CAR_Public/110826.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 169

                             Headlines

AEGEAN MARINE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Withdraw Class Action
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Still Awaits Ruling on Wash. Suit Appeal
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Paid Class Members in "Leiszler" Suit in June
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Weber's Right to Appeal Final Judgment Expired
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.

APPLE INC: iPhone Users Fight Motion to Compel Arbitration
ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeal on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Adopt Indian Metis Program
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Call Charges
COMSCORE INC: Faces Class Action Over Data Collection Practices

CORELOGIC INC: Unit Faces Fair Credit Reporting Class Suit in Ill.
FISKARS BRANDS: Recalls 2,200 SmartPower String Trimmers
GEEKNET INC: Appeals on Settlement Pact in IPO Suit Still Pending
HOLLY FRONTIER: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits
HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Indigent Defense System Flawed, Suit Claims

INTEL CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Violation Suits
INTERCLICK: Majority of History Sniffing Claims Dismissed
MILLER ENERGY: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
NEW SOUTH WALES, AU: Wants Unlawful Arrests Class Action Nixed
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Awaits Ruling on Standing Issue in IPO Lawsuit

R.E. LOANS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Abuses
STATE OF INDIANA: Faces Class Action Over State Fair Tragedy
TARGET CORP: Expands Recall of Step Stools with Storage
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR: Sued Over Faulty Elevator Device

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Wage & Hour Suits Settlements
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit vs. PSI
U.S. BANCORP: Continues to Defend Debit Transactions Suits
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WORLD WRESTLING: Appeal in IPO Class Action Settlement Pending

* Arizona AG Issues Warning on Mass Joiner Mortgage Lawsuit Scam

                    Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS ALERT: Azam Bros, Contractor Fined for Disposal Breach
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Parker Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Lilliquist Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Denied in Ashland
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Still Has $65MM Reserves at July 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,360 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Prager Unit Still Has Two Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces 210 Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Zurn Unit Facing 7,100 Lawsuit at July 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 19,212 Pending Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Multi-Party Cases Still Pending v. Badger Meter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 180 Actions in Md. Pending v. Pepco at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Records $1.977-Bil. June 30 Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Subject to La. Insurance Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Facing Antoine Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. FMC Corporation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Rulings in Cardona
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northwestern Suffers Setback in Suit v. Insco
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Bid OK'd in Rullan Action

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $139.7MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Still Involved in Sealed Air Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Transocean Ltd. Still Ongoing in Miss.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Transocean Unit Drop to 977 at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Involved in Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Subject to Pending Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Could Face Potential Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Cases Still Pending v. NL Industries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 57,957 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $28MM June 30 Defense Costs

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $50MM Receivable at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Engaged in N.Y. Insurance Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Purks Action v. Texaco Filed on Aug. 4 in Texas
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Purks Case v. 18 Firms Filed on Aug. 4 in Tex.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turek's Lawsuit v. 60 Firms Filed in Kanwha Co.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Suit v. 10 Firms Filed on Aug. 2 in W.Va.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metheny Case v. 88 Firms Filed in Kanawha Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcestershire Firms Fined for Safety Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Fines 2 Landlords for Disposal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: McLean Lawyer Seeks Rehearing in Honeywell Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Lawsuit v. 79 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barrowford Builder's Death Related to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Clearwater Men Charged for Hazard Mishandling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Fined $110T for Violations at Monterey
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Mgmt. Fined GBP32T for Disposal Breaches

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UW Stevens Point Charged for Hazard Mishandling




                             *********

AEGEAN MARINE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Withdraw Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. on Aug. 23 disclosed that the
putative securities class action lawsuit previously filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its Chairman and certain of its executives as
well as the shareholder derivative action lawsuit previously filed
in the same court against the Company and its Board of Directors
have both been voluntarily withdrawn by the respective plaintiffs.

E. Nikolas Tavlarios, President, commented, "When these lawsuits
were filed, we told our shareholders, customers, and suppliers
that they were without merit.  We believe the withdrawal of both
suits speaks for itself."

            About Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc.

Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. (NYSE: ANW) is an
international marine fuel logistics company that markets and
physically supplies refined marine fuel and lubricants to ships in
port and at sea.  The Company procures product from various
sources (such as refineries, oil producers, and traders) and
resells it to a diverse group of customers across all major
commercial shipping sectors and leading cruise lines.  Currently,
Aegean has a global presence in 19 markets, including Vancouver,
Montreal, Mexico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, West Africa,
Gibraltar, U.K., Northern Europe, Piraeus, Patras, the United Arab
Emirates, Singapore, Morocco, the Antwerp-Rotterdam-Amsterdam
(ARA) region, Las Palmas, Tenerife, Cape Verde and Panama.


