CAR_Public/110819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 164

                             Headlines

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Merger-Related Suits Remain Stayed
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
AMERICAN APPAREL: Hearing on Suit Dismissal Plea Set for Sept. 12
APPLE INC: Korean iPhone Users Set to File Class Action
AT&T: Seeks Injunctions Against Customers to Avert Class Action

BP PLC: Kenneth Feinberg Responds to Claims Handling Criticisms
BP PLC: Feinberg Removes Oil Spill Case to Federal Court
CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOC: Faces Class Action Over RTM Homes
CARDIONET INC: Court to Hear Plea to Dismiss IPO Suit on Sept. 2
CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Siding

CRAYOLA: Faces Class Action Over Washable Colored Bubbles
DERMATECH INTRADERMAL: Dermalive Class Action Wins Certification
FBR & CO: Court Dismisses Unit as Defendant in TMI-Related Suit
FBR & CO: Unit Continues to Defend United Western-Related Suit
GMX RESOURCES: Stockholder Suit Stayed Pending Plea to Remand

MEDCATH CORP: Unit Reaches Settlement in Billing Violation Suit
METRO: Faces Class Action for FACTA Violations
MOTRICITY INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
NARA BANCORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Calif.
NETWORK ENGINES: Awaits Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement Appeal

ORIENT PAPER: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Henning" Class Suit
OZ MINERALS: Class Action Settlement Hits First-Half Profit
RADIO FLYER: Recalls 165,000 Scoot 'n Zoom Riding Toys
SIMPATICO INC: Franchisees File Class Action Over FTC Violation
TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay

UMAREX USA: Recalls to Repair 9,500 Browning 800 Mag Air Pistols
UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Sued Over Shackling Practice
WASHINGTON HUMANE SOCIETY: Pet Owners Lose Certification Bid
WEBMD HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Claims v. Dana Drop to 27T at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has $51MM June 30 Insurance Asset
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries' Liability at $43MM at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $644MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Posts $1.576-Bil. June 30 Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DTE Energy Co. Records $20MM Reduction for ARO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $1.92MM Liability, Defense Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.09MM Liabilities at July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22,020 Claims Pending v. Colfax Corp. at July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $418.9MM for Claims at July 1

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Posts $49.9MM A&E Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Futures Posts $481MM June 30 Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Exposure Cases Open v. Minerals Technologies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court OKs Decision in Robertson v. Garlock
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court OKs Remand Motion in Reinke's Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uhlig Suit v. Darby Bank et al. Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lindley Suit v. Darby Bank et al. Remanded
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Grant Wagner Bid in Volkswagen Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Eaton Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Mallinckrodt Rise to 11.5T at June 24

ASBESTOS UPDATE: White Mountains Records $2MM Additions to A&E
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aqua-Chem Settlement With 3 Insurer Unravels
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare's June 30 Liability at $3.94MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Earmarks $7MM for 2011 Removal Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Posts $1.09-Bil. for Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. ITT Corp. Surge to 104,316 at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Cannon Electric Case Set for Nov. 2011
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers' Liabilities Still at $8.56MM at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 214 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PREIT Has $10MM - $20MM Coverage for A&E Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walters Widow Files Suit to Claim Compensation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PH Group Seeks to Ban Asbestos in Construction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solicitors Seek Help in Sleeman Case for Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2.7T Tons of Hazard Removed From Cork Dump Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer to Lend Quigley Subsidiary Up to $65MM

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 30 Tons of Hazard Dumped in South Staffordshire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blackburn Firm Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Almost 500 NSW Police Locations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kelloway Construction Fined for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 50,390 at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Facing 16,881 Claims June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $3.4MM Net Claims Provisions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Continuing v. Eastman Chemical
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. FirstEnergy Corp. Still Continuing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,110 Open Cases at June 30


                             *********

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Merger-Related Suits Remain Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four of the six lawsuits filed against Allscripts Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., in connection with its merger with Eclipsys
Corporation, remain stayed, according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On or about June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a purported class
action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al.  The lawsuit names
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., Eclipsys Corporation, and each
of the directors of Eclipsys as defendants.  On or about June 17,
2010, John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a second purported class action
complaint in the same court and against the same defendants
(except Arsenal) captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys Corp., et al.  On
or about June 18, 2010, Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself and
the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a third purported class
action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants
as the first case and captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al.  On or
about June 22, 2010, Michael Hiers, on behalf of himself and the
public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported class
action complaint in the same court and against the same parties as
the first case and captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al.  On or about
June 22, 2010, the Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension
Plan, on behalf of itself and the public stockholders of Eclipsys,
filed a fifth purported class action complaint in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, and against the same
defendants as the first case (except Allscripts or Arsenal) and
captioned Iron Workers of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et
al.

On or about June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case
dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court
of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  On or about July 9, 2010,
the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint.
On or about July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf
of the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case
(except Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al.
The cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently
transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business
Case Division.

On August 24, 2010, Allscripts completed the merger contemplated
by an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 9, 2010, among
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Allscripts, and Eclipsys Corporation.  Eclipsys became a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Allscripts as a result of the merger.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Eclipsys
directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Eclipsys aided
and abetted those breaches.  Five of the complaints (except the
first) also allege facts concerning the proposed secondary public
offering of certain Allscripts shares owned by Misys and the buy
back by Allscripts of certain shares owned by Misys.  Certain
lawsuits also contain allegations that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement on Form S-4 is
materially misleading in certain respects including the omission
of information concerning certain financial projections and
whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have
accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock
buy back.  Certain lawsuits also allege that Allscripts aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors
of Eclipsys.  Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among
other relief, rescission of the merger or damages. They also
purport to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion to
dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint.  On or about August
5, 2010, the Georgia Court of Appeals denied Iron Workers'
emergency request for an injunction pending appeal.  The appeal
was then briefed in the ordinary course.  On November 12, 2010,
Iron Workers moved to dismiss its appeal, which the Georgia Court
of Appeals granted, rendering conclusive the Superior Court's
dismissal with prejudice of the Iron Workers lawsuit.

Also on November 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the Madala case filed
a motion to amend her complaint and to lift the litigation stay
that had been entered by the Superior Court in the other five
cases pending the Iron Workers appeal.  Defendants opposed
Madala's motion.  On January 19, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court
dismissed Madala's claims with prejudice.  The remaining four
lawsuits remain stayed by the Superior Court.

The outcome of any of the foregoing litigation is inherently
uncertain, and no reasonable estimate of potential damages is
possible.  Each company may incur substantial defense costs and
expenses.  An unfavorable outcome may adversely affect the
combined company's business, financial condition or results of
operations.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  Its
businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide physicians
and other healthcare professionals with just-right, just-in-time
information, connect them to each other and to the entire
community of care, and transform healthcare by improving the
quality and efficiency of patient care.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., continues to defend itself
in a stockholder class action complaint in Illinois, according to
the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 4, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Company, Glen Tullman and William Davis by the Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund on
behalf of a purported class consisting of stockholders who
purchased Allscripts common stock between May 8, 2007 and February
13, 2008.  On October 13, 2009, David Robb was appointed lead
plaintiff, and on November 25, 2009, an amended complaint was
filed containing allegations that the Company, Tullman and Davis
made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
in connection with the release of TouchWorks EHR, Version 11.  On
January 11, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On April 13, 2010, the court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently
describe the confidential sources upon which the allegations in
the amended complaint were based. On May 12, 2010, the court
granted plaintiffs leave to replead.  On May 14, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, which attributed certain
allegations to four different confidential witnesses, but made no
other substantive changes.  On June 11, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  On
March 10, 2011, the motion was granted in substantial part.
However, the Court denied the motion with respect to two alleged
false statements.  The defendants have answered the remaining
portions of the complaint, initiated discovery and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., is a provider of clinical,
financial, connectivity and information solutions and related
professional services that empower hospitals, physicians and post-
acute organizations to deliver world-class outcomes.  Its
businesses deliver innovative solutions that provide physicians
and other healthcare professionals with just-right, just-in-time
information, connect them to each other and to the entire
community of care, and transform healthcare by improving the
quality and efficiency of patient care.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Hearing on Suit Dismissal Plea Set for Sept. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit
against American Apparel Inc. are set to be heard on September 12,
2011, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2011.

Four putative class action lawsuits, entitled Anthony Andrade v.
American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx), Douglas
Ormsby v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx),
James Costa v. American Apparel, et al., Case No. CV106516 MMM
(RCx), and Wesley Childs v. American Apparel, et al., Case No.
CV106680 GW (JCGx), were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on August 25, 2010, August 31,
2010, August 31, 2010, and September 8, 2010, respectively,
against the Company and certain of its officers and executives on
behalf of American Apparel shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and August 17,
2010.  On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were consolidated
for all purposes into a case entitled In re American Apparel, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 (the "Federal
Securities Action").  On March 14, 2011, the District Court
appointed the firm of Barroway Topaz, LLP to serve as lead counsel
and Mr. Charles Rendelman to serve as lead plaintiff.  On April
29, 2011, Mr. Rendelman filed an Amended Class Action Complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers, and Lion, alleging
two causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Act, and Rules 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b),
arising out of alleged misrepresentations contained in its press
releases, public filings with the SEC, and other public statements
relating to (i) the adequacy of its internal and financial control
policies and procedures; (ii) its employment practices; and (iii)
the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500 employees following an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement inspection would have on the
Company.  Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief as the
Court may deem proper.  On May 31, 2011, Defendants filed motions
to dismiss the Federal Securities Action.  A hearing on the
motions is scheduled for September 12, 2011.  Discovery is stayed
in the Federal Securities Action, as well as in the Federal
Derivative Action, pending resolution of motions to dismiss the
Federal Securities Action.

The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of these
matters at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of
these claims or the financial exposure which could result may
change from time to time as the matters proceed through their
course.

Los Angeles, Calif.-based American Apparel, Inc. (NYSE Amex: APP)
-- http://www.americanapparel.com/-- is a vertically integrated
manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of branded fashion basic
apparel.  As of September 2010, American Apparel employed over
10,000 people and operated 278 retail stores in 20 countries,
including the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, United
Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Israel, Australia, Japan,
South Korea and China.


APPLE INC: Korean iPhone Users Set to File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap News reports that a class action lawsuit seeking
compensation for privacy violations by U.S. electronics maker
Apple Inc. was set to be filed on Aug. 17 with a regional court in
South Korea, a law firm dealing with the litigation said.

A total of 27,612 Korean users of Apple's iPhone joined a class
action suit last month demanding compensation for the smartphone's
user location tracking functions that they claimed violated their
right to privacy, said Miraelaw, the law firm based in Changwon,
398 kilometers southeast of Seoul.

The company said it would lodge the suit with the Changwon
District Court on Aug. 17 to demand the U.S.-based headquarters of
Apple and its local unit Apple Korea pay KRW1 million (US$934.8)
in compensation per person.

The company would use the country's Internet litigation service to
file the suit for 26,691 out of the total 27,612 iPhone users who
joined the action, it said.

Lawsuits representing the remaining users would be filed in the
near future after necessary paperwork, it added.

The class action suit came after an attorney of the law firm
received KRW1 million in Apple's first ever compensation payment
in Korea after the regional court accepted in a summary decision
the attorney's request of compensation for iPhone's secret
functions to track and store data on users' location.


AT&T: Seeks Injunctions Against Customers to Avert Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan MacDonald, writing for ConsumerReports.org, reports that AT&T
has filed lawsuits seeking injunctions against customers who are
trying to stop the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.  The
wireless company has filed eight lawsuits in eight states.  The
injunctions are meant to stop customers from joining together for
a class-action lawsuit against AT&T.

In July, law firm Bursor and Fisher filed a $39 million lawsuit on
behalf of AT&T customers who were against the merger, citing
potential fee hikes as a concern.  That lawsuit has garnered more
than 1,000 signatures.

The firm promised each customer a reward as high as $10,000, based
on a clause from AT&T's own arbitration agreement.  AT&T, however,
called the claims "completely without merit" and said customers
are prevented from filing class-action lawsuits by the terms of
the same agreement.  AT&T also said arbitrators have no standing
to block a corporate merger.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that AT&T customers could
not file class-action lawsuits against the carrier, after
customers from California filed a class-action lawsuit over a $30
sales tax on a phone that was otherwise free.  The Supreme Court
said the customers were prevented from filing the suit based on
the terms of the arbitration agreement.

AT&T filed the lawsuits just a few hours after a letter drafted by
the general counsel of AT&T surfaced on the Web.  That heavily-
redacted letter seemed to indicate that AT&T was planning to spend
only $3.8 billion to expand its LTE wireless coverage -- just a
fraction of the $39 billion it would spend to acquire T-Mobile to
accomplish the same goal.


BP PLC: Kenneth Feinberg Responds to Claims Handling Criticisms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that
Kenneth Feinberg has responded to criticism of his handling of the
claims process for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which BP pays
him $1.5 million a month to oversee.  Plaintiffs' counsel claimed
that Mr. Feinberg's Gulf Coast Claims Facility does not comply
with the Oil Pollution Act's claims process, and creates "a moving
target that no claimant stands a fair chance of hitting."

