order, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis
scheduled three bench trials for August stemming from the original
federal lawsuit.  Judge Garaufis also established which
firefighters can join the suit and denied their bid for injunctive
relief before trial begins.

On May 21, 2007, federal prosecutors sued the city of New York,
claiming that its examinations for entry-level firefighters
excluded black and Latino applicants with screening that was not
essential for the job.

Months later, the Vulcan Society, an organization representing
black firefighters, and three individuals moved to join the suit
in a class action.

The court found the city liable for disparate-impact
discrimination in July 2009, and for engaging in a pattern or
practice of intentional discrimination against black firefighter
applicants by the following January.

As the parties entered the remedial phase of the litigation,
minority firefighters filed their motion for continued class
certification on Oct. 7, 2009.  The victims of the city's
discrimination were divided between those who were not hired and
those whose hirings were delayed.

Judge Garaufis ordered the intervening plaintiffs to renew their
class certification multiple times, and imposed some limitations
on June 6 for victims who claim they lost certain "intangible"
employment benefits.

A trial for injunctive relief for victims of the city's
discrimination will begin on Aug. 1.

A bench trial on disputed issues related to back pay will begin on
Aug. 8, and a third trial on noneconomic losses is slated for
Aug. 15.  Each trial will last less than a week.

Lawyers for the plaintiff class and a spokeswoman for the city did
not immediately return requests for comment.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office said it would be
inappropriate to comment on a pending case.

A copy of the Opinion in United States of America v. The City of
New York, Case No. 07-cv-02067 (E.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/Lm372P


NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Judge Favors Moose Class Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Bailey, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that victims
of moose-vehicle accidents who want to sue Newfoundland and
Labrador got a green light on June 7 for a landmark class-action
lawsuit.

Justice Richard LeBlanc told the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador he supports certification of the case, although he raised
some concerns.

Justice LeBlanc wants lawyers for the victims and the provincial
government to consider expanding the class beyond plaintiffs who
required hospital care.  The judge asked whether limiting
eligibility to cases requiring a hospital stay may be too
restrictive.

Certification of the lawsuit will be just a first step that means
the judge believes the claim is best prosecuted through a class
action.

Ches Crosbie, Esq., the lawyer for the victims, claims the
province has negligently failed to manage a moose population that
he says is a public nuisance.  He's calling for unspecified
compensation, moose fencing, a cull of the herd and other measures
to reduce an estimated 800 collisions or close calls last year
alone.

Outside court, Mr. Crosbie said LeBlanc's request that lawyers for
both sides consider increasing the number of plaintiffs is a far
cry from where the case started.

"Six months ago when we launched this class action, most people in
the province thought that we were a bit crazy.

"Restricting the class definition to make it more manageable to a
lower number of the most deserving people in terms of their
injuries was something that we thought was wise to do in an
environment where there'd be a lot of skepticism," he said.

"But in light of the judge's comments now, and in light of the
fact that this class action seems to have a lot more credibility .
. .  we're going to have to have another look at that.

"Otherwise, I'm very pleased with the day."

Mr. Crosbie told court he limited the class to between about 69
and 100 victims who needed hospital care over the last 10 years,
or the estates of 10 people who were killed, as a way to manage
the numbers.

Justice LeBlanc asked whether victims who received outpatient care
and those from outside the province should have a voice too.

An expanded definition could potentially increase the class by
thousands of people, Mr. Crosbie told the judge.

Mr. Crosbie said he knows of no similar case elsewhere in Canada.
The potentially precedent-setting class action was mentioned last
month in The Economist magazine.

Justice Minister Felix Collins said he sympathizes with victims
and their families, but the province will defend itself in court.

"There's no doubt that these families have reason to be upset," he
said in an interview. "We want to express our condolences to those
people.

"With respect to the legal proceedings, these have to take their
own course."

The province has not yet filed a statement of defense.

Two men who were seriously injured when their vehicles struck
moose on Newfoundland highways are lead plaintiffs in the case.

Government lawyers did not fight efforts to have victims of
similar accidents declared a class that can sue as a group.

Newfoundland Senator Fabian Manning was treated last month in
hospital for cuts, bruises and a minor head injury after his car
hit a moose west of St. John's.

The public gallery in court on June 7 was crowded with family
members, some with photos of loved ones killed in moose crashes.

Victims are led by plaintiffs Hugh George, a carpenter foreman who
hit a moose last Aug. 5, and Ben Bellows, who struck a moose on
July 10, 2003.

Mr. George suffered a severe brain injury, while Mr. Bellows
became a quadriplegic who relies on a wheelchair.

Mr. Bellows said outside court that the province should have done
more to better protect drivers long ago.

Recent efforts to cull moose herds, increase hunting licenses, cut
roadside brush and educate drivers about the need to slow down
have not been enough, he said.

"When you have to wait this long for government to react with so
many people hurt and maimed every year, they should have seen this
coming a long time ago.

"I could see it being settled out of court because they don't want
to drag it on and on and on. It's costly and time-consuming."

The statement of claim, which has not been proven in court, says
the province is liable for accidents involving moose, a "non-
native invasive species" introduced to Newfoundland by the
government in the early 1900s.

It says moose are a public nuisance that the government introduced
and then negligently failed to manage.

This alleged failure "has substantially and continuously
interfered with the public right of safe and unimpeded use of
highways on the island of Newfoundland," says the statement of
claim.

Adult moose weigh between 360 to 450 kilograms -- 800 to 1,000
pounds -- and were brought to the island despite having "no
natural predator (other than black bears which prey on very young
calves)," says the statement of claim.

Collisions with the long-legged, top heavy animals can be
devastating at highway speeds of 70 to 110 kilometers per hour, it
says.

"A car's bumper and front grill typically will break the moose's
legs, causing the body of the moose to clear the car's hood and
deliver the bulk of the body weight into the windshield, crushing
the windshield, front roof beams and anyone in the front seats."

Victims are claiming personal injury and general damages that
weren't detailed pending certification of the class action.

Kellie Feltham's 17-year-old son Konrad was killed when his
vehicle struck a moose on July 3, 2009.  She wants compensation
for people like Mr. Bellows, who struggle each day with their
injuries, and more action from the province.

"For me, it's not for compensation," she said outside court.
"It's for safety.  I have a daughter . . . (to) know that she can
drive on the streets and all of Konrad's friends can drive on the
streets safe, and not have to worry in the nighttime about moose.

"They're trying but they're not trying hard enough," Ms. Feltham
said of the province.

"It seems like one step ahead, and three backwards."


NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Challenges Disability Medicare Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action challenges North Carolina's restriction of Medicaid
personal care services funding for thousands of disabled people.
The class claims the cuts are not only unconstitutional, but will
cost the state money because it will still have to provide some
services, but with a 10% reduction in federal matching grants to
pay for them.

This is the third such class action filed in the past week.  The
earlier lawsuits challenge changes to Medicaid services for
disabled nursing home residents and disabled people in Rhode
Island and Ohio.

Personal care services are provided to elderly and disabled people
who need assistance with basic tasks of daily living, such as
eating, bathing, dressing and going to the toilet.  Under new
rules promulgated by the N.C. Department of Health and Human
Services, these services will be terminated for 3,500 to 4,000
elderly, blind or disabled North Carolinians.

"Under DHHS's new rules, individuals who reside in assisted living
facilities known as adult care Homes (ACHs) need to satisfy much
less restrictive criteria to qualify for (PCS) than those living
in their homes," the complaint states.  "Most ACHs are large,
institutional settings and many are located in isolated rural
areas, far from the communities in which the residents would
otherwise live.  As a result of defendant's new eligibility
criteria, individuals in ACHs with much less severe disabilities
and lesser needs will not have access to PCS unless they move to
an ACH."

The class claims that though its members received notice, "these
notices are confusing, lack necessary information, and do not
comply with the requirements of the Medicaid Act and the U.S.
Constitution."