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Still Awaits Ruling on Wash. Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc., is awaiting a ruling of an
appeal from a court order dismissing a purported class
action lawsuit filed in a district court in Washington,
according to the Company's
August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

The Company and Matson Navigation Company, Inc. were named
as defendants in a consolidated civil lawsuit purporting to
be a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington in Seattle.  The lawsuit
alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also named as
a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic shipping
carrier operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades.  On August
18, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend the complaint to
allege claims consistent with the court's order.  On May
28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On November 30, 2010, the judge dismissed the complaint
with prejudice.  On December 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Company and Matson will continue to vigorously defend
themselves in this lawsuit.  The Company is unable to
predict, at this time, the outcome or financial impact, if
any, of this lawsuit if an amended complaint is filed.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Paid Class Members in "Leiszler" Suit in June
---------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. made payments in June to class members who
elected the cash remedy under the settlement agreement resolving
Christopher J. Leiszler's class action lawsuit filed in
California, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On May 10, 2010, Mr. Leiszler filed a complaint against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleged that the Company
implemented unfair and fraudulent requirements for the
prescription of Invisalign through the Invisalign Proficiency
Requirements for minimum case submission and continuing education
credits requirements.  In January 2010 Dr. Leiszler's Invisalign
provider status was suspended for failing to meet the Proficiency
Requirements.  Dr. Leiszler sued on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated.  The complaint sought a refund of the
price paid to the Company for Invisalign training.  On October 19,
2010, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding to
resolve this litigation, and on November 30, 2010, the Company
executed a formal Stipulation of Settlement.  On December 23,
2010, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement and on April 8, 2011, granted final approval of the
settlement.  The settlement took effect on May 18, 2011.  Under
the terms of the settlement, class members who did not elect to
receive the cash remedy prior to the Court-ordered deadline will
be reinstated to prescribe Invisalign treatment after the
effective date under certain circumstances.  In January 2011, the
Company deposited approximately $8.0 million into an escrow
account to pay eligible class members who elected the cash remedy,
as well as legal fees and other costs.  The Company recorded a
total litigation settlement charge of $4.5 million during the
third and fourth quarter of 2010 for this settlement.  In early
June 2011, payments were made from the escrow account to class
members who elected the cash remedy and the remaining balance of
the escrow has been refunded to the Company, except for a nominal
amount which has been retained for administrative purposes.

Align Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system and the iTero and iOC scanning system and
services.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Weber's Right to Appeal Final Judgment Expired
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra A. Weber's right to appeal from a final judgment entered in
a consumer class action expired earlier this year, according to
Align Technology, Inc.'s August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2011.

On May 18, 2007, Debra A. Weber filed a consumer class action
lawsuit against the Company, OrthoClear, Inc. and OrthoClear
Holdings, Inc. (d/b/a OrthoClear, Inc.) in Syracuse, New York,
U.S. District Court.  The complaint alleges two causes of action
against the OrthoClear defendants and one cause of action against
the Company for breach of contract.  The cause of action against
the Company titled "Breach of Third Party Benefit Contract"
references its greement to make Invisalign treatment available to
OrthoClear patients, alleging that it failed "to provide the
promised treatment to Plaintiff or any of the class members."  On
June 2, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed it from the action.

On June 29, 2010, Ms. Weber requested that the Court enter final
judgment as to Align pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b) in order to certify the Company's dismissal for immediate
appeal.  The Company filed an opposition to Ms. Weber's request on
July 19, 2010, on the grounds that Weber failed to show that
exceptional circumstances warranted the entry of a final judgment
where fewer than all claims or parties had been dismissed.  On
August 20, 2010, the Court denied Ms. Weber's motion.  On
October 29, 2010, the Court dismissed the action against
OrthoClear and OrthoClear Holdings Inc. with prejudice at the
request of the remaining parties pursuant to a settlement.  The
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice entered by the
Court provides that the settlement and dismissal does not affect
any rights Ms. Weber may have to appeal dismissal of the action as
against the Company.  The Company believes Ms. Weber's right to
appeal expired earlier this year, and that there is no evidence to
indicate that a reasonable possibility exists that a loss had been
incurred as of June 30, 2011.