Plaintiff attorneys in July asked the federal judge overseeing the
oil spill litigation to appoint a special master to monitor the
claims process.  They claim that Mr. Feinberg's GCCF violated "the
spirit of the Court's Order seeking to protect plaintiffs and
putative class members from confusion and misunderstanding; and
that the releases obtained from plaintiffs and other putative
class members are invalid and should not be enforced."

The consolidated litigation is overseen by U.S. District Judge
Carl Barbier.

In his reply, filed on Aug. 15, Mr. Feinberg says it would not be
legal for Judge Barbier to appoint a special master to oversee the
claims process.  He claims the claims process is working in a fair
and simple way.

Mr. Feinberg says that even claimants who end up taking the $5,000
quick-pay option (or $25,000 for businesses) which requires that
they waive the right to sue or seek more money from BP, recognize
that the process "provides an extraordinary and generous
opportunity" for payment.

In their filing in July, plaintiffs' counsel said a special master
is needed to assure compliance with the OPA, to ensure accurate
communication with claimants, to make findings or recommendations
on OPA's presentment requirements, and to make recommendations
regarding the scope and or efficacy of releases of claims.

The plaintiffs said: "The GCCF's own June 2011 statistics reveal
the GCCF has paid fewer than 16% of interim claims filed, compared
with the 97% payment rate of 'quick' final claims accompanied by
releases."

The releases accompanying final payment bar claimants from ever
seeking more money from BP or any other parties in the litigation,
including the U.S. Coast Guard.

But the plaintiffs say: "By amending OPA in 1996 to establish the
mandatory interim claim requirement, Congress sought to ensure
that victims were paid immediately after an oil spill without
losing right to pursue long-term claims."

They add: "The abject failure of the interim claims process
administered by the GCCF is the latest, and most troubling, in a
long line of actions by BP designed to 'close the books' on the
oil spill."

Mr. Feinberg replied that the interim payments, which plaintiff
attorneys say are not being paid, are not required by the OPA, and
that "any reasonably objective person genuinely interested in the
welfare of those damaged by the spill would acknowledge and
commend the extraordinary scope and speed," of the GCCF.

Mr. Feinberg added: "The GCCF's exceptional job of fulfilling
Congress's intent to expedite recovery and minimize litigation was
recently recognized by Mississippi Governor [Haley] Barbour in
testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations:

"'We don't get many complaints in Mississippi [regarding the
GCCF].  They're doing something that's complicated, and I will say
this about it.  It is sure better than having to litigate all
this, where people wouldn't get their money for years and years
and years, and the trial lawyers would get half the money.'"

In July, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood sued Mr. Feinberg
to try to get access to GCCF claims filed by coastal residents.
Mr. Hood said that if Mr. Feinberg would "open the books for
Mississippi claims, we will find they have not treated our claims
fairly," according to a July 12 report from ABC News.

Mr. Feinberg's document does not address his attorney general's
lawsuit.

Mr. Feinberg wrote: "Plaintiffs' position rests on a profound
misunderstanding of both OPA and the GCCF's activities -- i.e.
both of the law and the facts.  On the law, plaintiffs badly
misconstrue OPA in saying that it contains a 'requirement to ***
pay interim claims' and 'requires BP to pay interim claims' Pltfs.
Br. at 1, 12.  OPA provides that a claimant may sue the
responsible party in court if the presentment process does not
produce a settlement -- hardly a scheme consistent with a
mandatory duty to pay (which in any event would violate due
process).  Plaintiffs also err in saying that the releases the
GCCF requires for the payment of final (not interim claims) are
invalid (Plntfs. Br. at 1), for both the text and the legislative
history of the act shows that releases are critical to OPA's goal
of settling claims outside of court."

Mr. Feinberg said that between from May 14 to Aug. 12 this year,
the GCCF paid 12,440 interim claims totaling $168 million. Total
claims paid so far come to $283 million, for 23,027 claimants,
Mr. Feinberg wrote.

But the plaintiffs claimed that "as of late January 2011, the GCCF
paid one interim claim out of the 42,155 interim claims submitted.
In contrast, by the same date, the GCCF has paid 81,933 quick pay
claims out of 85,741 quick pay claims submitted."

The plaintiffs cite examples from nonprofits that help fishermen
get compensation from BP.  They say that claimants take quick-pay
claims out of fear and desperation: "While the statistics clearly
indicate that the GCCF is paying quick pay claims and not paying
interim claims, they do not offer a clear understanding of the
type and quality of relief actually flowing to claimants.  For
example, the [GCCF's] statistics do not distinguish whether
interim claimants actually received interim relief, or some other
type of payment -- for example, a quick payment.  It is also
unclear if the number of claims paid includes any or all of the
3,658 claimants who accepted final offers.  Even the 13.6% of
interim claimants who have been paid may have, in fact, been paid
through the quick pay option.  The GCCF Status Report ambiguously
reports 'claimants paid' not 'interim claims paid.' The dollar
amount of interim claims paid to individuals averages $6,441.84,
barely more than the $5,000 individual quick settlements being
offered by the GCCF.  Similarly, businesses receiving interim
relief have been paid on average $25,249.39, not even $250 more
than the quick business settlement of $25,000.

"The GCCF's figures suggest that many payments made on interim
claims were, in fact, quick pay equivalents made in exchange for
the claimant signing a release and assignment of rights.
Regardless of the GCCF's confusing representations on how many
interim claims have been paid, one thing is clear: the vast
majority of interim claimants have received no payment whatsoever.
More significantly, only 184,091 of 511,171 claimants, that is to
say 36 percent of all claimants, have received any payment at all
from the GCCF at any time."

Mr. Feinberg, however, claims that the plaintiffs "fail to
appreciate that the quick payment program provides an
extraordinary and generous opportunity to claimants.  It offers
them the option to obtain $5,000 (for individuals) or $25,000 (for
businesses) in full satisfaction of their remaining claims, even
if the claimant cannot substantiate further losses (because of
poor recordkeeping for example), or did not even incur further
losses beyond those for which the claimant has already received
compensation from either BP or the GCCF.  It is therefore
unsurprising that more than 120,000 claimants have elected to take
advantage of this program.

"Plaintiffs' suggestion that only 'desperate people' elect to take
a quick payment . . . is made without any supporting evidence.
Moreover, plaintiffs' position rests on the unproven assertion
that some number of claimants have accepted quick payments when
they might have received greater recoveries had they elected to
pursue other claim options.  Even if this were true, it can be a
perfectly rational decision to accept an assured short-term
payment over a possibly larger but postponed long-term payment.
Threatened and pending lawsuits are routinely settled on the basis
of such considerations, and those settlements are not subject to
challenge on the ground that a party had a choice to make between
accepting an early certain payment or waiting to see whether more
might be received in the future.  Plaintiffs' unsupported
supposition that the citizens of the Gulf are incapable of
evaluating their options and making an informed decision to accept
or reject the Quick Payment option is patronizing at best."

Mr. Feinberg adds: "A recurring theme of plaintiff's brief is that
the GCCF is throwing up roadblocks to Interim Payment claimants to
force them to accept Quick Payments and sign releases. E.g.,
Pltfs. Br. at 11 ('GCCF is strategically and systematically
forcing putative class members to accept quick payments with
accompanying releases because they are offered no other viable
option.).  These allegations are made without a shred of
evidentiary support beyond conclusory affidavits based on second-
hand information and anecdotal newspaper reports about supposedly
frustrated claimants who have accepted Quick Payments --
inadmissible hearsay that provides no basis for reaching any
conclusions about either the GCCF's motives or its operations.

"Moreover, plaintiff's supposed statistical evidence of the GCCF's
allegedly coercive activities -- that it pays of a higher
percentage of Quick Payment claims than Interim Claims (Pltfs. Br.
2, 4, 5) -- has a simple answer: Quick Payment Claims are almost
presumptively payable.  They require no substantiation other than
proof that the claimant previously received an EAP or an Interim
Payment.  By contrast, an Interim Claim requires the claimant to
document previous earnings and claimed losses, and can include
fully documented claims, imperfectly documented claims, invalid
claims, and fanciful claims.  . . . Hence one claim type presumes
entitlement and is paid almost automatically while the other
requires the careful attention of GCCF to ascertain whether it has
satisfied certain prescribed minimum standards (as OPA
contemplates)."

A copy of the Brief Amicus Curiae of Kenneth R. Feinberg as
Administrator of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility in Response to
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Supervision Over the
BP Interim Claims Process in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010,
Case No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/16/FeinbergDoc.pdf

Mr. Feinberg is represented by:

          William F. Sheehan, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4432
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          E-mail: wsheehan@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          David B. Pitofsky, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 813-8800
          E-mail: dpitofsky@goodwinprocter.com


Plaintiffs' document was filed by Stephen Herman of New Orleans
and James Roy of Lafayette, both of plaintiff liaison counsel.


BP PLC: Feinberg Removes Oil Spill Case to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that nearly a
month after being sued by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood,
Kenneth Feinberg -- the man put in charge of compensating victims
of the BP oil spill -- has removed the case to federal court.

Mr. Feinberg did so on Aug. 11, arguing that the lawsuit filed by
Mr. Hood in Hinds County Chancery Court should be heard in federal
court because it concerns the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
and the Class Action Fairness Act.

"The state court action arises out of or in connection with BP's
Deepwater Horizon drilling activities, which were an operation
conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf that involved the
exploration, development or production of minerals of the subsoil
and seabed of the Outer Continental Shelf within the meaning of
(federal law)," Mr. Feinberg's notice of removal says.

In March, Mr. Hood said he planned to put pressure on
Mr. Feinberg, the director of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.  The
month before, Mr. Hood's office served Mr. Feinberg with a
subpoena asking for full access to the GCCF's claims records so it
could review them.

Mr. Hood says Mr. Feinberg has failed to comply with that
subpoena.

The attorney general, in his lawsuit, asked the court to order
Mr. Feinberg and the claims facility to fully comply with his
subpoena.

Mr. Feinberg is also making the argument that Mr. Hood's lawsuit
involves more than $5 million and a large number of Mississippi
citizens, making it a class action.  It's a similar argument that
has been made in other recent cases involving state attorneys
general, including lawsuits filed by Louisiana Attorney General
Buddy Caldwell and West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw.

An explosion and fire occurred on Transocean's drilling rig
Deepwater Horizon, licensed to BP, on April 20, 2010, killing 11
workers and resulting in the largest offshore spill in U.S.
history.


CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOC: Faces Class Action Over RTM Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Kyle, writing for The StarPhoenix, reports that a
Bradwell woman is acting as the lead plaintiff in a national class
action claim against the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and
the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).  After buying a ready-to-
move (RTM) home in 2008, Marilee Zaharia says she's still not
fully moved in and has had to pay to bring the house up to code,
alleging the CSA wrongfully approved the American-made product as
safe and ready for sale.

The claim, which has not been proven in court, is seeking C$8
billion in damages for tens of thousands of RTM home and hotel
purchasers and RTM home dealers who cannot sell their stock as the
homes are "uncertified" and "valueless."

The SCC accredits the CSA and oversees its work.  Both
organizations say they have not received any formal notification
of the claim and deny any wrongdoing.

"The stress on my husband and I . . . has just been beyond belief.
We decided to pursue this as a legal matter just so that if one
(more) family doesn't have to go through what we've had to go
through, it's worth it," Ms. Zaharia said.

After purchasing the RTM from Saskatoon's MidCanada Modular Homes
in July 2008, a series of setbacks and safety issues has prevented
Ms. Zaharia and her husband from living comfortably in their
otherwise "beautiful" home near Bradwell.  Several irregularities
with the house, which was manufactured by Colorado-based Champion
Home Builders Co., came to light after MidCanada's owner inspected
a similar home headed to Asquith and informed Ms. Zaharia of his
concerns with the building.

It was discovered that the house had serious vapor barrier
problems -- which can lead to mold growth -- as well as issues
with trusses, joints and the electrical system.

Following months of communication, Ms. Zaharia said the CSA and
the manufacturer visited the property in July 2009, stripping the
house to its skeleton and re-building the structure.  During that
time, the owner said the CSA removed its safety approval sticker
from the house without her permission.

Ms. Zaharia said the CSA approval is why she purchased the RTM
home in the first place.

She said she decided to take legal action after feeling "pushed
into a corner" about the situation.  Ms. Zaharia and her husband
say they're concerned about people who have purchased the homes
but may not be aware of any problems, or can't afford to fix their
own RTM house.

"We are livid that we are the only ones that got anything done
with their house," she said of the 2009 manufacturer inspection.

"These houses are sent up to rural communities, they're sent up to
the aboriginal communities because they can't get construction
people in there, they're sent to families who may not be able to
afford a builder to come to their place."

Regina-based lawyer Tony Merchant, who has taken on the class
action claim through his firm Merchant Law Group LLP, explained
the claim against the safety bodies alleges the CSA failed in its
duty to properly inspect the RTM homes and did not have the
authority to do so.  According to the claim, the SCC did not
accredit the CSA to legally certify RTM homes until September
2010, however the CSA was inspecting the products between 2002 and
September of last year.

