CAR_Public/110617.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 119

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: May Face Class Action in Korea Over iMac Stains
BANNER SUPPLY: Agrees to Settle Drywall Class Action for US$55MM
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set for Oct. 5
CALPHALON CORP: Recalls 217,300 Cutlery Knife Sets
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Teacher Layoffs

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
CR ENGLAND: July 29 Class Action Hearing Set
DURHAM REGION, CANADA: Aug. 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls 90,600 Air Conditioning & Heating Units
HARBINGER FITNESS: Recalls 4,169 Ab Straps Due to Fall Hazard

HUFFINGTON POST: Jonathan Tasini Files Class Action
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approves $300T Deal in "Robertson" Suit
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: "LeFaivre" Suit Returned to District Court
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Awaits Approval of "Crocker" Suit Settlement
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Signs MOUs to Settle Stockholder Suit

NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs May Still Appeal Dismissal of Swap Suits
NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES: Motley Rice Files Class Action
PALL CORP: Cost of Consolidated Securities Suit Not Yet Estimable
VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Texting "Scam"

* Chinese Firms Face Class Actions Over Accounting Fraud

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Huntington Ingalls Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Stanford's Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Court Issues Split Ruling in Morin Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Travelers Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Has $285,000 in Liabilities at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Posts $63.9MM A&E Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Still Has 485 Open Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Cleared in Chinea Case Last April 8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reserves $517.4MM at March 31 for A&E
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $81.7MM at March 31 for A&E

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Posts $1.3MM March 31 Cleanup Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,123 New Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic's Reserves at $142.6MM at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Has AO Respirator Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Has 260 Open Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Still Subject to Injury, Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms SeaRiver Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Ensley Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Flips Ruling in Sussex County Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco's Long-Term March 31 Liability at $190MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Ampco Rise to 8,668 at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ampco From Howden Case in Progress
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco Case v. 13 Insurance Firms in Pa. Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS, Former Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Has 84 Personal Injury Cases at April 24

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Injury Cases Still Ongoing Against Regal Beloit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 21 Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Has Asbestos Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Party to Injury Suits in 4 States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riley Action v. 45 Firms Filed in Jefferson Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nolen Case Against 137 Firms Filed on April 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comer's Lawsuit v. 143 Firms Filed on April 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barton Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tawney Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EA Calls for Help on Illegal Disposal Matters
ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Todd Fined Over Breaches at Oswestry Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Dockyard Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio AG's Lawsuit v. Contractor Filed on June 7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Monitoring Results for Joplin Zone

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambria Local Sentenced for Disposal Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peart Claim v. 35 Firms Filed on May 25 in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gipson Lawsuit v. 57 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkeley Pensioner's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Men Charges for N.Y. Hazard Disposal Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Dorset Pensioners' Deaths Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Securities Fraud Case v. Halliburton Reinstated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Bland's Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Colgate-Palmolive Bid in Tedrick Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Decision in Umbaugh's Claim




                             *********

APPLE INC: May Face Class Action in Korea Over iMac Stains
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Hyung-eun, writing for JoongAng Daily, reports that as much as
Koreans adore Apple products, many of them are equally unhappy
with the U.S. company's after-sales service policies.

In the latest indication of such a sentiment, a group of 130
Koreans submitted a request to the Korea Consumer Agency for help
with an Apple desktop computer, according to local media reports
on June 14.

The people say they have permanent stains on the display panel of
their iMac computers and are threatening to sue if the problem is
not resolved.

Designed and built by Apple, iMac was first introduced in 1998 and
has since been a key part of the U.S. company's desktop computer
offerings.

In April, a group of iPhone users in Korea filed a class action
lawsuit against Apple and its Korean unit over their allegedly
illegal collection of users' location data.

If filed, the iMac case would be the first class action suit
against the U.S. firm related to a product defect claim.

The KCA notified Apple Korea of the allegation last month, and is
now waiting for the company's response.

"Because we are raising the issue on behalf of 130 people, we have
asked Apple Korea to examine it in-depth," said an official with
the agency.

Apple Korea was not available for comment.

The people are all members of After Apple, an online community for
those who have experienced the stain problem with their iMac
computers.

The stain problem is not new.  But until early this year, Apple
Korea offered a free replacement, so consumers weren't as angry.

Since February, however, the company has charged those who want a
replacement KRW1.2 million (US$1,105), triggering a rise in
complaints.

An iMac computer sells for between KRW1.3 million and KRW2.3
million on local online retailers.

The online community was launched because more and more people
became frustrated with the policy change.  In just a month, it
attracted more than 220 members.

According to members of the community, Apple says that the stain
could be caused by factors like cigarette smoke, cooking or using
an oil cooker, but they argue that they don't explain why some of
the products at stores have the same problem.

Members of the group suspect a flaw in the iMac's cooling system
is to blame, causing the machine to overheat.  They argue that the
boot camp function, which allows both the Mac operating system and
the Windows operating system to run simultaneously, could be
causing the machines to overheat.  They say that the problem
constitutes a critical defect and they filed the complaint because
boot camp is an Apple product.  The members of After Apple say
that if they find Apple's response to be inadequate, they will
file a class action lawsuit.  "It doesn't seem that Apple is
taking this issue seriously at all.  We are already preparing to
file a class action lawsuit," said a member of the community.

The iMac case is hardly the first in which Apple -- mostly its
after-sales service department -- has upset consumers here who are
used to the after-sales service provided by Korean manufacturers
like Samsung and LG.

In October 2010, a 13-year-old middle school student filed a civil
lawsuit against Apple, seeking compensation after one of the
company's repair shops denied her request to get her iPhone fixed
under warranty.  A similar suit was filed early this year.


BANNER SUPPLY: Agrees to Settle Drywall Class Action for US$55MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rayanne Weiss, writing for WLOX News, reports that in a court
filing in New Orleans on June 14 another Chinese Drywall supplier,
Banner Supply out of Florida, has agreed to pay millions of
dollars to settle that Chinese Drywall damaged homes and made them
unlivable.  Banner will pay US$55 million which is the extent of
the companies Insurance Coverage.

This settlement follows another multi million dollar agreement in
April with Interior/Exterior Building Supply and two of its
insurers.

According to Ms. Weiss, Biloxi attorney Jim Reeves, the court
appointed Class Counsel for the state and all others outside of
Louisiana, says both companies distributed Knauf drywall in the
region and he says that the class is going after the smaller
companies and working their way up the food chain.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set for Oct. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to approve, on a final basis, Blueknight Energy
Partners, L.P.'s settlement of a consolidated securities class
action litigation pending in Oklahoma, has been set for October 5,
2011, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership") previously
entered into a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the
consolidated securities class action litigation, In Re: SemGroup
Energy Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1989-
GKF-FHM, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.

On June 9, 2011, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving, subject to further consideration at a settlement
hearing, the proposed settlement pursuant to the Stipulation
involving, among other things, a dismissal of the Class Action
Litigation with prejudice.  The settlement hearing is currently
scheduled for October 5, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether
the terms and conditions of the settlement provided for in the
Stipulation are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best
interests of the class and to consider whether to enter a final
judgment approving the settlement in its entirety.


CALPHALON CORP: Recalls 217,300 Cutlery Knife Sets
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Calphalon Corporation, of Atlanta, Georgia,
announced a voluntary recall of about 217,000 units of Calphalon
contemporary cutlery knife sets in the United States of America
and 300 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The tips of the 8-inch slicing knife and/or the 8-inch bread knife
can protrude through the bottom slot row on the wooden block
holder, posing a laceration hazard.

Calphalon has received one report of a cut finger injury.

This recall involves all 17- and 21-piece Contemporary Cutlery
Knife Sets with model numbers KNS17C and KNS21C.  The knife sets
were manufactured from August of 2007 through May 1, 2011.  The
recalled cutlery sets do not have model or date code markings on
the wooden block although all sets have the "Calphalon" logo
stamped in black on the front.  Knife block sets with a three
digit number imprinted on the underside are not included in this
recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11246.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Macy's, Bed Bath and Beyond, Belk, Bloomingdales, Crate and
Barrel, Dillard's, Kitchen Collection, Cutlery and More, Carlson
Marketing, Maritz, Hinda, Calphalon Retail Outlets and stores
nationwide; online by Amazon, Cooking.com; and in Chef's Catalog
from 2007 through May 2011 for between $200 and $300.

Consumers should immediately contact Calphalon to receive a free
repair kit for the recalled products.  To order a free repair kit,
contact Calphalon anytime at (800) 766-5652.  For additional
information, contact Calphalon at (800) 809-7267 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.calphalon.com/


CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Teacher Layoffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
WLS 890AM reports that a laid off Chicago Public Schools teacher
filed a proposed class action lawsuit on June 14 against the
city's Board of Education, claiming the firings violated recall
laws.

Williette Price claims the Board of Education of the City of
Chicago fired her and about 200 other teachers in violation of
recall rules required for such layoffs, according to a suit filed
in Cook County Circuit Court.

The suit claims that prior to June 2010, the board never
discharged laid off teachers without continuing their salary for a
limited period and continuing their employment for two years or
more.

Beginning in June 2010, the board laid off Price and the other
teachers without providing all employment rights and privileges,
according to the suit.  The board described the discharges as
"honorable" and "not for cause," the suit said.

The suit claims Illinois law requires the defendants to have rules
and procedures for both the layoff and recall of teachers before
they may displace teachers for economic or administrative reasons.
It claims the layoffs were in violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Illinois Constitution.

The suit claims the board has refused to put recall rules into
place that would bring back the most qualified teachers when jobs
become available.  Instead, new teachers are being hired and
experienced teachers who were laid off are not being given the
chance to be rehired.

The three-count suit is asking for the proposed class to be
certified, award Price and the class money for all loss of income
plus legal fees.

CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll declined to comment on pending
litigation.

The Chicago Teacher's Union filed a similar lawsuit in federal
court about the firings and recall rules against the city's Board
of Education in August 2010.  Robin Potter, one of the attorney's
in the lawsuit, was not immediately available to comment on the
timing of the most recent lawsuit.

A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will
allow the suit filed by the Chicago Teachers Union to be heard by
the Illinois Supreme Court, which will rule on questions about the
process in rehiring dismissed teachers.

On June 13, CPS issued a statement on the Seventh Circuit Court's
ruling.

"Our efforts last year resulted in principals/administrators
making offers to rehire more than 65 percent of displaced teachers
to vacant positions within CPS.  Depending on the number of
teachers affected, CPS anticipates that it will hold two or more
interview opportunities for any displaced teachers during July and
August," the statement said.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. on June 14 disclosed
that it has filed a class action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers
of Computer Sciences Corporation common stock during the period
between August 11, 2010 and May 25, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 2, 2011.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Alfred G. Yates
Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com
by e-mail.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
against Computer Sciences and its officers and directors for
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements to
investors regarding the company's business and financial
conditions.  On February 1, 2011, Computer Sciences announced that
the SEC had initiated a formal investigation into accounting
irregularities at the Company.  On May 25, 2011, in connection
with its announcement of financial results, which missed Wall
Street consensus estimates, the Company disclosed that its Audit
Committee had begun an internal investigation into accounting
irregularities in one of its service sectors.  The Company's
shares declined 12% in response to this announcement.

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Logitech International SA, Longtop Financial Technologies Limited,
Research in Motion Limited, WMS Industries Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and
Yongye International, Inc.

If you purchased securities of any of the above companies and wish
learn more about any of these actions or have any questions,
please contact:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C., Pittsburgh
          Toll-Free: 800-391-5164
          Telephone: 412-391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


CR ENGLAND: July 29 Class Action Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------
Sandi Soendker, managing editor for Land Line, reports that the
class action lawsuit of OOIDA v. C.R. England has been in the news
since it was first filed in 2002.  The truth-in-leasing case went
to trial in 2006, and the landmark win was awarded to the
truckers.  But figuring out how much is owed to the class members
has been complicated and lengthy.