Align Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system and the iTero and iOC scanning system and
services.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
filed by Charles Wozniak on behalf of holders of common stock of
the Company, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In August 2009, Mr. Wozniak filed a lawsuit against the Company
and its Chief Executive Officer and President, Thomas M. Prescott,
in District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a claimed class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the Company's common stock between January 30, 2007
and October 24, 2007.  The complaint alleges that the Company and
Mr. Prescott violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that Mr. Prescott violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that during the class period the Company failed to
disclose that it had shifted the focus of its sales force to
clearing backlog, causing a significant decrease in the number of
new case starts.  On November 13, 2009, the Court appointed
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 29, 2010.
The amended complaint alleges that the Company and Mr. Prescott
issued a number of purportedly false and misleading statements
throughout the class period concerning the Patients First program,
the Company's production capacity, a purported backlog, and the
focus of its sales force.  On March 26, 2010, the Company and Mr.
Prescott filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
motion was heard by the Court on July 9, 2010 and on June 8, 2011,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.  On July 22, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint adding allegations that Align and Mr. Prescott
issued a number of purportedly false and misleading statements
throughout the class period concerning the ClinAdvisor product.  A
response to the seconded complaint is not yet due from the Company
or Mr. Prescott.  The Company believes the lawsuit to be without
merit and intend to vigorously defend itself.

Align Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system and the iTero and iOC scanning system and
services.


APPLE INC: iPhone Users Fight Motion to Compel Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that iPhone
customers urged a federal judge to let them pursue a class action
that claims Apple and A&T illegally restricted their choice of
phone carrier.

Lead plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a federal
complaint against Apple and AT&T Mobility in October 2007,
claiming the companies illegally controlled consumer choices by
forcing iPhone buyers to sign up for AT&T.  A San Jose federal
judge certified their class action last year.

AT&T and Apple said earlier this month that the lawsuit should be
arbitrated and the class should be decertified because the "entire
theory rests on a single, unified course of conduct."

"Plaintiffs have wrapped themselves for years in the service
contract and in allegations of a single ATTM-Apple conspiracy to
survive motions to dismiss and obtain class certification,"
according to Apple's motion to compel arbitration.  "They cannot
run from those theories now."

The plaintiffs filed new briefs fighting the motions to decertify
the class and compel arbitration.

The iTunes Terms of Service agreement requires plaintiffs to bring
their claims against Apple in court, and not by arbitration,
according to one brief authored by attorney Rachele Rickert.
Because of this, Apple has no basis to demand individual
arbitration.

Ms. Rickert also argued that Apple waived its right to arbitrate
"by actively and exhaustively litigating this case in this court
and in the Ninth Circuit for the past four years without asserting
any right to demand individual arbitrations with plaintiffs."

The class used a similar argument in a second brief that defends
its right to sue AT&T Mobility (ATTM).

"When ATTM chose to litigate this case in court rather than pursue
its appellate rights under the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act], ATTM
abandoned any right it may have had to demand individual
arbitrations with plaintiffs, and it may not move again to compel
arbitration after years of vigorous litigation in court,"
Ms. Rickert wrote.

The plaintiffs also opposed Apple and AT&T's motion to decertify
the class, claiming the motion "fails for the same reasons that
its motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate fails."

"Apple's argument that decertification will be required even if
the court does not compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims
against Apple is nonsensical," Ms. Rickert wrote.

"The class definition includes the requirement that class members
enter into a two-year service agreement with ATTM merely as a
convenient way to identify which iPhone customers were
participants in the aftermarket and thus harmed by defendants'
wrongdoing."

Ms. Rickert says the issue of what customers knew or didn't know
about Apple and AT&T's "secret agreement to monopolize the iPhone
voice and data aftermarket can be determined on a class-wide
basis."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Apple's Motion
to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Case, Case No. 07-cv-05152 (N.D.
Calif.) (Ware, J.), is available at http://is.gd/kRWEzB

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
                  schmidt@whafh.com
                  liskow@whafh.com


ASIAINFO-LINKAGE INC: Appeal on IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement of a consolidated IPO
allocation case remains pending, according to AsiaInfo-Linkage
Inc.'s August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering, or
the IPO. The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of the Company's common stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO. The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in its
IPO prospectus and registration statement. The lawsuit seeks
rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of its common
stock as well as unspecified damages. In addition to the case
against the Company, various other plaintiffs have filed
approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar class action
cases, or the IPO Allocation Cases, against approximately 300
other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New
York City, which along with the case against the Company have all
been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes
of case management.