"The problem for people is a double problem -- the CSA didn't have
the authority to do what they were doing and in many instances
weren't doing it well," he said.

Mr. Merchant said the C$8 billion the class action is claiming in
damages would cover some 10,000 to 15,000 Canadian owners of such
homes he believes were wrongfully approved by the CSA, along with
dealers who are stuck with unsalable stock.  The claim alleges
MidCanada, for example, has suffered direct and indirect losses of
some C$9 million.

"CSA is a huge organization but a non-profit organization, so this
could be the death knell of the CSA," Mr. Merchant added.

Pilar Castro, spokesperson for the SCC, said it's taking the
allegations seriously.  However, she added, the organization needs
to receive the formal legal documents before taking action on the
claim.

"We take all allegations very seriously, so we're certainly trying
to understand what's being put forward," Ms. Castro said.  "As a
third-party accreditation party, any Canadian, whether it be a
business or an individual, can come to us with concerns about the
programs that we run.  So any time that does happen, we look at
those very carefully."

Ms. Castro confirmed the CSA was accredited for the RTM
inspections in 2010, adding she doesn't believe the SCC should be
named in the claim.

The CSA has been certifying manufactured modular buildings in
accordance with industry standards since 1972, said Anthony
Toderian, spokesperson for the CSA.  He said the association
stands by the validity of its testing certification process and
its factory inspection process.

"The CSA is devoted to public safety and has been for more than 90
years," Mr. Toderian said.  "We have a process that's
internationally recognized in terms of product review and
certification.

"(The) CSA wants to reassure the public and all interested parties
that it will vigorously defend the organization, its reputation
and its processes against any and all unfounded allegations or
attacks on its reputation and credibility."

Mr. Toderian could not speak to the allegations in the claim as,
like the SCC, the CSA also has not received formal documents.


CARDIONET INC: Court to Hear Plea to Dismiss IPO Suit on Sept. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court is set to hear CardioNet, Inc.'s request to
dismiss a class action complaint related to its initial public
offering on September 2, 2011, according to the Company's
August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On March 5, 2010, West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, San
Diego County, asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against
CardioNet, nine current and former officers and directors of
CardioNet and six underwriters of CardioNet's initial public
offering (IPO) and/or Secondary Offering (together with the IPO,
the "Offerings").  The complaint filed also asserted claims for
alleged violations of Sections 25401 and 25501 of the California
Corporations Code against defendants James M. Sweeney and Fred
Middleton.  The plaintiff seeks to bring claims on behalf of all
those who acquired the common stock of CardioNet pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Offerings.  On March 10, 2010,
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that deleted the claims for
violations of the California Corporations Code.  The claims are
based on purported misrepresentations and omissions in the
Registration Statements for the Offerings relating to alleged
business decisions made by CardioNet that were supposedly not
disclosed to investors and alleged misstatements concerning
CardioNet's business.  On April 5, 2010, all defendants removed
the case to the Southern District of California.  On April 7,
2010, defendants filed a Motion to Transfer the case to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On April 23, 2010, the
plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court.  On March 24,
2011, the court granted the plaintiff's Motion remanding the case
to the Superior Court of the State of California.  Upon remand,
the parties agreed by stipulation that defendants' response to the
Amended Complaint would be due on or before May 12, 2011.  On May
12, 2011, defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the
action for failure to state a cause of action.  Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the demurrer on July 11, 2011, and defendants
filed a reply on August 1, 2011.  The Court is scheduled to hear
argument on the demurrer on September 2, 2011.  In addition, on
May 10, 2011, plaintiff served discovery requests on defendants.
Defendants served timely responses to the discovery requests and
objected to them on various grounds.  In conjunction with those
objections, on May 25, 2011, defendants filed a motion for a
protective order seeking a stay of discovery until the Court has
decided defendants' demurrer as provided for under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.  That motion has been fully
briefed, and the Court was scheduled to hear oral argument on
defendants' motion for a protective order on
August 5, 2011.  Consistent with the accounting for contingent
liabilities, no accrual has been recorded in the financial
statements.  The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation that provides continuous, real-time ambulatory
outpatient management solutions for monitoring relevant and timely
clinical information regarding an individual's health.  In
September 1999, the Company began its focus on helping physicians
more rapidly diagnose and more effectively manage therapy for
patients with cardiovascular disease.  The Company began
developing its product platform in April 2000.  The Company then
spent seven years developing a proprietary integrated patient
management platform that incorporates a wireless data transmission
network, internally developed software, Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) cleared algorithms and medical devices, and a
24-hour digital monitoring service center.  The Company is
currently focused on the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiac
arrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders, through its core Mobile
Cardiac Outpatient Telemetry(TM), event and Holter services.


CERTAINTEED CORP: Faces Class Action Over Defective Siding
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CertainTeed's fiber cement
siding has been "severely defective" since 2002, when it began
making it with fly ash instead of sand, a class action claims in
Federal Court.  The class adds that using fly ash gave CertainTeed
"large federal tax breaks."

A copy of the Complaint in Patota v. Certainteed Corporation,
Case No. 11-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/16/Siding.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Nicolas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          Stan P. Baudin, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
          24110 Eden Street
          Post Office Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com


CRAYOLA: Faces Class Action Over Washable Colored Bubbles
---------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson, writing for KOMO News, reports that Crayola's new
bubble product is turning out to be a bust with some consumers who
say Crayola's Washable Colored Bubbles are not as washable as the
company claims.  Now a local mother is joining a class action
lawsuit against Crayola and its parent company, Hallmark.

Alyson Herfert says she purchased several bottles of the Washable
Colored Bubble for her 5-year-old daughter's birthday party.  But
she switched to regular bubbles after a test run left stains on
her patio furniture and wood deck.

"I think its unfair that you would take home the bubbles and you
would use them and they would get all over everything to the point
where your personal belongings are ruined, or they take an
instruction manual to be cleaned," said Ms. Herfert.

The fine print on the label warns you should wash the stains
immediately, and that repeat laundering may be required.  The
label also warns against using the bubbles indoors, and says the
product should be kept away from brick, vinyl, finished and
unfinished wood, wallpaper, painted walls, carpeting, draperies
and other materials that cannot be laundered.

On its Web site, Crayola even offers an extensive list of stain
removal instructions for a variety of surfaces, including specific
cleaning products recommended for each situation.

"To me, washable means washable, not washable with an instruction
manual, not washable with harsh chemicals," said Ms. Herfert.

"It sounds like it should come with a cleaning kit as well," said
Seattle attorney Gretchen Freeman Cappio, whose firm Keller
Rorhback LLP, represents Ms. Herfert and two other plaintiffs in
Texas and New York.  The suit seeks class-action status for all
consumers who purchased the colored bubble product.

"The parents in this case want three main things," said
Ms. Cappio.  "First they would like the bubble to be truthfully
advertised.  They can say colored bubbles but the washable part
should be stricken.  Secondly they'd like their money back, and
thirdly, they'd like to be reimbursed for the money they spent on
products to wash the bubbles off."

Ms. Herfert told the Problem Solvers she's not interested about
the money as much as sending a messages to manufacturer's about
truth in advertising. She and other parents across the country
have been sharing the stain stories on blogs.

"It's going to make Crayola be responsible for what they put on
the label" said Ms. Herfert.

Crayola would not comment for this story, explaining they don't
comment on legal matters.  A spokeswoman instead referred to the
company's Web site, which clarifies what washable means and goes
into detail about the stain removal process for all of its
washable color products.

It will be several months before we know if the judge will allow
the class-action suit to go forward.


DERMATECH INTRADERMAL: Dermalive Class Action Wins Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Bellaart, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a
British Columbia court has approved a class-action lawsuit after a
Vancouver Island woman received an injectable beauty treatment she
claims made her skin inflamed, scarred and disfigured.

In May 2006, Sharon Lynn Logan was treated with Dermalive for
lines around her mouth.  Within six months, the Nanaimo woman
reported developing lumps on her face.

The Supreme Court of B.C. approved certification of her case as a
class action earlier this month against Dermatech Intradermal
Distribution Inc. and Vivier Pharma Inc.

Ms. Logan's lawyer, David Rosenberg, estimates 500 women in Canada
qualify.  In Canada, 10,901 syringes of the product were used
before it was taken off the market.  The product was manufactured
by a company in Paris that no longer exists but the lawsuit
includes the Quebec distributor.  The company could not be
reached.

Health Canada approved Dermalive in 2003, the same year its
license as a medical product was suspended in France.

The product is banned in the United States and Health Canada
suspended Dermalive's use in 2007.

An attempt at a C$10-million class action in Quebec Superior Court
launched several years ago on behalf of Doris Durand, a Montreal
Dermalive user, and other women failed due to legal complications.

"I'm expecting all those women in Quebec will contact me now,
too," Mr. Rosenberg said.

Ms. Logan, a Nanaimo optician, is glad the case has been certified
"because now we can move forward."

The lawsuit was first filed in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver
in April 2009.


FBR & CO: Court Dismisses Unit as Defendant in TMI-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR & Co., fka FBR
Capital Markets Corporation, has been dismissed as a defendant in
a class action complaint relating to Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., the
Company disclosed in its August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2011.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. (now FBR Capital Markets & Co. or 'FBRCM') and
eight other underwriters as defendants.  The lawsuit, styled In Re
Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. Securities Litigation and pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, was
originally filed in August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors, alleging material
misrepresentations and omissions about, inter alia, the financial
position of TMI.  The amended complaint included claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 against nine
underwriters relating to five separate offerings (May 2007, June
2007, September 2007 and two offerings in January 2008).  The
allegations against FBRCM related only to its role as underwriter
or member of the syndicate that underwrote TMI's total of three
offerings in September 2007 and January 2008 -- each of which
occurred after the filing of the original complaint -- with an
aggregate offering price of approximately $818,000. The plaintiffs
sought restitution, unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement of certain costs and expenses.  Although FBRCM is
contractually entitled to be indemnified by TMI in connection with
the lawsuit, TMI filed for bankruptcy on
May 1, 2009, and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value
of the indemnity that FBRCM receives from TMI.  On June 2, 2011
the Court granted FBRCM's motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint as to FBRCM and then entered final judgment for
FBRCM on July 25, 2011.  The deadline for the plaintiffs to notice
an appeal from the Order of Dismissal, should they chose to do so,
is the end of August 2011.

FBR & Co, fka FBR Capital Markets Corporation, is a full-service
investment banking, institutional brokerage and asset management
firm.  The Company has grown from a boutique investment bank with
primary expertise in financial institutions into a full-service
U.S. investment bank for middle-market companies.


FBR & CO: Unit Continues to Defend United Western-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of FBR & Co., fka FBR Capital Markets Corporation,
continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit relating to
its role as an underwriter of United Western Bancorp, the Company
disclosed in its August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

FBR Capital Markets & Co., the principal U.S. broker-dealer
subsidiary of FBR & Co., has been named a defendant in the
putative class action lawsuit MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v.
United Western Bancorp, Inc., et al., pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.  The complaint, filed
in March 2011 against United Western Bancorp, Inc., its officers
and directors, underwriters and outside auditors, alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with United Western's September
2009 offering.  The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the lead underwriter of
the offering and FBRCM as a member of the underwriting syndicate.
The underwriters have notified United Western that they are
contractually entitled to be indemnified by United Western as to
all related expenses and losses incurred by the underwriters in
connection with the action.

Although the case involving FBRCM are at a preliminary stage,
based on management's review with counsel and present information
currently known by management, resolution of such matters is not
expected to have a material effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

FBR & Co, fka FBR Capital Markets Corporation, is a full-service
investment banking, institutional brokerage and asset management
firm.  The Company has grown from a boutique investment bank with
primary expertise in financial institutions into a full-service
U.S. investment bank for middle-market companies.


GMX RESOURCES: Stockholder Suit Stayed Pending Plea to Remand
-------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action complaint against GMX Resources, Inc.,
has been stayed pending a ruling on a motion to remand the case to
state court, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by purported
stockholders of the Northumberland County Retirement System and
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System in the District Court
in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, purportedly on March 10, 2011,
against the Company and certain of its officers along with certain
underwriters of the Company's July 2008, May 2009 and October 2009
public offerings. Discovery requests and summons were filed and
issued, respectively, in late April 2011.  The complaint alleges
that the registration statement and the prospectus for the
offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seek
damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
of an unspecified equitable relief. Defendants removed the case to
federal court on May 12, 2011 and filed motions to dismiss on June
20, 2011.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state
court on June 10, 2011, and defendants filed an opposition to that
motion.  The federal court stayed all further proceedings in this
case until after it decides whether to remand the case to state
court.  If the case remains in federal court, plaintiffs are
expected to seek to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act and to file an amended complaint
thereafter.  The Company is currently unable to assess the
probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any,
associated with the securities class action case, which is at an
early stage.  No assurance can be given regarding the outcome of
these legal proceedings, and additional claims may arise in the
future.

GMX Resources Inc. and its subsidiaries is an independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company historically
focused on the development of the Cotton Valley group of
formations, specifically the Cotton Valley Sands layer in the
Schuler formation and the Upper Bossier, Middle Bossier and
Haynesville/Lower Bossier layers of the Bossier formation, in the
Sabine Uplift of the Carthage, North Field of Harrison and Panola
counties of East Texas.


