CAR_Public/110624.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, June 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 124

                             Headlines

AETNA INC: ERISA Overpayment Class Action Allowed to Proceed
ANTHEM BLUE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
BEST BUY: Removes "Milton" Suit From Alameda Cty. to N.D. Calif.
CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 35,000 Animated Safari and Aquarium Lamps
COMCAST CORP: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Calif. and Wash.

DUCOMMUN INC: LaBarge Merger-Related Class Suits Pending
EDEBITPAY LLC: Accused of Forgery and Operating an Internet Scam
FLORIDA: State Workers File Class Action Over Retirement Fund
FOCUS MEDIA: Appeal From N.Y. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes
MOUNT VERNON, WA: Sued Over Inadequate Representation
MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 14,500 TrimmerPlus Edger Attachments
MULTI-CHEM GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Explosions

NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Court Dismisses Medical Monitoring Claims
RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Labor Code in California
SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Grocery Delivery Charge
SHELL OIL: Roxana Residents File Class Action Over Benzene Spill

SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Canadian Law Firms File Class Action
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Allied World
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger
TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 3rd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Green Card Glitch

WEIRTON WATER: Faces Class Action Over Water Outage


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Andrea Electronics Facing Edwards Claim in R.I.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $48.7MM ARO at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Facing 83 Exposure Actions at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Applica Consumer Still Facing 3 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. CenterPoint Resources

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Still Facing Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Still Has Cases in Miss., La. Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Records $65MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Stearns Unit Still Faces 1,435 Open Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Unit Still Party to 2 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Falk Unit Still Facing 200 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Zurn Unit Still Faces 7T Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI Long-Term Liability at $17.7MM at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. American Biltrite Rise to 1,280

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane US et al. Win Dismissal of Kiser Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Remand Motion in Barnes Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Affirms Board Ruling in Freels Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philomath Firms Fined $10T for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Operator's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skelton's 2nd Action Filed v. 24 Firms in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Developer Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Soldier's Death Linked to Exposure to Hazard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bridgwater Worker's Death Related to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Henderson Hall Prompts TOSHA Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Mitchell Courthouse to Costs $12,950
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mason v. Foster Wheeler et al. Filed on June 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Named Defendant in Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SonomaWest Holdings Settles Box's Calif. Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Issues Split Ruling in Scapa Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Denied Mandamus Writ in Roger Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York City Wins Dismissal of Purdie Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meade Case v. 47 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McCommack Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. Norfolk Southern Filed in Kanawha

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barron Case v. 87 Firms Filed on May 5 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Claim v. 135 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Summary Judgment OK'd in Smalley Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Issues Split Ruling in Newman Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Ferrara Bid to Expedite Claim

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Faces 11 Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Cites 2,860 Tendered Sterling Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 90 LaBour Exposure Lawsuits Pending at April 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co. Files Revised Bankruptcy-Exit Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Has One Case at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Has $600T Liability at March 31




                             *********

AETNA INC: ERISA Overpayment Class Action Allowed to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 20, 2011, the federal District Court in New Jersey allowed
a provider ERISA overpayment class action lawsuit against Aetna,
Inc. to proceed under ERISA (ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY
CHIROPRACTORS et al v. AETNA, INC. Et al, Case 3:09-cv-03761-JAP-
TJB, Document 90, Filed 06/20/11).  The court dismissed provider's
RICO claims and granted Aetna's motion to enforce a settlement
agreement and release from one provider and motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss two provider's claims.  The federal
court ERISA class-action ruling is timely significant for July 1,
2011, the official enforcement date for new federal health reform
laws, health-care claims and appeals regulations.  ERISAclaim.com
provided the ERISA compliance assistance for many provider class
representatives in this case, and it will provide free webinars to
examine the legal and market impacts of the court ERISA ruling in
connection with new PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act) & ERISA claim regulations.

"This court ruling underscores the importance of providers' ERISA
claims & appeals practice for both unpaid claims and the alleged
overpayment refund disputes, especially before the July 1, 2011,
the official enforcement date of PPACA claims regulations," says
Dr. Jin Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, a national expert on
PPACA and ERISA appeals and compliance.

According to the court paper, with respect to provider's ERISA
claims, the court states in part:

"The plaintiffs in this case are licensed medical providers or
chiropractic professional associations.  Defendant Aetna is an
insurer that offers, underwrites and administers commercial health
plans through which healthcare expenses incurred by Plan
participants for services covered by the Plans are reimbursed by
Aetna pursuant to the terms of the Plan."

"Overall, Plaintiffs are challenging Aetna's practice of demanding
the repayment of healthcare benefits that Aetna later determines
had been improperly paid to the provider.  Plaintiffs allege that
Aetna is required to and failed to comply with certain procedural
protections provided by ERISA in demanding such repayment from
providers.  For example, Plaintiffs assert that Aetna, prior to
requesting repayment from a provider, must issue a revised
Explanation of Benefits to the insured.  Plaintiffs also challenge
Aetna's "prepayment review" process as to the individual
providers, under which Aetna reviews records before it pays a
claim submitted by a provider from whom Aetna has requested
repayment."

In deciding on Aetna's overpayment recoupment and "antifraud
efforts", the court states:

"Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' claims do nothing more than
seek to use ERISA to absolve providers from the consequences of
fraudulent billing practices and to bring insurer anti-fraud
efforts to a standstill.  They contend that there exist a number
of reasons that dismissal of Plaintiffs' ERISA claims is
warranted."

"Having carefully reviewed the FAC and accompanying affidavit, the
Court is not persuaded that dismissal of Plaintiffs' ERISA claims
is warranted at this time.  While Aetna has raised questions as to
the viability of Plaintiffs' ERISA claims, the Court concludes
that a more complete factual picture regarding Aetna's
"recoupment"/anti-fraud efforts is necessary to ultimately resolve
the issue.  Thus, resolution of the issue is not appropriate on a
motion under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Court denies Aetna's motion
without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate summary judgment
motion in the future."

In deciding on Aetna's motion to dismiss the standing of
Association of plaintiffs, the court states:

"The Court finds that dismissal of the Association Plaintiffs is
not warranted at this time.  Construing the FAC in favor of
Plaintiffs as the Court must on a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court finds
Plaintiffs' allegations that the Association Plaintiffs' members
had received payments directly from Aetna sufficient to withstand
Defendants' 12(b)(6) challenge under the first prong of Hunt."

For a copy of the court opinion:

     http://ERISAclaim.com/ANJC_v_Aetna.pdf

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Health
Reform Bill, PPACA.  PPACA claims and appeals regulations went
into effect on September 23, 2010.  PPACA adopts ERISA claim
regulation in its entirety, for group health plans and health
insurance coverage in the group and individual markets, for almost
all non-Medicare and/or non-Medicaid claims.

http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=24056

Effective on July 1, 2011, the PPACA claims and appeals regulation
enforcement date, the DOL, HHS & IRS will start the official
enforcement for the new federal Provider's Bill Of Rights, because
now PPACA claims regulation defines a health care provider, with a
valid designation of authorized representative, as a claimant,
regardless of network participation.  This new federal law will
make the new federal Patient's Bill of Rights as same as the new
federal Provider's Bill of Rights in U.S. healthcare history, said
Dr. Zhou.

http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html

Complete PPACA Regulations and Guidance can be found on DOL
Web site:

             http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/

To find out more about the Total PPACA Claims and Appeals
Compliance Services from ERISAclaim.com:

          http://www.erisaclaim.com/Press_Releases.htm

Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, ERISAclaim.com is the
only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing and website resource for
healthcare providers in the country.  ERISAclaim.com offers free
webinars, basic and advanced educational seminars and on-site
claims specialist certification programs for doctors, hospitals
and commercial companies, as well as litigation support. Dr. Jin
Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of ERISA claims" for
healthcare providers.  For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin
Zhou, president of ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.


ANTHEM BLUE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
----------------------------------------------------------
A California Superior Court judge has preliminarily approved the
settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging that Anthem Blue
Cross, the California subsidiary of the nation's largest health
insurer, WellPoint Inc., used enormous rate hikes to force
patients into lower-benefit and higher-deductible health coverage
in violation of state law.

Under the settlement, California class members will be allowed to
move to any new coverage they want or have their rates capped if
they chose to stay in their existing policies.  Consumer Watchdog
praised Blue Cross for giving patients the rights they were due
under the law.

"My husband and I got a letter in the mail from Blue Cross telling
us they were closing our policy," said Mary Feller of San Rafael,
one of the plaintiffs representing the class action.  "We could
either stay with our old coverage or switch to a new policy with
substantially reduced benefits.  What Blue Cross did not tell us
was that staying with our better policy would result in bigger and
bigger rate increases over time.  This settlement provides
patients with the choice of a comparable policy that they should
have had under the law."

The lawsuit, filed on March 1, 2010, by the nonprofit organization
Consumer Watchdog, and the law firms of Whatley, Drake & Kallas,
the Consumer Law Group, and the Stuart Law Firm, sought to stop
Blue Cross from shoving its policyholders into what is known as a
"Death Spiral" -- the industry term for what happens when a health
insurer "closes" certain health coverage policies to new
customers, and later raises rates to those remaining in the closed
policy until those enrollees can no longer afford coverage.  Since
older patients or those with preexisting conditions often cannot
switch to a comparable or better policy under existing law, they
are trapped in the closed policy and subject to bigger and bigger
premium increases until they are forced to accept greatly inferior
coverage or drop coverage altogether.

"The settlement with Blue Cross is very positive news for
consumers like my husband and myself who have been trapped in
policies with spiraling rate increases.  Now we will have the
option to move to another policy without underwriting," said
Donna Freed, another plaintiff also representing the class action.

Under California law, health insurers that close a policy must
either offer consumers new comparable coverage, or "pool" rates in
order to minimize premium increases on the now-closed policies.
The settlement requires Anthem Blue Cross to provide consumers
both the option to move to a new policy and to limit rate
increases -- thus providing benefits in excess of what is required
by law.  All transfers to new policies will be allowed without
medical underwriting writing -- i.e. regardless of medical
condition or health history.

The key terms of the settlement include:

Blue Cross consumers who remained enrolled in closed health
policies -- PPO Share 500, PPO Share 1000, PPO Share 1500, and PPO
Share 2500 -- will benefit from a cap on their rate increases.
Consumers' rates in these plans will be limited to the lower of
the rate attributable to their own closed plan, or the average
rate of all closed plans, whichever is lower, minus an additional
2%.

All consumers who were enrolled in any of the four closed plans,
including those that transferred to other Blue Cross coverage,
will have the opportunity to switch coverage, without medical
underwriting, to any open policy regulated by the California
Department of Managed Health Care.  In addition, class members may
switch to 12 additional policies regulated by the Department of
Insurance.  Consumers will be given the option to switch later
this year, in 2012 and 2013.

Download the settlement agreement here:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/executedsettlementagreem
ent5-26-11.pdf

Download the lawsuit here:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/DeathSpiralLawsuit.pdf

The benefits provided under the class action settlement announced
on June 21 will be in place through December 31, 2013, after which
the "guaranteed issue" provisions of the federal Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act are expected to be fully
implemented.  Under those provisions, beginning in 2014, a
person's health condition or health history cannot be used as a
basis for denying health coverage.  As a result, any consumer
enrolled in a policy that is subsequently closed will be able to
transfer to any open policy.

A final approval hearing on the settlement will occur on
August 26, 2011.

Consumer Watchdog -- http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org-- is a
nonprofit consumer organization with offices in Washington, D.C.
and Santa Monica, CA.

Whatley Drake & Kallas -- http://www.wdklaw.com-- is one of the
largest plaintiffs' law firms in the country.  It regularly brings
its resources to bear to remedy corporate abuses.  In recent years
the revolutionary settlements that Edith Kallas and Joe Whatley
negotiated with most of the managed care companies in the country,
with extensive injunctive relief allowing doctors to practice
medicine with protections from the abuses of managed care provide
the most noted examples of the firm using litigation to achieve
meaningful change.

Alan Mansfield, of the Consumer Law Group, has specialized in the
area of national consumer class action and public interest
litigation since 1991, focusing on telecommunications and consumer
privacy issues.  He has been involved over the years in numerous
significant matters, including the Joe Camel teen smoking case,
Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1057, and
the DMV motor vehicle Smog Impact Fee refund case (Jordan v.
Department of Motor Vehicles (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 449).
Mr. Mansfield was previously responsible for several years for the
consumer law group in the San Diego office of the largest class
action firm in the United States, Coughlin Stoia Robbins Geller &
Rudman.