Class representatives include Henry Pashby, 53, who suffers from
multiple sclerosis, loss of use of his left leg due to two
strokes, and carpal tunnel syndrome; Annie Baxley, 69, who has
lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hyperlipidemia,
and idiopathic peripheral neuropathy, among other conditions; and
Margaret Drew, 63, whose medical problems include pulmonary
hypertension, arthritis, diabetes, vision impairment, heart
disease, and orthopedic impairment.

They, and the class, seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act, Medicaid notice and hearing
requirements, and due process rights.

They also seek reinstatement of personal care services that were
improperly reduced or terminated.

A copy of the Complaint in Pashby, et al. v. Cansler, Case No. 11-
cv-00273 (E.D.N.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/NCMedicaid.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John R. Rittelmeyer, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Bills, Esq.
          Elizabeth D. Edwards, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NC
          2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 550
          Raleigh, NC 27608
          Telephone: (919) 856-2195
          E-mail: john.rittelmeyer@disabilityrightsnc.org
                  jennifer.bills@disabilityrightsnc.org
                  elizabeth.edwards@disabilityrightsnc.org

               - and -

          Douglas Stuart Sea, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF SOUTHERN PIEDMONT, INC.
          1431 Elizabeth Avenue
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (704) 376-1600
          E-mail: dougs@lssp.org

               - and -

          Sarah Somers, Esq.
          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          101 E. Weaver Street, Ste. G-7
          Carrboro, NC 27510
         Telephone: (919) 968-6308
         E-mail: somers@healthlaw.org
                 perkins@healthlaw.org


OCZ TECHONOLOGY: Defends Against Calif. Suit Over SSD Performance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OCZ Technology Group, Inc., is defending itself against a class
action suit alleging improper business practices in California,
according to the Company's May 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 28, 2011.

On March 24, 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California San Jose Division alleging that certain of the
Company's solid state drives or SSDs sold on or after January 1,
2011 did not meet certain performance criteria and as a result,
the Company engaged in certain deceptive practices and violated
various laws.  Among other things, the suit seeks unspecified
actual and compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement and injunctive and other equitable
relief.

The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the litigation.

OCZ Technology Group, Inc., designs, manufactures and distributes
high-performance solid state drives, or SSDs.  It focuses
primarily on three market segments: High-Performance and Server,
Enterprise and Consumer.  "High Performance and Server" includes
servers, workstations and high-performance computing devices
primarily used in the enterprise and in specialized environments
including technology and aviation.  "Enterprise" includes data
centers, cloud computing, enterprise computing devices and storage
area networks.  "Consumer" includes a broad array of consumer
devices including PCs, laptops, tablets, gaming devices and mobile
handsets.


POLAROID CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective LCD TVs
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Polaroid knew as early as 2006 that its LCD TVs fail, smoke
and catch fire, but actively concealed the defects and failed to
warn customers or recall the sets.

A copy of the Complaint in Hudson v. Polaroid Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-_____ (D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota St.
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: jdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          431 Montgomery Ave., Suite B
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000
          E-Mail: mhenzel@henzellaw.com


PT INDOSAT: District Court Decision in Class Suits Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Decisions by two district courts in Indonesia holding that the
class action lawsuits filed against PT Indosat Tbk are
unacceptable are deemed final and binding, according to the
Company's May 18, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A series of class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and Telkomsel in the District Court of Bekasi, the Central Jakarta
District Court and the Tangerang District Court relating to
Temasek Holding's prior cross ownership of shares in Indosat and
Telkomsel, which is alleged to have caused high price fixing of
telecommunications services that harmed to the public.  On
October 31, 2007, a group of consumers of cellular telephones in
Indonesia filed suit in the District Court of Bekasi demanding,
among other remedies, Rp1,231.7 billion in compensation for losses
allegedly suffered.  The Company is also a defendant in a similar
class action suit filed in the Tangerang District Court on
December 19, 2007.  The plaintiffs represent the Company's
customers and the customers of Telkomsel and XL throughout
Indonesia who used the Simpati, Mentari, Kartu As, IM3, Kartu
Halo, Matrix, Jempol, Xplor, and Bebas services and are demanding
compensation amounting to Rp30,808.7 billion, among other
remedies.  On April 22, 2008, the Company received notification
that the Company, Temasek Holdings, ST Telemedia, STT, AMH, ICLM,
ICLS, SingTel, SingTel Mobile, Telkomsel, Telkom and the Ministry
of State-Owned Enterprises, were defendants in another class
action filed in the Central Jakarta District Court.  The
plaintiffs represent customers of Telkomsel, Indosat and XL and
have asserted allegations similar to that of the Tangerang Class
Action.  The plaintiffs are demanding compensation amounting to
Rp30,808.7 billion, among other remedies.  In July 2008, the
Company was notified that the class action in the Bekasi District
Court was revoked by the plaintiffs and the class action in the
Central Jakarta District Court was merged with the Tangerang Class
Action.  The class action suit in the Tangerang District Court was
postponed by the judges pending resolution of an appeal to the
Supreme Court by the plaintiffs from the class action filed in
Central Jakarta District Court.  On March 27, 2009, the Company
was informed that the Supreme Court issued a decision on
January 21, 2009 revoking the Central Jakarta District Court
decision and ordering the Central Jakarta District Court to
continue with the class action.  On December 22, 2009, Indosat
submitted a proposal in the mediation process asserting that no
evidence of customers' loss has been presented during STT's
ownership.  At the same time, Indosat is preparing a claim of
inadequacy of representation as well as a response to the lawsuit.
On January 5, 2010 the defendants were given the right to provide
arguments regarding the legal standing of the class representation
under the Class Action Lawsuit Procedure.  On January 27, 2010,
the Judges ruled that that the Central Jakarta Class Action
lawsuit was unacceptable and ordered the plaintiffs and defendants
to stop the case because (i) the plaintiffs refused to prove their
legal standing and (ii) two members of the plaintiffs' class did
not qualify to stand as class representatives.  The period for
appeal having lapsed on March 18, 2010, the decision of the
Central Jakarta District Court dated January 27, 2010 is now final
and binding.

On March 22, 2010, the trial of the Tangerang Class Action
continued, but the plaintiffs failed to appear.  On May 3, 2010,
the Company submitted a demurrer and on May 24, 2010, the judges
ruled that the class action filed with the Tangerang District
Court was unacceptable because the plaintiffs were not serious in
filing the lawsuit and the plaintiffs failed to prove their legal
standing for qualification as class representatives.  Since the
time limit to file an appeal lapsed on July 21, 2010, the decision
of the Tangerang District Court dated May 24, 2010 is final and
binding.

PT Indosat Tbk -- http://www.indosat.com/-- is a
telecommunication and information service provider in Indonesia
that provides cellular services (Mentari, Matrix and IM3), fixed
telecommunication services or fixed voice (IDD 001, IDD 008 and
FlatCall 01016, fixed wireless service StarOne and I-Phone).
Indosat also provides Multimedia, Internet & Data Communication
Services (MIDI) through its subsidiary company, Indosat Mega
Media (IM2) and Lintasarta.  Indosat also provides 3.5 G with
HSDPA technology.  Indosat's shares are listed in the Indonesia
Stock Exchange (IDX:ISAT) and its American Depository Shares are
listed in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:IIT).


RED ROBIN GOURMET: "Moreno" Class Action Still Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit brought by Marcos R. Moreno
against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. is still pending in
California, according to the Company's May 20, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended April 17, 2011.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County, California
and has been removed to Federal District Court for the Central
District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.  Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on
February 10, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges failure to pay wages and
overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to pay
compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely wages
on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
unlawful business practices and unfair competition.  Plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and special damages, restitution for unfair
competition, premium pay, penalties and wages under the Labor
Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs.   On March 24,
2010, the Court granted a stay of the case pending the outcome of
a California case currently pending before the California Supreme
Court for review.  That case involves similar allegations
regarding rest and meal breaks.  It is anticipated that the
California Supreme Court will provide useful guidance on rest and
meal breaks when the opinion in that case is issued.