MEDCATH CORP: Unit Reaches Settlement in Billing Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Medcath Corporation has negotiated a settlement
resolving a class action complaint relating to violations in
billing of emergency services, which resulted in the complaint
being dismissed, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

During October, 2009, a purported class action law suit was filed
by an individual against the Bakersfield Heart Hospital, a
consolidated subsidiary of the Company.  In the complaint the
plaintiff alleges that under California law, and specifically
under the Knox-Keene Healthcare Service Plan Act of 1975 and under
the Health and Safety Code of California, California prohibits the
practice of "balance billing" for patients who are provided
emergency services.  On November 24, 2010, the court granted the
Bakersfield Heart Hospital's motion to strike plaintiff's class
allegations, which the plaintiff appealed. Thereafter, the parties
discussed settlement and the matter settled in February 2011.  The
parties executed a Settlement and Release Agreement, and plaintiff
dismissed his Complaint with prejudice and his pending appeal.
Local counsel has advised that plaintiff's counsel could locate
another class representative to reinstitute the case, but the
possibility became more remote as time passes due to the statute
of limitations.

Medcath Corporation is a healthcare provider focused primarily on
providing high acuity services, including the diagnosis and
treatment of cardiovascular disease.  It owns and operates
hospitals in partnership with physicians.  At June 30, 2011, the
Company owned interests in six hospitals, with a total of 533
licensed beds, of which 489 are staffed and available, and that
are located in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, New
Mexico and Texas.  Subsequent to June 30, 2011, the Company
disposed of its interest in two hospitals located in Arkansas and
New Mexico that had 167 licensed beds.


METRO: Faces Class Action for FACTA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims that Metro, St. Louis' public transportation agency,
exposes customers to identity theft by printing credit cards'
expiration dates on receipts, along with the cards' final four
numbers.

Named plaintiffs Nancy Albright and Sarah Rodhouse sued the
Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan
District, better known as Metro, in City Court.

They claim Metro printed the expiration date of their credit cards
on receipts, in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, or FACTA.

They say Metro did it this year, almost 5 years after FACTA
required merchants to leave such information off of receipts.

Identity thieves need just a credit card number and the card's
expiration date to commit identity theft, the plaintiffs say.
Metro also prints the last four numbers of their credit card on
the receipt.

They seek class damages for FACTA violations.

They are represented by Matthew Armstrong.

A copy of the Complaint in Albright, et al. v. Bi-State
Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District
d/b/a Metro, Case No. 1122-CC09292 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/16/Metro.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
          8816 Manchester Rd., No. 109
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258-0212
          E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
          Margaret E. Vincent, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: rich@bockhatchllc.com

               - and -

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 901-8377
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


MOTRICITY INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Aug. 15 disclosed
that it has filed a class-action lawsuit against Motricity Inc. on
behalf of investors for potential violations of Federal securities
laws, including allegations of issuing materially false and
misleading statements to investors.

Investors who purchased Motricity common stock between June 18,
2010, and Aug. 9, 2011, inclusive, or through the company's
June 17, 2010, initial public offering are encouraged to contact
the firm by calling plaintiff's counsel Karl Barth at 206-623-7292
or by e-mail at MOTR@hbsslaw.com

More information is available at http://www.hbsslaw.com/motr

Investors wishing to serve as lead plaintiff must move the court
by Oct. 11, 2011.  Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on Aug. 12, 2011, alleges that
Motricity and certain of its officers and directors issued false
and materially misleading statements regarding the company's
financial results.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Motricity failed to disclose that an increase in the popularity of
smartphones would hurt the company's sales.

Motricity released its first quarter 2011 financial results on
May 3, 2011, reporting a net loss of $6.1 million.  On this news,
Motricity's stock fell 14%, closing at $10.99 per share on May 4,
2011, according to the complaint.  On August 9, 2011, the company
issued its second quarter 2011 financial results, reporting a net
loss of $4.3 million.  The next day, the company's stock opened at
$2.26 per share, a decline of 50%, the complaint details.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of common stock of Motricity stock between June 18, 2010, and
August 9, 2011.

                       About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is an investor-rights class-action law
firm with offices in ten cities.  Founded in 1993, the firm's
mission is to represent plaintiffs in class actions and multi-
party, large-scale litigation that has the potential to protect
the rights of investors, consumers, workers and the environment.


NARA BANCORP: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A memorandum of agreement has been negotiated to settle a class
action complaint relating to Nara Bancorp, Inc.'s merger deal with
Center Financial Corporation, according to the Company's August 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, a purported shareholder class action was filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court against Center Financial Corporation,
directors of the Center, and Nara Bancorp, Inc., captioned
"Rational Strategies Fund vs. Jin Chul Jhung, et, al, Center
Financial Corporation, and Nara Bancorp, Inc., Case #BC460783."
The Complaint alleges the directors of Center breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty, in approving the
proposed merger of Center and Nara Bancorp, and that all
defendants failed to properly disclose material information in the
registration statement relating to the merger that has been filed
with the SEC.  In addition, it alleges that Nara Bancorp, Inc.
aided and abetted the Center directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees, interest and costs.  The parties to the
class action have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle
the lawsuit, subject to court approval, by making certain
additional disclosures, all of which appear in the amended
Registration Statement filed by the Company on Form S-4 on
July 15, 2011.  Center has further agreed to pay, following
consummation of the merger, up to $400,000 in plaintiff's
attorneys' fees, if and to the extent awarded by the court.  Any
such payment would not become due until the merger is consummated
and would be payable by the combined company.

Nara Bancorp, Inc., incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware in 2000, is a bank holding company, headquartered in Los
Angeles, California, offering a full range of commercial banking
and certain consumer financial services through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Nara Bank.  The Bank has branches in California, New
York and New Jersey as well as a Loan Production Office in Texas.


NETWORK ENGINES: Awaits Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on a remanded appeal
from a settlement in an initial public offering class action
complaint, according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed on December 3, 2001, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and several underwriters of the Company's
July 2000 initial public offering, alleging that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing and selling securities
pursuant to the Company's IPO without disclosing to investors that
the underwriter defendants had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  The suit
seeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of
all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between July 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  On July 9, 2003, a
Special Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized
the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among the class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  The parties have negotiated the settlement, which
provides, among other things, for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended
complaint to be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the settlement, including agreeing to
assign, or not assert, certain potential claims that the Company
may have against the underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of
the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's
insurers.  Any such settlement would be subject to various
contingencies, including approval by the court overseeing the
litigation.  On February 15, 2005, the District Court issued an
Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided
that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification
narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the original
settlement agreement.  The parties agreed to a modification
narrowing the scope of the bar order, and on
August 31, 2005, the District Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its
fairness, which took place on April 24, 2006.  On December 5,
2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned the District Court's certification of the class of
plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in
the settlement against the underwriter defendants.  Thereafter,
the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the
lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second
Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class
certification issue.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that the
plaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in the
District Court.  On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an
order terminating the settlement.  On October 5, 2009, the
District Court issued an opinion granting plaintiff's motion for
final approval of a proposed settlement, approval of the plan of
distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes.  An Order and Final Judgment was entered on
December 30, 2009.  Various notices of appeal of the District
Court's October 5, 2009 order were filed.  On October 7, 2010, all
but two parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a
stipulation with the District Court withdrawing their appeals with
prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed briefs in support
of their appeals.  On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to
dismiss with prejudice the appeal filed by one of the two
appellants based on alleged violations of the Second Circuit's
rules, including failure to serve, falsifying proofs of service,
and failure to include citations to the record.  On May 17, 2011,
the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appeals and remanded the
one remaining appeal to the District Court for further proceedings
to determine whether the remaining objector has stand.  The
District Court has not yet made such a determination.  The Company
is unable to predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no
amounts have been accrued as of June 30, 2011.

Networks Engine Inc., as a system integrator, designs and
manufactures application platforms and appliance solutions on
which software applications are applied to both enterprise and
telecommunications networks.  The Company markets its application
platform solutions and services to original equipment
manufacturers, or OEMs, and independent software vendors, or ISVs,
that then deliver their software applications in the form of a
network-ready hardware or software platform.


ORIENT PAPER: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Henning" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court rejected Orient Paper, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
a stockholder class action complaint initiated by Mark Henning,
according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2011.

On August 20, 2010, the Company was served notice of a stockholder
class action lawsuit filed on August 6, 2010. in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company,
and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.  The complaint in the lawsuit,
Mark Henning v. Orient Paper et al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx),
alleges, among other claims, that the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements and omitted to state material
facts that rendered its affirmative statements misleading as they
related to the Company's financial performance, business
prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed
to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees.  Mr. Henning
purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class
consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).  One group of three shareholders
with a total alleged loss of approximately $150,000 has filed a
motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and has been so appointed
by the court.  The Company and the defendant officers and
directors have retained the law firm DLA Piper US LLP to represent
them in connection with the lawsuit.  The Company believes that
the lawsuit has no merit and intends to mount a vigorous defense.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2011, and
the Company filed a motion to dismiss with the court on March 14,
2011.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed their opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss on April 28, 2011.  On July 20, 2011
the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, thus allowing
the litigation to proceed.

Nevertheless, at this stage of the proceedings, management cannot
opine that a favorable outcome for the company is probable or that
an unfavorable outcome to the company is remote.

Orient Paper, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the State
of Nevada on December 9, 2005, under the name of Carlateral, Inc.
Carlateral, Inc. started its business by providing financing
services specializing in subprime title loans, secured primarily
using automobiles as collateral.


OZ MINERALS: Class Action Settlement Hits First-Half Profit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Esmarie Swanepoel, writing for Mining Weekly, reports that copper
miner Oz Minerals on Aug. 16 reported a significant decrease in
its half-year profit, owing to accounting changes and the impact
of a class action settlement.

Net profit after tax fell to AUD113.9-million during the first
half ended June 30, compared with the AUD405-million reported in
the first six months of 2010.

The ASX-listed miner paid AUD60-million to settle two class
actions in May.  Shareholders claimed that they had lost millions
of dollars in 2008, after the share price collapsed when debt
problems were revealed to the market.

The profit drop was also attributed a net change in impairment of
AUD125.9-million, the movement from foreign exchange gain of
AUD40.8-million in 2010 to a loss of AUD32.7-million in 2011, and
the impairment of AUD15.2-million on the investment in fellow
listed Toro Energy.

Chairperson Neil Hamilton said on Aug. 16 that financial and
commodity markets remained volatile during the period, adding that
while no company was immune to this financial volatility, Oz
Minerals was in a strong financial position.

MD and CEO Terry Burgess said that during the first half of the
year, Oz Minerals was able to capitalize on a period of strong
commodity prices through "sound operations" at its Prominent Hill
mine, in South Australia, and its strong cash flows, which had
helped to facilitate the Carrapateena project.

"We see the company in a growth phase.  We are continuing to
invest significantly in exploration around Prominent Hill, are
starting an exploration and development program to bring the
Carrapateena project into production, and continue to actively
seek new value-adding opportunities in copper," said Mr. Burgess.

Oz Minerals reported lower copper and gold production in the first
half of the year, with copper output falling 10.6% to 53 725 t,
while gold production slipped 5.2% to 86 129 oz. Silver production
reached 276 501 oz.

Despite the weaker production performance, Oz said that its
operations were on schedule to meet the yearly production guidance
of between 100 000 t and 110 000 t of copper.

Mr. Burgess said that the focus for Oz Minerals remained on
maximizing copper production levels, as revenue generated from the
treatment of copper ore was around four times that generated from
the treatment of gold ore, at current commodity prices, and as
such, the treatment of copper was given priority in the mill.


RADIO FLYER: Recalls 165,000 Scoot 'n Zoom Riding Toys
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Radio Flyer, of Chicago, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall of
about 165,000 units of Scoot 'n Zoom children's riding toy.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The riding toy can tip over allowing a child to fall forward while
riding, posing a fall hazard to young children.

The firm received reports of ten incidents with six injuries,
including three where teeth were loosened or removed, and three
with chin lacerations requiring stitches.

The riding toy is red molded plastic with black wheels and
measures 19 inches long, 11 inches wide and 13.5 inches tall.  The
riding toy's model number 711 can be found molded on the underside
of the toy.  Units with a yellow UPC sticker underneath the
product with model #711B are not recalled.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11305.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Walmart and other retailers, and online at
Amazon.com and Target.com from August 2010 through August 2011 for
about $20.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled products away from
children and contact Radio Flyer to receive a free replacement
unit or refund.  For additional information, contact Radio Flyer
at (800) 621-7613 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time
Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site at
http://www.radioflyer.com/


SIMPATICO INC: Franchisees File Class Action Over FTC Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that franchisees
claim in a class action that Simpatico violated Federal Trade
Commission rules, misled them about the terms of its office-
cleaning agreements, and churned franchises, terminating them
without cause to get fees by re-selling the franchises.

St. Louis-based Simpatico sells office building-cleaning
franchises.  Simpatico means "nice" or "friendly" in Spanish.