At the forefront of its consumer practice, Stuart Law Firm --
http://www.stuartlaw.us-- brings justice to people who have been
harmed by fraudulent health insurance marketing practices.  Stuart
Law Firm is a national leader in this quickly evolving area of
litigation.  Sham insurers have convinced hundreds of thousands of
American policyholders -- who believe they have purchased peace of
mind -- to buy policies that leave all their personal assets
exposed in the event of a serious illness.


BEST BUY: Removes "Milton" Suit From Alameda Cty. to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Versil Milton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., a corporation, and Does 1-250,
Case No. RG11563108 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., February 25,
2011), accuses Best Buy of engaging in intentional, systematic
violations of the California Civil Code by requiring customers to
provide, at minimum, both their names and ZIP codes, by recording
that information, by obtaining additional private information,
including customers' addresses, by pairing ZIP codes with
customers' names, by creating and maintaining a database
containing this private customer information, and by improperly
using and disseminating this improperly obtained and maintained
information.

The Plaintiff is a customer of Best Buy's retail store operations
in California, and was subjected to its practices.

Best Buy is incorporated in Minnesota, licensed to do business and
doing substantial business in California and the County of
Alameda.

Best Buy removed the lawsuit on June 20, 2011, from the Superior
Court of California in and for Alameda County to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
Company asserts that the removal is proper because diversity
jurisdiction is established.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:11-cv-03029 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
        Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
        Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
        AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
        7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1020
        Oakland, CA 94621
        Telephone: (510) 562-6800
        Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
        E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
                rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                hvr@asmlawyers.com

             - and -

        Jared E. Peterson, Esq.
        LAW OFFICES OF JARED E. PETERSON
        2017 Lincoln Street
        Berkeley, CA 94709
        Telephone: (510) 841-4462
        Facsimile: (510) 841-4464

The Defendants are represented by:

        Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
        Elizabeth D. Le, Esq.
        ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
        2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
        Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
        Telephone: (310) 552-0130
        Facsimile: (310) 229-5800
        E-mail: MAGeibelson@rkmc.com
                EDLe@rkmc.com


CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls 35,000 Animated Safari and Aquarium Lamps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Nantucket Distributing Co. Inc., of Middleboro,
Massachusetts, and retailer, Christmas Tree Shops, of Union, New
Jersey, announced a voluntary recall of about 35,000 animated
safari and aquarium lamps.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Defective wiring in the lamps can cause an electrical short,
posing fire and shock hazards to consumers.

Christmas Tree Shops has received three reports of sparking.  No
injuries or property damage have been reported.

This recall involves Safari and Aquarium themed lamps with UPC
numbers 000015556905, 000015618955, 000015821591 and 000015821607
printed on the price label on the cardboard packaging.  The
decorative lamps are silver and feature rotating films with
aquatic and safari scenes.  While there are no brand markings
directly on the product, "Made in China" is printed on the bottom
of the lamp.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11253.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Christmas Tree Shops stores primarily in the New England, Mid-
Atlantic and Midwest regions from December 2009 through May 2011
for between $7 and $8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and
return them to Christmas Tree Shops store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at
(888) 287-3232 anytime, or visit their Web site at
http://www.christmastreeshops.com/


COMCAST CORP: Accused of Deceiving Customers in Calif. and Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Athanassios Diacakis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-510979 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., May 13, 2011), is brought on behalf of all persons
and entities in the states of California and Washington, who
purchased a bundled package, including the Triple Play package
consisting of Internet, cable television and telephone service
from the Defendants, and who were subsequently charged additional
rental or lease fees for equipment outside of and in addition to
the bundle rate.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have violated, among
other laws, Section 1770(a) of the California Civil Code by
engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices, including
informing consumers that they will receive a bundled package at
one monthly price, without informing the consumers that there
would be additional rental or lease fees that would materially
increase the quoted monthly price.

Mr. Diacakis is a resident of San Francisco, California, who
purchased a Triple Play package from Comcast and was subsequently
charged additional equipment rental and lease fees outside of and
in addition to the advertised package fee.

Comcast is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business at 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and conducts business in San Francisco.  Mr.
Diacakis said in his complaint that the true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to him, but he asserts
that each of them is legally responsible for the unlawful acts
alleged in the lawsuit.

Comcast removed the lawsuit on June 17, 2011, from the Superior
Court of California, San Francisco County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Comcast
argues that the removal is proper because there is minimal
diversity between Comcast, which is based in Pennsylvania, and the
Plaintiff and other members of the putative class, who are
California and Washington citizens.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. CV-11-3002 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian R. Strange, Esq.
          Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          STRANGE & CARPENTER
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-5055
          Facsimile: (310) 826-3210
          E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net
                  gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com
                  jkristensen@strangeandcarpenter.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Stortz, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 591-7500
          Facsimile: (415) 591-7510
          E-mail: michael.stortz@dbr.com

               - and -

          Seamus C. Duffy, Esq.
          Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq.
          Michael P. Daly, Esq.
          Tara S. Sarosiek, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square, Ste. 2000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988-2700
          Facsimile: (215) 988-2757
          E-mail: seamus.duffy@dbr.com
                  michael.mctigue@dbr.com
                  michael.daly@dbr.com
                  tara.sarosiek@dbr.com


DUCOMMUN INC: LaBarge Merger-Related Class Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class action
lawsuits filed against Ducommun Incorporated over its proposed
merger with LaBarge Inc., are pending, according to the Company's
June 20, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Ducommun and its wholly owned subsidiary, DLBMS, Inc. ("Merger
Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with LaBarge,
Inc.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, at the
effective time of the Merger, Merger Sub will be merged with and
into LaBarge with LaBarge continuing as the surviving corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ducommun.

Ducommun has been named as a defendant in five putative class
actions filed in April 2011, by purported stockholders of LaBarge
against LaBarge, its Board of Directors and Ducommun in connection
with the LaBarge Acquisition.  Some of these actions also name
DLBMS, which was formed for the purpose of effecting the LaBarge
Acquisition.  Two of the stockholder actions (filed by purported
class representatives Barry P. Borodkin and Insulators and
Asbestos Workers Local No. 14) were filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court, and the court consolidated those two actions.  The other
three stockholder actions (filed by purported class
representatives J. M. Foley, Jr., William Wheeler and Doris A.
Gastineau) were filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, and that court consolidated those three actions.

The consolidated Delaware and Missouri putative class actions
generally allege that the individual members of the Board of
Directors of LaBarge breached their fiduciary duties to LaBarge
stockholders with respect to the proposed merger transaction
announced on April 4, 2011.  These actions also allege that
Ducommun, Merger Sub and LaBarge aided and abetted the breach of
fiduciary duties.  They seek injunctive relief to prevent the
closing of the LaBarge Acquisition, judicial declarations that the
Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the LaBarge
directors' fiduciary duties, rescission of the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and the award of attorneys'
fees and expenses for the plaintiffs.

In the Delaware consolidated actions, the parties engaged in
expedited discovery in connection with a preliminary injunction
hearing scheduled for June 17, 2011.  After document discovery and
depositions, and before the plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary injunction, the parties negotiated and signed a
memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims.  The
preliminary settlement is subject to a definitive agreement and
final approval of the Delaware Chancery Court.  There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Chancery Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation.

In the Missouri consolidated actions, the defendants sought a stay
of the Missouri actions from the Missouri court, the plaintiffs
opposed that request, and the Missouri court stayed the actions.
At a hearing on June 16, 2011, plaintiffs sought reconsideration
of the court's stay, and the defendants opposed that request.  The
Missouri court stated that it would issue an order shortly
thereafter.

Ducommun believes these lawsuits are without merit, and in the
event that settlement of these claims is not finalized, intends to
defend them vigorously.


EDEBITPAY LLC: Accused of Forgery and Operating an Internet Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Deffenbaugh and Allan Wyatt, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons v. EDebitPay, L.L.C., a
Nevada Limited Liability Company, Platinum Online Group, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:11-cv-03024 (N.D. Calif. June 20, 2011), accuse the
Defendants of operating a scam where they lure people into
applying for payday loans on Internet Web sites, and taking the
information they gather from the payday loan applications,
including the applicants' banking information, and using the
information to forge checks on behalf of the applicants.  The
Plaintiffs assert that the idea that a cash-strapped, payday loan
applicant would spend money on the Defendants' coupon service, the
purpose of which is to encourage a person to spend additional
money with the Defendants' coupons, is absurd.

Ms. Deffenbaugh is a resident of San Francisco, California, while
Mr. Wyatt is a resident of Malibu, California.

EDebitPay is a Nevada limited liability company with its principal
office in Sherman Oaks, California.  Platinum Online is a
California limited liability company with its principal office in
Sherman Oaks, California.  The Plaintiffs are uncertain of the
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants, who also are
responsible and liable for the injuries alleged in the complaint
and who proximately caused damages to the Plaintiffs and the
members of the Class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Henry M. Burgoyne, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415)955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: hank@KBInternetLaw.com
                  karl@KBInternetLaw.com
                  jeff@KBInternetLaw.com


FLORIDA: State Workers File Class Action Over Retirement Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that state workers filed a class
action challenging Florida's demand that they start paying 3% of
their paychecks into their retirement fund beginning July 1.  They
call it "taking of private property without full compensation."

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Scott, et al., Case
No. 2011CA1584 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Leon Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/Fla.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald G. Meyer, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Blohm, Esq.
          Lynn C. Hearn, Esq.
          MEYER, BROOKS, DEMMA AND BLOHM, P.A.
          131 North Gadsden Street
          Post Office Box 1547 (32302)
          Tallahasse, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 878-5212
          E-mail: rmeyer@meyerbrookslaw.com
                  jblohm@meyerbrookslaw.com
                  lhearn@meyerbrookslaw.com

               - and -

          Pamela L. Cooper, Esq.
          FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
          300 East Park Avenue
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (850) 224-7818
          E-mail: pam.cooper@floridaea.org

               - and -

          Alice O'Brien, Esq.
          NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
          1201 16th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 822-7035
          E-mail: aobrien@nea.org


FOCUS MEDIA: Appeal From N.Y. Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from a judgment dismissing their consolidated
class action lawsuit against Focus Media Holding Limited remains
pending, according to the Company's June 20, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 27, 2007, Eastriver Partners, Inc., filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and the
underwriters of its follow-on offering of November 2007.  On
December 21, 2007, Scott Bauer filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its follow-on offering of
November 2007.  Both complaints allege that the Company's
registration statement on Form F-1 on November 1, 2007, as
amended, and the related prospectus contained inaccurate
statements of material fact.  On April 24, 2008, the court
consolidated the Eastriver Partners, Inc. and Scott Bauer actions
into an action captioned In re Focus Media Holding Limited
Litigation and named Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund as
lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.  On June 23, 2008, Lead
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.  Specifically,
the complaints allege that the Company failed to disclose reduced
gross margins in the Company's Internet advertising business
division due to acquisitions the Company made.  The complaint
filed by Scott Bauer also alleges that the Company issued a press
release concerning its second quarter 2007 financial results that
contained inaccurate statements of material fact.  On September 5,
2008, the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  On November 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss.  A reply brief was filed on
December 5, 2008.

On March 29, 2010, the court issued an opinion granting the
Company's motion to dismiss.  On March 30, 2010, the court entered
a judgment dismissing the case.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on April 29, 2010, appealing the judgment granting the
Company's motion to dismiss.  The Company says it intends to
continue to defend against these lawsuits vigorously as the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the suit on appeal and any adverse outcome of these
cases could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business or results of operations.

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


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP reminds investors that July 5, 2011,
is the deadline to file a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
in the securities class action suit against Fushi Copperweld, Inc.
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action
is brought on behalf of purchasers of Fushi Copperweld common
stock during the period August 14, 2007, through March 29, 2011,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  A copy of the
complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that on March 11, 2011, after the close of
trading, Fushi Copperweld shocked the market when it disclosed a
press release that stated, among other things, that "[t]he Company
. . . is currently reevaluating the application of generally
accepted accounting principles in certain accounting treatments
applied to its 2007, 2008, and 2009 financial results as well as
its previously filed quarterly financial statements for the first
three quarters of 2010.  These accounting treatments are related
to the ability to realize deferred income tax assets,
qualification of cash flow hedge for cross-currency interest swap,
and bargain purchase gains recognized in 2010 acquisitions."