That process moved closer to resolution recently with two
significant orders from the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City.

A series of hearings have been held before Magistrate Judge David
Nuffer in an effort to move forward with the accounting and
specifically the adjudication of C.R. England's setoffs against
individual class members.  The recent orders are good news for
truckers, said David A. Cohen, Esq. -- dac@cullenlaw.com --
attorney for The Cullen Law Firm, OOIDA's litigation counsel.

The first order, issued on May 19, dealt with three specific
setoffs that CRE sought to assert against individual class
members.  In two of those, the judge ruled in favor of the
truckers.

The first issue was whether CRE could set off obligations owed by
the class member for truck lease payments after the termination of
the independent contractor operating agreement -- called the
"ICOA" -- against escrow funds.  In many cases, when the driver
turned the truck, it sat on the lot in Salt Lake City for months
before it was released to another lessee.  Given that truck lease
payments ranged between $550 and $625 per week, the total amount
allegedly owed routinely exceeded $5,000.  In some cases, the
amount purportedly owed exceeded $10,000.

The court excluded these setoffs on the ground that the obligation
for post-ICOA truck lease payments originated in the vehicle lease
agreement, and any obligation for such payments was owed to
Opportunity Leasing and not C.R. England.  CRE does not lease
trucks.  That's done through Opportunity Leasing, a private
company.

The second issue also involved truck lease payments.  Here, the
issue concerned the common practice where a class member signed a
document which stated that the driver would be given four weeks of
"deferred" truck lease payments.  The document stated, however,
that the driver would be responsible for those deferred lease
payments if he or she failed to complete the lease.  CRE is
seeking to assert these claims against drivers in the accounting.

"We argued that the court should exclude these setoffs because the
obligation to repay the 'deferred' lease payments was to
Opportunity Leasing," said Mr. Cohen.

Judge Nuffer disagreed and held that because the operating
agreement allows CRE to deduct truck lease payments during the
term of the ICOA, these setoffs should be allowed.

The third issue was whether C.R. England could assert setoffs for
"truck recovery," which is the costs of recovering trucks
supposedly abandoned by drivers.  These costs included amounts for
airfare to fly a driver to the location of the abandonment, motel
charges, fuel charges, etc.  However, CRE has lost or destroyed
all of the backup documents -- i.e., receipts and spreadsheets
that would have substantiated these alleged costs.

"More importantly, we were able to establish that England lost or
destroyed these documents after this suit was filed in June 2002,"
said Mr. Cohen.  "Under the doctrine of 'spoliation,' a party may
be sanctioned if it destroys relevant documents after suit is
commenced.  We argued that the court should sanction England by
entering judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against England on
these truck recovery claims."

Mr. Cohen reported that the court did not need to reach the
"spoliation" issue because it dismissed the truck recovery setoffs
on the ground that they were obligations owed by the class member
to Opportunity Leasing under the vehicle lease agreement, and not
a debt owed to CRE.

"In sum, we won two out of the three issues before the court in
the first order," said Mr. Cohen.  "Also, the single biggest
setoff in dollar terms -- the post-ICOA truck lease payments --
was excluded.  By excluding post-ICOA truck lease payments, and
truck recovery costs, we have taken two valuable setoffs off the
table."

Mr. Cohen said the effect will be that hundreds of class members
will be able to prove "actual damages" and restitution under the
court's prior rulings and will be entitled to "reasonable
interest," which, depending on the language of the contract, may
be 18 percent interest per year.

A second order was issued by the court on June 1.  Mr. Cohen said
the issue here was whether CRE could assert setoffs against class
members in situations where the driver was unable to pay for a
repair and C.R. England issued a Comcheck to the repair facility
to pay for it. C.R. England then deducted money each week from the
driver's settlement statement for the repair costs.

CRE argued that it should be able to assert setoffs against class
member's escrow funds because U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart
specifically allowed defendant to assert setoffs for "advances"
made to owner-operators.  The company argued that it advanced
funds to the driver for repairs and should be allowed to satisfy
that obligation from escrow funds.

The magistrate judge, however, disagreed. The court looked beyond
the mere fact that C.R. England advanced funds to drivers.
Rather, the judge was more interested in what entity actually
advanced the funds to the owner-operator.  Here, OOIDA was able to
prove that advances for truck repairs were, in reality, advances
from Opportunity Leasing.  As a result, the court excluded these
setoffs on the ground that they were not CRE's advances.

Mr. Cohen explained that this ruling is potentially significant
because the court went beyond the corporate formalities to
determine what corporate entity, C.R. England or Opportunity
Leasing, actually advanced funds to drivers.  And that ruling may
indicate which way the judge will rule on other purported advances
CRE wants excluded.

OOIDA's goal is to have all setoffs adjudicated by the fall. Once
the setoffs are disposed of, OOIDA will ask that judgment be
entered in favor of individual class members for the unreturned
escrow amounts plus any interest that is due to the driver.

Given the fact that the majority of class members signed a lease
containing an 18 percent interest clause, the damages/restitution
awarded is expected to be substantial.

Class members: Who's who?

The court's ruling regarding the appropriate interest rate is not
applicable to all class members or all class claims.  The class
certified by the court, which numbered almost 6,000 persons,
included all owner-operators leased to C.R. England from June 1998
through the end of 2005.  After trial, the court held that the
lease agreement C.R. England implemented in the summer of 2002
(after OOIDA filed suit) was completely compliant with the federal
regulations.  (OOIDA disputes this ruling, and it is subject to a
later appeal).

Leases entered into between 1998 and 2002 were deemed noncompliant
by the judge.  The court ordered an equitable accounting of all
class members' escrow funds for class members who entered these
leases.  Approximately 1,800 class members have positive escrow
balances and they are the ones who contested setoffs asserted by
England as part of the accounting process.

Of these 1,800 class members, only those who entered lease
agreements containing the default provision noted by the court
will be entitled to 18 percent interest on unlawfully retained
escrow funds.  Mr. Cohen said this is around 1,000 class members.
Class members who had this clause will be entitled to interest
compounded at a rate of 1.5 percent per month after lease
termination for unreturned escrow funds.

He said the other 800 class members who did not have the default
clause (those leasing on in 1998 and 1999) will be entitled to
interest at the 91-day Treasury bill rate.

What's next?

A hearing is scheduled for July 29.  At that time the parties will
present their argument to the court regarding issues relating to
more than 400 class members who leased on to England under the
original independent contractor operating agreement, but
subsequently signed the revised ICOA in the summer of 2002.

England claims that these drivers are not entitled to any monetary
recovery because they terminated their relationship with the motor
carrier under the revised contract.  OOIDA disagrees, as there is
nothing in either the contracts or the regulations that would
allow CRE to take escrows accumulated under the first contract and
lump them together with escrows earned under the second contract.

OOIDA will ask the court to order CRE to return the balance of the
driver's escrow funds at the time the original lease was
terminated.


DURHAM REGION, CANADA: Aug. 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Gilligan, writing for durhamregion.com, reports that a
lawyer representing claimants in a lawsuit against Durham Region
won't comment on the law firm of Jim Flaherty and Christine
Elliott being involved.

Sean Brown said, "I can't answer that. Leave it at that."

The Whitby firm of Flaherty Dow Elliott and McCarthy are
representing plaintiffs in a C$40-million class action lawsuit
against the Region over the loss of a USB key containing
information on 84,000 people who received an H1N1 flu shot in
2009.

Justice Peter Lauwers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
approved the suit in late April and Bowmanville resident John
Sherlock Rowlands was appointed as the 'representative' of the
class.

Mr. Brown wouldn't say if Mr. Rowlands contacted the firm or if
the firm contacted him.

"I can't get into that.  Attorney, client privilege," Mr. Brown
said in an interview.

The suit claims the Region was negligent, breached a fiduciary
duty, violated people's privacy and breached the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms.

None of the claims have been proven in court.

The USB key was lost in the parking lot of the Regional
headquarters by a public health nurse in December of 2009.  On the
key was information on the 83,524 people who had been vaccinated
between Oct. 23 and Dec. 15, 2009 at flu vaccination clinics
provided by the Regional health department.  Information collected
includes the person's name, address, phone number, date of birth,
health card number, name of their primary physician, and personal
health information provided when they got the vaccination.

"As a consequence of the various causes of action, the Plaintiffs
have suffered special damages, meaning money damages for the
purpose of obtaining credit monitoring for a period of years by
the court.  Further, the Plaintiffs may be entitled to punitive,
aggravated and exemplary damages," the plaintiffs state in their
court filing.

Mr. Brown said the C$40 million total was chosen based on a
"defendant's submission, that was the limit of their insurance."

From a litigation standpoint, the exchange of documents and
discovery are the next steps, which will happen in September.

"We hope 2012" for when the matter would be dealt with in court,
he stated.  "Certainly won't be by the end of this year.  Subject
to court availability, 2012, early 2012."

Under class action rules, people who don't want to take part have
to opt out.  If they don't, they're automatically involved.

The period to opt out runs to 5:00 p.m. on Aug. 31.

"Claim members may opt out if they wish," Mr. Brown said, adding
he wouldn't speculate on why someone would opt out of the suit.

"This law firm isn't receiving the notices," he noted.

Opt out notices are sent to Deloitte and Touche, the firm
appointed by the courts to act as administrator of the suit.

"I don't know what the options might be.  Everyone has a choice."

The Region is being represented by the Toronto firm of David
Boghosian and Associates.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Recalls 90,600 Air Conditioning & Heating Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, GE Appliances and Lighting, of Louisville, Kentucky,
and manufacturer, Sharp Corp., of Osaka, Japan, announced a
voluntary recall of about 90,600 GE Zoneline air conditioners and
heaters.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

An electrical component in the heating system can fail, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

General Electric and Sharp have received four reports of incidents
involving smoke and/or fire with the air conditioning and heating
units.  In two of the reported incidents, fire extended beyond the
air conditioning and heating unit, resulting in property damage.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves GE Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC)
and packaged terminal heat pumps manufactured between January 2010
and March 2011, and are most often used in apartment buildings and
commercial space.  The GE logo is affixed to the control panel
door.  Serial and model are printed on the rating plate.
Consumers will need to remove the front panel to locate the model
and serial information.  These models and serials are included in
this recall:

                 Model Number      Serial Number
       Brand     (Begins with)      (Begins with)
       -----     -------------      -------------
       GE          AZ41, AZ61      AT, DT, FT, GT
                                   HT, LT, MT, RT
                                   ST, TT, VT, ZT
                                    AV, DV and FV

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11247.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by
General Electric authorized representatives and HVAC distributors
nationwide from March 2010 through March 2011 for between $1,000
and $1,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the air conditioning and
heating units in the heat mode and contact General Electric to
schedule a free repair.  For additional information, contact
General Electric toll-free at (866) 918-8771 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.geappliances.com/products/recall/


HARBINGER FITNESS: Recalls 4,169 Ab Straps Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Harbinger Fitness, of Fairfield, California, announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,169 Ab Straps exercise equipment.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The plastic buckle on the ab straps can break, posing a fall
hazard to consumers.

There were two reported incidents of straps breaking.  Both
incidents resulted in lacerations to consumers' heads and necks.