"Plaintiffs allege that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiffs
to enter into franchise agreements by failing to disclose all
costs associated with the franchise, failing to disclose the
identities of all franchises who had there [sic] franchises
terminated, failing to comply with the disclosure requirements of
the Federal Trade Commission, providing earnings claims to the
class without proper documentation, and by failing to disclose the
turnover rate of its franchises," according to the complaint in
City Court.

The three named plaintiffs say they had to pay undisclosed
administrative fees and that Simpatico did not give them notice
when it terminated their franchises.

"Plaintiffs allege that defendant engaged in 'churning' in which
the franchisor cancels the franchise agreement without just cause
for the sole purpose of re-selling the franchise location, thus
obtaining more upfront franchise fees," the complaint states.

The class consists of all Missourians who have bought a franchise
from Simpatico in the past 10 years and did not earn the monthly
income they were guaranteed, and/or had their franchise terminated
due for unjustifiable reasons and/or with improper notice or no
notice.

They seek actual and punitive damages for fraud, breach of
contract and violation of the Missouri Franchise Termination
Statute.

A copy of the Complaint in Alimanovic, et al. v. Simpatico, Inc.,
Case No. 1122-CC09285 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/16/Simpatico.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
          79 Hubble Drive, Suite 101
          Dardenne Prairie, MO 63368
          Telephone: (314) 522-2312
          E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Muhammad, writing for FinalCall.com, reports that a
Louisiana judge has given a preliminary approval to a $25 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit by plaintiffs against a New
Orleans hospital that was submerged in flood waters after the
levees broke following Hurricane Katrina.

The settlement was reached between Tenet Healthcare Corp., which
owned New Orleans' Memorial Medical Center at the time, and an
undisclosed number of plaintiffs who were either being cared for
in the hospital or said family members died due to hospital
negligence.

"It is a shame that people who suffered so much during and after
Katrina has waited this long to receive compensation.  The wheels
of justice grind very slowly in this city," Jacques Morial, a
health rights advocate, told The Final Call.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of at least 187 people, charges that
Tenet Healthcare failed to properly prepare the hospital for the
storm or establish evacuation plans.  Backup power generators
malfunctioned after floodwaters surrounded the hospital and the
temperature inside escalated.  Reportedly 45 patients lost their
lives and some doctors later admitted to unethically euthanizing
patients.  Tenet Healthcare argued that the fault should be laid
at the feet of the breached levees and the slothful response of
FEMA.

"This $25 million can in no way fully compensate for what people
have endured all of these years since Katrina.  I believe they
purposely drag on cases like this in hopes that people will get
word out and will eventually settle for less than what they
receive.  It's good that the people are getting something but we
should never think this amount matches the full damages done to
their lives," said Mr. Morial, who is also the brother of former
New Orleans mayor Marc Morial.

On July 20, Civil District Judge Rosemary Ledet granted the
preliminary approval and said it was "fair, reasonable and
adequate."  A fairness hearing is scheduled for Oct. 27 to allow
plaintiffs time to object to the amount of the settlement if they
so choose.  Once the final approval is made Gilbert Andry IV, a
court-appointed Special Master, will determine how much each
plaintiff will receive.

This settlement comes on the heels of an agreement reached in
another lawsuit brought against the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the state of Louisiana regarding the highly
criticized Road Home program.  The federal government awarded $62
million in Road Home funds to 1,460 homeowners.

The New Orleans Police Department is also in the midst of trials
that are unraveling Katrina-related incidents, including officers
allegedly taking the lives of innocent citizens.  Mr. Morial
believes more lawsuits and exposure of corruption during that
catastrophic storm are yet to be unveiled.

"I would like to hope not, but I expect to see more of these
things unfolding for years to come out of what happened before and
after Katrina," said Mr. Morial.


UMAREX USA: Recalls to Repair 9,500 Browning 800 Mag Air Pistols
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Umarex USA Inc., of Fort Smith, Arkansas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 9,500 Browning Air Pistols.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Under a variety of circumstances, the safety will not prevent the
gun from firing.  This poses a risk of serious injury to the user
or bystanders.

The firm has received one report of the pistol discharging while
the safety was engaged.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Browning 800 Mag Air pistols, which are
black and measure 18 inches by 7 inches.  The Browning logo and
"800 Mag" are printed on the top of the air pistol's barrel block.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11304.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Turkey and sold at
sporting goods stores and gun shops nationwide from July 2006
through February 2008 for about $180.

Consumers should immediately stop using the air pistol, ensure it
is unloaded and contact Umarex USA to receive instructions on
returning the air pistol for a free repair.  Umarex USA will
engrave repaired pistols with a "P" on the left side of the
receiver, forward of the plastic end cap.  Until repaired,
consumers should safely store the unloaded pistol in its open or
uncocked state.  For additional information, contact Umarex USA
toll-free at (866) 503-3389 anytime, or visit their Web site at
http://www.umarexusa.com/


UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Sued Over Shackling Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Department of Homeland Security's practice of shackling all
immigration detainees at wrists, waist and ankles in San Francisco
Immigration Court violates their civil rights.

A copy of the Complaint in De Abadia-Peixoto, et al. v. United
States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
04001 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/16/Shackles.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Berger, Esq.
          Thomas J. Martin, Esq.
          Catherine E. Moreno, Esq.
          Analisa M. Pratt, Esq.
          Savith S. Iyengar, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          E-mail: tmartin@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Philip Hwang, Esq.
          Paul Chavez, Esq.
          Audrey Daniel, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-9444
          E-mail: pchavez@lccr.com

               - and -

          Julia Harumi Mass, Esq.
          Alan L. Schlosser, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 621-2493
          E-mail: jmass@aclunc.org


WASHINGTON HUMANE SOCIETY: Pet Owners Lose Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to certify a class to sue the District of Columbia
and Washington Humane Society officials for allegedly seizing
their pets without due process.

Willie Jackson is the only individual remaining from the three
original plaintiffs who sought to represent the proposed class.
The other two plaintiffs either left the country or died.

They claimed that the city seized their pets without notice and
damaged or destroyed the animals by sterilizing them.

Mr. Jackson said his female Rottweiler was dying of cancer when
the humane society entered his home and took custody of the dog.
They allegedly refused to release the animal unless Jackson paid
for expensive surgery.  After Mr. Jackson finally agreed to the
sought-after "radical" treatment, it was unsuccessful and the dog
died.

Sunday Daskalea, who has since moved out of the United States,
said her dog was seized from her car, which she left unattended
"to get some things" from her apartment.  The humane society
neutered full-bred, pedigreed Dogo Argentino, which Ms. Daskalea
had bought in part for breeding.  Before the dog was seized, it
had been fed, watered and walked and was not in danger, according
to the complaint.

Francis Norris, MD, claimed her dog was also seized from his car
while he was at the gym.  She said she left food and water in the
car for the Schipperke lap dog, parked her car under a shady tree
and cracked the windows.  The humane society would only release
the dog after Mr. Norris paid for unnecessary treatment, but the
dog came back to her in "bedraggled" and "terrible condition."
Mr. Norris has since died.

A magistrate judge rejected Mr. Jackson's class estimates that
6,000 to 11,000 people had their animals seized like he had.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly accepted the
recommendation and denied class certification on Aug. 10.

"Here, the members of the proposed class suffered a wide range of
deprivations, were provided with different kinds of notice at
different points in time, and claim distinct injuries," Judge
Kollar-Kotelly wrote.  "These differences are of constitutional
significance and, as such, implicate class members' very ability
to prevail on their claims.  Simply put, Jackson's claims are not
typical of all or even most of the different claims that comprise
the class. Indeed, the court doubts that any single named
plaintiff could serve as the representative for the entirety of
the broad class proposed."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Daskalea, et al. v. Washington
Humane Society, et al., Case No. 03-cv-02074 (D.D.C.), is
available at:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2003cv2074-99


WEBMD HEALTH: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
WebMD Health Corp. has been named a defendant in a class action
complaint filed by Myron and Sandy Canson, according to the
Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

On August 2, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
February 23, 2011 and July 15, 2011.  The complaint alleges that
the Company and certain of its officers made false and misleading
statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  The
Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.  The Company is unable to predict
the outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, arising from the claim.

WebMD Health Corp. provides health information services to
consumers, physicians and other healthcare professionals,
employers and health plans through its public and private online
portals, mobile platforms and health-focused publications.  The
Company also provides mobile health information applications for
use by consumers and physicians. The Company's public portals
generate revenue primarily through the sale of advertising and
sponsorship products, including CME services.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pending Claims v. Dana Drop to 27T at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation had about 27,000 active pending asbestos
personal injury liability claims at June 30, 2011 versus 30,000 at
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on July 28, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company had about 29,000 active pending asbestos personal
injury liability claims at March 31, 2011.  (Class Action
Reporter, May 31, 2011)

In addition, about 11,000 mostly inactive claims have been settled
and are awaiting final documentation and dismissal, with or
without payment.

The Company accrued US$96 million for indemnity and defense costs
for settled, pending and future claims at June 30, 2011, compared
to US$101 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company uses a 15-year time horizon for its estimate of this
liability.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal management products) and genuine
service parts to vehicle manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Has $51MM June 30 Insurance Asset
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation at June 30, 2011, recorded US$51 million
as an asset for probable recovery from its insurers for the
pending and projected asbestos personal injury liability claims,
compared to US$52 million recorded at Dec. 31, 2010.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2011, the Company reached an
agreement with an insurer to settle a long-standing claim pending
in the liquidation proceedings of the insurer and recorded the
estimated fair value of the recovery.

As a result, other income includes a US$6 million credit for this
recovery of past outlays related to asbestos claims.

During the first half of 2010, the Company recorded US$1 million
of expense (before tax) (US$2 million during the first quarter,
offset by a US$1 million credit during the second quarter) to
correct amounts primarily related to asbestos receivables at
Dec. 31, 2009.

Headquartered in Maumee, Ohio, Dana Holding Corporation supplies
driveline products (axles, driveshafts and transmissions), power
technologies (sealing and thermal management products) and genuine
service parts to vehicle manufacturers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries' Liability at $43MM at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc.'s asbestos liability was US$43 million at
June 30, 2011, compared with US$43.5 million at Dec. 31, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on July 28, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's asbestos liability was US$43.4 million at March 31,
2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2011)

The insurance receivable related to the liability as well as
claims for past payments was US$22.6 million at June 30, 2011,
compared with US$23.8 million at Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company, like many other industrial companies, has been named
as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in
the United States by persons alleging bodily injury from asbestos.

The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities that the
Company owns or formerly owned, or from products that it formerly
manufactured for specialized applications.  Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.

Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against the
Company have been dismissed without any indemnity payment by the
Company.

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
100 claims closed and 7,900 open claims at the end of period.
During the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, the Company recorded 100
claims closed, 100 claims opened, and 8,000 open claims at the end
of period.

Headquartered in Woodland Park, N.J., Cytec Industries Inc. is a
global specialty chemicals and materials company focused on
developing, manufacturing and selling value-added products.  Its
products serve a diverse range of end markets, including aerospace
composites, structural adhesives, automotive and industrial
coatings, electronics, inks, mining and plastics.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Estimates $644MM Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated says the liability for the amended Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation plan of reorganization and the non-PCC
asbestos claims was estimated to be US$644 million at June 30,
2011, compared with an estimate of the liability of US$633 million
at Dec. 31, 2010.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and non-PCC asbestos claims
was estimated to be US$638 million at March 31, 2011.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 20, 2011)

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

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

The Company has defended those claims on the basis of the separate
corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting
claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products.
The Company is also currently involved in about 10,300 other cases
(about 38,700 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar
amounts of monetary damages per case.

The Company, with other relevant parties, has been involved in
ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would
resolve the concerns and objections of the relevant courts and
parties.  In 2003, a plan was agreed to by various parties (the
2003 Plan), but, on Dec. 21, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an
order denying the confirmation of that 2003 Plan.

On Jan. 29, 2009, an amended plan of reorganization was filed with
the Bankruptcy Court to address the issues raised by the Court
when it denied confirmation of the 2003 Plan.

On June 16, 2011, the Court entered an Order denying confirmation
of the Amended PCC Plan.  The Court's memorandum opinion
accompanying the order rejected some objections to the Amended PCC
Plan and made suggestions regarding modifications to the Amended
PCC Plan that would allow the Plan to be confirmed.

The Company and other parties have filed a motion for
reconsideration, objecting to certain points of this order, and
that motion is currently scheduled to be heard in September 2011.
The Company is also considering the submission, possibly jointly
with other relevant parties, of specific plan modifications
suggested in the Court's opinion.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain non-PCC asbestos
claims that may be or have been raised against the Company, which
has recorded an additional US$150 million for such claims in its
estimated asbestos litigation liability.

In the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company
recorded asbestos litigation expense of US$5 million and US$10
million, respectively.  In the three months and six months ended
June 30, 2010, the Company recorded asbestos litigation expense of
US$5 million and US$7 million, respectively.