The Company believes the Moreno suit is without merit.  Although
it plans to vigorously defend against this suit, it cannot predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it may be required to pay
damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other amounts that may
not be covered by insurance.


RUE LA LA: Shareholders File Class Action Over eBay Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that former shareholders of Rue La
La fka Retail Convergence claim GSI Commerce, and its CEO Michael
G. Rubin bought Rue La La on the cheap (for $170 million to $350
million, subject to "earn outs") in a "devious" deal with co-
defendant eBay, which is to buy GSI and flip it to Rubin at "a
bargain basement price."

A copy of the Complaint in Novack v. GSI Commerce Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-2086 (Mass. Super . Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall W. Bodner, Esq.
          John F. Bueker, Esq.
          Rodman K. Forter, Jr., Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Prudential Tower
          800 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02199
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          E-mail: randall.bodner@ropesgray.com
                  john.bueker@ropesgray.com
                  rodman.forter@ropesgray.com


SCOTIABANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Divisional Court, on June 3, 2011, released its
unanimous decision dismissing the appeal brought by Scotiabank
from the certification of a national overtime class action.

The case was launched in December 2007 by Cindy Fulawka, a
personal banking representative who worked in Scotiabank branches
in Saskatchewan and Ontario for more than 15 years.  The class
that Ms. Fulawka represents includes more than 5,000 Scotiabank
sales employees across Canada. It is one of several overtime class
actions brought by Toronto law firms, Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP and
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP along with a national team of law
firms.

The case was certified as a class action by Justice Strathy of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice in February 2010.  Scotiabank
appealed the ruling.  It argued its case before a three-judge
panel of the Ontario Divisional Court in December 2010.  In
detailed reasons released on June 3, 2011, the Divisional Court
unanimously rejected each of Scotiabank's grounds of appeal and
ordered that the case can proceed to trial on its merits.
Scotiabank has yet to state whether it will try to appeal to the
Ontario Court of Appeal.

"Although I am frustrated by the delay associated with the Bank's
appeal, I am more determined than ever to see it through to
trial", said Ms. Fulawka.  "I know my colleagues across the
country feel the same way.  I am delighted that the appeal court
has agreed that this action can proceed to trial and I hope that
we can now get there without further delay or appeals."

Co-lead counsel Louis Sokolov, Esq., of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
LLP said that "this decision is a big boost to members of the
class.  Two levels of court and four judges have now unanimously
agreed that Ms. Fulawka and her colleagues are entitled to a
trial.  The doors of the court house are open."

Co-lead counsel David O'Connor, Esq., of Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP
noted "This is a good day for employees and access to the courts.
The decision confirms that the class action process can
effectively and efficiently resolve claims for thousands of
individuals in one of the most important relationships in their
lives -- the employment relationship.  The Class Proceedings Act
was designed to make access to justice like this possible."


SHELL OIL: Three Law Firms File Class Action Over Benzene Spill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that three
law firms have filed a class action lawsuit in Madison County,
alleging a 1986 Shell Oil Co. benzene spill and intrusion into
residences have damaged the groundwater and reduced the value of
people's homes.

The suit is different from other benzene suits in that it seeks
compensation for property damage, rather than damages for health
effects, including cancer.

Property values have dropped, and residents cannot sell their
homes, leaving them "trapped in their homes," the suit claims.

The suit includes nine counts but does not ask for a specific
dollar amount of damages.  Besides Shell, BP Products and several
people referred to as "John Doe" are named as defendants.  The
John Does are various designers and engineers in the refining
business.

"Benzene and other poisonous hydrocarbons are floating on the
groundwater and are in the soil located directly under the village
of Roxana.  Shell, BP Products and the Does have each caused, or
contributed to cause, the formation of the underground plume of
benzene and other toxic hydrocarbons (the Benzene Plume), which
has destroyed the value of the real estate in Roxana and has
placed in serious jeopardy the health of Roxana's residents," the
suit claims.

The complaint alleges that among the toxic chemicals released, the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency documented the release of
8,400 gallons of pure benzene in 1986 from an underground pipeline
that extended from the Wood River Refinery in Roxana to a barge-
loading facility on the Mississippi River.

"Another Illinois EPA documented release of pure benzene occurred
in February 1986," a spokesman for one of the plaintiffs' law
firms said.

The complaint alleges that the defendants did nothing to clean up
or otherwise address the toxic chemicals, including benzene, for
more than 20 years.

The refinery continued its groundwater pumping activities, pulling
benzene from the 1986 leak under the homes and businesses of the
residents of Roxana.  The benzene in the groundwater exposes the
Roxana residents to benzene vapor intrusion into their homes,
attorney Chris Dysart, Esq., said.

The pumping has lowered the water table and caused the plume to
spread, the suit alleges.

The suit alleges that Shell has known about the dangers of benzene
causing cancer for decades but, despite its knowledge, it publicly
minimized and hid the dangers.

The complaint also alleges Shell has known about the dangers
posted by benzene vapors entering homes and other property since
it performed studies concerning vapor intrusion in the 1980s.

The complaint alleges the Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA have cited
Shell for numerous environmental violations for its operations at
the Wood River Refinery in Roxana.

Most recently, in May 2008, the Illinois EPA cited Shell for
violating the Illinois Environmental Protection Act 41 times by
exceeding the standards for the release of benzene and other
chemicals into the groundwater of Roxana, Mr. Dysart said.

The suit claims that, as early as 1948, studies were published
that show a link between benzene and blood cancers.

The suit claims Shell first became aware of an excess rate of
leukemia at its refineries when a contract worker filed suit in
1979, alleging benzene exposure had caused the worker's leukemia.

Shell compiled a list of leukemia cases of its past employees and
allegedly was the site of the largest number of leukemia deaths,
the suit claims.

In 1980, Shell calculated that there were a statistically
significant number of leukemia deaths at its Wood River Refinery,
the suit claims; however, Shell issued a letter to its employees
minimizing the risks.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
criticized that letter, claiming that even low levels of benzene
posed a risk.

The suit claims that in May 2010, the Illinois Department of
Public Health sent a letter to the Illinois EPA, which states that
a report dated February 2010 prepared for Shell by its contractor,
URS, and posted on the Roxana Investigation Web site set forth
misleading conclusions regarding the dangers posed by the Roxana
benzene plume.

The suit also claims there have been leaks from the mothballed
former BP Amoco plant in Wood River.

Mr. Dysart said he and his firm, The Dysart Firm of Chesterfield,
Mo., were plaintiffs' attorneys in a class action suit against
several refiners in a suit over a plume of gasoline under
Hartford.  That suit was settled for $40 million, he said.

The plaintiffs also are represented by Goldenberg Heller Antognoli
and Rowland of Edwardsville, lawyers who also were involved in a
class action concerning the Hartford plume, and a St. Louis firm,
Heraldry, Neiers and Jones.


SIGNATURE GROUP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities action
suit in California remains pending, according to Signature Group
Holdings, Inc., as successor to Fremont General Corporation, in
its May 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.

In September 2007, three separate complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Fremont and various
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws in connection with published statements by Fremont regarding
its loan portfolio and loans held for resale during the period
from May 9, 2006 through February 27, 2007.  These three class
action lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding and a
consolidated class action complaint was filed on March 3, 2008.
On January 9, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint.  Fremont was not a
named defendant in the SAC because of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy
filing.  The named defendants in the SAC were former directors and
officers of Fremont: Louis J. Rampino, Wayne R. Bailey, Patrick E.
Lamb, Kyle R. Walker, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr. and James A.
McIntyre.  On November 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Third
Amended Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint.  Fremont's
potential exposure in the matter arises out of its indemnification
agreements and obligations with these individual defendants.  On
March 29, 2010, the trial court entered an Order Granting
Fremont's Motion to Dismiss the 3rd Amended Complaint with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs timely appealed the Court Order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the appeal is
currently pending.  Fremont has notified its insurance carriers
and has requested coverage under its directors and officers
insurance policies, in which the primary insurance carrier has
accepted coverage under a reservation of rights.  Plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of damages.