The Complaint further alleges that on March 14, 2011, the first
trading day following these disclosures, the price of Fushi
Copperweld's common stock declined by $0.74 per share, nearly 8%,
to close at $8.68 per share on heavier than usual volume.  The
Company's common stock price declined by an additional $0.94 per
share, or 10.8%, over the next two days to close at $7.74 per
share on March 16, 2011.

Then, on March 29, 2011, after the market closed, Fushi Copperweld
further disclosed that "the Company's previously issued financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
and its unaudited interim financial statements for the quarters
ended March 31, 2010, June 30, 2010 and September 30, 2010, should
no longer be relied upon and should be restated, due to two errors
in the application of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles regarding (1) the accounting for cross-currency
interest swap derivative and (2) the acquisitions of Dalian
Jinchuan Electric Cable Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Hongtai Industrial
Co., Ltd."

The Complaint further alleges that on March 30, 2011, as a result
of the further disclosures on March 29, 2011, Fushi Copperweld's
common stock declined by $0.19 per share, 2.3%, to close at $8.12
per share, on heavier than usual volume.

You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in
any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -- http://www.kaplanfox.com--
prosecutes investor class actions and actions involving financial
fraud.  The firm has offices in New York, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial
fraud.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 290-1952(212)
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP350
          Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Longtop Financial
Technologies Limited, between May 15, 2009, and May 17, 2011,
inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

The Complaint charges Longtop and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Longtop, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and
delivers software solutions and information technology services to
the financial services industry in the People's Republic of China.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose, among other things: (1)
certain related party transactions relating to the Company's
purported major staffing company; (2) that the Company had vastly
overstated its operating margins; (3) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 26, 2011, Citron Research issued a report on Longtop
alleging that the Company's financial statements were fraudulent.
The report raised serious issues concerning the quality of
Longtop's earnings reports and operations and called into question
the integrity of the Company's key management, specifically
pointing to unfair business practices.  On this news, the
Company's shares declined $3.30 per share, or nearly 33%, to close
on April 26, 2011, at $22.24 per share, and further declined
another $4.51 per share, or more than 20%, to close on April 27,
2011, at $17.73 per share.

On May 9, 2011, Citron Research issued an additional report
calling into question the Company's financial statements.  On this
news, the Company's shares declined $1.67 per share, or 8.2% to
close on May 9, 2011, at $18.54 per share.  Then, on May 17, 2011,
trading in Longtop stock was halted.  Finally, on May 19, 2011,
Longtop announced that it would not release its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2011 results on May 23, 2011, as previously scheduled.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described, you may move the
Court, no later than July 22, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: http://www.glancylaw.com
          Web site: shareholders@glancylaw.com


M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wright, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M&F Worldwide Corp., Ronald O. Perelman, Philip E.
Beekman, William C. Bevins, Martha L. Byorum, Charles T. Dawson,
Viet D. Dinh, Theo W. Folz, John M. Keane, Paul M. Meister, Barry
F. Schwartz, Bruce Slovin, Stephen G. Taub, Carl B. Webb, and
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., Case No. 651707/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., June 17, 2011), is a shareholder class action brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of holders of MFW common stock to enjoin the
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of MFW common stock by
MacAndrews and its affiliates.

Mr. Wright contends that MacAndrews' proposed purchase of MFW
stock for $24 in cash is grossly unfair to shareholders because as
recently as May 2, 2011, MFW's stock was trading at $25.17.  He
asserts that MacAndrews is attempting to use its power as a
controlling MFW shareholder to cash out MFW shareholders at an
unfair price.

The Plaintiff is an MFW shareholder.

MFW is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 35
East 62nd Street, in New York.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of MFW.  MacAndrews is a private
diversified holding company with interests in biotechnology, check
printing and check related products and services, consumer
products, defense, education, entertainment, financial services,
gaming and other industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A.P. Brower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation
          488 Madison Avenue, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com


MOUNT VERNON, WA: Sued Over Inadequate Representation
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Martin, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that
approximately 1,000 misdemeanor cases cross the desk each year of
public defender Richard Sybrandy, a volume that is more than
double what the state bar says is a reasonable amount.

But as staggering as that caseload is, it is only about half of
Mr. Sybrandy's total workload.  In addition to being a contracted
public defender for Mount Vernon and Burlington, he maintains a
private practice of criminal cases.

His workload is so large, in fact, that an unusual class-action
lawsuit filed last week in Skagit County accuses Mount Vernon and
Burlington of violating defendants' constitutionally protected
right to counsel.

If successful, the lawsuit could have broad implications for the
state's jampacked municipal and district courts, and potentially
force cities to boost public-defense spending just as they are
squeezed by the slow economic recovery.

Mr. Sybrandy, an attorney for 15 years, admits his caseload is
"too high."

"I've been frustrated to the point of tears" when faced with five
trials in a single week, he said.  But he vigorously disputed the
lawsuit's allegations that he hasn't returned clients' phone calls
or investigated their cases.  "I've worked really hard for an
outstanding reputation," he said.

Jaretta Osborne disagrees.  Her son Ryan, 23, was charged in
November with assaulting a police officer who responded to a fight
at Ryan's apartment.  Although Ryan is schizophrenic and has the
developmental level of a 5-year-old, Mr. Sybrandy, who was
assigned the case, did not tell the judge about Ryan's problems,
Jaretta Osborne said.

Nor did Mr. Sybrandy speak up when Ryan was reprimanded by a judge
for laughing inappropriately during a hearing, she said.  "At no
time did Mr. Sybrandy stand up and say, 'Ryan doesn't understand
this.'  I just felt Ryan wasn't being helped."

Mr. Sybrandy said in an e-mail that he "obtained an
extraordinarily good result" for Ryan -- dismissal if he stays out
of trouble for a year.  And, he says, he later told the judge
privately about Ryan's developmental disability.

"I did right by this guy," he said.

What is reasonable?

Nearly 300,000 misdemeanor cases were filed statewide in 2010,
from drunken-driving and domestic-violence complaints to the
simple driving-with-license-suspended citations that constitute
about one-third of the total caseload.

The Washington State Bar Association has recommended that public
defenders handle no more than 400 such cases a year, to ensure
defendants receive the full attention of their assigned lawyers.

Those levels, however, are only recommendations.  In June, the
bar's governing board declined to set hard limits for misdemeanor
caseloads when it asked the Supreme Court to set binding standards
for public defense.

Seattle attorney Marc Boman, Esq. -- MBoman@perkinscoie.com -- who
led the effort for the bar association, said cities objected in
part because of the "financial implications" for caseload limits.
The bar association planned to revisit caseloads in misdemeanor
cases, he said.

Seattle's municipal court limits public defenders to 380 cases,
but most other cities don't.  The caseload limits make sense, said
Bob Boruchowitz, a Seattle University law professor and former
director of a King County public-defense organization.

"There are 1,600 to 1,800 billable hours a year, so if you are
doing 900 cases, you've got 2 hours per case.  If you are doing
900 cases part time, you've got one hour" or less, he said.  "When
the bulk of your cases are resolved in a half-hour or hour you are
not being able to do the work that needs to be done to represent
someone."

Inadequate representation also can result in a case being
overturned.  The state Supreme Court last year allowed a 12-year-
old in Moses Lake to withdraw a guilty plea in a child-molestation
case because his public defender did such a poor job.  Among
factors cited by the court were "statistically impossible
caseloads on public defenders" in some parts of the state.

Caseload limits in municipal courts, however, ignore the fact that
many of those cases, such as suspended-license infractions, are
simple and can be handled expeditiously, said Andrew Cooley, a
Seattle attorney representing Mount Vernon and Burlington in the
lawsuit.

"If this approach works with Mount Vernon and Burlington, I fear
it will be replicated around the state in high-volume courts,"
said Mr. Cooley, who represents an insurance risk pool for cities.
Because of that, the risk pool will challenge the suit vigorously,
he said.

Big increase proposed

Toby Marshall, a Seattle lawyer whose firm filed the lawsuit, said
based on the volume of criminal cases, Mount Vernon and Burlington
need five attorneys, not two, and need to spend about $300,000,
not the current $180,000.

"The Constitution does not say you get an attorney if the city can
afford it.  The Constitution says you have a right to counsel,
period," he said.

Based on documents from the two cities, submitted with the
lawsuit, Mr. Sybrandy and the other contracted public defender,
Morgan Witt, document spending 30 minutes to one hour per case.
Defendants have complained to the cities that the attorneys do not
return phone calls, and Messrs. Sybrandy and Witt combined visited
the Skagit County jail only six times in 2010, seeing seven
clients.

The county's public-defense referral office, which vets clients'
ability to pay, has complained that a lack of communication with
defendants is a "major complaint."  Mount Vernon police also have
complained they couldn't reach the public defenders during a
drunken-driving case.  "This is not an isolated case," a detective
wrote.

Mr. Witt did not respond to a call, but Mr. Sybrandy said during
an interview this week that he rarely visits the jail because his
clients are rarely there.  He said he has not hired an
investigator to look into the facts of a case for at least two
years but accused Mr. Marshall, the attorney pressing the class-
action lawsuit, of being ignorant of criminal law.

"The question is, who is Richard Sybrandy," Mr. Sybrandy said.
"Why don't we call 5,000 of Richard Sybrandy's past clients and
see how many say, gosh, Richard Sybrandy saved my butt.  . . . For
someone who doesn't know what he's talking about to say otherwise
is really disgusting."


MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls 14,500 TrimmerPlus Edger Attachments
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MTD Products Inc, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall
of about 14,500 TrimmerPlus(TM) Edger Attachments.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The steel shaft that drives the edger blade can break during use
causing the edger blade to detach.  If the blade detaches, it can
hit the user or bystanders, posing a laceration hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves MTD TrimmerPlus(TM) Edger Attachment Model
41AJLE-C092 LE720.  The edger is sold separately as an attachment
and can be attached to most major brand attachment-capable
trimmers.  The edger is used to cut grass along an edge such as a
driveway or sidewalk.  "TrimmerPlus" and "LE720" are printed on
the blade's housing.  Only certain serial numbers "1C##1DR####"
through "1D##1DR####" are included in the recall.  The serial
number and "MTD" are printed on white labels on the edger's pole.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11252.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Lowe's and other hardware and home improvement stores nationwide
and on the Web between March 2011 and April 2011 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled MTD
TrimmerPlus(TM) Edgers and contact MTD to receive a free
replacement.  For additional information, contact the firm toll-
free at (888) 848-6038 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.mtdproducts.com/


MULTI-CHEM GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Explosions
----------------------------------------------------------
Claire Taylor, writing for The Advertiser, reports that two
individuals and two businesses have filed lawsuits against
Multi-Chem Group LLC claiming explosions and fires at the New
Iberia plant last week exposed them to hazardous chemicals and
cost their businesses money.

Both lawsuits are seeking the class action certification that
would include under one umbrella everyone seeking legal action
against the company in the wake of the explosions and fire.

Robert J. Broussard and Robert J. Broussard General Contractors
Inc. on June 16 filed a petition for damages, a petition for
certification of a class action lawsuit and a request to inspect
the explosion site.  They are represented by New Iberia attorney:

          Theodore "Trey" Haik III, Esq.
          Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs
          1017 East Dale Street
          New Iberia, LA 70562-1040
       Telephone: (337)365-5486
          E-mail: treyhaik@hmg-law.com

K&J Supply and Jordan Fleming filed lawsuits on June 17 seeking to
establish a class action lawsuit.  They are represented by:

          Clayton Burgess, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF L. CLAYTON BURGESS
          605 W. Congress St.
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 234-7573

               - and -

          Edward Landry, Esq.
          MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-7657
          E-mail: e.landry@mpglaw.com

Both companies operate within two miles of the Multi-Chem plant on
West Admiral Doyle Drive.

The first lawsuit alleges the explosions at Multi-Chem emitted "a
toxic mixture of hazardous fumes and smoke for several miles."

"Robert J. Broussard was directly exposed to the hazardous fumes
at issue herein and suffered from the absorption of these
hazardous substances, causing him to become ill and suffer with
heachaches, nausea, disorientation, etc.," the lawsuit claims.

The company lost business because of a mandatory evacuation and
Multi-Chem was negligent in handling chemicals at the facility,
the lawsuit alleges.

In addition, Mr. Haik seeks permission from the courts to have air
samples taken at Multi-Chem and to inspect the site of the
explosion and fire.