The recalled product is a set of Harbinger Ab Straps, style 371100
that are hung from an overhead structure.  The product consists of
two 17.5 inch long straps made of black nylon webbing with padded
nylon arm slings and plastic buckles.  Users place their arms in
the slings to lift themselves to do abdominal exercises.  The word
"Harbinger" appears on the outer side of one ab strap.  Universal
Product Code (UPC) 000751510964 is on the bottom flap of the
packaging of the affected ab straps.  The style number does not
appear on the product or the product's packaging.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11245.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at Bodybuilding.com and Amazon.com, and at Second Wind Fitness,
Play It Again Sports, Advantis Nutrition, and other general
sporting goods and fitness specialty stores nationwide from August
2006 to April 2011 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Harbinger for a free replacement.  For additional information,
please contact Harbinger customer service at (800) 729-5954 from
7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Thursday, and
7:00 a.m. to noon Pacific Time on Friday, visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.harbingerfitness.com/or e-mail the firm at
custserv@harbingerfitness.com


HUFFINGTON POST: Jonathan Tasini Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Rocco, writing for International Business Times, reports
that journalist and labor organizer Jonathan Tasini filed a $105
million class action lawsuit against The Huffington Post, a Web
site founded by Arianna Huffington for which Mr. Tasini wrote.
Now four new plaintiffs have been added to the growing class
action lawsuit that claims The Huffington Post's writers deserve
to be paid.

Filmmaker Molly Secours, public relations professional Richard
Laermer, journalist Billy Altman and writer Tara Dublin have been
added to the class action suit, according to Forbes.

Mr. Tasini wrote for the Web site as a blogger from December 2005
until February of this year.  He says he ceased blogging for The
Huffington Post when it was purchased by AOL.

He also led and won a lawsuit against New York Times Co.  Mr.
Tasini was fighting against newspapers' right to license digital
versions of contributions from freelancers.

According to a letter published anonymously by the Business
Insider, combined Internet traffic to The Huffington Post and AOL
has fallen.  But according to data from comScore, which measures
web traffic to news Web sites, The Huffington Post posted 35.6
million unique visitors in May compared to The New York Times'
33.6 million unique visitors.  Huffington's increase in visitors
is due in large part because AOL is driving traffic to the news
Web site.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Court Approves $300T Deal in "Robertson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
approved an agreement settling for $300,000 a class action lawsuit
against K-V Pharmaceutical Company's subsidiary, Ther-Rx
Corporation, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2011.

Robertson v. Ther-Rx Corporation, U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Civil Case No. 2:09-cv-01010-MHT-TFM,
was filed October 30, 2009, by a Ther-Rx sales representative
asserting non-exempt status and the right to overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act for a class of Ther-Rx sales
representatives and under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(with respect to plaintiff's pregnancy) and Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (also with respect to termination allegedly due
to her pregnancy and to her complaints about being terminated
allegedly as a result of her pregnancy).  An additional seven
Ther-Rx sales representatives have joined as plaintiffs.  Class
certification arguments are pending before the court.  On
December 22, 2010, a settlement in principle was reached between
the parties for $0.3 million and on May 12, 2011, the court
approved the settlement agreement.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: "LeFaivre" Suit Returned to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court returned to the district court a class action
lawsuit captioned LeFaivre v. K-V Pharmaceutical Company, et al.,
for further proceedings, according to the Company's June 13, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended March 31, 2011.

The Company and its subsidiary, ETHEX Corporation, are named
defendants in at least 39 pending product liability or other
lawsuits that relate to the voluntary product recalls initiated by
the Company in late 2008 and early 2009.  The plaintiffs in these
lawsuits allege damages as a result of the ingestion of
purportedly oversized tablets allegedly distributed in 2007 and
2008.  The lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts in
various jurisdictions.  The 39 pending lawsuits include nine that
have settled but have not yet been dismissed.  In the 39 pending
lawsuits, two plaintiffs allege economic harm, 27 plaintiffs
allege that a death occurred, and the plaintiffs in the remaining
lawsuits allege non-fatal physical injuries.  Plaintiffs'
allegations of liability are based on various theories of
recovery, including, but not limited to strict liability,
negligence, various breaches of warranty, misbranding, fraud and
other common law and/or statutory claims.  Plaintiffs seek
substantial compensatory and punitive damages.

Two of the lawsuits are putative class actions seeking economic
damages with respect to recalled products, one of the lawsuits is
on behalf of 29 claimants, and the remaining lawsuits are
individual lawsuits or have two plaintiffs.  One of these putative
class actions, styled LeFaivre v. KV Pharmaceutical Company et
al., seeks economic damages with respect to recalled metoprolol
succinate product.  During January 2011, the decision of the U.S.
District Court dismissing the case in favor of the Company was
reversed on appeal.  The Company requested reconsideration by the
appellate court, which was denied in March 2011, and the Company
has filed a motion for appellate review en banc, which was denied
by the court on May 12, 2011.  The case has been returned to the
district court for further proceedings.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and is
vigorously defending against them, except where, in its judgment,
settlement is appropriate.  In addition to the 39 pending
lawsuits, there are at least 31 pending pre-litigation claims (at
least six of which involve a death) that may or may not eventually
become lawsuits.  The Company has also resolved a significant
number of related product liability lawsuits and pre-litigation
claims.  In addition to self insurance, the Company possesses
third party product liability insurance, which the Company
believes is applicable to the pending lawsuits and claims.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Awaits Approval of "Crocker" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit for alleged
breach of fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan, according to K-V Pharmaceutical's June 13, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2011.

On February 3, 2009, plaintiff Harold Crocker filed a putative
class-action complaint against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Crocker v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4-09-cv-198-CEJ.  The Crocker case
was followed shortly thereafter by two similar cases, also in the
Eastern District of Missouri (Bodnar v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et
al., No. 4:09-cv-00222-HEA, on February 9, 2009, and Knoll v. KV
Pharmaceutical Co., et al., No. 4:09-cv-00297-JCH, on February 24,
2009).  The two later cases were consolidated into Crocker so that
only a single action existed thereafter, and the plaintiffs filed
a Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 26, 2009.

The Complaint purported to state claims against the Company and
certain current and former employees for alleged breach of
fiduciary duties to participants in the Company?s 401(k) plan.
Defendants, including the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 25,
2009, and briefing of those motions was completed on October 19,
2009.  The court granted the motion to dismiss the Company and all
individual defendants on March 24, 2010.  A motion to alter or
amend the judgment and second amended consolidated complaint was
filed on April 21, 2010.  The Company, on May 17, 2010, filed a
Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend
the judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated complaint.
On October 20, 2010, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter
or amend the judgment and for leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs requested mediation and the Company agreed to this
request.  On February 15, 2011, during such mediation, this
litigation was settled by an agreement in principle of the parties
for an amount equal to $3.0, payable in full from the Company's
insurance coverage.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Signs MOUs to Settle Stockholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation entered into memoranda of
understanding to settle a consolidated stockholder class action
lawsuit and two stockholder derivative lawsuits pending in
Arizona, according to the Company's June 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 6, 2011, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, certain of
its current officers and directors who are named in the actions,
and the Company's outside auditors entered into Memoranda of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated stockholder
class action litigation pending in U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, as well as both stockholder derivative
lawsuits pending in Superior Court of the State of Arizona.

Under the terms of these settlement agreements, which remain
subject to approval by the applicable courts among other customary
conditions, the Company's portion of the Class Action Litigation
settlement will be paid entirely by insurance.  The Company's
outside auditors also will contribute to this settlement.  The
Derivative Lawsuits settlement, the only financial component of
which involves payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, also will
be paid entirely by insurance.  The Company itself is not required
to make any payments to fund the settlements of the Class Action
Litigation or the Derivative Lawsuits.  The settlement of the
Derivative Lawsuits reflects certain control and other
enhancements undertaken by the Company in connection with and
subsequent to the restatement of its consolidated financial
statements in 2008.  The settlement agreements contain no
admission of liability by the Company or the named individuals in
the respective actions, the allegations of which are expressly
denied in the MOUs.


NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs May Still Appeal Dismissal of Swap Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
National Grid plc disclosed in its June 13, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended March 31 2011, that plaintiffs may still take an appeal from
the dismissal of a federal class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary, KeySpan Corporation.

Two putative class actions were commenced against KeySpan
Corporation and Morgan Stanley, one in a New York state court and
one in the federal court.  The claims are based on allegations
that the financial swap transaction between KeySpan and Morgan
Stanley dated 18 January 2006 caused customers of Consolidated
Edison, Inc. to overpay for electricity between May 2006 and
February 2008.  The Company believes that both complaints and
their allegations are without merit and it has applied to have
both actions dismissed.  The Company's application for dismissal
in the federal court was granted on 22 March 2011 but the
plaintiffs may still appeal.


NUCLEAR FUEL SERVICES: Motley Rice Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
architect of the lead paint lawsuit filed by the state of Rhode
Island has filed a class action over a Nuclear Fuel Services
materials processing facility in Tennessee.

Fidelma Fitzpatrick announced that her firm, Motley Rice, filed
the lawsuit on June 13 against NFS and a handful of other
defendants in a Tennessee federal court, alleging exposure to
radioactive substances released into the environment.

"We have seen in previous environmental contamination cases the
devastating impact that potentially negligent environmental
practices can have on a community, and our hope is that Erwin
residents will now have their day in court as well as initiate
changes in the safety culture at NFS," Ms. Fitzpatrick said.

Ms. Fitzpatrick had the idea to use a public nuisance claim in
lawsuits brought against the paint industry by former Rhode Island
attorneys general Sheldon Whitehouse and Patrick Lynch.  The
public nuisance claim allowed them to avoid certain defenses
available in a products liability claim, like the tolled statute
of limitations.

Ultimately, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled for the
companies.

The class in the Tennessee case is any person who lived or worked
in the Erwin area since 1957 and experienced property damage or
was diagnosed with severe or fatal illnesses.

The defendants in the lawsuit are W.R. Grace & Company,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Davis Chemical
Company and NFS; Chevron, individually and as successor-in-
interest to Texaco, Getty Oil and Skelly Oil; NFS Holdings; Nog-
Erwin Holdings; Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group; B&W
Nuclear Environmental Services; and NFS.

The lawsuit seeks compensation for medical expenses, lost
earnings, pain and suffering, funeral-related expenses, emotional
distress, damage to property and attorneys fees. It also seeks
punitive damages.

Other counsel working with Motley Rice are the firms Rogers,
Laughlin, Nunnally, Hood & Crum and Napoli Bern Ripka &
Associates.

Motley Rice was the subject of a recent motion in a Tennessee
asbestos case that asks a judge to prohibit the firm and its
litigation partner from communicating with potential witnesses.

A group of companies say letters sent to potential witnesses
asking them not to speak with defense counsel was tantamount to
witness-tampering.  The chairman of the Tennessee Bar
Association's ethics committee agreed.


PALL CORP: Cost of Consolidated Securities Suit Not Yet Estimable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pall Corporation, in its June 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 30, 2011, reported that no liabilities or related
receivables for insurance recoveries have been reflected in the
Company's condensed consolidated financial statements with respect
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit as the amounts
relating to the litigation are not currently estimable.

As previously reported in the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
SEC for the year ended July 31, 2010, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain members of its
management team alleging violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's understatement of certain of its U.S.
income tax payments and of its provision for income taxes in
certain prior periods, audit committee inquiry and restatement to
the consolidated financial statements included in the 2007 Form
10-K.  These lawsuits were filed between August 14, 2007, and
October 11, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  By Order dated May 28, 2008, the Court
consolidated the cases under the caption "In re Pall Corp," No.
07-CV-3359 (E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ARL), appointed a lead plaintiff and
ordered that the lead plaintiff file a consolidated amended
complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
August 4, 2008.  The lead plaintiff seeks to act as representative
for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock
between April 20, 2007, and August 2, 2007, inclusive.  The
consolidated amended complaint names the Company and its current
chief executive officer and chief financial officer as defendants
and alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  It alleges that the defendants violated
these provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading public statements about the
Company's financial results and financial statements, including
the Company's income tax liability, effective tax rate, internal
controls and accounting practices.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.  The Company
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
September 19, 2008, and filed its reply brief to the lead
plaintiff's opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on
December 2, 2008.  By Memorandum and Order dated September 21,
2009, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint and granted the lead plaintiff
leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint by filing a
second amended complaint.  On October 9, 2009, the Company moved
for certification for interlocutory appeal, and the Court denied
the motion by Memorandum and Order entered November 25, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action in Wash. Over Texting "Scam"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Moreno, writing for KCBY CBS 11, reports that a class-action
lawsuit was filed against Verizon.