                       About Signature Group

Signature Group Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Fremont General
Corporation, emerged from bankruptcy proceedings on June 11, 2010.
Pursuant to the Plan, Signature is an externally managed financial
services company that seeks to become a diversified business
enterprise that is intended to generate strong, risk-adjusted
return on equity while protecting shareholder capital.  On the
Plan Effective Date, after a nearly two-year reorganization
process, the common equity shareholders of Fremont became the
holders of a majority of the common equity in Signature.  Although
Signature remains a financial services company and plans to
continue providing financing for commercial purposes as Fremont
did in its commercial lending operation, the Company's business is
different from Fremont's legacy operations prior to and during its
bankruptcy proceedings.


SYMANTEC CORP: Unit Disburses $21.5MM "Kuck" Suit Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation's subsidiary has disbursed a $21.5 million
settlement fund relating to the purported class action filed by
Paul Kuck, according to the Company's May 20, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 1, 2011.

On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled Paul
Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software Corporation, et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The
lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Veritas Software Corporation, an entity that
merged with the Company in 2005's announcement on July 6, 2004
that it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter
ended June 30, 2004 to fall below earlier estimates. The complaint
generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Subsequently,
additional purported class action complaints have been filed in
Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the Court entered
an order consolidating these actions and appointing lead
plaintiffs and counsel. A consolidated amended complaint, was
filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period from April 23,
2004 through July 6, 2004. The CAC also named another officer as a
defendant and added allegations that Veritas and the named
officers made false or misleading statements in press releases and
SEC filings regarding Veritas' financial results, which allegedly
contained revenue recognized from contracts that were unsigned or
lacked essential terms. The defendants to this matter filed a
motion to dismiss the CAC in July 2005; the motion was denied in
May 2006. In April 2008, the parties filed a stipulation of
settlement. On July 31, 2008, the Court held a final approval
hearing and, on August 5, 2008, the Court entered an order
approving the settlement. An objector to the fees portion of the
settlement has lodged an appeal. On October 4, 2010, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the District Court
approving the fee request.

In fiscal 2008, the Company recorded an accrual in the amount of
$21.5 million for this matter and, pursuant to the terms of the
settlement, the Company established a settlement fund of $21.5
million on May 1, 2008. On February 4, 2011, the District Court
entered an order for disbursement of that fund.

Symantec Corporation is a global provider of security, storage,
and systems management solutions that help businesses and
consumers secure and manage their information and identities.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Get Class Action Settlement Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Marsh, writing for Reuters, reports that African-American
farmers who faced discrimination by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in farm loans are being notified they may qualify for
a part of a $1.25 billion settlement.

A series of class action lawsuits found that between 1981 and 1996
the USDA systematically discriminated against African-American
farmers on the basis of race.

The notification process is informing members of the class action
lawsuit that the most recent court decision opens up the field of
eligibility to those excluded from earlier court decisions, a
statement from lawyers involved in the litigation said on Monday.

Those who experienced the discrimination or their heirs, kin, or
legal representatives should file a claim and comment, or may
object to the settlement, with the federal court.

The deadline for filing claims may be as early as February 28,
2012, the statement from the lawyers said.

By not acting, claimants forfeit their award and the right to sue
in the future, according to a notice being sent to members of
previous lawsuits.


VENMAR VENTILATION: Recalls 1,400 Air Exchangers
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Venmar Ventilation Inc., of Quebec, Canada, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 air exchangers in the United States of
America.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The motor in the air exchangers can overheat, posing a fire hazard
to consumers.

Venmar Ventilation firm has received nine reports of overheating
incidents resulting in fires and property damage outside of the
United States.  No incidents have been reported in the United
States.

This recall involves air exchangers sold under different brands
that are used to circulate air in and out of the home.  The metal
air exchangers are painted blue or grey.  Air exchangers included
in the recall were manufactured from 1996 through 2001 and have
brand and model information printed on the unit's rating plate or
on the side of the unit.  These brand names and model numbers are
included in the recall:

      Brand                     Model
      -----                ----------------
      Venmar               EA 20XXX, 41005,
                              Air Exchanger
      Venmar                      AVS 4100X
      vanEE                         1601510
      Flair                           41XXX
      Hush                          1601510
      Guardian by Broan                AE60

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11240.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold by
heating, plumbing and building supply distributors nationwide from
January 1996 through December 2001 for between $350 and $850.

Consumers should immediately turn off and stop using their air
exchangers.  Consumers should contact Venmar Ventilation to
request a free inspection and repair by a Venmar field technician.
For additional information, contact the Venmar Ventilation toll-
free at (866) 441-4645 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.venmar.ca/


WHOLE FOODS: Remains a Defendant in "Kottaras" Suit in D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market, Inc., remains a defendant in a putative class
action captioned Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., before a
federal court in the District of Columbia, according to the
Company's May 20, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 10, 2011.

On October 27, 2008, the Company was served with the complaint in
Kottaras v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a putative class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, seeking treble damages, equitable, injunctive, and
declaratory relief and alleging that the acquisition and merger
between the Company and Wild Oats violates various provisions of
the federal antitrust laws. This case continues to be in the early
stages of litigation. The Company cannot at this time predict the
likely outcome of this judicial proceeding or estimate the amount
or range of loss or possible loss that may arise from it. The
Company has not accrued any loss related to the outcome of this
case as of April 10, 2011.

Whole Foods Market, Inc., is a natural and organic foods
supermarket and America's first national "Certified Organic"
grocer.


                      Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Facing 4,800 Claims at April 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. was defending against 4,800 asbestos
claims as of April 18, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2011.

This compares with about 5,158 such claims as of Feb. 11, 2011,
about 5,170 claims as of Oct. 29, 2010, about 7,343 claims as of
July 23, 2010, and about 7,464 claims as of April 29, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in
the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products that the Company had previously manufactured.

The Company produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills.  Such fabrics generally had
a useful life of three to 12 months.

The significant increase in the number of dismissed claims during
2009 and early 2010 is in large part the result of changes in the
administration of claims assigned to the multidistrict litigation
panel of the federal district courts.

Beginning in May 2007, the MDL issued a series of administrative
orders intended to expedite the resolution of pending cases.
Those orders provided a process to allow defendants to move for
dismissal of claims that were noncompliant or were not being
prosecuted.

As of April 18, 2011, about 448 claims remained against the
Company in the MDL.  This compares to 12,758 claims that were
pending at the MDL as of Feb. 6, 2009.

As of April 18, 2011, the remaining 4,352 claims pending against
the Company were pending in a number of jurisdictions other than
the MDL.

Pleadings and discovery responses in those cases in which work
histories have been provided indicate claimants with paper mill
exposure in about 25% of total claims reported, and only a portion
of those claimants have alleged time spent in a paper mill to
which the Company believed to have supplied asbestos-containing
products.

As of April 18, 2011, the Company had resolved, by means of
settlement or dismissal, 35,893 claims.  The total cost of
resolving all claims was US$8.1 million.  Of this amount, almost
100% was paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

The Company has about US$130 million in confirmed insurance
coverage that should be available with respect to current and
future asbestos claims, as well as additional insurance coverage
that the Company should be able to access.

Albany International Corp. and its subsidiaries are engaged in
five business segments: The Paper Machine Clothing segment, The
Engineered Composites segment (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS),
The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment, and The PrimaLoft Products
segment.  The Company is headquartered in Rochester, N.H.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Facing 7,876 Claims at April 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.
affiliate was defending against 7,876 asbestos claims as of
April 18, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2011.