The second lawsuit speculates that the potential number affected
by the Multi-Chem incident physically, emotionally/mentally and
economically are in the hundreds.  Proceeding as one in a class
action lawsuit may be the best legal path to take, it claims.

K&J Supply and Fleming allege in the lawsuit that they suffered
mental anguish and anxiety, lost income, incurred expenses as a
result of the evacuation, lost business and inhaled toxic
chemicals.

Meanwhile, Michelle Keahey of The Louisiana Record reports that an
Iberia couple has also filed a class action lawsuit against Multi-
Chem Group.

McKinnis Armstrong, for himself and on behalf of his judicially
placed granddaughter, Keandria Augustine and Cynthia Armstrong,
wife of McKinnis Armstrong, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, filed suit against Multi-Chem Group
and XYZ Insurance Co. on June 15 in federal court in New Orleans.

The defendants are accused of negligence for failing to design,
implement or adhere to adequate safety policy and preventative
measures, failing to adhere to reasonably safe practices, failing
to control chemical processes, failing to adequately inspect,
detect hazards or defects, maintain, repair, replace and remedy so
as to prevent explosion and fire and failing to warn.  The
defendants are also accused of negligence for failing to act in a
reasonable manner, failing to comply with regulations, laws,
statutes and ordinances, failing to meet applicable standards of
care and failing to contain explosion and fire.

The lawsuit is seeking damages for loss of property, loss of use
of property, diminution of property, stigmatization of and
displacement from property, medical disease, fear of disease, lost
chance of survival, lost life expectancy, physical and mental
pain, suffering and anguish, medical expenses, aggravation of
preexisting diseases, physical disfigurement and impairment,
interest and court costs.

Mr. Armstrong, et al. are represented by:

          Brian A. Gilbert, Esq.
          Law Offices of Brian A. Gilbert, P.L.C.
          821 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-6180
                     (504) 885-7700
          E-mail: bgilbert@briangilbertlaw.com

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle is assigned to the
Armstrong case, Case No. 2:11-cv-01410.

                  No Contamination, Says LDEQ

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality claims there was
no contamination beyond the Multi-Chem plant.

The LDEQ "did continuous monitoring" during the Multi-Chem
incident last week, spokesperson Jean Kelly said on June 20.  The
only incident of off-site contamination was a "culvert where a
little water ran off" the Multi-Chem property, she said.

"As far as any impact off the site, we had no air impact at all"
detected through the DEQ monitoring, Ms. Kelly said.

But Wilma Subra, a New Iberia chemist and environmental advocate,
said residents downwind of the Multi-Chem plant are reporting
respiratory problems from exposure to the smoke and air emissions.
Subra has not done air testing herself, she said.

Multi-Chem blends chemicals to create products for use in the oil
and gas industry.  The three main chemicals reportedly involved in
the June 14 incident were toluene, methanol and xylene, Ms. Kelly
said.

Toluene, which occurs naturally in crude oil, can affect the
nervous system, with low- to moderate levels of exposure possibly
causing tiredness, confusion, weakness, memory loss, nausea, loss
of appetite and hearing and vision problems, according to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  Tests in
animals and humans "generally indicate that toluene does not cause
cancer," the ATSDR Web site states.

Xylene, which occurs naturally in petroleum and coal tar, catches
on fire easily, the ATSDR states.  Those who inhale high levels
may experience dizziness, confusion and a loss of balance.

There is insufficient information to determine whether it is
cancer-causing.

Methanol, used in gasoline, can result in blurred vision,
headaches, dizziness and nausea.

No information is available on whether it causes cancer in humans,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Subra said health concerns extend beyond exposure to those three
products.  New products can be created and released as a result of
fire and incomplete combustion.

Multi-Chem, per company policy, had no comment on June 20 on the
lawsuits, Katie Dupuis, technical marketing manager, said in an
e-mail.

Louisiana State Police investigators continued to look into the
cause of the explosion, Troop I spokesman Trooper Stephen Hammons
on June 20 said.  No information, including the origin of the
explosion, can be released at this time, he said.

Cleanup continues at Multi-Chem and the road in front of the
facility will remain closed until that is finished, Mr. Hammons
said.

A claims center for those affected by the incident and evacuation
has been moved to the Ramada Inn, 2915 La. 14/Center Street in New
Iberia, just east of U.S. Route 90.  The claims center will be
open from 7:00 a.m. until 7: p.m. until further notice.


NORDSTROM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a Superior Court class action
claims Nordstrom stiffs workers for overtime and violates seven
other sections of the Labor Code.

A copy of the Complaint in Nguyen v. Nordstrom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 30-2011-00484903 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/Nordstrom.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          Andrew J. Sokolowski, Esq.
          David Cheng, Esq.
          Katherine Den Bleyker, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com
                  asokolowski@initiativelegal.com
                  dcheng@initiativelegal.com
                  kdenbleyker@initiativelegal.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Court Dismisses Medical Monitoring Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA said that a federal judge in Florida on June 20
dismissed a medical monitoring class action case because
plaintiffs failed to allege a legally proper claim for medical
monitoring.

"This is the third federal court this year to correctly reject
smokers' medical monitoring claims," said Murray Garnick, Altria
Client Services senior vice president and associate general
counsel, speaking on behalf of PM USA.  "Federal and state judges
across the country have rejected medical monitoring claims on a
variety of grounds, and we are pleased with the judge's sound
reasoning [Mon]day."

While the court allowed plaintiffs to re-file the complaint, it
said, "This may prove to be a difficult task.  Absent allegations
that individuals who have smoked non-defective Marlboro cigarettes
for twenty-pack years would not have suffered the same injury as
Gargano, the Second Amended Complaint will fare no better than the
First."

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida joins federal courts in New York and California in
rejecting medical monitoring claims this year.  In addition to the
decision, 16 federal and state courts have rejected class
certification in medical monitoring cases.  At trial, tobacco
companies have won the medical monitoring claims in the two cases
that have been certified as class actions.

This case is Gargano v. Philip Morris USA, 10-24042-CIV.


RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Labor Code in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McConnell, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, and the general public, v. Red Robin International,
Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03026 (N.D. Calif., June 20, 2011), is
brought on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees of Red Robin,
who worked as servers in California from June 20, 2007, to June
20, 2011.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that Red
Robin failed to provide meal and rest periods in violation of the
California Labor Code, to properly compensate employees for all
hours worked, to furnish wage and hour statements and to maintain
employee time records.

Mr. McConnell is a resident of California and was a server
employed by Red Robin from June 2009 to June 2011 at the
Brentwood, California location.  He alleges that he was deprived
of pay for all the hours he worked and was denied proper overtime
pay.

Red Robin is a corporation organized under Colorado law and has
been doing business as Red Robin Burger and Spirits Emporiums in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Alec Seganch, Esq.
          HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1550
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415)362-1111
          Facsimile: (415)362-1112
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com
                  asegarich@sfemployment-lawyers.com


SAFEWAY INC: Faces Class Action Over Grocery Delivery Charge
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Safeway promises to deliver groceries for $7 to $13 a trip and
charge in-store prices for it, but tacks on 10% to the cost of
most of the stuff it sells that way.

A copy of the Complaint in Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-03003 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/Safeway.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
          199 Fremont Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 92101
          Telephone: (415) 992-7282
          E-mail: lweaver@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  sshepherd@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Timothy N. Matthews, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
                  timothymatthews@chimicles.com


SHELL OIL: Roxana Residents File Class Action Over Benzene Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports that residents of Roxana, Illinois have
filed a toxic tort lawsuit against Shell Oil Company and BP
Products North America over chemical spills that they say have
lowered property values and exposed residents to the side effects
of benzene exposure.

The groundwater contamination class action lawsuit was filed
earlier this month in Madison County Circuit Court by six
plaintiffs from an Illinois town of about 1,500 people.

The complaint names Shell, BP and several "John Doe" defendants as
being responsible for groundwater contamination that lowered
property values in Roxana.

Plaintiffs allege that Shell released at least 8,400 gallons of
benzene from an underground pipeline that went from the Wood River
Refinery in Roxana to a barge loading facility on the Mississippi
River.  The spill created a plume under the village that
contaminated groundwater supplies, the lawsuit claims.  Similar
leaks occurred from a BP facility in Wood River as well, according
to the lawsuit.

The facilities have been cited a number of times by the EPA for
violating environmental protection laws.  In May 2008, Shell was
cited for excessive releases of benzene and other chemicals into
Roxana's groundwater.  Last month, during a heat wave that hit the
Midwest and East Coast, Illinois environmental officials sent a
letter urging Roxana residents not to sleep in their basements due
to the risk of benzene exposure after testing indicated there
could be a danger to residents' health.

The lawsuit claims that the spills and groundwater contamination
have damaged the property value of homeowners in Roxana, who may
be hard-pressed to sell their homes if people know they are living
on top of a contaminated groundwater supply that may expose them
to benzene health risks and other chemicals, including Hexane,
Toulene and Xylene.

Illinois environmental officials have come down hard on Shell in
the past because it has attempted to downplay the health effects
of its chemical spills in communications to its employees and
local residents on a number of occasions, the lawsuit claims.
Shell posted a report on its Roxana Investigation Web site that
told residents there was no risk from soil vapors containing
benzene and other chemicals.

Benzene is an industrial chemical that has been associated with
the development of several fatal forms of cancer, leukemia and
other conditions, such as Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, Chronic
Myelogenous Leukemia, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic
Lymphocytic Leukemia, Hairy Cell Leukemia, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma,
Multiple Myeloma, Myelodysplastic Syndrome, Myelofibrosis and
Myeloid Metaplasia, Aplastic Anemia and Thrombocytopenic Purpura.


SINO-FOREST CORP: Two Canadian Law Firms File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andi Balla, writing for canadianlawyermag.com, reports that two
Canadian law firms representing a pension fund have filed a
C$6.5-billion class action in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against Sino-Forest Corp., a Hong Kong-based forestry
company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange.  Sino's senior
officers and directors are also named in the proposed class
action.

Koskie Minsky LLP and Siskinds LLP on June 20 said the proposed
class action was filed on behalf of the Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada, which is seeking to be the
representative plaintiff on behalf of all persons and entities
that purchased Sino-Forest securities from May 14, 2007 to June 2,
2011.

Sino-Forest has had a pretty rough ride since June 2, losing about
90% of its value on the Toronto Stock Exchange following
allegations about the company's governance and business model.
The stock's fall started following the release of a report by
Muddy Waters Research, which accused the company of fraud and
exaggerating the size of its forestry assets.

The lawsuit alleges that during that period the company
"materially misstated Sino's assets and results of operations, and
thereby misrepresented that Sino's financial statements had been
compiled in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles."

In a statement following the filing, Dimitri Lascaris, a partner
at Siskinds who co-represents the pension fund, said the case
"raises some hard and troubling questions about the quality of
diligence being performed by some well-compensated fiduciaries
upon whom Sino's shareholders relied, and we look forward to
establishing in a court of law whether those fiduciaries fell
woefully short of the standards that the investing public rightly
demands of them."

On June 21, 2011, Sino-Forest lost half of its already-decimated
value, plunging to an eight-year low after billionaire hedge fund
manager John Paulson dumped his entire stake in the company.
Mr. Paulson had been Sino-Forest's largest shareholder, with a
14.1% stake.

It was the latest in a series of set backs.  Credit rating agency
Fitch also cut its debt rating on the firm to junk status and
Canadian brokerage RBC Capital Markets suspended its coverage,
pending the outcome of an internal company review.

An in-depth report in The Globe and Mail on June 18 reinforced
some of the Muddy Water charges, raising more questions about a
Sino-Forest business model that the company says centers on buying
and selling trees in China.

Sino-Forest said on June 20 the Globe report was an "incorrect
portrayal" of its business.  It has set up an internal committee
to look into the charges and report back, probably within three
months.

Sino-Forest has shed nearly C$4.5 billion in market capitalization
since the June 2 Muddy Waters report.


TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Proposed Sale to Allied World
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred C. Ivers, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., Robert F.
Orlich, Michael C. Sapnar, Stephen P. Bradley, Ian H. Chippendale,
John G. Foos, John L. Mccarthy, Richard S. Press, Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, AG and Go Sub, LLC, Case No. 6574-
(Del. Chancery Ct., June 17, 2011), is a shareholder class action
lawsuit brought against the Company and those involved in its
proposed sale to Allied World in an all-stock transaction valued
at approximately $3.2 billion or $5.10 a share.