Ever get a random text message, one you didn't ask for and don't
want?

In some cases, it could cost you, just like it cost Hong Huang.

"I was just pretty frustrated," he said.  "I was upset because
it's just not fair, and I didn't subscribe to it."

Mr. Huang is a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed last week
by Seattle attorney Toby Marshall.

"We think there are thousands of people in Washington that have
been charged deceptively," the attorney said.

Mr. Huang says he had no idea he'd signed up, and isn't sure how
it happened.  But he has nine months of bills to show for it.

"I believe it is an outright scam," he said.

Billing practices convinced Verizon and the state of Texas to take
legal action against the Arizona company.

Mr. Marshall says the company charged millions of dollars in
texting fees that Washington residents never knew they approved.
It's a practice commonly known as cramming.

"When you get the text, if you don't opt out of it -- basically if
you don't respond back and say stop or something like that -- they
assume that you are now enrolled," he said.

Company officials recently issued a statement, saying they are
disappointed and distressed.  They strongly denied the
allegations.  The company did not return KOMO News' calls.

Marshall says because the fees can be easy to overlook, he expects
thousands of people in Washington to be in the same situation as
Mr. Huang.

"He never asked for it.  He never authorized it.  He didn't even
know that he was getting it.  And yet he was being charged $9.99
per month for that service," Mr. Marshall said.

"I just hope that a lot of people can really get their money
back," said Mr. Huang.

Consumers can check for these charges by looking at the data
charges section of cell phone bills.

Verizon is offering a refund to customers who incurred such
charges.


* Chinese Firms Face Class Actions Over Accounting Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Rapoza, writing for Forbes, reports that a slew of small
and mid-cap Chinese companies traded in New York are getting
served class-action lawsuits for accounting fraud, but that's not
enough to scare true believers away from the overall market.

"The accounting issue is really with a very small and not
particularly relevant subset of reverse takeovers that occurred in
the States by Chinese companies," says David Semple, director of
international equity of Van Eck Global in New York.  A lot of the
companies being investigated for fraud entered the US market
through reverse mergers, sidestepping the requirement to list
first through an initial public offering.  IPOs require detailed
financial statements and listing companies must abide by US
accounting standards before being allowed on Wall Street.

Long-time China investors seem aware of the risks, and the
inherent accounting fraud in corporate China.

"There are long term economic issues that China needs to address
-- as does Europe, the US and Japan -- and no one believes that
China can grow as fast as previously, but to listen to the
naysayers that China will have some kind of crisis because of
these cases would be pretty misguided," Mr. Semple says.

According to securities litigators, Motley Rice, 11 out of a list
of 27 new securities and consumer fraud cases are against Chinese
companies.  The rest are against US companies.

Some of the companies listed are actively traded names like Sino
Clean Energy, which trades around one million shares daily, more
than China oil companies PetroChina and CNOOC Limited combined.

"You have to be skeptical of Chinese accounting standards," says
Paul Dietrich, chairman of Foxhall Capital Management in
Alexandria.

The company recently sold out of its position in the iShares FTSE
Xinhua China 25 exchange traded fund, a large cap fund made up
primarily of financial services and basic materials.

"I don't think these scandals hurt FXI in the mid-term or even in
the larger scheme of things.  So much of this off-balance sheet
money is normal practice and they haven't yet realized that that's
not how we do it over here," Mr. Dietrich says.  "The fraud tends
to be from companies with elite Chinese involvement that survive
on local capital and provincial subsidies."

Mr. Dietrich said that some venture capital firms in the US, with
Chinese partners, are taking over Chinese firms whose stock has
been distressed because of class action lawsuits against them.
The idea is to delist them, take over, put in new management,
clean the financial books and then re-list in Hong Kong, where
accounting standards are less rigorous.

Not all of the cases will go to court.  One insider at a New York
law firm working for plaintiffs suing China Green Agriculture, a
$116 million biotechnology company, says Green Agriculture replied
to the suit with a long rebuttal.  The case will likely get
dismissed by a judge.

Since June 1, the iShares FTSE Xinhua China ETF is down 4.95%,
underperforming the MSCI Emerging Markets index and the MSCI EAFE,
both down around 2.9%.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Huntington Ingalls Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. and its predecessors in
interest are defendants in a long-standing series of cases filed
in numerous jurisdictions around the country wherein former and
current employees and various third party persons allege exposure
to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with
Company premises or while working on vessels constructed or
repaired by the Company.

The cases allege various injuries including those associated with
pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and
other alleged asbestos related conditions.  In some cases, in
addition to the Company, several of its former executive officers
are also named defendants.

In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available
to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive
officers.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.
4101 Washington Avenue
Newport News, Va. 23607
Website: www.huntingtoningalls.com
Phone Number: (757) 380-2000

Description:
The Company, on March 29, 2011, entered into a Separation and
Distribution Agreement with its former parent company, Northrop
Grumman Corporation, and Northrop Grumman's subsidiaries, under
which the Company was legally and structurally separated from
Northrop Grumman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Ruling in Stanford's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the June
23, 2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied
Thomas Q. Stanford entitlement to service connection for
hypertension, to include as secondary to exposure to ionizing
radiation, asbestos, mustard gas, and herbicides.

The case is styled Thomas Q. Stanford, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 09-3030 on March 9,
2011.

Mr. Stanford, a self-represented appellant, served on active duty
in the U.S. Air Force from September 1952 to October 1973,
including service in Vietnam.  His service medical records (SMRs)
reflected normal blood pressure readings throughout service, and
during his June 1973 retirement examination.

The post-service medical records showed that Mr. Stanford was
first diagnosed with gingival cancer in 1993.  He underwent
treatment, including excision of the carcinoma in situ in 1994.

In a June 2004 statement, Mr. Stanford's oral surgeon, Dr. Ted
Rosner, noted that he had seen the appellant since September 1996
for follow up to carcinoma on the left posterior tonsillar area.
Dr. Rosner reported that his original physical examination of Mr.
Stanford revealed two small areas of skin with graft and that
"[t]he tissue appeared healthy with no evidence of recurrence."

In August 2004, the RO denied Mr. Stanford's claim for service
connection for hypertension.  The RO also determined that Mr.
Stanford had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his
claim for service connection for gingival cancer, and Mr. Stanford
perfected an appeal.

In November 2007, Mr. Stanford testified at a hearing before the
RO.  He stated that he was first diagnosed with hypertension in
service in 1973 and had taken medication for hypertension since
that time.  He also testified that he was exposed to Agent Orange
and other defoliants in service, was exposed to radiation and
asbestos at Maguire Air Force Base in New Jersey, and was exposed
to radiation while stationed in Japan from 1951 to 1953.

Mr. Stanford further testified that he believed his exposure to
such toxins contributed to his hypertension and oral cancer.  On
June 23, 2009, the Board issued its decision here on appeal.  This
appeal followed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Court Issues Split Ruling in Morin Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex, issued split
rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Kathleen A. Morin,
administratrix v. AutoZone Northeast, Inc., & others.

Judges Duffly, Sikora, and Milkey entered judgment in Case No.
09-P-1816 on March 14, 2011.

Estate filed asbestos exposure action, alleging that operator of
produce supply company had contracted mesothelioma as result of
inhaling asbestos fibers that defendants manufactured or sold.
The Superior Court Department, Judge Charles J. Hely, granted
summary judgment to 12 defendants.  Estate appealed from grant of
summary judgment to three defendants.  This Court affirmed in part
and reversed in part.

Geraldina Medeiros and her husband, Anthony Medeiros owned and
operated Bedford Fruit Company, a fresh produce supplier located
in Hyannis.  They acquired Bedford Fruit in 1952 and ran the
company until it ceased business in 1991.  They took an active
role in day-to-day operations throughout their proprietorship.  In
May 2005, almost 15 years after Bedford Fruit had closed its
doors, Geraldina died as a result of malignant mesothelioma.

The plaintiff in this case, Kathleen Morin, is the daughter of
Geraldina and the administratrix of her estate.  In December,
2005, Morin began a wrongful death action on behalf of the estate.
She named 40 defendants, mainly automobile parts manufacturers and
retailers.  She alleged that her mother contracted mesothelioma
because she had inhaled asbestos fibers as she worked at Bedford
Fruit.

Morin asserted that the asbestos fibers came from automobile parts
which the defendants manufactured or sold, and claimed that each
of the defendants was liable for breach of express and implied
warranties of merchantability and for common-law negligence.  Some
of the defendants promptly settled with Morin, and some moved for
summary judgment.

In an order dated Nov. 3, 2008, a judge of the Superior Court
allowed the summary judgment motions of 12 defendants and denied
the summary judgment motions of three defendants.

After settling with the remaining defendants, Morin appealed from
the grant of summary judgment to three defendants: AutoZone
Northeast, Inc.; Great Dane Trailers, Inc.; and Orleans Auto
Supply, Inc.

On appeal, Morin argued that she presented evidence from which a
jury could find that asbestos fibers from those defendants'
products contributed to the cause of Geraldina's death.  As to the
claims against AutoZone and Orleans, this Court agreed with
Morin and therefore reversed so much of the judgment as dismisses
the claims against those defendants.  As to Great Dane, this Court
concluded that the judge properly allowed its motion for summary
judgment.

Shaun B. Spencer, Esq., represented Morin.  Robert L. Boston,
Esq., represented AutoZone Northeast, Inc.  Andre A. Sansoucy,
Esq., represented Orleans Auto Supply, Inc.  Susan E. Stenger,
Esq., represented CRA Trailers, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms Travelers Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the ruling of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which
granted summary judgment in favor of the Travelers Companies.

The case is styled Ford Bacon & Davis, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant
v. Travelers Insurance Co.; Travelers Casualty & Surety Co;
Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, Defendants-
Appellees.

Circuit Judges Barksdale, Clement, and Prado entered judgment in
Case No. 10-20319 on March 14, 2011.

Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC -- FBD LLC -- appealed the district
court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants.  FBD LLC
argued that Travelers had a duty to defend it against asbestos-
related lawsuits arising from its purchase of assets of another
company, Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. -- FBD Inc. -- for whom
Travelers provided insurance coverage.

In 1996, S & B Acquisition LLP purchased certain assets of the
entity then known as Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.  As part of the
Agreement, S & B acquired rights to the name "Ford, Bacon & Davis"
and became Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLC.  The remaining entity of FBD
Inc. changed its name to SFB Companies, Inc.

Faced with more asbestos-related suits arising from pre-sale
assets and lacking SFB to identify itself as the proper party or
to provide indemnity, FBD LLC called upon Travelers to provide it
a defense.  FBD LLC claimed that it was the successor entity to
FBD Inc., and thus Travelers' coverage of FBD Inc.'s pre-transfer
liabilities should transfer to it under operation of law.

After Travelers denied FBD LLC's demand for defense, FBD LLC
brought suit against Travelers in the District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.  FBD LLC sought a declaratory judgment
that Travelers has a duty to defend it against the asbestos-
related lawsuits, as well as reimbursement for costs spent
defending those lawsuits.

Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it
owed no right of defense to FBD LLC.  The district court granted
summary judgment on April 7, 2010, and FBD LLC timely filed this
appeal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rentech Has $285,000 in Liabilities at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rentech, Inc.'s asbestos liability was US$285,000 at March 31,
2011, and its accretion expense for the six months ended March 31,
2011, was US$17,000.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$277,000 at Dec. 31, 2010
and its accretion expense was US$9,000 for the three months ended
Dec. 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 25, 2011)

The Company has a legal obligation to handle and dispose of
asbestos at its plant at East Dubuque, Ill., and at the site of
its proposed project near Natchez, Miss., in a special manner when
conducting major or minor renovations or when buildings at these
locations are demolished, even though the timing and method of the
handling and disposal of asbestos are conditional on future events
that may or may not be in its control.

As a result, the Company has a conditional obligation for this
disposal.  In addition, the Company, through its normal repair and
maintenance program, may encounter situations in which it is
required to remove asbestos in order to complete other work.

The Company applied the expected present value technique to
calculate and record the fair value of the asset retirement
obligation for each property.  In accordance with the applicable
guidance, the liability is increased over time and such increase
is recorded as accretion expense.

The conditional asset -- asbestos removal -- related to property,
plant and equipment consisted of US$210,000 as of both March 31,
2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The conditional asset -- asbestos removal -- related to
construction in progress consisted of US$27,000 as of both
March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Rentech, Inc. provides clean energy solutions.  The Company also
owns and operates a nitrogen fertilizer plant in East Dubuque,
Ill., which manufacturers and sells natural gas-based nitrogen
fertilizer products within the corn-belt region in the United
States.  The Company is based in Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Posts $63.9MM A&E Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. recorded asbestos and
environmental reserves of US$63.9 million as of March 31, 2011,
compared with US$68.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 9, 2011.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s primary business operations
include insurance products and services provided through three
property and casualty operating segments.  These segments are
Commercial Lines, Personal Lines, and Other Property and Casualty.
The Company is headquartered in Worcester, Mass.


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

Since 1993, BGE and certain Company subsidiaries have been
involved in several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are
based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE
and the Company knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.

In addition to BGE and the Company, numerous other parties are
defendants in these cases.

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

To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been
dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or the Company
and a small minority of these cases have been resolved for amounts
that were not material to the Company's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases once they are placed on the trial
docket.  At present, a small number of the Company's pending cases
have reached the trial docket.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ballantyne Cleared in Chinea Case Last April 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ballantyne Strong, Inc., on April 8, 2011, was formally dismissed
from an asbestos case styled Manuel H.Chinea and Janet M. Chinea
v. American Optical Company, Ballantyne Strong, Inc., a/k/a
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc., et al.

The case was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New York.

Ballantyne Strong, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, services
and distributes theatre and lighting systems.  The Company's
products are distributed to movie exhibition companies, sports
arenas, auditoriums, amusement parks and special venues.  The
Company is headquartered in Omaha, Neb.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reserves $517.4MM at March 31 for A&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd.'s net reserves for asbestos and
environmental exposures amounted to US$517.4 million during the
three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with US$600.2 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2010.

The Company's gross reserves for A&E exposures amounted to
US$535.8 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011,
compared with US$625.2 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2010.

At March 31, 2011, the gross reserves for A&E losses were
comprised of US$132.5 million representing case reserves reported
by ceding companies, US$113.7 million representing additional case
reserves established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims,
US$37.3 million representing case reserves established by the
Company on direct excess insurance claims, including Mt. McKinley,
and US$252.3 million representing IBNR (incurred but not reported)
reserves.

With respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2011, the Company had
gross asbestos loss reserves of US$512.7 million, or 95.7%, of
total A&E reserves, of which US$409.6 million was for assumed
business and US$103.1 million was for direct business.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Argo Group Reserves $81.7MM at March 31 for A&E
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings, Inc.'s net loss reserves for
asbestos and environmental claims amounted to US$81.7 million as
of March 31, 2011, compared with US$83.9 million as of March 31,
2010.

The Company's gross loss reserve for A&E claims amounted to
US$89.3 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$113.3
million as of March 31, 2010.

On May 9, 2011, the Company settled an outstanding reinsurance
recoverable balance related to certain asbestos claims in the
Company's Run-off Lines segment.  Proceeds from the settlement
amounted to US$16.8 million.

As a result of this settlement, the Company has recorded an
expense of US$1.9 million to write-off the unreserved portion of
this reinsurance recoverable balance that is uncollectible and a
charge of US$2 million to loss and loss adjustment expense, or a
total of US$3.9 million of expenses before tax (US$2.5 million net
of taxes) for the three months ended March 31, 2011.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thomas Posts $1.3MM March 31 Cleanup Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Properties Group, Inc., as of March 31, 2011, has accrued
US$1.3 million for estimated future costs of asbestos removal or
abatement at its City National Plaza and Brookhollow Central
properties.

With respect to asbestos-containing materials present at the City
National Plaza and Brookhollow Central properties, these materials
have been removed or abated from certain tenant and common areas
of the building structures.

The Company continues to remove or abate asbestos-containing
materials from various areas of the building structures.

Thomas Properties Group, Inc. is a full-service real estate
company that owns, acquires, develops and manages primarily
office, as well as mixed-use and residential properties on a
nationwide basis.  The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 1,123 New Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s Metropolitan Life Insurance Company subsidiary
received about 1,123 new asbestos-related claims during the three
months ended March 31, 2011, compared with 1,180 claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2010.

MLIC recorded 68,513 asbestos injury claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, compared with 68,804 claims during the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.  (Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2011)

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts.  These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages.

The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920s through
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and improperly publicized
or failed to disclose those health risks.

Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.

MetLife, Inc. provides insurance, annuities and employee benefit
programs throughout the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia
Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  The Company is organized
into six segments: Insurance Products, Retirement Products,
Corporate Benefit Funding and Auto & Home, and Japan and Other
International Regions.  The Company is headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic's Reserves at $142.6MM at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestosis and
environmental claim reserves were US$142.6 million as of March 31,
2011, compared with US$144.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's gross asbestosis and environmental claim reserves
were US$191.5 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with
US$195.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Still Has AO Respirator Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation has asbestos-related exposure in connection with
a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired
from American Optical Corporation in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction.

The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995.  In connection with its
acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain
circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including
costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and
judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the
1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.

The Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are claimed to have been negligently designed or labeled.

There were about 43,000 claimants as of March 31, 2011 and 45,000
claimants as of Sept. 30, 2010 in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products.

The Company has a reserve to cover its expected share of liability
for existing and future respirator liability claims.  The book
value of the reserve is being accreted up to the undiscounted
liability through interest expense over the expected cash flow
period, which is through 2062.

The reserve was US$13 million at March 31, 2011 and US$15 million
at Sept. 30, 2010 on a discounted basis (US$18 million at March
31, 2011 and US$20 million at Sept. 30, 2011 on an undiscounted
basis).

Cash payments related to this liability were about US$3 million in
the first six months of fiscal 2011 and US$1 million in the first
six months of fiscal 2010.

Cabot Corporation produces carbon black, a reinforcing and
pigmenting agent used in tires, inks, cables, and coatings.  It
has about 25 percent of the world market for the product.  The
Company is headquartered in Boston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Still Has 260 Open Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings, Corp., at March 31, 2011, was a co-defendant
in about 260 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,230
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2011.

At Dec. 31, 2010, the Company was a co-defendant in about 260
cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,230 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
(Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2011)

These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

In every asbestos case in which the Company is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.

There are six asbestos cases, involving 27 plaintiffs that plead
specified damages.  In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action.

In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in
the amount of US$3 million for four separate causes of action and
US$1 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of US$10 million.

In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount
of US$10 million for seven separate causes of action.  In the
fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of US$20 million for three separate causes of action and
US$5 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of US$20 million.

In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named
defendant, compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount
of US$10 million for six separate causes of action and US$5
million for the seventh cause of action.

Park-Ohio Holdings, Corp. operates through three segments: Supply
Technologies, Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products.  The
Company is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bucyrus Still Subject to Injury, Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International, Inc. has been named as a co-defendant in
numerous personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 10, 2011.

The Company has insurance covering most of these cases and has
various limits of liability depending on the insurance policy year
in question.  At the time a liability associated with a case
becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated, the Company
accrues for the liability by a charge to earnings.

For all other cases, an estimate of the costs associated with the
matters cannot be made due to the inherent uncertainties in the
litigation process.

Bucyrus International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets high
productivity mining equipment.  The Company operates in two
business segments: surface mining and underground mining.  The
Company is headquartered in South Milwaukee, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Court Affirms SeaRiver Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, First District, California, upheld the ruling
of the trial court, which granted summary judgment in favor of
SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. in an asbestos case filed by Alan
Bartholomew.

The case is styled Alan Bartholomew, Plaintiff and Appellant v.
SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., Defendants and Respondents.

Judges Rivera, Ruvolo, and Sepulveda entered judgment in Case No.
A127424 on March 16, 2011.

This appeal arose from the asbestos-related injuries sustained by
Mr. Bartholomew, a ship repair worker employed by West Winds,
Inc., while working on various ships owned by SeaRiver Maritime,
Inc.  Mr. Bartholomew brought suit against SeaRiver as a vessel
owner under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.

SeaRiver moved for summary judgment, which the trial court
granted.  The Appeals Court affirmed.

Between 1977 and 1980, Mr. Bartholomew worked as a marine
machinist at West Winds, a ship repair company located in San
Francisco.  During his employment, he worked on the maintenance
and repair of numerous ships owned by SeaRiver.  In particular, he
performed repair work on pumps, valves, turbines, compressors, and
other equipment on the ships.

Mr. Bartholomew was diagnosed with asbestosis in or about October
2006.  He contended that his condition resulted from exposure to
asbestos-containing products while working aboard SeaRiver's
vessels, as well as from airborne asbestos fibers on those ships.

On April 4, 2007, Mr. Bartholomew filed a complaint seeking
damages for his asbestos exposure against numerous defendants,
including SeaRiver.  He claimed that SeaRiver was liable for
vessel owner negligence under the LHWCA.

Following a hearing on April 10, 2009, the trial court granted
SeaRiver's motion for summary judgment.  The ensuing judgment in
SeaRiver's favor was filed on Nov. 2, 2009.  This instant appeal
followed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Issues Split Ruling in Ensley Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina issued split rulings in a
case involving asbestos styled Grover M. Ensley, Plaintiff-
employee v. FMC Corporation, Defendant-employer, Self-Insured and
Broadspire, A Crawford Company, Defendant-servicing agent.

Judges Steelman, Stephens and Hunter Jr. entered judgment in Case
No. COA10-522 on March 15, 2011.

This was an appeal by defendants from Opinion and Award entered on
Dec. 29, 2009 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission.

The Commission properly awarded Grover M. Ensley permanent and
total disability benefits where he was unable to work in any
capacity as a result of his asbestosis.

Mr. Ensley was employed by FMC Corporation at a chemical plant
that manufactured lithium products.  From 1962 until 1974, he
performed various jobs, including operating machinery that made
different chemicals and removing metal from "dipping cells" that
were insulated with asbestos.

In 1974, Mr. Ensley became a supervisor and oversaw 10 to 40
employees.  He continued to work on the machinery and around
asbestos insulation.  As a supervisor, his chief responsibility
was the main chemical building.  There was asbestos insulation
throughout the building surrounding the steam lines.

In October 1996, Mr. Ensley was on short-term disability for about
six months because of high blood pressure.  He attempted to return
to working four-hour days; however, his blood pressure remained
high and he experienced anxiety attacks.

In 2006, Mr. Ensley had chest x-rays that were reviewed by Dr.
Jill Ohar, a board certified pulmonologist.  She diagnosed Mr.
Ensley with asbestosis and silicosis stemming from his employment
with FMC.