This compares with 7,868 such claims as of Feb. 11, 2011, about
7,869 claims as of Oct. 28, 2010, about 7,907 claims as of
July 23, 2010 and April 29, 2010, and about 7,905 such claims as
of Feb. 16, 2010.

Brandon, a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary of
the Company, is a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases
in which the Company is named as a defendant.

The Company acquired Geschmay, formerly known as Wagner Systems
Corporation, in 1999.  In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets
from Abney Mills, a South Carolina textile manufacturer.  Among
the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's
wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold dryer
fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney.

It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-containing
fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.  Although Brandon
manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent
to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos.

Under the terms of the Assets Purchase Agreement between Brandon
and Abney, Abney agreed to indemnify, defend, and hold Brandon
harmless from any actions or claims on account of products
manufactured by Abney and its related corporations prior to the
date of the sale, whether or not the product was sold subsequent
to the date of the sale.

It appears that Abney has since been dissolved.  Nevertheless, a
representative of Abney has been notified of the pendency of these
actions and demand has been made that it assume the defense of
these actions.

In some instances, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed claims
against it, while in others it has entered into what it considers
to be reasonable settlements.  As of April 18, 2011, Brandon has
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, about 9,720 claims
for a total of US$200,000.

Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the
total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights.  The
remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon.

During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings.

As of April 18, 2011, about 6,821 (or about 81 percent) of the
claims pending against Brandon were pending in Mississippi.

Albany International Corp. and its subsidiaries are engaged in
five business segments: The Paper Machine Clothing segment, The
Engineered Composites segment (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS),
The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment, and The PrimaLoft Products
segment.  The Company is headquartered in Rochester, N.H.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Subject to Mount Vernon Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is named both as a direct defendant and
as the "successor in interest" to asbestos cases related to Mount
Vernon Mills.

The Company acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993.
Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos-containing
products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years
prior to this acquisition.

Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company
against any liability arising out of such products.  The Company
denies any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to
the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets.

Under its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon
has assumed the defense of these claims.  On this basis, the
Company has successfully moved for dismissal in a number of
actions.

Albany International Corp. and its subsidiaries are engaged in
five business segments: The Paper Machine Clothing segment, The
Engineered Composites segment (AEC), Albany Door Systems (ADS),
The Engineered Fabrics (EF) segment, and The PrimaLoft Products
segment.  The Company is headquartered in Rochester, N.H.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Ltd. Still Subject to A&E Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited will continue to be subject to litigation and
arbitration proceedings, including litigation generally related to
the scope of coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental
claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2011.

Enstar Group Limited was formed in August 2001 to acquire and
manage insurance and reinsurance companies in run-off and
portfolios of insurance and reinsurance business in run-off, and
to provide management, consulting and other services to the
insurance and reinsurance industry.  The Company is headquartered
in Hamilton, Bermuda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Cites $1.3MM March 31 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s accruals for estimated retirement
obligations were about US$1.3 million as of March 31, 2011 and
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations
as required by current accounting guidance.  The amount of asset
retirement obligations relates primarily to estimated asbestos
removal costs at the end of the economic life of properties that
were built before 1984.

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns, acquires, develops, redevelops
and manages technology-related real estate.  The Company is
headquartered in San Francisco.


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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cooper Records 15,564 Abex Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries plc, at March 31, 2011, recorded 15,564 pending
Abex asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2011.

In October 1998, the Company sold its Automotive Products business
to Federal-Mogul Corporation.  These discontinued businesses
(including the Abex Friction product line obtained from Pneumo-
Abex Corporation in 1994) were operated through subsidiary
companies, and the stock of those subsidiaries was sold to
Federal-Mogul under a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated Aug. 17,
1998.

In conjunction with the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified the
Company for certain liabilities of these subsidiary companies,
including liabilities related to the Abex Friction product line
and any potential liability that the Company may have to Pneumo
under a 1994 Mutual Guaranty Agreement (Mutual Guaranty) between
the Company and Pneumo.

On Oct. 1, 2001, Federal-Mogul and several of its affiliates filed
a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition.  The Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware confirmed Federal-Mogul's plan of
reorganization and Federal-Mogul emerged from bankruptcy in
December 2007.

As part of Federal-Mogul's Plan of Reorganization, the Company and
Federal-Mogul reached a settlement agreement that was subject to
approval by the Bankruptcy Court resolving Federal-Mogul's
indemnification obligations to the Company.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court issued its final ruling
denying the Company's participation in the proposed Federal-Mogul
524(g) trust resulting in the Company implementing the previously
approved Plan B Settlement, where the Company continued to resolve
through the tort system the asbestos related claims arising from
the Abex Friction product line that it had sold to Federal-Mogul
in 1998.

On Feb. 1, 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
that upon its closing on April 5, 2011 resolved the Company's
liability under the Mutual Guaranty with Pneumo.

As part of its now resolved obligation to Pneumo for any asbestos-
related claims arising from the Abex Friction product line (Abex
Claims), the Company had rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to
significant insurance for such claims.

Based on information provided by representatives of Federal-Mogul
and recent claims experience, from Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31,
2011, a total of 149,688 Abex Claims were filed, of which 134,124
claims have been resolved.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, about 338 claims
were filed and 250 claims were resolved.  Since Aug. 28, 1998, the
average indemnity payment for resolved Abex Claims was US$2,078
before insurance.  A total of US$195.7 million was spent on
defense costs for the period Aug. 28, 1998 through March 31, 2011.

Existing insurance coverage had been providing about 30% recovery
of the total defense and indemnity payments for Abex Claims due to
exhaustion of primary layers of coverage and litigation with
certain excess insurers, although, in certain periods, insurance
recoveries have been higher due to new settlements with insurers.

Cooper Industries plc's electrical products segment makes circuit
protection equipment, as well as lighting fixtures, wiring
devices, and other power management and distribution equipment for
residential, commercial, and industrial use.  The Company is
headquartered in Detroit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Motors Still Facing Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various legal actions, claims and proceedings are pending against
General Motors Company including matters arising out of alleged
product defects, including asbestos-related claims.

No further asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2011.

General Motors Company designs, builds and sells cars, trucks and
parts worldwide.  The Company also conducts finance operations
through General Motors Financial Company, Inc.  The Company is
headquartered in Detroit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Has 29,017 Total Cases at April 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of April 1, 2011, was a defendant in
about 29,017 asbestos cases, of which about 579 were non-maritime
cases and 28,438 were maritime cases brought in various
jurisdictions throughout the United States.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$5.1 million as
of April 1, 2011 and had recovered about US$500,000 of insurance
recoveries for these lawsuits as of Dec. 31, 2010.

General Cable Corporation develops, designs, manufactures,
installs, markets and distributes copper, aluminum and fiber optic
wire and cable products.  The Company's operations are divided
into three reportable segments: North America, Europe and
Mediterranean and Rest of World.  The Company is headquartered in
Highland Heights, Ky.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 29 Injury Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation says that, at March 31, 2011, there were about
29 asbestos lawsuits in which it is one of many defendants,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2011.

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

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states
of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Noble Corporation is an offshore drilling contractor for the oil
and gas industry.  The Company performs contract drilling services
with its fleet of 76 mobile offshore drilling units and one
floating production storage and offloading unit (FPSO) located
worldwide.  The Company is headquartered in Baar, Switzerland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Still Facing 180 Cases in Md. at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc.'s Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco)
subsidiary, as of March 31, 2011, continues to face about 180
asbestos cases pending in the State Courts of Maryland.

Of the 180 cases, about 90 cases were filed after Dec. 19, 2000,
and were tendered to Mirant Corporation for defense and
indemnification in connection with the sale by Pepco of its
generation assets to Mirant in 2000.