The Plaintiff alleges that members of the Company's Board of
Directors failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary duties by
favoring a deal that undervalues the Company and ensures that
nearly all of them could remain in office with the combined
company after the close of the Proposed Transaction and that one
of them, Mr. Sapnar, will retain a high-level executive position.

Mr. Ivers is a shareholder of Transatlantic.

Transatlantic, a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York,
offers reinsurance capacity for a range of property and casualty
products, directly and through brokers, to insurance and
reinsurance companies, in domestic and international markets.  The
Individual Defendants are Transatlantic's directors and officers.
Allied World, a Switzerland corporation, operates as a specialty
insurance and reinsurance company.  Merger Sub, a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied World, was
formed solely to effectuate the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          Saint Ann Court
          2501 N. Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 583-2233
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com


TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Sutton, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., Richard Press, Michael
C. Sapnar, Robert F. Orlich, Stephen P. Bradley, Ian H.
Chippendale, John G. Foos, John L. McCarthy, Thomas R. Tizzio,
Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, and GO Sub, LLC, Case
No. 651705/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2011), is a shareholder
class action lawsuit arising out of the proposed merger of
Transatlantic with Allied World that will create the combined
entity of TransAllied Group Holdings, AG.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Proposed Merger is the result of a
manifestly unfair and inadequate bidding process driven by certain
Individual Defendants' intent to benefit themselves to the
detriment of shareholders.  He contends that offer price of $51.10
per share to holders of Transatlantic common stock is a mere 16%
premium over the closing price of the Company's stock the day
before the Proposed Merger was announced, and hence, the
transaction materially undervalues the Company and is unfair to
its shareholders.

Mr. Sutton is a Transatlantic shareholder.

Transatlantic is a holding company for Transatlantic Reinsurance
Company, Trans Re Zurich Reinsurance Company Ltd., and Putnam
Reinsurance Company, and through those subsidiaries, the Company
offers reinsurance capacity for a full range of property and
casualty products to insurance and reinsurance companies, in both
the domestic and international markets.  The Individual Defendants
are Transatlantic's directors and officers.  Allied World is a
Swiss holding company, and provides property and casualty
insurance and reinsurance on a worldwide basis.  GO Sub LLC, is a
Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary
of Allied World.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          Bridget V. Hamill, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com
                  glinkh@murrayfrank.com
                  bhamill@murrayfrank.com

               - and -

          James M. Orman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. ORMAN
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3305
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 523-7800
          Facsimile: (215) 523-9290


TRANSATLANTIC HOLDINGS: Faces 3rd Suit Over Planned Allied Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Clark, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., Robert F. Orlich,
Michael C. Sapnar, Richard Press, John G. Foos, Ian H.
Chippendale, John L. McCarthy, Stephen P. Bradley, Allied World
Assurance Company Holdings, AG, and GO Sub, LLC, Docket No.
651706/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2011), is a stockholder class
action lawsuit that arises out of the Board of Directors' efforts
to sell Transatlantic to Allied in an all-stock acquisition valued
at approximately $3.2 billion.

The lawsuit says the sale process was "unfair".  Ms. Clark
contends that her lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a
sale of the Company at an unfair price through an unfair and self-
serving process to Allied.  She points out that the failure to
maximize the Company's value in the proposed acquisition is the
result of the Board's failure to shop Transatlantic.

The Plaintiff is a Transatlantic shareholder.

Transatlantic is a Delaware corporation and a leading global
reinsurance provider that offers a full range of casualty and
property insurance products on both a treaty and facultative basis
to insurance and reinsurance companies worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 682-1818
          Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
          E-mail: bmurray@murrayfrank.com
                  glinkh@murrayfrank.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: soddo@robbinsumeda.com
                  brobbins@robbinsumeda.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Green Card Glitch
--------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Smyth, writing for The Irish Times, reports that a lawsuit
has been filed against the US government alleging it unfairly
denied 22,000 would-be legal immigrants with the right to a "green
card" due to a computer blunder.

The class action legal case is being taken against the State
department by applicants from more than 30 countries, including
Ireland.

The lawsuit alleges the State Department informed some 22,000
people that they were "winners" in an annual lottery for diversity
visas, granting permanent resident status.  It subsequently
informed the "winners" that in fact they had to be disqualified
because a computer glitch meant they had not been randomly
selected, which was one of the key conditions for awarding the
"green cards".

In a statement, White & Associates, which has agreed to take the
class action case on a pro bono basis, said the basis of the case
was rooted in the simple and enduring value that "our word is our
bond".

"In this case our Government has let these individuals down.  They
have broken a public and written commitment to 22,000 friends of
America," said attorney Kenneth White.

"Real people have had their dreams unfairly shattered, and as a
result, the public image of the United States as a fair and
honorable country has been damaged around the world," he said.

State Department officials were not immediately available for
comment.


WEIRTON WATER: Faces Class Action Over Water Outage
---------------------------------------------------
WTOV9.com reports that Weirton's water woes continue well after
water was restored to thousands of residents who lost water
service for several days after a waterline break outside the
city's water plant.

A class action lawsuit has been filed by a Weirton resident
against the city of Weirton, the Weirton Water Board and the
construction company that was working on the line when it broke.

Ronald Gable filed the lawsuit in Brooke County.  The documents
indicate that Mr. Gable is representing anyone who lost water on
or after June 10.

Mr. Gable was not available for comment, but NEWS9 obtained a copy
of the lawsuit.  It claims, "The James White Construction Company
and/or Weirton Area Water Board and/or City of Weirton,
negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly ruptured the water
transmission line."

On page five, it says, "Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to recover
compensation for damages, including financial injury, if any, he
and the other members of the class have suffered. . ."

"I think it was uncalled for.  He has no right representing the
rest of the city," said Weirton resident Tony Majoris, "If I want
to have a lawsuit against someone I can do it myself."

"I don't think everyone was damaged. I mean the city has a big
loss to them and I think it needs to be looked at that they have a
loss more than anyone or anything," said Dave Lengyel.

The lawsuit also says, "As a result of service interruption,
Defendant(s) have failed to meet the level of service and
reliability promised to Plaintiffs."

The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages" and "reasonable attorney
fees," among other costs.

The Fitzsimmons Law Office is representing Mr. Gable and any other
plaintiff who takes part in the class action lawsuit.  The law
office said they could not discuss the lawsuit at this time.  City
officials with Weirton also had no comment.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Andrea Electronics Facing Edwards Claim in R.I.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Electronics Corporation is a defendant in an asbestos
lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon
Leroy Edwards.

In December 2010, Ms. Edwards filed the lawsuit in the Superior
Court of Providence County, R.I., against 3M Company and over 90
other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed,
marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to
the death of Mr. Edwards.

The Company received service of process in April 2011.  The
Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the
compliant.


COMPANY PROFILE:

Andrea Electronics Corporation
65 Orville Drive
Bohemia, N.Y. 11716
Phone No.: 631-719-1800

Description:
The Company aims to provide the emerging "voice interface" markets
with state-of-the-art communications products that facilitate
natural language, human/machine interfaces.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $48.7MM ARO at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s Hawaiian Electric Company,
Inc. (HECO) subsidiary recorded asset retirement obligations of
US$48,714,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$23,985,000 as
of March 31, 2010.

AROs recognized by HECO and its subsidiaries relate to obligations
to retire plant and equipment, including removal of asbestos and
other hazardous materials.

In September 2009, HECO recorded an estimated ARO of US$23 million
related to removing retired generating units at its Honolulu power
plant, including abating asbestos and lead-based paint.  The
obligation was subsequently increased in June 2010, due to an
increase in the estimated costs of the removal project.

In August 2010, HECO recorded a similar estimated ARO of US$12
million related to removing retired generating units at HECO's
Waiau power plant.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. is the holding company for
Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) and some non-utility businesses.
HECO (along with its utility subsidiaries Maui Electric and Hawaii
Electric Light) serves more than 444,850 customers as the sole
public electricity provider on the islands of Hawaii, Lanai, Maui,
Molokai, and Oahu.  The Company is headquartered in Honolulu.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Facing 83 Exposure Actions at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries faced 83 asbestos-related
lawsuits as of March 31, 2011, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 10, 2011.

The Company, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois Company and EEI have
been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure.  Most have been filed in the Circuit Court
of Madison County, Ill.

The total number of defendants named in each case varies, with as
many as 212 parties named in some pending cases and as few as two
in others.  However, in the cases that were pending as of March
31, 2011, the average number of parties was 78.

At March 31, 2011, the Company, Ameren Missouri, AIC and Genco had
liabilities of US$16 million, US$6 million, US$10 million, and
US$- million, respectively, recorded to represent their best
estimate of their obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Corporation distributes electricity to 2.4 million
customers and natural gas to almost one million customers in
Missouri and Illinois through utility subsidiaries.  The Company
is headquartered in St. Louis, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Applica Consumer Still Facing 3 Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.'s Applica Consumer Products, Inc.
subsidiary is a defendant in three asbestos lawsuits in which the
plaintiffs have alleged injury as the result of exposure to
asbestos in hair dryers distributed by that subsidiary over 20
years ago.

Although Applica never manufactured such products, asbestos was
used in certain hair dryers distributed by it prior to 1979.

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a global branded consumer
products company and was created in connection with the
combination of Spectrum Brands, Inc. and Russell Hobbs, Inc., a
global branded small appliance company, to form a new combined
company.  The Company is headquartered in Madison, Wis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Ongoing v. CenterPoint Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. or its predecessor companies is
still named, along with numerous others, as defendant in lawsuits
filed by certain individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos during work at such formerly owned facilities.

Some facilities formerly owned by the Company's predecessors have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.  The Company anticipates that additional claims like
those received may be asserted in the future.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. owns and operates natural gas
distribution systems in six states.  The Company's reportable
business segments are Natural Gas Distribution, Competitive
Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines, Field
Services and Other Operations.  The Company is based in Houston.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali, D/C Still Named in Exposure Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC and its D/C Distribution Corporation
subsidiary have been named as defendants in personal injury
actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.

While there are only a few such cases that name the Company, there
are a substantial number of cases that are pending against D/C on
the U.S. mainland (primarily in California).  Cases against the
Company are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on the sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.

On Feb. 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American
& Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center.

In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement
and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other
relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an
insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity
various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to
asbestos containing products.

Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able
to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a
judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy
or policies is needed.

Plaintiff sought a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and
obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not
obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the
amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred
unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and
reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for
defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of
cooperation with plaintiff.

D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim.  In order to fund
such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security
Agreement with the Company, in August 2006, whereby the Company
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.

In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1.6 million.  Such settlement
amount was paid to the Company in partial satisfaction of the
secured indebtedness.

Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776.
The deadline for filing proofs of claim against D/C with the
bankruptcy court passed in October 2008.

Prior to the deadline, the Company Land filed claims that
aggregated about US$26.8 million, relating to both secured and
unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to the Company.

In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco
that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs
of claim on behalf of about 700 claimants.

Kaanapali Land, LLC operates in two primary business segments:
Property and Agriculture.  The Company operates through a number
of subsidiaries.  The Company is headquartered in Chicago.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Momentive Specialty Still Facing Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc. continues to be involved in
actions that allege harm caused by products it has allegedly made
or used, containing silica, vinyl chloride monomer and asbestos.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are focusing on alleged harm caused by other
products the Company has made or used, including silica-containing
resin coated sands and discontinued products, some of which may
have contained some asbestos fines.

Momentive Specialty Chemicals produces thermosetting resins, or
thermosets, and produces adhesive and structural resins and
coatings.  The Company is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harbinger Still Has Cases in Miss., La. Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. is involved in multiple complaints in
Mississippi and Louisiana state courts and in a federal multi-
district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on
offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels.

These vessels were formerly owned or operated by the Company's
offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 13, 2011.

Harbinger Group Inc. obtains controlling equity stakes in
subsidiaries that operate across a diversified set of industries.
The Company has identified the following six sectors in which it
intends to pursue investment opportunities: consumer products,
insurance and financial products, telecommunications, agriculture,
power generation and water and natural resources.  The Company is
headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Records $65MM Reserves at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s long-term reserve for asbestos claims was
US$65 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$86 million as
of March 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was
US$65 million as of March 31, 2011, compared with US$86 million as
of March 31, 2010.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is headquartered in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Stearns Unit Still Faces 1,435 Open Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple lawsuits (with about 1,435 claimants) are pending in
state or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by RBS
Global, Inc.'s Stearns division and/or its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100 percent of the costs to date related to the Stearns
lawsuits.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is headquartered in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Prager Unit Still Party to 2 Injury Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Prager subsidiary is a defendant in two pending
multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal injuries due
to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.