On Nov. 27, 2006, Mr. Ensley filed a Form 18B, initiating a claim
for workers' compensation against FMC and Broadspire, FMC's
servicing agent (collectively, defendants).  FMC filed a Form 19
and Form 33R, which denied compensability of the claim.  On Nov.
10, 2009, Mr. Ensley's claim was heard by the Full Commission.

On Dec. 29, 2009, the Commission filed its Opinion and Award, and
found that Mr. Ensley suffers from asbestosis as a result of his
employment with FMC and that he is permanently and totally
disabled.  The Commission awarded him permanent total disability
benefits at the rate of US$730 per week beginning Jan. 30, 2006
and continuing for the remainder of his life.

FMC was also ordered to pay for Mr. Ensley's medical expenses and
attorney's fees in the amount of 25 percent of the compensation
approved.  Defendants appealed.

The Commission erred by ordering disability benefits to begin on
Jan. 30, 2006.  This ruling was reversed and remanded to the
Commission with instructions to order disability benefits to begin
as of June 18, 2006.  The judgment was affirmed in part and
reversed in part.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.J. Court Flips Ruling in Sussex County Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the
ruling of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex
County, in a case involving asbestos filed by Sussex County
Plumbing, Inc.

The case is styled Sussex County Plumbing, Inc., Plaintiff-
Respondent v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company,
Defendant-Appellant, and Penn National Insurance Company, Inc.,
Defendant-Respondent, and Sunalliance-Royal Insurance Company,
Franklin Mutual Insurance Company, Travelers Insurance Company,
and Great American Insurance Company, Defendants.

Judges Grall, LeWinn and Coburn entered judgment in the case on
March 16, 2011.

Sussex filed a declaratory judgment action for insurance coverage.
Defendants New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM) and
Penn National Insurance Company filed cross-claims against each
other.  The other insurance company defendants were dismissed from
the action.

The underlying actions sought personal injury damages for
asbestosis on behalf of Allen Wood and Alfred Notaro, who alleged
that they were exposed to asbestos contained in products sold by
Sussex and delivered by Sussex to work sites where they were
employed.  Penn settled the personal injury claims and sought
contribution from NJM.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was
then submitted to another judge on what the parties describe as a
stipulation of facts.  Penn was awarded judgment in the amount of
US$80,540.56 plus interest.

NJM appealed.  NJM also contended that based on the stipulated
facts concerning the underlying actions and the exclusions, it was
entitled to judgment.  Reversed and remanded for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco's Long-Term March 31 Liability at $190MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation's long-term asbestos-related
liabilities amounted to US$190,268,619 as of March 31, 2011,
compared with US$193,603,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos liabilities amounted to
US$25 million as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos insurance receivables were
US$121,452,389 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$124,089,373
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. Ampco Rise to 8,668 at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation faced about 8,668 open asbestos
claims for the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with
8,081 open claims for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

For the three months ended March 31, 2011, gross settlement and
defense costs were US$3,471,000 and the Company recorded about 195
claims settled or dismissed.

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

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

In 2006, for the first time, a claim for Asbestos Liability
against one of the Company's subsidiaries was tried to a jury.
The trial resulted in a defense verdict.

Plaintiffs appealed that verdict and in 2008 the California Court
of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case back to
the trial court.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ampco From Howden Case in Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation from an asbestos-
related insurance litigation regarding Howden North America, Inc.
is now in process.

Certain of the Company's subsidiaries and the Company have an
arrangement (Coverage Arrangement) with insurers responsible for
historical primary and some first-layer excess insurance coverage
for Asbestos Liability (Paying Insurers).  Under the Coverage
Arrangement, the Paying Insurers accept financial responsibility,
subject to the limits of the policies and based on fixed defense
percentages and specified indemnity allocation formulas, for
pending and future claims for Asbestos Liability.

The claims against the Company's inactive subsidiary that is in
dissolution proceedings, numbering about 480 as of March 31, 2011,
are not included within the Coverage Arrangement.  The one claim
filed against the former division also is not included within the
Coverage Arrangement.

The Coverage Arrangement includes an acknowledgement that Howden
is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability
for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or
distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Company.
The Coverage Arrangement does not provide for any prioritization
on access to the applicable policies or monetary cap other than
the limits of the policies, and, accordingly, Howden may access
the policies at any time for any covered claim arising out of a
Product.

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

On Aug. 4, 2009, Howden filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  In the lawsuit, Howden
raised claims against certain insurance companies that allegedly
issued policies to Howden that do not cover the Company or its
subsidiaries, and also raised claims against the Company and two
other insurance companies that issued excess insurance policies
covering certain subsidiaries of the Company (Excess Policies),
but that were not part of the Coverage Arrangement.

In the lawsuit, Howden seeks, as respects the Company, a
declaratory judgment from the court as to the respective rights
and obligations of Howden, the Company and the insurance carriers
under the Excess Policies.  One of the excess carriers and the
Company filed cross-claims against each other seeking declarations
regarding their respective rights and obligations under Excess
Policies issued by that carrier.

The Company's cross-claim also sought damages for the carrier's
failure to pay certain defense and indemnity costs.  The Company
and that carrier concluded a settlement generally consistent with
the Coverage Arrangement, and all claims between that carrier and
the Company were dismissed with prejudice on Dec. 8, 2010.

In April 2011, the Company and the other carrier that issued
Excess Policies also concluded a settlement generally consistent
with the Coverage Arrangement.

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


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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TMS, Former Units Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TMS International Corp. and two of its former affiliates are
subject to asbestos-related actions.

Two non-operating subsidiaries of a predecessor company, along
with a landfill and waste management business, were spun-off to
the Company's former stockholders in October 2002.  The two former
subsidiaries were subject to asbestos related personal injury
claims.  The Company said it believes that it has no obligation
for asbestos related claims regarding the spun-off subsidiaries.

In addition, the Company has been named as a defendant in certain
asbestos-related claims relating to lines of business that were
discontinued over 20 years ago.  The Company said it believes that
it is sufficiently protected by insurance with respect to these
asbestos-related claims related to these former lines of business.

TMS International Corp. provides outsourced industrial services to
steel mills in North America with a substantial international
presence.  The Company operates at 74 customer sites in nine
countries and has a raw materials procurement network that extends
to five continents.  The Company is headquartered in Glassport,
Pa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belden Has 84 Personal Injury Cases at April 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. is facing asbestos-related personal injury cases, of
which 84 are pending as of April 24, 2011, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2011.

Electricians have filed a majority of these cases, primarily in
Pennsylvania and Illinois, generally seeking compensatory,
special, and punitive damages.  Typically in these cases, the
claimant alleges injury from alleged exposure to a heat-resistant
asbestos fiber.

The Company's alleged predecessors had a small number of products
that contained the fiber, but ceased production of such products
more than 20 years ago.

Through April 24, 2011, the Company has been dismissed, or reached
agreement to be dismissed, in more than 400 similar cases without
any going to trial, and with only a small number of these
involving any payment to the claimant.

Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets cable,
connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics.  The
Company is headquartered in St. Louis.


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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Still Facing Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted
from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on
the Company's historic use of vermiculite in certain of its
products.

The complaints in these cases are not specific about the
plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products.  The
Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of the
claims seek damages from the Company alone.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets and sells
consumer branded products for lawn and garden care.  The Company's
primary customers include home centers, mass merchandisers,
warehouse clubs, large hardware chains, independent hardware
stores, nurseries, garden centers and food and drug stores.  The
Company is based in Marysville, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Imperial Industries Unit Faces 21 Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Industries, Inc.'s Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co.
subsidiary is a defendant together with non-affiliated parties in
21 claims (11 of which include the Company as a defendant), which
allege bodily injury due to exposure to asbestos contained in
products manufactured in excess of 30 years ago.

The Company has identified at least 10 of its prior insurance
carriers including both primary and excess/umbrella liability
carriers that have provided liability coverage to the Company,
including potential coverage for alleged injuries relating to
asbestos exposure.  Several of these insurance carriers have been
and continue to provide a defense to Premix and the Company under
a reservation of rights in all of the asbestos cases.

Certain of these underlying insurance carriers have denied
coverage to Premix and the Company on the basis that certain
exclusions preclude coverage and/or that their policies have been
exhausted.  In June 2009, one such carrier filed suit in Miami-
Dade Circuit Court against Premix and the Company, wherein the
carrier sought a declaration from the Court that its insurance
policies do not provide coverage for the asbestos claims against
Premix and the Company.

The carrier also asserted a claim for reimbursement of defense
costs and indemnity payments that it voluntarily made on the
Company's behalf in prior asbestos claims.

In December 2010, Premix, the Company and this carrier resolved
their dispute, with the carrier agreeing to pay a settlement of
US$500,000 to Premix and the Company.  As part of the settlement,
there is no longer coverage available under that disputed policy.

The settlement was recorded as a receivable and included in other
current assets in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of Dec. 31, 2010, and as income reflected as litigation
settlement during the fourth quarter of 2010.  The Company
received actual payment of the US$500,000 during the first quarter
of 2011.

During the first quarter of 2011, the Company resolved a dispute
with another carrier regarding primary-layer insurance coverage,
which resulted in this carrier paying a settlement of US$325,000
to Premix and the Company.  As part of the settlement, there is no
longer coverage available under that disputed policy.

The receipt of the second settlement was recorded as income and
reflected as litigation settlement in the accompanying statement
of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2011.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company said it believes, when
considering that it and Premix have substantial umbrella/excess
coverage for these claims, that the Company has more than adequate
insurance coverage for these asbestos claims and such policies are
not subject to self-insured retention (SIR).

Imperial Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes building
materials to building materials dealers, contractors and others
located primarily in Florida, and to a lesser extent, other states
in the Southeastern United States.  The Company has two
facilities, of which one is used primarily for producing,
marketing and distributing its manufactured products.  The Company
is headquartered in Pompano Beach, Fla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Still Has Asbestos Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits initiated by a
significant number of claimants alleging health problems as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

In the early 2000s, the Company was named in nearly 20,000
complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi state court
and the vast majority of which made no allegations of exposure to
asbestos from its product categories.

Most of these claims have been dismissed and the Company's current
docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases
nationwide.  A small number of claims have been asserted by
railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in
railroad cars manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the
Company's subsidiaries.

The balance of the claims is related to alleged exposure to
asbestos in the Company's automotive emission control products.  A
small percentage of the claimants allege that they were automobile
mechanics and a significant number appear to involve workers in
other industries or otherwise do not include sufficient
information to determine whether there is any basis for a claim
against the Company.

Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the
number of each in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a
variety of industries.

Tenneco Inc. produces emission control and ride control products
and systems for light, commercial and specialty vehicle
applications.  The Company is based in Lake Forest, Ill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Party to Injury Suits in 4 States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Wire & Cable Company, along with many other defendants,
still faces lawsuits in the state courts of Illinois, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and
cable, which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the
plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable.

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riley Action v. 45 Firms Filed in Jefferson Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest D. Riley, on May 26, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against A. W. Chesterton Company and 44 other defendant
corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The
Southeast Texas Record reports.

Court records allege Mr. Riley was exposed to asbestos while
working as a welder and pipefitter at the defendants' Jefferson
County premises from 1956 until 1979.

Mr. Riley sues for actual and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest at the legal rate and other relief the
court deems just.

Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents Mr.
Riley.  Judge Bob Wortham, 58th District Court, has been assigned
to Case No. A190-115.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nolen Case Against 137 Firms Filed on April 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Issac Nolen and wife Annie B. Nolen, of Collinsville, Va.,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 137 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on April 27, 2011, The West Virginia
Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Nolen was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on Feb. 24, 2011.  He claims he smoked cigarettes
from 1960 until 1989, but has since quit.

Mr. Nolen was employed by the defendants between the 1960s and
1980s.  His father was also a pipefitter in the 1950s and 1960s,
according to the suit.  He claims the defendants caused his
mesothelioma because they failed to warn him of the dangers.