Headquartered in Corning, N.Y., Corning Incorporated manufactures
specialty glass and ceramics.  The Company makes keystone
components that enable high-technology systems for consumer
electronics, mobile emissions control, telecommunications and life
sciences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Posts $1.576-Bil. June 30 Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$1.576 billion as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$1.559
billion as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related assets amounted to
US$924 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$930 million
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Net asbestos-related costs were US$16 million during the three
months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$12 million during the
three months ended June 30, 2010.

Net asbestos-related costs were US$32 million during the three
months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$27 million during the
three months ended June 30, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DTE Energy Co. Records $20MM Reduction for ARO
---------------------------------------------------------------
DTE Energy Company says that, in the second quarter of 2011, a
reduction of about US$20 million was made to The Detroit Edison
Company asset retirement obligation for asbestos removal with
about US$5.7 million of the decrease associated with Fermi 1
recorded in Asset (gains) and losses, reserves and impairments,
net on the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

In 2001, Detroit Edison began the final decommissioning of Fermi
1, with the goal of removing the remaining radioactive material
and terminating the Fermi 1 license.

In the first quarter of 2011, Detroit Edison accrued an additional
US$19 million with respect to the decommissioning of Fermi 1.

Headquartered in Detroit, DTE Energy Company owns Detroit Edison,
an electric utility engaged in the generation, purchase,
distribution and sale of electricity to about 2.1 million
customers in southeastern Michigan and MichCon, a natural gas
utility engaged in the purchase, storage, transportation,
distribution and sale of natural gas to about 1.2 million
customers throughout Michigan and the sale of storage and
transportation capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Records $1.92MM Liability, Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation recorded an asbestos liability and defense cost
of US$1,920,000 during the three months ended July 1, 2011,
compared with US$542,000 during the three months ended July 2,
2010.

Asbestos coverage litigation expense was US$3,302,000 during the
three months ended July 1, 2011, compared with US$4,543,000 during
the three months ended July 2, 2010.

The Company's asbestos liability and defense cost was US$3,253,000
during the six months ended July 1, 2011, compared with
US$1,977,000 during the six months ended July 2, 2010.

Asbestos coverage litigation expense was US$5,368,000 during the
six months ended July 1, 2011, compared with US$8,424,000 during
the six months ended July 2, 2010.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation manufactures
positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil &
gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Accrues $37.09MM Liabilities at July 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's accrued asbestos liability was US$37,098,000
as of July 1, 2011, compared with US$37,875,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 29, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's accrued asbestos liability was US$37,487,000 as of
April 1, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 20, 2011)

The Company's long-term asbestos liability was US$381,801,000 as
of July 1, 2011, compared with US$391,776,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos insurance asset was US$33,269,000
as of July 1, 2011, compared with US$34,117,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010.  The Company's long-term asbestos insurance asset was
US$329,354,000 as of July 1, 2011, compared with US$340,234,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos insurance receivable was
US$37,477,000 as of July 1, 2011, compared with US$46,108,000 as
of Dec. 31, 2010.  The Company's long-term asbestos insurance
receivable was US$7,063,000 as of July 1, 2011, compared with
US$5,736,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation manufactures
positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil &
gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22,020 Claims Pending v. Colfax Corp. at July 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation faced 22,020 unresolved asbestos claims during
the six months ended July 1, 2011, compared with 25,270 claims
during the six months ended July 2, 2010.

The Company faced 21,774 unresolved asbestos claims during the
three months ended April 1, 2011, compared with 25,306 claims
during the three months ended April 2, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, May 20, 2011)

During the six months ended July 1, 2011, the Company recorded
1,760 claims filed and 4,504 claims resolved.  During the six
months ended July 2, 2011, the Company recorded 2,061 claims filed
and 2,086 claims resolved.

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

Those components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries nor
were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos.
The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained
asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the
subsidiaries' customers, including the U.S. Navy.

Of the 22,020 pending claims as of July 1, 2011, about 3,400 of
such claims have been brought in the Supreme Court of New York
County, N.Y.; about 1,000 of such claims have been brought in and
the U.S. District Court, Eastern and Western Districts of
Michigan; about 200 of such claims have been brought in the
Superior Court, Middlesex County, N.J.; and about 50 claims have
been brought in various federal and state courts in Mississippi.

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

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation manufactures
positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil &
gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Reserves $418.9MM for Claims at July 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has established reserves of US$418.9 million as
of July 1, 2011, and US$429.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for the
probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost
it believes its subsidiaries will pay through the next 15 years.

The Company has also established recoverables of US$362.7 million
as of July 1, 2011 and US$374.4 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for
the insurance recoveries that are deemed probable during the same
time period.

Net of these recoverables, the expected cash outlay on a non-
discounted basis for asbestos-related bodily injury claims over
the next 15 years was US$56.2 million as of July 1, 2011 and
US$55.3 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

In addition, the Company has recorded a receivable for liability
and defense costs previously paid in the amount of US$44.5 million
as of July 1, 2011 and US$51.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 for
which insurance recovery is deemed probable.

The Company also has reflected in Other accrued liabilities
US$21.3 million as of July 1, 2011 and US$23.3 million as of Dec.
31, 2010 for overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal
costs related to defending itself against asbestos-related
liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers.

Headquartered in Richmond, Va., Colfax Corporation manufactures
positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil &
gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general
industrial markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enbridge Posts $49.9MM A&E Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. has US$49.9 million as of June 30,
2011 and US$44.2 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 included in "Other
long-term liabilities."

The Company has accrued liabilities for costs it has incurred
primarily to address remediation of contaminated sites, asbestos
containing materials, management of hazardous waste material
disposal, outstanding air quality measures for certain of its
liquids and natural gas assets, and penalties it has been or
expects to be assessed.

Headquartered in Houston, Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is a
publicly traded Delaware limited partnership that owns and
operates crude oil and liquid petroleum transportation and storage
assets, and natural gas gathering, treating, processing,
transportation and marketing assets in the United States of
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Futures Posts $481MM June 30 Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company's liabilities were
US$481 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$493 million
as of Jan. 1, 2011.

These liabilities primarily relate to nuclear generation plant
decommissioning, land reclamation related to lignite mining,
removal of lignite/coal-fueled plant ash treatment facilities and
generation plant asbestos removal and disposal costs.

The Company recorded a non-current liability of US$446 million as
of June 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Dallas, Energy Future Competitive Holdings
Company conducts its operations almost entirely through its TCEH
subsidiary, which engages in competitive electricity market
activities largely in Texas, including electricity generation,
wholesale energy sales and purchases, commodity risk management
and trading activities and retail electricity sales.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 Exposure Cases Open v. Minerals Technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. currently has 25 pending asbestos
cases, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
July 29, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, eight asbestos cases have been dismissed.  The Company
has not settled any asbestos lawsuits to date.

The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
asbestos and silica these cases since inception was about
US$100,000, the majority of which has been reimbursed by Pfizer
Inc under the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court OKs Decision in Robertson v. Garlock
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the judgment of the
Jefferson Circuit Court, which ruled in favor of Dolores Ann
Robertson in an asbestos case filed against Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC.

The case is styled Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Dolores
Ann Robertson, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Thomas E. Robertson.

Judges Glenn Acree, Sara Combs and Thomas Wine entered judgment in
Case No. 2009-CA-000483-MR on May 13, 2011.

Thomas Robertson was employed as a pipefitter-welder from 1961
until he retired in 1999.  During that time, he came into contact
with a variety of asbestos-containing products, including Garlock
gaskets.  He was diagnosed with lung cancer in March 2006 and
passed away as a result of that disease in July 2006.

Mrs. Robertson brought an action on behalf of Mr. Robertson's
estate alleging multiple claims against multiple defendants,
including claims against Garlock for strict liability, negligence
and breach of warranty, claiming Robertson's exposure to asbestos-
containing Garlock gaskets had contributed to his illness and led
to his death.

Mrs. Robertson also brought a claim in her individual capacity for
loss of consortium.  Prior to trial, Mrs. Robertson settled claims
against all defendants except Garlock and E.I. DuPont De Nemours
and Company.

Following a lengthy trial, a jury returned a verdict against the
defendants and awarded damages to the estate totaling
US$1,471,870, including US$97,418 for necessary and reasonable
medical expenses, US$565,158.30 for loss of income, US$400,000 for
physical and mental pain and suffering, US$9,294.10 for necessary
and reasonable funeral expenses, and US$400,000 in punitive
damages.

The jury also awarded Mrs. Robertson US$50,000 on her loss of
consortium claim.  Twenty-five percent of the liability for the
compensatory damages was apportioned to Garlock; the US$400,000
punitive damage award was assessed only against Garlock.
Therefore, Garlock was ordered to pay US$667,967.50 to the estate
and US$12,500 to Mrs. Robertson.  This appeal followed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Garlock's
motions for a directed verdict.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Court OKs Remand Motion in Reinke's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Savannah
Division, granted Don Reinke and Restore Savannah Development,
LLC's motion for remand in a case involving asbestos filed against
various defendants.

The case is styled Don Reinke and Restore Savannah Development,
LLC, Plaintiffs v. Darby Bank & Trust Co., Drayprop, LLC,
Draypark, LLC, Michael Brown, Reuben Croll, Mopper-Stapen, Inc.,
and Marley Management, Inc., Defendants.

District Judge B. Avant Edenfield entered judgment in Case No.
4:10-cv-300 on May 11, 2011.

Don Reinke and Restore Savannah Development, LLC, filed a
complaint against Darby Bank & Trust Co., Drayprop, LLC, Draypark
LLC, Michael Brown, Reuben Croll, Mopper-Stapen, Inc., and Marley
Management, Inc., in the State Court of Chatham County on Aug. 9,
2010.

Plaintiffs purchased the fourth floor of the Drayton Tower
building in July 2005 and Defendants played various roles in the
renovation of the property.  In the complaint, Plaintiffs alleged
the renovation was not finished in the timeframe promised, and
that the property contained asbestos, contrary to the
representation of certain Defendants.

As a result of these failures and misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
alleged claims against Defendants for: (1) fraud/negligent
misrepresentation, (2) breach of contract/warranty, (3) attorneys'
fees, and punitive damages.

On Nov. 12, 2010, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance
(GDBF) took possession of Darby Bank, and appointed the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as its receiver.  The same
day, the FDIC seized control of Darby Bank, and GDBF filed a
petition for the appointment of a receiver in the Superior Court
of Toombs County.

The FDIC removed Plaintiffs' complaint to this Court on Dec. 21,
2010.  It claimed removal was timely and proper under the
authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Plaintiffs have moved to remand the case to the State Court of
Chatham County on the basis that the FDIC is not a proper party to
the case, and as such, cannot remove it to this Court.

Drayprop, LLC, Draypark, LLC, Michael Brown, and Marley
Management, Inc. had moved to dismiss the case.  The FDIC had
moved for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs' motion for remand was granted.  This case was remanded
to the State Court of Chatham County for further proceedings.

The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Drayprop, LLC, Draypark,
LLC, Michael Brown, and Marley Management, Inc. was dismissed.
The FDIC's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Uhlig Suit v. Darby Bank et al. Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Savannah
Division, granted Thomas Uhlig's motion to remand in a case
involving asbestos styled Thomas Uhlig, Plaintiff v. Darby Dane &
Trust Co., Drayprop, LLC, Draypark, LLC, Michael Brown, Reuben
Croll, and Marley Management, Inc., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield entered judgment in Case
No. 4:10-cv-303 on May 11, 2011.

Mr. Uhlig filed a complaint against Darby Bank & Trust Co.,
Drayprop, LLC, Draypark, LLC, Michael Brown, Reuben Croll, and
Marley Management, Inc., in the State Court of Chatham County, on
Feb. 8, 2010.  He amended the complaint on July 8, 2010.

Mr. Uhlig purchased two units on the fourth floor of the Drayton
Tower building, and Defendants played various roles in the
renovation of the property.  In the amended complaint, Mr. Uhlig
alleged the renovation was not finished in the timeframe promised,
and that the property contained asbestos, contrary to the
representation of certain Defendants.

As a result of these failures and misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
alleged claims against Defendants for: (1) negligent
misrepresentation, (2) breach of contract, (3) negligence, (4)
fraud, and (5) failure to warn.

On Nov. 12, 2010, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance
(GDBF) took possession of Darby Bank, and appointed the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as its receiver.  The same
day, the FDIC seized control of Darby Bank, and GDBF filed a
petition for the appointment of a receiver in the Superior Court
of Toombs County.

The FDIC removed Mr. Uhlig's complaint to the District Court on
Dec. 21, 2010.  It claimed removal was timely and proper under the
authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Plaintiffs had moved to remand the case to the State Court of
Chatham County on the basis that the FDIC is not a proper party to
the case, and as such, cannot remove it to this Court.  The FDIC
had moved for summary judgment.

This case was remanded to the State Court of Chatham County for
further proceedings.  The FDIC's motion for summary judgment was
dismissed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lindley Suit v. Darby Bank et al. Remanded
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia, Savannah
Division, granted Stephanie Lindley's motion for remand in a case
involving asbestos styled Stephanie Lindley, Plaintiff v. Darby
Bank & Trust Co., Drayprop, LLC, Draypark, LLC, Michael Brown,
Reuben Croll, and Marley Management, Inc., Defendants.