Additionally, there are about 3,700 individuals who have filed
asbestos related claims against Prager; however, these claims are
currently on the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket.

The ultimate outcome of these asbestos matters cannot presently be
determined.  To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid
100 percent of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.

The Company said it believes that the combination of its insurance
coverage and the Invensys plc indemnity obligations will cover any
future costs of these matters.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is headquartered in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Falk Unit Still Facing 200 Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk subsidiary, through its successor entity,
is a defendant in about 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal
court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain
clutches and drives previously manufactured by Falk.

There are about 570 claimants in these suits.  The ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits cannot presently be determined.

Hamilton Sundstrand is defending the Company in these lawsuits
under its indemnity obligations and has paid 100 percent of the
costs to date.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is headquartered in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Zurn Unit Still Faces 7T Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Zurn subsidiary and an average of about 80
other unrelated companies, as of March 31, 2011, were defendants
in about 7,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing about 28,500
claims.

Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers.  These claims are being handled under a defense
strategy funded by insurers.

As of March 31, 2011, the Company estimates the potential
liability for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be
about US$65 million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$53
million in the next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of
the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of March 31, 2011, is about
US$266.3 million, and believes that all current claims are covered
by this insurance.

RBS Global, Inc. is a multi-platform industrial company
strategically positioned within the markets and industries it
serves.  Currently, the business is comprised of two strategic
platforms: Process & Motion Control and Water Management.  The
Company is headquartered in Milwaukee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ABI Long-Term Liability at $17.7MM at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc.'s long-term asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$17,700,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31,
2010.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to US$17,646,000 as of both March 31, 2011 and Dec. 31,
2010.

American Biltrite Inc.'s major operations include its Tape
Division, its jewelry division K&M Associates L.P., and its
Canadian division, which consists of American Biltrite (Canada).
The Company is headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Open Claims v. American Biltrite Rise to 1,280
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products in
about 1,280 pending claims involving about 1,826 individuals as of
March 31, 2011.

The Company faced 1,261 asbestos-related claims at Dec. 31, 2010,
compared with 1,193 claims at Dec. 31, 2009.  (Class Action
Reporter, April 15, 2011)

These claims relate to products of the Company's former Tile
division, which the Company contributed to Congoleum in 1993.  The
claimants allege personal injury or death from exposure to
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded
89 new claims, 11 settlements, and 59 dismissals.  During the year
ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 304 new claims, 29
settlements, and 207 dismissals.

The Company has multiple excess layers of insurance coverage for
asbestos claims.  The total indemnity costs incurred to settle
claims during the three months ended March 31, 2011 and the year
ended Dec. 31, 2010 were US$1.8 million and US$5.7 million,
respectively, all of which were paid by the Company's first-layer
excess umbrella insurance carriers, as were the related defense
costs.

American Biltrite Inc.'s major operations include its Tape
Division, its jewelry division K&M Associates L.P., and its
Canadian division, which consists of American Biltrite (Canada).
The Company is headquartered in Wellesley Hills, Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane US et al. Win Dismissal of Kiser Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted several defendants' dismissal motions in an asbestos-
related lawsuit styled Phyllis Kiser, Plaintiff v. A.W. Chesterton
Co., et al., Defendants.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil Action No.
11-60039 on March 16, 2011.

In 1988, Orvin Kiser, Sr. was diagnosed with nonmalignant pleural
thickening and asbestosis.  In April 1990, he filed an action
against 18 defendants for his asbestosis claim.  Those defendants
are not parties to the instant case.

This prior action remained pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Virginia for 20 years before it was
dismissed in July 2010.

Mr. Kiser was diagnosed with mesothelioma on Nov. 7, 2009.  He
passed away on March 30, 2010.  Plaintiff Phyllis Kiser, as
Executor of the Estate of Mr. Kiser, brought this wrongful death
suit on Oct. 26, 2010, alleging that various defendants' asbestos-
containing products caused Mr. Kiser's development of
mesothelioma.

The motions to dismiss were filed by Trane U.S., Inc., SEPCO,
Inc., CBS Corp., Georgia-Pacific Corp., Foster Wheeler Corp.,
Riley Power, Inc., Goulds Pumps, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Co., John
Crane, Inc., Rapid American Corp., General Electric Co., Warren
Pumps, and Harsco Industrial Patterson Kelley.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Denies Remand Motion in Barnes Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand in an asbestos lawsuit styled Gail
and James Wayne Barnes, et al., Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Case No. 2:10-CV-
67141 on March 15, 2011.

Plaintiffs, Gail and James Wayne Barnes (deceased) commenced the
instant action on April 21, 2009, in California state court,
alleging that Mr. Barnes' lung cancer was caused by exposure to
the asbestos-containing products of multiple defendants.

Defendant General Electric filed a notice of removal on Feb. 24,
2010.  On May 4, 2010, the case was transferred to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for consolidated pre-trial proceedings as
part of In Re: Asbestos, Multidistrict Litigation No. 875.

It was hereby ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case
to California Superior Court filed on July 27, 2010 was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Affirms Board Ruling in Freels Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the ruling of the Indiana
Worker's Compensation Board in a case involving asbestos styled
James Freels, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation,
Appellee-Defendant.

Judges Vaidik, Baker, and Barnes entered judgment in Case No.
93A02-1007-EX-761 on March 17, 2011.

Mr. Freels contended that the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board
erred in dismissing his Occupational Disease Act claim against his
employer Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

In May 2006, Mr. Freels was diagnosed with lung cancer allegedly
contracted as a result of asbestos exposure while employed by
Bethlehem Steel.  In December 2006, he filed an Application for
Adjustment of Claim with the Worker's Compensation Board under the
Occupational Disease Act alleging that exposure to asbestos
contributed to his lung cancer.

To date, no Occupational Disease Act benefits have been paid to
Mr. Freels or on behalf of Mr. Freels, as this claim has been
disputed from the beginning.

Mr. Freels also filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court against
about 78 third-party defendants that manufactured, sold, or used
the asbestos products that allegedly caused his cancer.  In
addition, he filed claims with trusts established by order of U.S.
Bankruptcy courts on behalf of bankrupt companies that
manufactured, sold, or used the asbestos products that allegedly
caused his cancer.

Mr. Freels received gross settlement proceeds in the amount of
US$93,551.14 from some of the third parties, including those that
entered into bankruptcy proceedings.  He did not notify Bethlehem
Steel before settling with any of these third parties.  Mr. Freels
still has claims pending against over 15 third parties.

In December 2009, Hearing Member A. James Sarkisian dismissed Mr.
Freels' claim because Mr. Freels failed to notify Bethlehem Steel
before settling with the third parties.  In June 2010, the full
Board adopted Hearing Member Sarkisian's decision.  Mr. Freels
appealed the dismissal of his claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Philomath Firms Fined $10T for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality has issued civil
penalties totaling more than US$10,000 to parties involved in the
improper removal of asbestos from the Philomath Fire and Rescue
building at 1035 Main St. in Philomath, Ore., last fall, according
to an Oregon DEQ press release dated June 9, 2011.

DEQ penalized T.W. Flooring Inc. of Corvallis US$4,200 for
conducting an asbestos removal project without the required
license.

The unlicensed asbestos abatement project took place between Oct.
11 and 22, 2010, when a worker mishandled sheet vinyl flooring
that contained asbestos.  T.W. Flooring is not licensed to perform
asbestos abatement projects in Oregon.

DEQ also noted that T.W. Flooring failed to properly package and
label the removed flooring waste and cited the company for
accumulating asbestos-containing waste material.  A penalty was
not issued for this violation.

In a related action, DEQ penalized the Philomath Volunteer Fire
Department US$6,018 for allowing the unlicensed contractor to
perform an asbestos removal project from its facility.  As owner
of the building, the fire department is responsible for ensuring
all asbestos is properly handled and disposed of.

Both the company and the fire department have appealed their
penalties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K. Operator's Death Linked to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Cannock Coroner's Court inquest heard that the death of
72-year-old Irene Jenkins, a former telephone exchange operator
for the General Post Office, was related to workplace exposure to
asbestos, the Cannock Chase Post reports.

Mrs. Jenkins died on May 14, 2010, at Katharine House Hospice,
Stafford, just a week after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.
The court heard Mrs. Jenkins could have been exposed to asbestos
while working for the GPO in the 1950s.

Mrs. Jenkins may have also been exposed to asbestos dust carried
on the clothing of her husband -- who worked as a joiner in the
building trade -- or her son, who was an apprentice plumber.

Giving evidence at the hearing, Dr. Emma Sheldon, consultant
histopathologist at Stafford Hospital, said a post mortem revealed
both lungs were encased in mesothelioma.  Dr. Sheldon said a small
amount of asbestos fibers were found in Mrs. Jenkins' lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skelton's 2nd Action Filed v. 24 Firms in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Skelton and his wife, Ann Skelton, on June 2, 2011, filed
an asbestos lawsuit against A. W. Chesterton Company and 23 other
defendant corporations in Jefferson County District Court, Tex.,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

Although Mr. Skelton already received a claim for his non-
malignant asbestos illness, he now claims he suffers from a
different asbestos illness, which entitles him to sue again.

From 1964 to 1979, Mr. Skelton worked as a laborer, shipfitter and
mechanic, which required him to work with and around asbestos
products.  The suit claims the industrial asbestos dust he inhaled
caused him to contract an asbestos-related illness.

The suit does not define Mr. Skelton's illnesses but does say he's
entitled to sue again under Putejovsky vs. Rapid-American Corp.

The plaintiffs are suing for exemplary damages.  Provost Umphrey
attorney Bryan Blevins Jr., Esq., represents the Skeltons.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. E190-200.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Developer Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles federal judge, on June 6, 2011, sentenced developer
Charles Yi to four years in prison for violating asbestos handling
laws during the renovation of an apartment complex in the San
Fernando Valley, The Associated Press reports.

Mr. Yi, whose company owned the Forest Glen apartment complex in
Winnetka, Calif., was convicted on March 29, 2011 of five felony
counts including conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act and
failing to provide proper notifications to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District about a renovation involving asbestos.

Mr. Yi also was convicted of failing to provide properly trained
personnel, to properly remove the asbestos and dispose of the
material.

Air regulators received complaints about the renovation in 2006
and shut it down.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Soldier's Death Linked to Exposure to Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2, 2011 inquest at the Windsor Guildhall in Windsor,
England, heard that the death of 95-year-old Stanley Ball, a
former soldier, was related to workplace exposure to asbestos,
getwokingham reports.

Mr. Ball died from symptoms "overwhelmingly linked" to the
industrial disease mesothelioma on Feb. 26, 2011.  The inquest
heard how Mr. Ball, who spent the latter years of his life living
at Glebelands House in Glebelands Road, had been coping with
mesothelioma since 2003.

Once diagnosed with the condition, Mr. Ball immediately had a
biopsy and a procedure to help the removal of fluid on his lungs,
and further X-rays in 2006 and 2007 showed no obvious aggression
from the disease.

However, in 2009, shortly before his transfer to the care home,
Mr. Ball was said to be staying in bed for longer periods of the
day and was becoming more and more breathless.

Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford explained how Mr. Ball began his
working career as an apprentice printer before moving on to become
a milkman.  He then joined the Army and served during the Second
World War before returning to his job at the dairy yard.  He then
changed careers and began working with his brother on building
sites, where asbestos was present.

A post mortem examination carried out by Dr. Mufeed Ali at Wexham
Park Hospital following Mr. Ball's death discovered he had
suffered both bronchitis and bronchopneumonia, which he concluded
was "consistent with mesothelioma."

Before coming to a verdict, Mr. Bedford said it was
"extraordinary" for someone to cope with the condition for so long
after initial diagnosis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bridgwater Worker's Death Related to Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest at Bridgwater town hall heard that the death of
67-year-old Mark Horsman, of Bridgwater, Somerset, England, was
related to workplace exposure to asbestos,
thisisthewestcountry.co.uk reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Horsman died from mesothelioma on
Nov. 22, 2010.