The Nolens seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Gary W. Kendall, Esq., represent the
Nolens.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-691 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Comer's Lawsuit v. 143 Firms Filed on April 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Highland Springs, Va., couple, Edward L. Comer and Barbara
Comer, on April 27, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against 143
defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West
Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Comer was diagnosed with
mesothelioma on March 8, 2011.  He claims he smoked cigarettes
until 1986, but completely quit in that year.

Mr. Comer claims he was exposed to asbestos fibers during his
employment as an insulator from 1960 until 1984.

The Comers seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
Victoria Antion, Esq., and Gary W. Kendall, Esq., represent the
Comers.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-693 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barton Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Joan W. Barton, executrix of the Estate
of Howard William Barton vs. 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company;
Aurora Pump Company; et al was filed on May 25, 2011 in Kanawha
County Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

Joan W. Barton claims the 65 defendant corporations are
responsible for her late husband's asbestosis bilateral and death.
She seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues.

Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represents Mrs. Barton and Case No.
11-C-859 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tawney Lawsuit v. 65 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Jack L. Tawney and Frances E. Tawney,
his wife vs. 3M Company; A.W. Chesterton Company; Aurora Pump
Company; et al was filed on May 23, 2011 in Kanawha County Circuit
Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

The Tawneys claim the 65 defendants are responsible for Mr.
Tawney's asbestosis.  They seek a jury trial to resolve all
issues.

Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq., represents the Tawneys.  Case No.
11-C-846 is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EA Calls for Help on Illegal Disposal Matters
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Environment Agency are appealing for information after a lorry
load of asbestos sheeting was dumped on the Ribble Link Way in
Preston on May 31, 2011, near lock number 8, according to an
Environment Agency press release dated June 6, 2011.

A member of the public informed the Environment Agency of the
dumping through its incident hotline number 0800 80 70 60.
Officers who attended the scene found that it contained broken
asbestos sheeting which also covered bags of asbestos waste.

British Waterways, who owns the land, has now cordoned off and
covered this hazardous waste, and are employing approved
contractors to remove and dispose of the waste correctly.

Paul Shelton, investigating for the Environment Agency said, "We
are urging anyone with any information as to the source of the
waste to come forward so that we can ensure that these criminals
do not continue to dump waste illegally."

If you have any information on this dumping please contact Paul
Shelton, Environmental Crime Officer on 01772 714211, or if you
spot any other environmental incidents call EA's 24 hour incident
hotline on 0800 80 70 60.

Anyone who uses other individuals or businesses to dispose of
their waste needs to ensure that the waste is disposed of legally.
It is an offense for a member of the public to give their waste to
an un-permitted firm.

Remember to ask to see the companies waste carriers license or to
find out if a firm is licensed contact the Environment Agency on
08708 506 506.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Todd Fined Over Breaches at Oswestry Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court heard that John Todd Ltd, a refurbishment company exposed
two of its workers to asbestos-containing materials at a site in
Oswestry, Shropshire, England, according to a Health and Safety
Executive press release dated June 3, 2011.

The HSE prosecuted John Todd Ltd, of Middletown, Powys, Wales,
over the incident at Mile Oak Industrial Estate, Maesbury Road.

John Todd had been commissioned to refurbish a building on the
estate but when licensed asbestos removal contractors arrived on
site on Oct. 18, 201, they found two self-employed workers and
company director John Todd had already started to remove the
material.

Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court heard the Company had taken no
precautions to prevent the spread of fibers.  Asbestos insulation
boards had been prised off and timber studding with broken
fragments of asbestos had been placed into an unprotected skip,
together with broken floor tiles which also contained asbestos.

HSE attended the site and immediately stopped all work due to the
risk to those working there.

John Todd Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the
Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined GBP10,000 and
ordered to pay GBP10,000 costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Nic Rigby said, "John Todd Ltd
showed an absolute disregard for the health and safety of workers
on the site by allowing work with asbestos to take place fully
aware it was present."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exeter Dockyard Worker's Death Linked to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at County Hall in Exeter, Devon, England, heard that
the death of Barrie Sparham, a man who was honored by the Queen
for his role providing equipment for the first Gulf war, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos, the Exeter Express and
Echo reports.

Mr. Sparham was an engineering apprentice at Portsmouth dockyard
between 1962 and 1965 when he was exposed to the hazardous
material.

At Mr. Sparham's inquest, evidence was heard of how he was
diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and managed to stay at home
until the last six days of his life when he was transferred to a
hospice.  He died at the age of 67 on Feb. 15, 2011.

Exeter and Greater Devon coroner Elizabeth Earland heard how Mr.
Sparham would often work in tight conditions as an apprentice that
would leave him exposed to asbestos.  Despite this, he would
change his overalls once every two weeks, as instructed by the
Ministry of Defence at the time.

After finishing his apprenticeship, Mr. Sparham went to work for a
company that produced heating and air-conditioning equipment.  His
role as sales engineer often took him to Europe.  He worked his
way up to a managerial role and, by the age of 28, he was running
Deep Sea Seals, producing stern shafts for shipping.

Mr. Barrie then joined Ferguson Tankers in Portsmouth which was
bought out by Reynolds Boughton in 1982.  The company produced
fire crash tenders for major airports around the world.  In 1991,
he was approached by the Government to make water and fuel-
carrying equipment for the first Gulf War.

It was a job which Mr. Barrie achieved with great success and
under considerable pressure.  He was awarded the OBE for his
outstanding work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio AG's Lawsuit v. Contractor Filed on June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Attorney General's Office, on June 7, 2011, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against Cleveland-based contractor Richard's
"Your Outdoor Connection" Inc., contractor Richard Whitt and
building owner Donald J. Mountain in Lorain County Common Pleas
Court, The Morning Journal reports.

According to the complaint, the contractor did not comply with
Ohio's asbestos abatement laws when two residences were demolished
in 2007.

Mr. Whitt demolished the structures at 518-522 Middle Ave.,
Elyria, from May 2, 2007 to May 24, 2007, according to the
complaint.  However, he was not an asbestos abatement contractor
licensed to do business in Ohio, according to the complaint.

Mr. Whitt also did not provide adequate notice of the demolition
to the Ohio Environmental Agency and did not get a proper
inspection for asbestos, the state complaint said.

The AG's office seeks penalties of up to US$25,000 for each day of
violation.  The complaint also seeks a court order for Whitt to
observe proper procedures for inspections, demolitions and abating
asbestos.

Richard's "Your Outdoor Connection" Inc. was a family owned
company that went out of business in 2008 when the U.S. economy
went bad, said Michael Boukzam, who bought the company's name.

Mr. Boukzam said he purchased the naming rights and telephone
number to the business, but did not work for the company in 2007.
He added that his company works mostly on tree trimming and
removal and gets the proper licenses, bonds and permits for the
cities around northern Ohio where it works.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Records Monitoring Results for Joplin Zone
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 is sharing
online the results of its ongoing air monitoring activities within
the Joplin, Mo., tornado impact zone, according to an EPA press
release dated June 7, 2011.

So far, the data from Region 7's air sampling for asbestos and
particulate matter, which began on May 28, 2011 has not indicated
any health-related concerns.

As additional data is collected and analyzed, EPA will post those
results at http://www.epa.gov/joplin, which also contains fact
sheets, health and safety information, and other materials related
to the EPA's response to the May 22, 2011 tornado.

As one of its missions assigned by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), EPA developed a plan to conduct air
monitoring to protect public health as the recovery efforts in
Joplin continue.  That plan includes sampling the air at various
locations in and around the tornado's impact zone, with an
emphasis on monitoring for asbestos and particulate matter.

To minimize exposure to asbestos fibers and particulate matter in
the impact zone, EPA recommends that persons use NIOSH-approved N-
100, P-100 or R-100 respirators.  If worn improperly, respirators
may provide little or no protection.  Instructions for proper use
of a respirator must be followed carefully and closely.

EPA's air sampling will be adjusted as conditions warrant change.
The amount of demolition and debris removal or burning, the
results of air sampling, and other factors may result in changes
to EPA's plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cambria Local Sentenced for Disposal Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luther Sherman Akers, a 69 year old man from Cambria, Calif., was
sentenced on June 6, 2011, to 20 days in County Jail after
entering a no-contest plea agreement on June 1, 2011, to
misdemeanor illegal disposal of hazardous waste, The Tribune
reports.

Mr. Akers was charged with illegal removal of asbestos and
unpermitted renovations at the former Cambria Air Force Station, a
Cold War-era military radar site.

Property owner Bernd Schaefers faces two ongoing misdemeanor
charges involving coastal zone land-use law.  He has pleaded not
guilty.

Between 2005 and 2007, about 20 people lived on the property and
performed work including construction, cooking and gardening, Mr.
Akers told an investigator with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

One former resident told investigators that she received room and
board at the facility in exchange for work that included removing
insulation materials that investigators said contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peart Claim v. 35 Firms Filed on May 25 in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The estate of Freeman Eugene Peart, on May 25, 2011, has filed an
asbestos suit against American Optical Corporation and 34 other
companies in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., The Southeast
Texas Record reports.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Peart lived in Texas and worked as a
laborer, welder, pipefitter and boilermaker throughout his career.

Mr. Peart was allegedly exposed to asbestos products during the
unspecified employment, which caused him to develop an asbestos-
related illness.  The suit does not state when he died.

This is the second lawsuit filed on behalf of Freeman Eugene
Peart.  He filed the first complaint for a different asbestos-
related disease than what he died from, according to the suit.

Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents the
estate.  Judge Milton Shuffield, 136thth District Court, has been
assigned to Case No. D190-108.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gipson Lawsuit v. 57 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. Gipson and Esther Laverne Gipson, a couple from
Flatwoods, Ky., on April 27, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 57 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on May 15, 2010, Mr. Gipson was
diagnosed with lung cancer.  He claims the defendants are
responsible for his lung cancer because they exposed him to
asbestos fibers during his employment career.

Mr. Gipson smoked cigarettes from 1960 until 1995, but has since
quit.  He was also a member of the U.S. States Army from 1948
until 1951, according to the suit.

The Gipsons seek a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
They are being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., Scott A.
McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-692 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkeley Pensioner's Death Related to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of John Ormrod, a 65-year-old
pensioner from Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England, was related to
workplace exposure to asbestos, the Gazette reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Ormrod died in March 2011 from
malignant mesothelioma.  He had worked at Turners cement works in
Widnes from 1966 until 1973 and at Laporte Industries in the
Cheshire town from 1973 until 1988.

In a statement made before his death in support of a compensation
claim, Mr. Ormrod said Turners manufactured a range of asbestos
products including pipes, guttering and sheets.

At Laporte Industries, there was a tremendous amount of asbestos-
lagged piping.  The asbestos was in poor repair and fitters worked
in pairs to strip the lagging and replace it.  On one occasion
when temperatures in the factory soared, asbestos sheets were
removed by smashing them with hammers.

Mr. Ormrod was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in October
2009 after suffering persistent chest infections.  He underwent
chemotherapy treatment and was reasonably well until March 2011
when he started to deteriorate.  He died at his home on March 16,
2011.

A post mortem examination was carried out by pathologist Dr.
Linmarie Ludeman and she said sample analysis revealed 34,445
mineral fibers per gram of dry lung tissue.  This was a low
reading, she said, but within the range consistent with asbestos
exposure during employment.  She gave the cause of death as due to
malignant mesothelioma.

Gloucestershire deputy coroner David Dooley said it was his
understanding that Mr. Ormrod's civil claim had been settled in
his favor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Men Charges for N.Y. Hazard Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal prosecutors said on June 3, 2011 that a central New York
farmer, a New Jersey demolition company, its owner and two other
men dumped 30,000 tons of asbestos-contaminated construction
debris on farmland near New York's Mohawk River in 2006, the
Associated Press reports.