U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield entered judgment in Case
No. 4:10-cv-309 on May 11, 2011.

Ms. Lindley filed a complaint against Darby Bank & Trust Co.,
Drayprop, LLC, Draypark LLC, Michael Brown, Reuben Croll, and
Marley Management, Inc., in the State Court of Chatham County on
July 17, 2009.

Ms. Lindley purchased a floor of the Drayton Tower building in
July 2005, and Defendants played various roles in the renovation
of the property.  In the complaint, Ms. Lindley alleged the
renovation was not finished in the timeframe promised, and that
the property contained asbestos, contrary to the representation of
certain Defendants.

As a result of these failures and misrepresentations, Ms. Lindley
alleged claims against Defendants for: (1) fraud/negligent
misrepresentation, (2) breach of contract/warranty, (3) attorneys'
fees, and punitive damages.

On Nov. 12, 2010, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance
(GDBF) took possession of Darby Bank, and appointed the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as its receiver.  The same
day, the FDIC seized control of Darby Bank, and GDBF filed a
petition for the appointment of a receiver in the Superior Court
of Toombs County.

The FDIC removed Ms. Lindley's complaint to this Court on Dec. 30,
2010.  It claimed removal was timely and proper under the
authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

Ms. Lindley had moved to remand the case to the State Court of
Chatham County on the basis that the FDIC is not a proper party to
the case, and as such, cannot remove it to the District Court.
The FDIC has moved for summary judgment.  Marley Management, Inc.
has moved to dismiss the case.

Ms. Lindley's motion for remand was granted.  This case was
remanded to the State Court of Chatham County for further
proceedings.  The FDIC's motion for summary judgment was
dismissed.  Marley Management, Inc.'s motion to dismiss was
dismissed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Grant Wagner Bid in Volkswagen Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is to
affirm plaintiff Wagner's motion for reconsideration in a case
involving asbestos styled Wagner v. Various Defendants.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno entered judgment in Civil
Action No. 08-87085 on May 6, 2011.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

Volkswagen moved for summary judgment on the basis that Mr.
Wagner's claims were time-barred.  He was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 1985, but did not bring suit until 2006, outside of the
statute of limitations for personal injury cases under Mississippi
law.

The Court granted Volkswagen's motion, and several Defendants'
joinders, as unopposed, as Mr. Wagner had failed to file a timely
response.

Mr. Wagner's Motion for Reconsideration asked the Court to treat
Volkswagen's Motion for Summary Judgment as a partial motion for
summary judgment as to Mr. Wagner's lung cancer claims, but argued
that Mr. Wagner's asbestosis claims were not time-barred.

Mr. Wagner was not diagnosed with asbestosis until Oct. 14, 2003,
and it was undisputed that he filed his claim within three years
of this diagnosis.  His Administrative Order 12 submissions
contained separate diagnosing information for lung cancer and
asbestosis.

Mr. Wagner's Motion for Reconsideration in the case will be
granted because it would amount to manifest injustice to dismiss
all of his claims based on Volkswagen's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Mr. Wagner's lung cancer claim.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Ongoing v. Eaton Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation remains subject to claims, administrative and
legal proceedings, like lawsuits that relate to contractual
allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries
(including asbestos claims), antitrust matters and employment-
related matters, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on July 29, 2011, with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report.

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Eaton Corporation is a global
technology leader in electrical components and systems for power
quality, distribution and control; hydraulics components, systems
and services for industrial and mobile equipment; aerospace fuel,
hydraulics and pneumatic systems for commercial and military use;
and truck and automotive drivetrain and powertrain systems for
performance, fuel economy and safety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Mallinckrodt Rise to 11.5T at June 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covidien Public Limited Company says that, as of June 24, 2011,
there were about 11,500 asbestos liability cases pending against
its Mallinckrodt Inc. subsidiary, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 29, 2011, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As of March 25, 2011, there were about 11,200 asbestos liability
cases pending against Mallinckrodt.  (Class Action Reporter, May
20, 2011)

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

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: White Mountains Records $2MM Additions to A&E
--------------------------------------------------------------
White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. says a favorable loss
reserve development was partially offset by US$2 million of
additions to its Asbestos and Environmental reserves and
US$3.7 million of net unfavorable loss reserve development
from other business lines, mainly marine.

For the six months ended June 30, 2011, White Mountains Re had net
favorable loss reserve development of US$12.3 million, primarily
due to a US$9 million reduction from the 2010 Chilean earthquake
and US$9 million of favorable loss reserve development on a 1999
aviation loss.

Headquartered in Hanover, N.H., White Mountains Insurance Group,
Ltd. provides insurance products and services through its U.S.
operating office's three main divisions: majority-owned OneBeacon
Insurance, White Mountains Re, and Esurance.  However, in 2011, it
agreed to sell its Esurance unit to Allstate in a deal worth about
US$1 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aqua-Chem Settlement With 3 Insurer Unravels
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company says that it anticipated that a final
settlement with three insurers would be finalized in May 2011, in
litigation involving Aqua-Chem, Inc., but those insurers
repudiated their settlement commitments.

The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981.  During that time,
the Company purchased over US$400 million of insurance coverage,
which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future
costs for certain product liability and other claims.  The Company
sold Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in 1981 under
the terms of a stock sale agreement.

The 1981 agreement, and a subsequent 1983 settlement agreement,
outlined the parties' rights and obligations concerning past and
future claims and lawsuits involving Aqua-Chem.  Cleaver-Brooks, a
division of Aqua-Chem, manufactured boilers, some of which
contained asbestos gaskets.  Aqua-Chem was first named as a
defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or around 1985 and currently has
about 40,000 active claims pending against it.

The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the
outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-
Chem insurers on March 26, 2004.  In the coverage action, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity
Company, et al. v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,
Case No. 04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of
Milwaukee County, Wis., against the Company, Aqua-Chem and 16
insurance companies.

Several of the policies that were the subject of the coverage
action had been issued to the Company during the period (1970 to
1981) when the Company owned Aqua-Chem.  The complaint sought a
determination of the respective rights and obligations under the
insurance policies issued with regard to asbestos-related claims
against Aqua-Chem.

The action also sought a monetary judgment reimbursing any amounts
paid by the plaintiffs in excess of their obligations.  Two of the
insurers, one with a US$15 million policy limit and one with a
US$25 million policy limit, asserted cross-claims against the
Company, alleging that the Company and/or its insurers are
responsible for Aqua-Chem's asbestos liabilities before any
obligation is triggered on the part of the cross-claimant insurers
to pay for such costs under their policies.

Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary
judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers
for Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable
for coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses
that might apply.

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

On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final
declaratory judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the
parties under the insurance policies issued by the remaining
defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.  The judgment
directs that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100% of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy
limits.  The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation.

The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain coverage
agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem with
those insurance companies that did not settle in the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation.

Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against the three insurers in
Wisconsin state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement
or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment
validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's interpretation of the
court's judgment in the Wisconsin coverage litigation.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Skilled Healthcare's June 30 Liability at $3.94MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc.'s asbestos abatement liability
amounted to US$3,983,000 as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$3,871,000 as of Dec. 31, 2011, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 1, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company's asbestos abatement liability amounted to
US$3,908,000 as of March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 2,
2011)

Headquartered in Foothill Ranch, Calif., Skilled Healthcare Group,
Inc. owns subsidiaries that operate long-term care facilities and
provide a wide range of post-acute care services, with a strategic
emphasis on sub-acute specialty medical care.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArcelorMittal Earmarks $7MM for 2011 Removal Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal says ArcelorMittal USA's environmental provisions
include US$50 million, with anticipated expenditures of US$7
million during 2011, to address the removal and disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the elimination of asbestos-
containing materials.

Headquartered in Luxembourg, ArcelorMittal is an integrated steel
and mining company.  It resulted from the combination in 2006 of
Mittal Steel and Arcelor, which were at the time the world's
largest and second largest steel companies by production volume,
respectively.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Posts $1.09-Bil. for Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
US$1.09 billion as of June 30, 2011 and US$1.10 billion as of
Dec. 31, 2010, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$529 million
as of June 30, 2011 and US$555 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

About 61% as of June 30, 2011, and 60% as of Dec. 31, 2010, of the
total net asbestos and environmental reserves were for incurred
but not reported estimated losses.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Ill., The Allstate Corporation is a
personal lines insurer.  Its Allstate Protection segment sells
auto, homeowners, property/casualty, and life insurance products
in Canada and the U.S.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. ITT Corp. Surge to 104,316 at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation faced 104,316 pending asbestos claims during the
six month period ended June 30, 2011, compared with 103,575 claims
during the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company faced 103,678 pending asbestos claims as of March 31,
2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 20, 2011)

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
2,829 new claims, 731 settlements, and 1,357 dismissals.

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

These claims allege that certain products sold by the Company or
its subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a
third party (e.g., a gasket), which contained asbestos.  To the
extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was
encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-
friable.

In certain other cases, it is alleged that former ITT companies
were distributors for other manufacturers' products that may have
contained asbestos.

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

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

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


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

The Company said a trial on several insurers coverage obligations
for Goulds Pumps, Inc., is scheduled for August 2011.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 20, 2011)

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

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

These agreements provide specific coverage for the Company's
legacy asbestos liabilities.  The Company continues to negotiate
coverage in place agreements with other insurers.

Where those negotiations are not productive, the Company will
request that a trial be scheduled.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers' Liabilities Still at $8.56MM at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation's current asbestos-related liabilities amounted
to US$8,563,000 as of June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, according
to a Company press release dated Aug. 1, 2011.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$21,159,000 as of June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Current asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to
US$8,563,000 as of June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.  Long-term
asbestos-related insurance receivables amounted to US$20,733,000
as of June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation produces
specialty materials and components that enable high performance
and reliability of consumer electronics, power electronics, mass
transit, clean technology, and telecommunications infrastructure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 214 Claims Pending v. Rogers Corp. at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 213 pending asbestos claims as of June 30, 2011,
against Rogers Corporation, compared with about 194 pending claims
at Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2011.

The Company has been named in asbestos litigation primarily in
Illinois, Pennsylvania and Mississippi.  Of the 213 claims pending
as of June 30, 2011, about 54 claims do not specify the amount of
damages sought, about 156 claims cite jurisdictional amounts, and
three claims (less than 2% of the total pending claims) specify
the amount of damages sought not based on jurisdictional
requirements.

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

For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company was able to
have 63 claims dismissed and settled two claims.  For the year
ended Dec. 31, 2010, 163 claims were dismissed and 20 were
settled.

The majority of costs have been paid by the Company's insurance
carriers, including the costs associated with the small number of
cases that have been settled.  Those settlements totaled about
US$5.5 million for 2010, and US$800,000 for the six months ended
June 30, 2011.

Headquartered in Rogers, Conn., Rogers Corporation produces
specialty materials and components that enable high performance
and reliability of consumer electronics, power electronics, mass
transit, clean technology, and telecommunications infrastructure.


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

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

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

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

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment
Trust is an equity real estate investment trust with a primary
investment focus on retail shopping malls located in the eastern
half of the United States, primarily in the Mid-Atlantic region.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Walters Widow Files Suit to Claim Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivien Walters, the widow of electrician Peter Walters, filed a
lawsuit against his former employers and claiming compensation of
more than GBP300,000, News & Star reports.

Mr. Walters died at the age of 63 from malignant mesothelioma --
three after his condition was diagnosed.  The 50-year old Mrs.
Walters, of Carlisle, Cumbria, England, demands damages from Lorne
Stewart plc, successors to HAT Engineering Services and David
Thomson (Electrical).

According to a High Court writ, Mr. Walters worked for both firms,
either as an employee or on self-employed basis, between 1969 and
1998 at the Barwise Works in Carlisle.  He was exposed to asbestos
during his work, including at an old people's home Riverside in
Appleby, where he installed a cord pull system and replaced
lighting.

Although the dust was destined for the roof void, it blew all over
the premises, and Mr. Walters also worked in the boiler room where
laggers mixed up asbestos powder with water, it is alleged.  He
was also exposed to asbestos when he worked on Ministry of Defence
facilities at Longtown, and at a site called 14MU, which involved
installing new boiler houses with asbestos roofs and walls, and
pipe lagging, the writ claims.

The writ says that Mr. Walters worked on a refurbishment project
at Cockermouth School, which involved crawling over asbestos
lagged pipes underneath the gym floor, and on a project at Thames
Board paper Mills where he was also exposed to asbestos.

Mrs. Walters brands the companies negligent, and says they
required him to work in an atmosphere of asbestos dust, failed to
provide proper ventilation, or breathing apparatus, and failed to
provide a safe system and place of work.

Mr. Walters had been in excellent health until August 2009 when he
consulted his GP with discomfort, followed by chest pain.  A scan
suggested malignant mesothelioma, and he was told of the diagnosis
in January 2010, and that his condition could not be cured.

Mr. Walters' condition deteriorated rapidly, and he died at the
Eden Valley Hospice on Jan. 31, 2010 after a short illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PH Group Seeks to Ban Asbestos in Construction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Labor Union, a Philippine labor group, has lauded
the House of Representatives for including a measure proposing a
ban on the use of asbestos in the construction industry as one of
the priority bills for the second term of the 15th Congress, the
Manila Bulletin reports.