West Somerset Coroner Michael Rose said he believed Mr. Horsman
was exposed to most, if not all of the asbestos, while working at
the former British Cellophane factory more than 40 years ago,
before safety procedures changed in the 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Henderson Hall Prompts TOSHA Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of asbestos at the Henderson Hall in Tennessee Tech
in Cookeville, Tenn., has prompted a complaint with the Tennessee
Occupation Safety and Health Administration, the Herald-Citizen
reports.

The Henderson Hall is undergoing some renovations this summer, and
the presence of asbestos-containing materials has raised concerns
among those working in the building.  Environmental Health and
Safety Coordinator Kent Clawson said, "We have a lot of asbestos
on our campus."

Within Henderson Hall, there are areas where asbestos containing
tile lies under non-asbestos tile.  As part of the construction
process, contractors were drilling through layers of tile in the
building. But that dust, Mr. Clawson said, is just dust that has
built up over the years that is being disturbed.

The complaint prompted Mr. Clawson and the campus safety office to
test air and dust samples within the building on June 7, 2011.
Air test results were presented to faculty in a meeting held to
address their concerns on June 8, 2011.

The results showed asbestos levels in the building's air to be
within regulatory levels.  Lab results from dust samples collected
in the work areas in question were released on June 9, 2011. In
the two samples submitted, lab tests found no detectable amount of
asbestos.

Both the air and dust samples were tested by EMLab P&K, an
independent laboratory registered with the American Industrial
Hygiene Association.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleanup at Mitchell Courthouse to Costs $12,950
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Board of Supervisors of Mitchell County, Iowa, has approved
US$12,950 for the asbestos abatement at its courthouse, which
dates back to 1858, globegazette.com reports.

More than 250 feet of pipe insulation containing asbestos was
discovered in the basement.  Asbestrol Inc., of Austin, Minn.,
will do the work.

The US$12,950 includes all air monitoring and decontamination of
the crawl space as well as removal in the boiler room and
veterans' office using a wrap and cut method.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mason v. Foster Wheeler et al. Filed on June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Grant Mason, on behalf of Milan Arthur Barackman, on
June 1, 2011, filed suit against Foster Wheeler, General Electric
Co., Owens-Illinois Inc., Rapid American Corp., Uniroyal Inc.,
Viacom Inc. and Riley Power Inc. in New Orleans federal court, The
Louisiana Record reports.

The alleged asbestos exposure occurred while Mr. Barackman was
aboard U.S. Navy vessels from 1966 until the late 1970s.  The
exposure was a result of asbestos dust emanating throughout the
USS Rehoboth, the USNS Albert J. Meyer, the USNS Flyer, the USNS
Wyman, the USNS Kingsport and the Sgt. Alfred Schoup, the suit
states.

Mr. Barackman was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010.

Mr. Mason is represented by Scott R. Bickford, Esq., Lawrence J.
Centola, Esq., and Roshawn H. Donahue, Esq., of Martzell &
Bickford in New Orleans.

U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey is assigned to Case No. 2:11-cv-
01309.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Named Defendant in Injury Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. has been named as a defendant in
a limited number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according
to the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 16, 2011.

Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured,
produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material that
allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions.

The bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against the Company before that time.

The Company also said it believes the bankruptcy court's discharge
order should serve as a bar against any later claim filed against
it, including any of its subsidiaries, based on alleged injury
from asbestos at any time before emergence from bankruptcy.

In any event, in all of the asbestos cases finalized post-
bankruptcy, the Company has been successful in having such cases
dismissed without liability.

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a comprehensive provider of
power generation equipment and maintenance services for customers
in the domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and
service industries.  The Company is headquartered in Tulsa, Okla.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SonomaWest Holdings Settles Box's Calif. Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
SonomaWest Holdings, Inc., subsequent to March 31, 2011, settled
an asbestos lawsuit filed by Eugene Box and Shirley Box for an
amount of US$10,000, which amount the Company expects to be paid
by the Company's insurance provider.

In October 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit
as the successor of Appletime and Vacu-Dry, filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, by the
Box couple, seeking damages for personal injuries related to
alleged exposure to asbestos during the 1974-1982 timeframe.

SonomaWest Holdings, Inc.'s business consists of its real estate
management and rental operations.  Its rental operations include
industrial/agricultural property, some of which was formerly used
in its discontinued fruit processing businesses.  This commercial
property is now being rented to third parties.  The Company is
headquartered in Sebastopol, Calif.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Issues Split Ruling in Scapa Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Maryland issued split rulings in a case
involving asbestos styled Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Carl L.
Saville.

Judges Bell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Murphy, Adkins and
Barbera entered judgment in the case on March 23, 2011.

On June 14, 2002, Carl and Sharon Saville sued about 30 companies
claiming negligence, strict liability, loss of consortium,
conspiracy and fraud relating to Mr. Saville's asbestosis, lung
cancer and mesothelioma.  A judgment against Scapa was entered on
Oct. 15, 2003 in the amount of US$3 million.

In an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals vacated
that judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.  Prior to
commencement of the new trial, Mr. Saville settled with three
defendants, against whom Scapa unsuccessfully asserted cross-
claims for joint tort-feasor liability and contribution, namely
Viacom, Inc. f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corp., AstenJohnson,
Inc., and Albany International Corp.

The new trial began on Jan. 8, 2008 and concluded on Jan. 25,
2008.  The jury found Scapa and co-defendant Wallace and Gale
Asbestos Settlement Trust (W & G) to be jointly and severally
liable and returned a verdict in the amount of US$1,718,000.

The trial judge subsequently reduced the verdict to account for
settlement payments that Mr. Saville had received from certain
bankrupt asbestos-containing product manufacturers, namely Celotex
Trust, the Johns Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, and
the H.K. Porter, Inc. Asbestos Trust, resulting in a final verdict
of US$1,684,415.

Scapa moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to Mr.
Saville's claims and as to its cross-claims.  Both motions were
denied, as was Scapa's request, in the alternative, for a new
trial, and for a reduction in the verdict to account for any and
all bankruptcy trust payments received by Mr. Saville.  Final
judgment was entered on April 30, 2008 and appeals were timely
noted.

The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals was affirmed in part
and reversed in part.  The case was remanded to the Court of
Special Appeals with direction to remand the case to the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Denied Mandamus Writ in Roger Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County,
denied a writ for mandamus filed by Roger Bacon High School in an
asbestos case styled State ex rel. Roger Bacon High School,
Relator v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and Patrick J. Mullaney,
Deceased, Maria C. Carlevale-Mullaney, Spouse, Respondents.

Judges French, Brown, and Dorrian entered judgment in Case No.
10AP-277 on March 24, 2011.

Roger Bacon filed an original action in mandamus requesting this
court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Industrial Commission
of Ohio to vacate its order awarding death benefits to Maria C.
Carlevale-Mullaney, spouse of respondent Patrick J. Mullaney, now
deceased, because the evidence demonstrates that Mullaney was
exposed to asbestos after his employment at Roger Bacon, and a
subsequent employer is responsible for Mullaney's last injurious
exposure.

This court referred this matter to a magistrate of the Tenth
District Court of Appeals.  The magistrate issued a decision,
which included findings of fact and conclusions of law and is
appended to this opinion, recommending that this court deny the
requested writ.

Mullaney had an extensive work history that included multiple
potential exposures to asbestos.  From 1947 until 1953, Mullaney
performed construction and renovation work.  From 1953 to 1955, he
worked on cars as a hobby.  In the summer of 1954, he worked for
about one month as a maintenance worker at Roger Bacon.

In the summer of 1955, Mullaney worked as a painter at Carlisle
Chemical.  He received his medical degree in 1963 and practiced
medicine thereafter.  From 1964 until 1966, he served as a Marine
combat physician and, during that time, served for about five
weeks aboard a Navy vessel.  From 1967 to 1982, he worked at
numerous hospitals.  From 1976 to 1977, he performed home
remodeling.

John W. Cunningham, M.D., M.S., concluded that Mullaney's exposure
while working at Roger Bacon caused his eventual mesothelioma and
that his subsequent exposures were not significant factors in its
development.  Joseph E. Thorpe, M.D., concluded that Mullaney's
exposure while serving aboard a Navy vessel was his last injurious
exposure.

Roger Bacon appealed BWC's allowance of a death claim.  After a
hearing, a district hearing officer (DHO) affirmed the BWC order.
On further appeal, a staff hearing officer (SHO) affirmed the DHO
order.  The SHO addressed Mullaney's exposure while working at
Roger Bacon in 1954 and found that claimant was exposed to
asbestos dust during that time.  The SHO awarded death benefits to
Mullaney's widow.

Roger Bacon filed a mandamus action and asked this court to vacate
the commission's order.  The magistrate concluded that the
commission did not abuse its discretion by finding that Mullaney's
last injurious exposure was during his employment at Roger Bacon
in 1954.

The writ of mandamus request was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York City Wins Dismissal of Purdie Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted defendants' dismissal motion in a case involving asbestos
styled, Sidney E. Purdie, Plaintiff v. The City of New York; P.
Feeney, Assistant Commissioner, Dept. of Correction George Motchan
Detention; Warden F. Gonzalez, E.H.U., F.A .R.D.C.; R. Cripps,
Deputy Warden, Security, A.R.D.C.; G. Isaacs, Asbestos Supervisor,
E.H.U.; E. Knight, Deputy Warden, Administrative A.R.D.C.; and R.
Olivo, Deputy Warden, Programs, A.R.D.C., Defendants.

District Judge P. Kevin Castel entered judgment in Case No.
10 Civ. 5802(PKC) on March 15, 2011.

Mr. Purdie, who is pro se, brought this action, alleging that the
defendants were liable for skin rashes that he suffered as a
consequence of asbestos exposure and chemicals used in an
assignment to strip, buff and wax a floor.

In April 2006, Mr. Purdie was part of a group of inmates directed
"to buff and strip the floor" in the basement of the Robert N.
Davoren Complex at Riker's Island.  A chemical solution was used
to loosen floor tiles and remove wax.

While Mr. Purdie was removing tiles, his clothing absorbed the
chemical solution and his "private area got soaked."

Mr. Purdie filed his complaint on Aug. 2, 2010.  The defendants
filed their motion to dismiss on Nov. 15, 2010.  Mr. Purdie
submitted opposition materials dated Dec. 22, 2010 and postmarked
on Dec. 27, 2010.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meade Case v. 47 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Lee Frasure, on behalf of relative Anna Lee Meade, filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 47 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, on May 12, 2010, Anna Lee Meade was
diagnosed with lung cancer on which she died June 24, 2010.

Kathy Lee Frasure claims Anna Lee Meade smoked until 1985, but
then quit.  She claims Anna Lee Meade was exposed to asbestos
because of her husband, who was employed by the defendants from
1947 until 1982.

Kathy Lee Frasure seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues
involved.  She is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq.,
Scott A. McGee, Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Bronwyn I.
Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-750 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McCommack Case v. 72 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Macon McCommack, of Boomer, W.Va., filed an asbestos lawsuit
against 72 defendant corporations in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
on May 9, 2011, The West Virginia Record reports.

On Feb. 14, 2011, Mr. McCommack was diagnosed with lung cancer,
according to the complaint.  He claims the defendants are
responsible for his lung cancer because they caused him to be
exposed to asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products.

Mr. McCommack claims he was exposed to the products from 1964
until 1995.  He seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.
He is being represented by Victoria Antion, Esq., and Bronwyn I.
Rinehart, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-749 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Case v. Norfolk Southern Filed in Kanawha
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Reed, on May 9, 2011, filed an asbestos lawsuit against
Norfolk Southern Railway Company in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the suit, Mr. Reed was employed by the defendant from
1956 until 1959 as a fireman in its Williamson, W.Va., facility.
He claims he was exposed to toxic substances, including asbestos,
which caused his mesothelioma diagnosis on March 11, 2011.

Mr. Reed seeks judgment against the defendant in an amount in
excess of the jurisdictional limitation.  He is being represented
by Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee, Esq., John E. Guerry
III, Esq., and Joseph Satterly, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-748 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barron Case v. 87 Firms Filed on May 5 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Barron, on behalf of Junior E. Barron, filed an asbestos
lawsuit on May 5, 2011 against 87 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., The West Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Barron was diagnosed with
asbestosis and died on June 4, 2010.  Mrs. Barron claims the
defendants exposed her husband to asbestos and caused his
diagnosis.