In 1993, Pepco was served with Amended Complaints filed in the
state Circuit Courts of Prince George's County, Baltimore City and
Baltimore County, Md., in separate ongoing, consolidated
proceedings known as "In re: Personal Injury Asbestos Case."

Pepco and other corporate entities were brought into these cases
on a theory of premises liability.  Under this theory, the
plaintiffs argued that Pepco was negligent in not providing a safe
work environment for employees or its contractors, who allegedly
were exposed to asbestos while working on Pepco's property.
Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco
to their complaints.

While the pleadings are not entirely clear, it appears that each
plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory damages and US$4
million in punitive damages from each defendant.

Since the initial filings in 1993, additional individual suits
have been filed against Pepco, and significant numbers of cases
have been dismissed.  As a result of two motions to dismiss,
numerous hearings and meetings and one motion for summary
judgment, Pepco has had about 400 of these cases successfully
dismissed with prejudice, either voluntarily by the plaintiff or
by the court.

While the aggregate amount of monetary damages sought in the
remaining suits (excluding those tendered to Mirant) is about
US$360 million, the Company and Pepco believe the amounts claimed
by the remaining plaintiffs are greatly exaggerated.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. distributes electricity and natural gas
through its Potomac Electric Power (Pepco), Delmarva Power &
Light, and Atlantic City Electric utilities to about 1.9 million
customers in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.
None of the Company's three utilities have power generation
plants.  The Company is headquartered in Washington, D.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Pending Against Gardner Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gardner Denver, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a number of
asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 6, 2011.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
litigation lawsuits.  However, neither the Company nor its
predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber, the material that allegedly caused the
injury underlying the lawsuits.

Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if
any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Still Subject to Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc. has been named, along with multiple other
defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business
operations previously acquired by the Company, but which are no
longer owned.

During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products.  With respect to these claims,
the Company said it believes that it has no such liability.

For such claims, the Company is uninsured, contractually
indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to
defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek
business operations.  The Company seeks dismissal from these
proceedings.

Magnetek, Inc. provides digital power control systems that are
used to control motion and power primarily in material handling,
elevator and energy delivery applications.  The Company is
headquartered in Menomonee Falls, Wis.


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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Reserves $841MM for Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC subsidiary
reserved US$841 million as of March 31, 2011 for asbestos-related
claims, compared with US$853 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

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

As of March 31, 2011, there were 294 asserted claims for non-
malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to
US$73 million, and 60 asserted claims for malignant cases with the
cumulative relief sought of up to US$22 million.

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

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

Insurance recoveries of US$850 million related to this policy are
classified in the respective Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
in Other within Investments and Other Assets and Receivables as of
both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Indiana Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation's Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. subsidiary has
been named as a defendant or co-defendant in lawsuits related to
asbestos at its electric generating stations, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2011.

Based on estimates under varying assumptions concerning
uncertainties among others:

-- The number of contractors potentially exposed to asbestos
   during construction or maintenance of Duke Energy Indiana
   generating plants;

-- The possible incidence of various illnesses among exposed
   workers, and

-- The potential settlement costs without federal or other
   legislation that addresses asbestos tort actions,

Duke Energy Indiana estimates that the range of reasonably
possible exposure in existing and future suits over the
foreseeable future is not material.

This estimated range of exposure may change as additional
settlements occur and claims are made and more case law is
established.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arabian American Faces Exposure Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian American Development Company's South Hampton Resources,
Inc. affiliate is facing an asbestos lawsuit in the 11th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Tex.

On Sept. 14, 2010, South Hampton received notice of a lawsuit
filed in the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County,
Tex., which was subsequently transferred to Harris County.

The suit alleges that the plaintiff became ill from exposure to
asbestos.  There are about 44 defendants named in the suit.  The
Company has placed its insurers on notice of the claim and plans
to vigorously defend the case.

No amounts have been accrued for this claim.

Arabian American Development Company's principal business activity
is the manufacturing of various specialty petrochemical products.
The Company is headquartered in Sugar Land, Tex.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Posts $158MM Receivable at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc.'s Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (GST
LLC) subsidiary recorded a current asbestos insurance receivable
of US$158 million as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The historical business operations of GST LLC and The Anchor
Packing Company have resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos
litigation in which plaintiffs have alleged that exposure to
asbestos fibers in products produced or sold by GST LLC or Anchor,
together with products produced and sold by numerous other
companies, contributed to the bodily injuries or deaths of such
plaintiffs.

Those subsidiaries manufactured and/or sold industrial sealing
products that contained encapsulated asbestos fibers.  The
Company's subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos litigation and their
relationships with insurance carriers are managed through Garrison
Litigation Management Group, Ltd.

On the June 5, 2010 Petition Date, GST LLC, Garrison and Anchor
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte.

The filings were the initial step in a claims resolution process.

EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets proprietary engineered industrial products.  The Company
has 48 primary manufacturing facilities located in the United
States and nine other countries.  The Company is headquartered in
Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Has $167MM Insurance Coverage at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries, Inc., at March 31, 2011, had US$167 million of
insurance coverage the Company said it believes is available to
cover current and future asbestos claims against Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC (GST LLC) and certain expense payments.

GST has collected insurance payments totaling US$23.6 million
since the June 5, 2010 Petition Date.  In addition, at the
Petition Date, the Company had classified US$4.2 million of
otherwise available insurance as insolvent.

Of the US$167 million of collectible insurance coverage and trust
assets, the Company considers US$163.6 million (98%) to be of high
quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed
by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment
grade (BBB) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-)
or better.

The Company considers US$3.4 million (2%) to be of moderate
quality because the insurance policies are written with various
London market carriers.  Of the US$167 million, about US$131
million is allocated to claims that have been paid by GST LLC and
submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement and the
remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims.

The insurance available to cover current and future asbestos
claims is from comprehensive general liability policies that cover
Coltec Industries Inc. and certain of its other subsidiaries in
addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could
be subject to potential competing claims of other covered
subsidiaries and their assignees.

EnPro Industries, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets proprietary engineered industrial products.  The Company
has 48 primary manufacturing facilities located in the United
States and nine other countries.  The Company is headquartered in
Charlotte, N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO's Unit Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light
Company (IPL), is a defendant in a little less than 50 pending
lawsuits alleging personal injury or wrongful death stemming from
exposure to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly
located in IPL power plants.

IPL was a defendant in a little less than 100 pending lawsuits
alleging personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure
to asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in
IPL power plants.  (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2011)

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

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

IPL has settled a number of asbestos related lawsuits for amounts
which, individually and in the aggregate, were not material to
IPL's or the Company's results of operations, financial condition,
or cash flows.

Historically, settlements paid on IPL's behalf have been comprised
of proceeds from one or more insurers along with comparatively
smaller contributions by IPL.  Additionally, about 40 cases have
been dropped by the plaintiffs in the past year without requiring
a settlement.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mueller Units Still Subject to Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Mueller Water Products, Inc.'s subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2011.

Mueller Water Products, Inc. operates in three business segments:
Mueller Co., U.S. Pipe and Anvil.  Mueller Co. manufactures valves
for water and gas systems, including butterfly, iron gate,
tapping, check, plug and ball valves, as well as dry-barrel and
wet-barrel fire hydrants and a broad range of metering products
for the water infrastructure industry.  The Company is
headquartered in Atlanta.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Caterpillar Inc. Still Named in Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caterpillar Inc. continues to be involved in unresolved legal
actions including performance liability (including claimed
asbestos and welding fumes exposure).

No other significant asbestos matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 9, 2011.

Caterpillar Inc. makes construction, mining, and logging
machinery; diesel and natural gas engines; industrial gas
turbines; and electrical power generation systems.  The Company
operates plants worldwide and sells equipment via a network of
3,500 offices in some 180 countries.  The Company is headquartered
in Peoria, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MYR Group Inc. Still Subject to Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYR Group Inc. is routinely subject to asbestos-related claims
concerning historic operations of a predecessor affiliate,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2011.