Authorities said the conspirators planned to continue dumping
pulverized refuse in wetlands and the river's flood plain over
five years using a fake state permit.

The indictment unsealed on June 3, 2011 named Mazza & Sons of
Tinton Falls, N.J., 60-year-old company owner Dominick Mazza, and
59-year-old farm owner Cross Nicastro II of Frankfort.  Also
charged were 69-year-old Julius DeSimone of Rome, N.Y., and 54-
year-old Donald Torriero of Wellington, Fla.

The men were arrested on June 3, 2011.  Prosecutors said Mr.
DeSimone managed excavation and dumping at the site, and Mr.
Torriero fabricated and transmitted the fake permit.

Defense attorney Paul Brickfield, Esq., said pleas of not guilty
were entered on behalf of the company and Mr. Mazza, who was
released on his own recognizance from the federal court in Newark.

On June 3, 2011, Mr. Nicastro pleaded not guilty in Syracuse and
was released.  The others were expected to enter similar pleas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Dorset Pensioners' Deaths Linked to Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inquests at Bournemouth, England, heard that the deaths of two
Dorset pensioners were related to exposure to asbestos, the Daily
Echo reports.

73-year-old Patricia Morgan, of Christchurch, Dorset, had worked
as a secretary at the London Asbestos Company in 1961 to 1963.
She kept sample bags of asbestos in her desk drawer, where she
also stored her handbag.

In a statement before her death, Ms. Morgan said she was given a
piece of asbestos to feel, and had to go to the warehouse to fetch
samples.  At no time was she provided with protection or given any
warnings.  In March 2010, she was taken to hospital and diagnosed
with mesothelioma.

Trevor Pitman, of Queen's Park, Bournemouth, died from
mesothelioma and bronchial pneumonia on March 2011 at the age of
92.  He was an engineer in the Merchant Navy during World War Two
at a time when asbestos lagging was used in many ships.

After the war, Mr. Pitman joined General Accident (now Aviva) as
an engineer and surveyor, carrying out inspections in many
buildings with asbestos.  He said he was never given any
protective gear or warnings.

District Coroner Sheriff Payne recorded verdicts that Mr. Pitman
and Ms. Morgan both died as a result of developing industrial
disease after being exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Securities Fraud Case v. Halliburton Reinstated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 6, 2011, reinstated a lawsuit by a
group of mutual and pension fund investors who claimed Halliburton
Co. understated its asbestos liabilities while overstating
revenues in its engineering and construction business and the
benefits of its merger with Dresser Industries, Reuters reports.

The justices unanimously ruled that a U.S. appeals court erred in
rejecting class certification in the securities fraud lawsuit
filed in 2002 on behalf of all buyers of Halliburton stock between
June 1999 and December 2001.

Shares of the oilfield services company fell right after news of
the ruling.  Shares were down 4.8% at US$47.88, off US$2.40, in
late afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The alleged misstatements artificially pumped up Halliburton's
stock price, the lawsuit said, adding that the Houston-based
company eventually made corrective disclosures that caused its
stock price to fall.

Halliburton said it looked forward to presenting its arguments
when the case goes back to the appeals court.

The Supreme Court case is Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton, No.
09-1403.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Dismissal of Bland's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County,
affirmed the ruling of the trial court, which administratively
dismissed an asbestos complaint filed by Raymond S. Bland,
Executor of the Estate of Albert E. Bland, and Mary L. Bland.

The case is styled Raymond S. Bland, Executor of the Estate of
Albert E. Bland, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Ajax
Magnathermic Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Judges Kathleen Ann Keough, Colleen Conway Cooney, and Kenneth A.
Rocco entered judgment in Case No. 95249 on March 17, 2011.

Albert E. Bland passed away on Nov. 2, 2009, and this court
granted appellants' motion for substitution of parties.

In August 2009, Albert and Mary Bland filed an asbestos-related
complaint against several companies, including Dana Companies,
LLC, Foseco, Inc., Industrial Holdings Corporation, Trane US,
Inc., and Traco Construction Services, Inc. f/k/a The Rust
Engineering Company, as well as "John Does 1-100 Manufacturers,
Sellers, or Installers of Asbestos-Containing Products".  The
complaint alleged injury to Albert Bland from workplace exposure
to products containing asbestos from 1959 through 1993.

The appellees moved to administratively dismiss the Blands'
complaint for failure to provide the required prima facie evidence
to establish a claim for asbestosis.

Defendants Flowserve Corp. f/k/a Durametallic Corp., Gardner
Denver Inc., Bosch Rexroth Corporation, and Eaton Hydraulics, LLC
and its Char-Lynn Hydraulic Motors Division joined in the motion
to administratively dismiss.

Following a hearing on appellees' motion, the trial court issued
an order administratively dismissing the Blands' complaint without
prejudice.

The Blands appealed, arguing in their sole assignment of error
that the trial court erred when it granted appellees' motion to
administratively dismiss their complaint.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Colgate-Palmolive Bid in Tedrick Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, New York, granted Colgate-
Palmolive Company's in limine motion of apparent first impression
in asbestos litigation filed on behalf of Karen Tedrick.

The case is styled Lori Konopka-Sauer and Richard Konopka, as
Executors of the Estate of Karen Tedrick, Plaintiff v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company, Defendant.

Judge Martin Shulman entered judgment in Case No. 190078/08 on
March 11, 2011.

Colgate-Palmolive Company had filed an in limine motion of
apparent first impression in asbestos litigation to apply Oregon
law, which would cap any potential non-economic damage award
Plaintiffs, Lori Konopka-Sauer and Richard Konopka, as Executors
of the Estate of Karen Tedrick, could receive in this personal
injury/wrongful death action.

Prior to her death, decedent plaintiff, Karen Tedrick filed her
personal injury action in New York on Nov. 14, 2008, alleging she
contracted mesothelioma from asbestos exposure through her
historic use of Cashmere Bouquet dusting powder, a talc powder
product C-P manufactured and sold.

Plaintiff, born on Nov. 6, 1946, was raised and educated in
Michigan and continuously resided in that state until April 1969.
In April 1969, Tedrick was hired as an American Airlines flight
attendant, left Michigan to complete a two-month training course
at American Airlines Stewardess College in Dallas/Forth Worth,
Texas and resided there on campus.

After successfully completing the flight attendant training
program, Tedrick was posted to New York City to cover domestic
flights to and from LaGuardia, JFK and Newark Airports.  During
the next two years, Plaintiff with three and then two of her
colleagues successively shared two 1-bedroom apartments in New
York City.

From the age of 12, Plaintiff began using the talc powder.  She
liked its floral scent which reminded her of her mother and made
its use a part of her daily hygiene regimen (sometimes multiple
times a day) and always after every bath/shower.  Plaintiff was
generous with her use of this product on her person and talc
powder residue would typically cloud the air and settle on
surfaces in any bathroom she used.

For almost 15 years, Tedrick exhibited brand loyalty through her
daily and repeated use of this product.  Eventually, Tedrick
stopped using any fragrance product in the late 1970s due to
allergies.

From Los Angeles, Plaintiff moved to Chicago, Illinois in March
1972, and after four years, divorced her husban.  From 1976-1985,
Plaintiff engaged in various jobs, remarried and divorced again,
completed her course work at Northeastern University to finally
obtain a B.A. in psychology and relocated back to Los Angeles.

During that period, Tedrick, while employed in the social services
field, actively pursued her interest in yoga as a therapeutic
modality and became a certified yoga instructor.  In 1993,
Plaintiff moved to Oregon, bought a home and became a mental
health care professional until she retired in 2008 at or about the
age of 62.

Shortly after Karen retired, she began exhibiting flu-like
symptoms (i.e., dry cough, weakness, fatigue, etc.) and
experiencing unusually intense pain in the upper part of her body.
In September-October 2008, after consulting with various
specialists, undergoing imaging studies and having a needle
biopsy, Karen learned she had malignant pleural mesothelioma,
would suffer progressive breathing difficulties and have a pain-
filled, remaining life expectancy of anywhere from 8 to 9 months.

Within a year of diagnosis, Karen decided to end her life and did
so in accordance with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODWDA).

Shortly thereafter, Oregon counsel was retained to admit
Plaintiff's will to probate in the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for the County of Multnomah, and Karen's brother, Richard
Konopka, and sister, Lori Konopka-Sauer, were appointed her
personal representatives.  On April 13, 2010, Plaintiff's siblings
became plaintiffs in this action ("Estate-Plaintiffs") and amended
the complaint to assert a wrongful death claim against C-P.

Tedrick's brother had been a long term resident of Oregon, but,
because of his career in the military, maintains a second home in
Georgia, whereas Plaintiff's sister is currently a Georgia
resident. Neither sibling has ever worked or resided in New York.

Accordingly, Defendant's in limine motion to apply ORS s 31.710
which would cap any potential non-economic damage award at
US$500,000 is granted.

Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, represented Plaintiff and Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, represented Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Board Decision in Umbaugh's Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the May 22,
2009 ruling of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which denied James
Umbaugh entitlement to service connection for a respiratory
disability and cancer of the larynx.

The case is styled James Umbaugh, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Holdaway entered judgment in Case No. 09-2402 on March 17,
2011.

Mr. Umbaugh served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from April 1957
to April 1959.  In August 2000, the VA regional office (RO) issued
a rating decision denying Mr. Umbaugh's claim for service
connection for coronary artery disease, emphysema, and total
disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) on
the basis that the law prohibited establishment of service
connection for diseases or injuries attributable to the use of
tobacco products during service.

In September 2000, Mr. Umbaugh submitted "a request to reopen my
claim for service-connection for emphysema and coronary-artery
disease."  The RO issued a rating decision in September 2001
denying entitlement to service connection for emphysema, coronary
artery disease, and cancer of the larynx.

In February 2002, Mr. Umbaugh submitted a Notice of Disagreement
(NOD) with the Board's rating decision.  After he perfected his
appeal, in a March 2006, the Board denied service connection for
emphysema, coronary artery disease, and cancer of the larynx.


In November 2007, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
remand.  The parties agreed that VA had not satisfied its duty to
assist in developing Mr. Umbaugh's claim for entitlement to
service connection for emphysema and cancer of the larynx because
VA had not provided a medical examination.  Mr. Umbaugh indicated
in the joint motion that he no longer wished to pursue his claim
for coronary artery disease.  In August 2008, the Board remanded
the claims for service connection for emphysema and cancer of the
larynx.

In January 2009, Mr. Umbaugh underwent a VA compensation and
pension examination to evaluate his respiratory diseases.  The
examiner diagnosed the appellant with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and opined that the condition was caused
by "50k years of smoking."  The examiner also noted that there was
no evidence of asbestosis, which is a restrictive condition, as
opposed to Mr. Umbaugh's COPD, which is obstructive.

The same month, Mr. Umbaugh underwent a compensation and pension
examination of the nose, sinus, larynx, and pharynx.  The examiner
noted that Mr. Umbaugh had been treated with radiation therapy for
carcinoma of the glottis larynx in June 2000.

The examiner noted that Mr. Umbaugh reported continuing use of
"five to six cigarettes per day" and that he drank "about a six-
pack of beer in a one-month time span."  He ruled out asbestos
exposure, opining that the most likely cause of Mr. Umbaugh's
condition had been "50k years of smoking" with alcohol consumption
being another likely cause.

In March 2009, the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case
that continued the denial of entitlement to service connection for
respiratory condition and larynx cancer.  On May 22, 2009, the
Board issued its decision denying Mr. Umbaugh's claims for service
connection for a respiratory condition and cancer of the larynx.
This appeal followed.


                             *********

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  * * *