Mrs. Barron seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  She is being
represented by William K. Schwartz, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-729 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reed Claim v. 135 Firms Filed on May 9 in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward A. Reed and wife Helen P. Reed, of Flat Gap, Ky., filed an
asbestos lawsuit against 135 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., on May 9, 2011, The West Virginia Record
reports.

On March 25, 2011, Mr. Reed was diagnosed with mesothelioma,
according to the complaint.  He claims he smoked cigarettes from
the 1950s until the 1970s, but then quit.  The defendants failed
to warn Mr. Reed of the danger of asbestos, according to the suit.
He claims he was exposed to the asbestos from 1956 until 1992.

The Reeds seeks a jury trial to resolve all issues involved.  They
are being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq., Scott A. McGee,
Esq., John D. Hurst, Esq., and Joseph Satterley, Esq.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case No. 11-C-747 has been assigned to a
visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Summary Judgment OK'd in Smalley Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California,
affirmed the ruling of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
which upheld Pneumo Abex LLC's summary judgment in an asbestos
case filed on behalf of Donald Smalley.

The case is styled Norma Smalley et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant and Respondent.

On March 24, 2011, Judges Boren, Doi Todd, and Chavez, entered
judgment in Case No. B223233.

Mr. Smalley died of mesothelioma in September 2007.  Following his
death, his family members filed a first amended complaint for
wrongful death.  The complaint alleged that Mr. Smalley was
exposed to asbestos-containing products, including through his
work as an electrician, and that this exposure caused his
mesothelioma.  Abex, a manufacturer of automotive brake pads and
other brake-related "friction" products, was one of about 30 named
defendants.  Abex manufactured and sold asbestos-containing brake
products until 1987.

Abex brought a motion for summary judgment.  In support of this
motion, Abex presented plaintiffs' responses to interrogatories,
requests for admissions, and requests for production, as well as
plaintiffs' case report.

Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment
but, strangely, did not address any of Abex's hearsay and
admissibility arguments.

The court took the matter under submission, and later that day
issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of Abex and
against plaintiffs.  Judgment was later entered and plaintiffs
appealed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Issues Split Ruling in Newman Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, issued split
rulings in an asbestos case filed by Aaron and Nancy Newman
against Avocet Enterprise, Inc.

Judge Peggy L. Ableman entered judgment in Civil Action No.
10C-03-173 ASB on March 15, 2011.

The Newmans brought this personal injury action against various
manufacturers and suppliers of allegedly asbestos-containing
products, claiming that the defendants' products caused Mr. Newman
to contract mesothelioma.  Avocet had moved for summary judgment.

The Court concluded that summary judgment in Avocet's favor would
be inappropriate based upon Mr. Newman's deposition testimony
regarding his use of Avocet's Ventbestos product.  His testimony
that he worked directly with Ventbestos "all the time" and "[a]ll
through the years" from the time he was 17 until the early 1980s,
that he recalled the Ventbestos product as asbestos-containing,
and that he used Ventbestos in applications for which he
considered asbestos appropriate, sufficed to create a genuine
factual dispute as to causation.

Because Plaintiffs had withdrawn their claim of conspiracy against
Avocet, the motion for summary judgment was moot in part as to the
conspiracy allegation.  For the foregoing reasons, summary
judgment was denied in part as to the Newmans' remaining claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court OKs Ferrara Bid to Expedite Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted Arthur F.
Ferrara's motion to expedite asbestos-related proceedings.

The case is styled Arthur F. Ferrara, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Davis entered judgment in Case No. 09-3990 on March 31,
2011.

U.S. Navy veteran Arthur F. Ferrara appealed through counsel from
a Sept. 14, 2009 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that denied
entitlement to service connection for a chronic respiratory
disorder, to include asbestosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease (COPD), and/or emphysema.

Mr. Ferrara, who served on active duty from May 1945 to July 1946,
was a cook onboard a ship during World War II.  He stated that he
was exposed to asbestos-covered pipes while on board and that this
is the cause of his respiratory disability.

Mr. Ferrara filed a motion to expedite proceedings on March 28,
2011.  Because he had satisfied the requirements of Rule 47 of the
Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure by demonstrating good
cause for expediting proceedings, the Court granted the motion.

The Court set aside the Board's Sept. 14, 2009, decision and
remanded the case for readjudication.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Industries Faces 11 Injury Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. has been named as defendant in 11 asbestos
lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a total of about 325
individual plaintiffs, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2011.

There are over 100 defendants named in each case.  In all 11
cases, the Plaintiffs claim that they were exposed to asbestos in
the course of their employment at a former U.S. Steel plant in
Alabama and, as a result, contracted mesothelioma, asbestosis,
lung cancer or other illness.

They claim that while in the plant they were exposed to asbestos
in products which were manufactured by each defendant.  In nine of
the cases, Plaintiffs also assert wrongful death claims.

Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor
of commercial cleaning and storage products.  The Company is
headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Ind. Cites 2,860 Tendered Sterling Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says that Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has
tendered about 2,860 asbestos cases pending in Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi, Wyoming,
Louisiana, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Kentucky, California,
South Carolina and Canada to the Company for defense and
indemnification.

With respect to one case, Sterling has demanded that the Company
indemnify it for a US$200,000 settlement.  Sterling bases its
tender of the complaints on the provisions contained in a 1993
Purchase Agreement between the parties whereby Sterling purchased
the LaBour Pump business and other assets from the Company.

Sterling has not filed a lawsuit against the Company in connection
with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries.  The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.  The plaintiffs in the
cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and products
containing asbestos in the course of their employment.

Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of products
containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came into
contact with a variety of different products in the course of
their employment.  Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump Company, a
former division of an inactive subsidiary of the Company, and/or
Sterling may have manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, including the one
settled by Sterling for US$200,000, the Company has taken the
position that Sterling has waived its right to indemnity by
failing to timely request it as required under the 1993 Purchase
Agreement.

With respect to the balance of the tendered complaints, the
Company has elected not to assume the defense of Sterling in these
matters.

Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor
of commercial cleaning and storage products.  The Company is
headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 90 LaBour Exposure Lawsuits Pending at April 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries, Inc. says there are about 90 asbestos cases,
which remain active as of April 1, 2011 against its former LaBour
Pump Company subsidiary.

LaBour Pump has been named as a defendant in about 430 of the New
Jersey cases tendered by Sterling Fluid Systems (USA).

The Company has elected to defend these cases, the majority of
which have been dismissed or settled for nominal sums.

Katy Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer, importer and distributor
of commercial cleaning and storage products.  The Company is
headquartered in Bridgeton, Mo.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quigley Co. Files Revised Bankruptcy-Exit Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s Quigley Company, Inc. subsidiary, on April 6, 2011,
filed a revised plan of reorganization and accompanying disclosure
statement with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
May 12, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September 2004, Quigley filed a petition in the Bankruptcy
Court seeking reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code.  The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing
with respect to Quigley's amended plan of reorganization that
concluded in December 2009.  In September 2010, the Bankruptcy
Court declined to confirm the amended reorganization plan.  The
Company recorded additional pre-tax charges for this matter of
about US$1.3 billion in 2010.

In March 2011, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with a committee (the Ad Hoc Committee) representing about 40,000
claimants in the Quigley bankruptcy proceeding (the Ad Hoc
Committee claimants).  The principal provisions of the settlement
agreement provide for a settlement payment in two installments and
other consideration, as follows:

-- The payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the
   Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a first installment of US$500
   million upon receipt by the Company of releases of all
   asbestos-related claims against the Company from Ad Hoc
   Committee claimants holding US$500 million in the aggregate
   of claims;

-- The payment to the Ad Hoc Committee, for the benefit of the
   Ad Hoc Committee claimants, of a second installment of US$300
   million upon the Company's receipt of releases of all
   asbestos-related claims against the Company from Ad Hoc
   Committee claimants holding an additional US$300 million in
   the aggregate of claims following the earlier of the
   effective date of a revised plan of reorganization and April
   6, 2013;

-- The payment of the Ad Hoc Committee's legal fees and expenses
   incurred in this matter up to a maximum of US$19 million; and

-- The procurement by the Company of insurance for the benefit
   of certain Ad Hoc Committee claimants to the extent such
   claimants with non-malignant diseases have a future disease
   progression to a malignant disease.

Under the revised plan, the Company expects to contribute an
additional amount to the Trust provided for in the plan (the
Trust), if and when the Bankruptcy Court confirms the plan, of
cash and non-cash assets with a value in excess of US$550 million.
The Bankruptcy Court must find that the revised plan meets the
requisite standards of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before it confirms
the plan.  There is no assurance that the plan will be confirmed
by the court.

If approved by claimants, confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and
upheld upon any appeal, the revised reorganization plan will
result in a permanent injunction directing all remaining pending
claims as well as any future claims alleging personal injury from
exposure to Quigley products to the Trust.

Pfizer Inc. is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company.
The Company's diversified global healthcare portfolio includes
human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and
vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world's
best-known consumer healthcare products.  The Company is
headquartered in New York.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colonial Involved in 5 Hilco Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, as of March 31, 2011, there
existed five plaintiffs in lawsuits relating to alleged sales of
asbestos products, or products containing asbestos, by subsidiary
Universal Supply Group, Inc.'s Hilco, Inc. predecessor.

The Company understands that Hilco and many other companies have
been sued in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Middlesex County)
by plaintiffs filing lawsuits alleging injury due to asbestos.

Subsequent to March 31, 2011, one plaintiff had their action
dismissed and one plaintiff filed an action, which results in five
remaining plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  The Company never sold
any asbestos related products.

Of the existing plaintiffs as of March 31, 2011, four filed
actions in 2010 and one filed an action in 2009.  There are 208
other plaintiffs that have had their actions dismissed and 16
other plaintiffs that have settled as of March 31, 2011 for a
total of US$3,361,500.  There has been no judgment against Hilco.

Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air
conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate
control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures
and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and
portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.  The
Company is headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Universal Supply Group Has One Case at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Commercial Corp. says that, following dismissed and
settled asbestos actions, there exists one plaintiff that named
subsidiary Universal Supply Group, Inc., as defendant as of
March 31, 2011.

Universal was named by 37 plaintiffs; of these, one filed an
action in 2010, 11 filed actions in 2007, six filed actions in
2006, 11 filed actions in 2005, five filed actions in 2001, one
filed an action in 2000, and two filed actions in 1999.

Thirty-three plaintiffs naming Universal have had their actions
dismissed and, of the total US$3,361,500 of settled actions, three
plaintiffs naming Universal have settled for US$27,500.  No money
was paid by Universal in connection with any settlement.

Based on advice of counsel, the Company said it believes that none
of the litigation that was brought against the Company's Universal
subsidiary through March 31, 2011 is material, and that the only
material litigation that was brought against Hilco, Inc. through
that date was Rhodes v. A.O. Smith Corporation, filed on April 26,
2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex
County, Docket Number MID-L-2979-04AS.

The Company was advised that the Rhodes case was settled for
US$3,250,000 under an agreement reached in connection with a US$10
million jury verdict that was rendered on Aug. 5, 2005.  The
Company was not a defendant in the Rhodes case.

Colonial Commercial Corp. distributes heating, ventilating and air
conditioning equipment (HVAC), parts and accessories, climate
control systems, appliances, and plumbing and electrical fixtures
and supplies, primarily in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and
portions of eastern Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Vermont.  The
Company is headquartered in Hawthorne, N.J.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pacific Office Has $600T Liability at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Offshore Properties Trust, Inc.'s liability in its
consolidated balance sheets for asbestos-related conditional asset
retirement obligations was US$600,000 as of March 31, 2011 and
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company records a liability for a conditional asset retirement
obligation, defined as a legal obligation to perform an asset
retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of
settlement is conditional on a future event that may or may not be
within a company's control, when the fair value of the obligation
can be reasonably estimated.

Depending on the age of the construction, certain properties in
the Company's portfolio may contain non-friable asbestos.  If
these properties undergo major renovations or are demolished,
certain environmental regulations are in place, which specify the
manner in which the asbestos, if present, must be handled and
disposed.

Based on its evaluation of the physical condition and attributes
of certain of its properties, the Company recorded conditional
asset retirement obligations related to asbestos removal.

The accretion expense for the three months ended March 31, 2011
and 2010 was not significant.

Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc., through its controlling
interest in Pacific Office Properties, L.P., owns and operates
primarily institutional-quality office properties principally in
selected long-term growth markets in southern California and
Hawaii.  The Company is headquartered in San Diego, Calif.


                             *********

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, Joy A. Agravante, 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  * * *