ALU thanked House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., saying the
passage of the bill would respond to the needs of about 1.3
million construction workers, who are exposed to asbestos in
sanding, drilling, sawing, and cutting in the course of their
daily work.

ALU National Vice President Gerard R. Seno also urged lawmakers to
finally approve the Ban Asbestos Bill that seeks to ban the
importation, manufacture, processing, use or distribution in
commerce of asbestos and asbestos containing products.

TUCP party-list Rep. Raymond Democrito Mendoza authored House Bill
No. 896, which has been pending on the second reading as it needs
to be integrated along with another similar bill on the committee
level before it is submitted to the Committee on Rules.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Solicitors Seek Help in Sleeman Case for Payout
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solicitors investigating the death of Duncan Sleeman, of Hayle,
Cornwall, England, have appealed for any former colleagues to come
forward with information, This is The West Country reports.

Mr. Sleeman worked for J & F Pool Ltd from 1965 to 1981 in Hayle
and then for J I Case Europe Ltd in Redruth from 1981 to 1987.  He
died from mesothelioma.

John Pickering and Partners LLP are hoping to track down former
workmates to find out more information about Mr. Sleeman's working
life.

A spokesman said, "He was brought up in Hayle and Duncan was an
engineer and we are trying to find out more about his previous
work conditions.  "We would like to speak to any of his former
workmates who may remember Duncan and can tell us more about his
work."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2.7T Tons of Hazard Removed From Cork Dump Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Post reports that over 2,700 tons of asbestos-soiled material
has been removed from a 30-year-old dump site in Cork harbor in
Cork, Ireland.

The decision to remove the asbestos was made after several state
agencies agreed an action plan to excavate the controversial
former Raybestos facility.

The 1.4-hectare site was opened in 1978 but closed within two
years following local opposition to the U.S. firm's plans to inter
a limited quantity of asbestos there.

The asbestos was a by-product from the Raybestos Manhattan brake
pad plant, which was based in Ovens, County Cork from 1978 to
1980.  The plant closed in 1980 with the loss of all 130 jobs.

It was initially believed that Raybestos had buried about 800 tons
of asbestos at the site in Barnahely, near Ringaskiddy.

The Company had a license to bury 1,000 tons of asbestos under
strict conditions, which involved the asbestos being sealed in
cement pellets and wrapped in heavy duty plastic bags.  However,
when the site was excavated, 2,794 tons of asbestos-soiled
material was discovered.

In 2008, a decision was taken by a number of state agencies
including the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety
Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, Cork County
Council and the IDA to clean up the site.  The decision followed
almost three decades of lobbying from local activists.

The cost of the operation was borne by the IDA, which had backed
the initial Raybestos move to Cork.  The excavation began in 2009
and continued into 2010.

The IDA hired a contractor to remove 1,000 tons of asbestos at a
fixed price of EUR210,000, but the final bill for the clean-up is
estimated at EUR849,000.

The asbestos has been removed and sent to a waste facility near
Hanover, Germany.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer to Lend Quigley Subsidiary Up to $65MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. has agreed to lend its Quigley unit as much as US$65
million in cash to extend Quigley's bankruptcy, potentially giving
Pfizer more protection against claims for asbestos-related health
issues, Bloomberg reports.

Quigley asked U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein for
permission to borrow the money in court papers filed July 29, 2011
in Manhattan.  The cash would extend Quigley's US$20 million loan
agreement from 2004, when the unit entered bankruptcy, and finance
the case until Feb. 24, 2012, Quigley said.

The additional money and time will free Quigley to work with
Pfizer and a committee of creditors "toward confirmation and
consummation of a reorganization plan," Quigley said.

Lawyers for the U.S. Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department,
asked in December 2011 to end Quigley's bankruptcy.  Creditors
alleging asbestos-related health issues have been unable to sue
New York-based Pfizer during the case, and many of them have died,
the U.S. Trustee said.

Christopher Loder, a Pfizer spokesman, said the Company looks
forward to working through a bankruptcy plan with Quigley and
creditors, which the extension of the credit agreement will allow.
He said, "In 30 years of asbestos litigation, Pfizer has never
been found to be derivatively liable for Quigley's liabilities."

Quigley Co., founded in 1916, made three products for the steel
industry from the 1940s to the 1970s that contained asbestos.
Pfizer bought Quigley in 1968, and the Company stopped most
operations in 1992.

Judge Bernstein refused to allow Quigley to exit Chapter 11 court
protection in September 2010, saying Pfizer had manipulated the
process to benefit itself.  Pfizer and a committee of asbestos
claimants won his approval of an agreement that will support the
new Chapter 11 plan, which still requires court approval.

A committee of creditors known as the "Ad Hoc Committee of Tort
Victims" asked in October 2010 to have Quigley's bankruptcy
dismissed so it could bring tort claims, which are otherwise
blocked by bankruptcy law.

Asbestos claims against Quigley may total US$4.45 billion during
the next 42 years, according to testimony cited by Judge Bernstein
in September 2010.  In November 2011, Pfizer reported a US$701
million third-quarter charge for asbestos litigation related to
Quigley.

The case is styled In re Quigley Co., 04-15739, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 30 Tons of Hazard Dumped in South Staffordshire
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court heard that two fly-tippers dumped 30 tons of asbestos in
the South Staffordshire, England, countryside, leaving a would-be
employee to carry the can when they were spotted, the Express &
Star reports.

The low-loader used was in the name of 20-year-old Oliver Franklin
from Dudley, England, who signed as the registered owner on the
promise of a driver's job, which never materialized.  He told the
court that he believed the pair when they said the vehicle had to
be registered to him for him to drive it.

Prosecuting on behalf of South Staffordshire Council, Ali Tabari
said dog-walker Cyril Heathcock was suspicious when he saw a wagon
loaded with rubbish, topped with a mattress, parked up on a bridle
path in Himley as he took a stroll on May 13, 2010.

The Cannock Magistrates Court heard that when Mr. Heathcock
returned to the scene a few minutes later, he saw the tipper
offloading the pile onto the path where it had been joined by a
skip lorry.

Mr. Heathcock memorized the registration plate and contacted the
council.  Officers found the padlock on the gate had been cut and
two piles of rubbish dumped, one a 30-ton mound of hazardous
asbestos and the other 40 tons of mixed builders' waste.

However, Mark Sheppard, defending, told Cannock magistrates that
the only time Mr. Franklin saw the low-loader was when he drove
the two men he believed would employ him to buy it.  He did not
pay for the vehicle and was not present when it off-loaded the
waste, Mr. Sheppard said. He had been laid off and was looking for
work when he was put in touch with the men.

Mr. Sheppard said that Mr. Franklin, who pleaded not guilty to the
charge, had never been in trouble before and had been taken in.
Mr. Franklin was cleared of dumping the waste by magistrates who
said he was "not in a position to exercise control over the
vehicle" at the time of the offense.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Blackburn Firm Seeks Help in Compensation Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Maurice Blackburn seeks former Alcoa workers to
help with a claim for a client, David Grant, who the firm believes
died from mesothelioma, the Geelong Advertiser reports.

Mr. Grant died about a year ago and the lawyers are looking for
people who can testify about conditions at Alcoa's Point Henry,
Victoria, Australia, smelter in the early 1960s.

Mr. Blackman said it believed Mr. Grant picked up the asbestos-
related disease while working at the smelter from 1961 to 1965.
Scotland-born Mr. Grant worked for Alcoa during the early 1960s.
He later lived in Newtown and ran the Rosnashane Reception Centre
with his wife Margaret.

Mrs. Grant said he was a proud Scot who came to Australia as a 21-
year-old man and never forgot his heritage.

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Andrew Dimsey said the firm had received
a number of calls since placing advertisements in the Geelong
Advertiser calling for former Alcoa workers to contact them.

Alcoa's occupational physician, Dr. Michael Donoghue, told the
Geelong Advertiser in 2004 he was not surprised a then-study of
4396 male workers at Alcoa's Geelong and Portland smelters had
found high mortality rates and incidence of asbestos-linked
cancer.  He said Alcoa, like many companies in the 1960s and 1970s
used asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hazard Found in Almost 500 NSW Police Locations
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Australian Associated Press, nearly 500 police
properties in New South Wales, Australia, have asbestos and one
station will be shut to remove the potentially deadly material.

NSW Police have found about 460 properties that contain at least
some asbestos or lead paint, or both.  They include police
residences, police stations and other police buildings.

Superintendent Darryl Tuck of the NSW Police Properties Group said
in an Aug. 5, 2011 statement, "While there are tens of thousands
of buildings in the general community across NSW that contain
asbestos or lead paint, the age and condition of each site
determines the scale of the risk."

Lithgow Police Station, in the Blue Mountains, will be closed for
one day on Aug. 10, 2011 while asbestos material is removed from a
heating duct.  Asbestos has already been removed from a plant room
at the station.

NSW Police also said a "significant amount of remediation work"
has already been undertaken at several other sites where the risk
is manageable.  Work has also been completed at the Sydney Police
Centre to eliminate lead residue in the firing range.

NSW Police said they had established a working party to identify,
prioritize and remediate the sites.

The Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry
Robson said the asbestos should be removed immediately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kelloway Construction Fined for Safety Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelloway Construction, a Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada-based
firm has been fined for health and safety violations in the
demolition of the old Janeway children's hospital, CBC News
reports.

Kelloway pleaded guilty to two charges relating to its handling of
asbestos in the building, in the Pleasantville neighborhood in the
east end of Saint John.

One charge involved failing to take all necessary measures to
ensure that the exposure of employees to airborne asbestos was
reduced to the lowest practical level.

The other charge involved failing to ensure that appropriate
measures were taken to prevent pollution of the general
environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace.

Kelloway was fined C$10,000 and will also have to pay C$3,000 to
the Department of Government Services for public education in
occupational health and safety.

Four other charges against Kelloway were dropped.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. CBS Corp. Drop to 50,390 at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending about 50,390 asbestos claims as of
June 30, 2011, as compared with about 52,220 as of Dec. 31, 2010
and 58,920 as of June 30, 2010, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed with on Aug. 2, 2011 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company had about 52,230 pending asbestos claims as of
March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 20, 2011)

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

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

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

During the second quarter of 2011, the Company received about 990
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket about 2,830
claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Facing 16,881 Claims June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., at June 30, 2011, was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by about 16,881 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of 40
claims from those previously reported, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on July 2, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

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

Since Jan. 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 39,025 of those
claims were dismissed, 18 were tried to defense verdicts, seven
were tried to plaintiff verdicts (two of which are being
appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 580 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions.

On June 3, 2011, a jury returned a defense verdict in one such
case in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Has $3.4MM Net Claims Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's net asbestos-related provision amounted to
US$3,427,000 during the quarter ended June 30, 2011, compared with
US$4,044,000 during the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The Company's net asbestos-related provision amounted to
US$400,000 during the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2011,
and its net asbestos-related gain amounted to US$747,000 during
the fiscal three months ended March 31, 2010.  (Class Action
Reporter, May 20, 2011)

The Company's net asbestos-related provision amounted to
US$7,306,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared
with US$8,595,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

The long-term asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable
amounted to US$179,300,000 as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$194,570,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The long-term asbestos-related liability amounted to
US$290,152,000 as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$307,619,000
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Headquartered in Zug, Switzerland, Foster Wheeler AG is a global
engineering and construction contractor and power equipment
supplier delivering technically advanced, reliable facilities and
equipment.  The Company employs about 12,000 professionals with
specialized expertise.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Continuing v. Eastman Chemical
----------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, Eastman Chemical Company and its operations are
parties to lawsuits and claims including asbestos matters,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 2, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has 2,110 Open Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. says that, at June 30, 2011, about
2,110 asbestos cases were outstanding for which it may be
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 2, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

About 1,520 asbestos-related cases were outstanding at March 31,
2011, for which the Company may be held responsible for any
related liabilities.  (Class Action Reporter, June 3, 2011)

In 1986, the Company acquired a brake business, which it
subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation.  When it originally acquired this brake
business, the Company assumed future liabilities relating to any
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by
the seller of the acquired brake business.

In accordance with the related purchase agreement, the Company
agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or
after September 2001.

Since inception in September 2001 through June 30, 2011, the
amounts paid for settled claims are about US$11.7 million.

In September 2007, the Company entered into an agreement with an
insurance carrier to provide it with limited insurance coverage
for the defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims.

The Company submitted various asbestos-related claims for coverage
under this agreement, receiving about US$2.9 million in
reimbursement for settlement claims and defense costs, and this
agreement has now expired.

In addition, in May 2010, the Company entered into an agreement
with an excess insurance carrier to provide it with limited
insurance coverage for defense and indemnity costs associated with
asbestos-related claims.  The Company has submitted claims to this
carrier and has received US$800,000 in reimbursement for
settlement claims and defense costs.

Headquartered in New York, Standard Motor Products, Inc.
manufactures and distributes engine management and air
conditioning replacement parts for auto aftermarkets.


                            *********

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  * * *