The Company said it believes that it has strong defenses to these
claims as well as adequate insurance coverage in the event any
asbestos-related claim is not resolved in its favor.

MYR Group Inc. provides utility and electrical construction
services with a network of local offices located throughout the
continental United States.  The Company provides services that
include design, engineering, procurement, construction, upgrade,
maintenance and repair services with a particular focus on
construction, maintenance and repair.  The Company is based in
Rolling Meadows, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
VWR Funding, Inc., from time to time, is named as a defendant in
cases that arise as a result of its distribution of laboratory
supplies, including litigation resulting from the alleged prior
distribution of products containing asbestos by certain of its
predecessors or acquired companies.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 10, 2011.

VWR Funding, Inc. is a leader in the global laboratory supply
industry.  It provides distribution services by offering products
from a wide range of manufacturers to a large number of customers.
The Company is based in Radnor, Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL Still Has $2.9MM March 31 Cleanup Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., as of both March 31, 2011 and
Dec. 31, 2010, has recorded in its financial statements a
liability of US$2.9 million related to potential future asbestos
abatement activities at its Properties, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 10, 2011.

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


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

The Company or NATCO is named as a defendant in about 251
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, the majority of which
were filed between 1989 and 2000.  All of the cases, filed against
the Company prior to 1996, were administratively dismissed in May
1996 and any cases filed since that time have similarly been
administratively transferred to the inactive docket.

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

Plaintiffs have currently named 38 cases against the Company that
they intend to pursue, each of which involves one plaintiff.  The
remaining cases against the Company either have been or will be
dismissed.

Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases could file a new lawsuit if they
develop a new disease allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos on
board the Company's vessels.  The Company is presently unable to
quantify the amounts of damages being sought in these lawsuits
because none of the complaints specify a damage amount; therefore,
the Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these
lawsuits.

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


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

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 10, 2011.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Parts Unit Subject to Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiary, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts (WAG) is a defendant in several lawsuits
involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes
during the late 1960s and early 1970s that contained asbestos.

WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes.
WAG maintained liability insurance coverage to protect its and the
Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and
coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made
basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-
of-pocket costs.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. is an online source for automotive
aftermarket parts and repair information.  The Company is
headquartered in Carson, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tuxford Contractor Fined for Safety Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Priestley, a 47-year-old contractor from The Beeches,
Lincoln Road, Tuxford, Nottinghamshire, England, has been
prosecuted for exposing workers to asbestos in Derby, according to
a Health and Safety Executive Press release dated May 27, 2011.

Mr. Priestley had been employed to remove asbestos-containing
materials from the former Allens Printers building in Webster
Street ahead of its demolition.

Quarnmill Construction Ltd., the principal contractor on the site,
provided a survey of the building to Mr. Priestley detailing the
location of the asbestos.  The survey stated that in several
places a licensed contractor was required to remove some of the
material.  Quarnmill Construction has already been prosecuted for
their health and safety failings in this case.

Mr. Priestley assured Quarnmill the asbestos removal was within
his capability, yet he had no license to carry out this type of
work.  Interviewed by the HSE, which investigated his safety
failings, Mr. Priestley denied seeing that particular instruction
within the survey.

HSE found that, between Oct. 6, 2009 and Oct. 9, 2009, Mr.
Priestley used two of his employees from a local amenity site that
he managed, plus two men he had met socially, to carry out the
work.  He took them to the site on the first day and gave them
some basic instructions, but did not remain to supervise the work.
Neither did he share the contents of the asbestos survey with
them.

Mr. Priestley left them with a crowbar, overalls and masks, all of
which were inadequate for the task.  The stripped material was
first put in a small, open skip, but was then transferred to a
sealed skip to be taken away.  This meant the workers handled
asbestos twice during the removal process.

It also resulted in the driver of the skip removal lorry being
exposed to asbestos fibers as the material he collected was not
appropriately identified or wrapped.

The HSE investigation also found that no risk assessment was
carried out before work started.  Mr. Priestley only provided one
to Quarnmill afterwards.

An HSE scientist revealed the Webster Street site was badly
contaminated by asbestos debris, and large fragments of asbestos
insulating board remained stuck to walls and ceilings where panels
had been broken away during the removal work.

Mr. Priestley pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1)
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for numerous safety
failings relating to the exposure.  He was ordered to serve 300
hours of community service within a 12 month period and ordered to
pay costs of GBP500.

HSE inspector Carol Southerd said, "Wayne Priestley has shown a
shocking disregard for the well-being of his workforce, and that
of a skip removal driver.  "His unsuitability was eventually
discovered after a consultant checked the HSE website and reported
him, but by this time it was too late.

"Mr. Priestley's men had been on site for three to four days and
the site was thoroughly contaminated with damaged asbestos debris.
The workers had been exposed to asbestos throughout this time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deculus Case v. 15 Firms Filed in Jefferson Cty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Jane Deculus, the widow of Milton Deculus, on May 26,
2011, filed an asbestos suit against American Optical Corporation
and 14 other companies in Jefferson County District Court, Tex.,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The other defendants named in the suit include Chevron USA, Dana
Companies, ExxonMobil, Guard-Line, Honeywell International,
Huntsman Petrochemical, Ingersoll Rand, Metropolitan Life
Insurance, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing, Mobil Oil Refining,
Owens-Illinois, Oxy USA, Pneumo Abex and Texaco.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Deculus lived in Texas and worked as
a laborer, welder and truck driver throughout his career.  The
suit does not give dates of employment or locations.

Mrs. Deculus alleges the defendants negligently manufactured, sold
and used asbestos products without warning workers of the dangers.
She sues for exemplary damages and all wrongful death damages
allowable under law.

Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents Mrs.
Deculus.  Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th District Court, has been
assigned to Case No. B190-114.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poloka Case v. 91 Firms Filed in Kanawha Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. and Alicia Poloka, of Weston, W.Va., on April 26, 2011,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 91 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, in January 2010, Mr. Poloka was
diagnosed with asbestos-related lung cancer.  The Polokas
claim the defendants caused the lung cancer by exposing Mr. Poloka
to asbestos fibers during his employment career.

The Polokas seek compensatory and punitive damages.  They are
being represented by Brian A. Prim, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-670 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ted RJ Worker's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of Henry Cwynar, a former engineer
for building firm Ted RJ, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Derby Telegraph reports.

Mr. Cwynar died on Aug. 21, 2010 at the age of 55 at his home in
Watson Street, Derby.  The cause of death was recorded as
bronchopneumonia due to mesothelioma.

The inquest heard Mr. Cwynar was exposed to asbestos during the
1970s when he worked for building firm Ted RJ.  In a statement he
had written before his death, he said he had been exposed to
asbestos when cleaning floors.

The statement, which was read out in the inquest, said, "It is of
my opinion that the main source of asbestos exposure took place
during my employment at Ted RJ.  I was never given protective
equipment or warned about working with asbestos."

Paul McCandless, assistant deputy coroner for Derby and South
Derbyshire, recorded a verdict of death by industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Devon Local's Death Related to Hazard Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Exeter and Greater Devon coroner's court heard that
the death of William Victor Panes, a 78-year-old former heating
and plumbing engineer from Tedburn St Mary, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Herald Express reports.

Mr. Panes was diagnosed with mesothelioma last June 2010.  He died
four months later.

Coroner Dr. Elizabeth Earland returned a verdict of industrial
disease.

Mr. Panes was exposed to asbestos while working as a plumbing and
heating engineer for a number of local firms in the Chobham and
Middlesex areas.  During the early 1960s, he was involved with the
construction of Chobham High School.  He moved to Tedburn St Mary
in June 2004 to enjoy his retirement with his wife, Lesley.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liversedge Driver's Death Related to Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Bradford Coroner's Court heard that the death of
Eric Rothery, an 81-year-old pensioner and former driver from
Liversedge, West Yorkshire, England, was linked to workplace
exposure to asbestos, The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reports.

Mr. Rothery was a driver and fork-lift truck driver for the former
BBA factory, based at Cleckheaton.  In a statement read out in
court, his wife Jean Rothery said that he had a CT scan in
November 2010, which found asbestos scarring.

Mr. Rothery had acute airways disease and pneumonia and was being
treated at Dewsbury and District Hospital.  He had heart failure
and heart disease, which were listed as the cause of his death.

Coroner Roger Whittaker recorded a verdict of death by industrial
disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Completes Cleanup at Camden, N.J. Facility
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has removed asbestos and
hazardous materials at an abandoned manufacturing facility in
Camden, N.J., according to an EPA press release dated May 26,
2011.

EPA removed over four hundred drums, pails and other containers,
containing hazardous chemicals including hexavalent chromium,
perchloric acid, butanol, dichlorobenzene, hydrochloric acid and
sulfuric acid.  They were disposed of at an off-site licensed
facility.

EPA took action at the four-story building at 1700 Federal Street
in Camden to reduce the risks to public health and safety because
the hazardous chemicals found there had the potential to ignite,
explode or be released into the air.

Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator, said, "EPA took
decisive action to protect members of the community who live in
close proximity to this abandoned manufacturing site.  EPA removed
containers of hazardous chemicals and old insulation that
contained asbestos.  The site is now secure and no longer a threat
to people or the environment."

EPA was notified about hazardous conditions at the former
detergent and cleaning products manufacturing facility in August
2010 by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
The property is believed to be owned by the Concord Chemical, Inc.
An investigation is underway to identify who is responsible for
the cleanup of the chemicals left behind.

EPA investigated the site and found a mix of acids, corrosives,
asbestos, and other hazardous substances; signs of vandalism; and
evidence of chemical spills and leaks on the floors and walls.
The containers of hazardous chemicals were found in varying states
of disrepair and neglect throughout the building.  Many of the
chemicals were volatile organic compounds, a group of chemicals
that can damage health.

All hazardous waste and substances were either secured or removed
from the site and disposed of at facilities with permits to
receive hazardous waste.  Finally, the building was secured and
the keys were transferred to the local fire department.

EPA worked with the Camden Fire Department and with the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.  Throughout the cleanup,
the community was kept informed by the web, flyers, door to door
outreach and a public meeting.

The nearly US$1 million cleanup began in August 2010 and was
recently completed.  EPA will pursue various parties to pay for
the cleanup.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appellate Court Urged to Decide on McLean Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court, on May 25, 2011, urged the Fourth
District Court of Appeals to review two orders of McLean County
Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski, denying motions to dismiss asbestos
suits against Illinois Central Railroad, The Madison/St. Clair
Record reports.

The Supreme Court said Fourth District appeals judges in
Springfield, Ill., cannot dodge their duty to define duty for 38
asbestos suits against Illinois Central.

Judge Drazewski ruled that workers at a former asbestos factory in
Bloomington could pursue claims that predecessor railroad B & O
exposed them to asbestos.  He found they could allege the railroad
had a duty to unload boxcars for examination or to warn workers
prior to moving boxcars.

Illinois Central applied to the Fourth District for review in
December 2010, arguing the litigation violates the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution.

Railroad lawyers presented the question as critical to 36 other
cases in McLean County.  Fourth District judges denied leave to
appeal in January, and Illinois Central petitioned the Supreme
Court for leave to appeal in February 2011.

Leslie Boyle, Esq., Thomas Peters, Esq., Mark Kunz, Esq., and
Shinners, Esq., all of Boyle Brasher, represent Illinois Central.

James Wylder, Esq., and Andrew Kelly, Esq., of Bloomington
represent John Monical, Patricia Monical, and Johnnie Brown in one
case, Robert Compton in the other.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waukesha Firm Charged over Fraudulent Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy A. Klingbiel, the 45-year-old owner of a Waukesha asbestos
removal company, is facing multiple charges on allegations he
doctored insurance liability certificates in order to prove to
clients he was insured, the WaukeshaPatch reports.

Mr. Klingbiel was charged in Waukesha County Circuit Court on May
25, 2011 with three counts of identity theft for financial gain
and one count of possession of THC, the active ingredient in
marijuana, for doctoring insurance liability certificates from R&R
Insurance.

If convicted, Mr. Klingbiel faces up to 18-and-a-half years in
prison and US$31,000 in fines.

According to the criminal complaint, Mr. Klingbiel, who owns
Residential and Industrial Asbestos Removal LLC, altered the
liability forms to show had insurance from R&R.

After one company checked with the insurance provider on the
legitimacy of the certificates, R&R informed them Mr. Klingbiel
had not only not been insured by the company since 2008, but his
policies were for half of what had been presented in present day.

Investigators served a search warrant on Mr. Klingbiel's home in
September 2010, where they discovered marijuana, which he told
officers he smokes on occasion to aid in his cancer treatment,
according to the complaint.

The complaint states Mr. Klingbiel also admitted to doctoring the
forms, saying he had to drop his insurance in 2008 due to
financial issues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Inverbrackie Detention Center
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Australian federal government said some asbestos was
detected at the Inverbrackie detention center but no asylum
seekers have been exposed, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

A spokesman for federal Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said a
full audit of the Inverbrackie site was conducted by an asbestos
consultant and it was determined that some vinyl flooring
contained asbestos fibers.

The comments followed claims on May 30, 2011 from the South
Australian opposition that workers were exposed to asbestos in
2010 in the rush to prepare homes at Inverbrackie for asylum
seeker families.

Opposition treasury spokesman Iain Evans said freedom of
information documents had revealed that an asbestos register of
the site in the Adelaide Hills was incomplete when work got under
way.  As a result, private sub-contractors were exposed to
asbestos at the site and had since been offered health checks.

The Inverbrackie center is comprised of houses used previously by
the defense force and can accommodate up to 400 people.  The first
families moved in late 2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Emge Meat Packing Site to Cost $350T
----------------------------------------------------------------
SSI Services LLC, on May 31, 2011, estimated that the cost to
remove asbestos from the former Emge meat packing plant on West
Eighth Street in Indiana will be more than US$350,000, The Herald
Online reports.

However, that amount will be a down payment on the amount of money
the City of Anderson, Ind., could spend on demolishing the
building.

SSI Services was the lower of two bids to remove asbestos from the
plant that has been empty for years.  SSI said the job would cost
US$355,000.  The bids will be evaluated and a recommendation made
at a later date.

The Anderson Board of Public Works opened bids on the asbestos
removal as it undertakes a larger project to tear down the large
brick plant.  However, the cost of demolition is not yet known.

The board last year contracted with consultant Beam, Longest &
Neff to come up with a figure for the demolition, but an engineer
from the firm said on May 31, 2011 that experts have not been able
to inspect the building to fix a cost because of the asbestos.

The Emge plant is on property that is owned by the Anderson Water
Pollution Control Department, and it houses the City's composting
and yard waste disposal sites.

Water Pollution Superintendent Nara Manor on May 31, 2011 said an
Amish crew that contracted to tear down the former stock pens
behind the packing plant has finished that work.  The crews
arrived daily from Wayne County and took the pens apart by hand
with an eye on reusing the wood.

That job cost the City less than US$40,000 to pay Davis
Excavating, who subcontracted the Amish crew.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Ruling in Hullinger's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed a Sept. 3,
2009 ruling by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied Roland
R. Hullinger's claim for asbestos-related pulmonary disorder

The case is styled Lydmyla M. Hullinger, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Lance entered judgment in Case No. 09-3488 on March 10,
2011.


                             *********

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  * * *