In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants
in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO
Allocation Cases. The agreement was filed with the court in April
2009 and a final approval was granted by the court in October
2009. The final approval was subject to appeal until November
2009. Ten appeals were filed objecting to the definition of the
settlement class and fairness of the settlement, five of which
have been dismissed with prejudice. Two appeal briefs were filed
by the remaining objector groups, one of which was dismissed and
the other remanded to the District Court to determine whether the
appellant has standing to object to the settlement. If the
settlement is approved, the Company expects any damages payable to
the plaintiffs to be fully funded by its directors' and officers'
liability insurance policies. If the litigation proceeds, the
Company intends to continue to defend the litigation vigorously.
Moreover, if the litigation proceeds, the Company believes that
the underwriters may have an obligation to indemnify it for the
legal fees and other costs of defending this lawsuit and that its
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies would also
cover the defense and potential exposure in the lawsuit.

AsiaInfo-Linkage Inc. is a provider of communications software
solutions and IT related services in China.


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Adopt Indian Metis Program
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Warick, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of some of the thousands
of First Nations people adopted out during the "60s scoop."

So far, 57 plaintiffs from across the country have joined the
suits filed against the federal government in various cities by
Regina lawyer Tony Merchant.

"Those people . . . have been profoundly affected," Mr. Merchant
said in an interview on Aug. 23.

He said the Adopt Indian Metis (AIM) program took thousands of
aboriginal children out of their families and communities.  They
were often placed in faraway non-aboriginal homes and "forced to
be white."  Some of them were subjected to physical or sexual
abuse, Mr. Merchant said.

Mr. Merchant said the AIM program was heavily advertised by the
federal government.  Many families thought they were doing the
right thing by adopting a child and assimilating him or her.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for cultural suppression,
loss of sense of family, physical and emotional trauma,
susceptibility to addictions and other factors.

"The goal of assimilating Indian children into mainstream Canadian
society led to the obliteration of the culture, language and
religion of Indian members of the Class (lawsuit)," states the
lawsuit.

The Saskatchewan portion of the lawsuit was filed in Regina's
Court of Queen's Bench on Aug. 22.  None of the allegations have
been proven in court, and the government will have 30 days to file
a response.

One of the plaintiffs, a woman now in her early 40s living in
Saskatoon, stated she was "abducted" from her parents at age two
and shuttled around various foster homes.  During one placement in
Toronto, she was beaten and sliced with a knife by the father.

After several other placements, she began to use cocaine,
attempted suicide and has suffered psychological problems ever
since.

Mr. Merchant said adoptees need to be compensated, even if most
people involved in the AIM program had good intentions.  He
compared it to people wrongfully convicted of crimes.  Even if the
police and prosecutors acted in good faith, the wrongfully
convicted person is entitled to compensation, he said.

"These people deserve compensation because they were wrongly taken
from their families and their culture," Mr. Merchant said.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Class Action Over Call Charges
----------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Aug. 23 disclosed that a purported class
action lawsuit against the Company and two other cellular
operators was filed in the District Court of Central Region, by
plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the defendants.  The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully and in violation
of their licenses charged their subscribers based on units which
are different than the units allegedly required by the defendants'
licenses, for calls initiated or received by the subscribers while
abroad.

The plaintiffs did not state any estimate of the total amount
claimed from any of the defendants, if the lawsuit is certified as
a class action.

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

                      About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is an Israeli
cellular provider.  Cellcom Israel provides its approximately
3.366 million subscribers (as at June 30, 2011) with a broad range
of value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad and additional services in the areas of music, video,
mobile office etc., based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure.


COMSCORE INC: Faces Class Action Over Data Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine and Jim Finkle, writing for Reuters, report that online
data tracking service comScore Inc. siphons confidential
information including passwords, credit card numbers and Social
Security numbers from unsuspecting users, according to a lawsuit
filed on Tuesday.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of two
plaintiffs who downloaded comScore software, also says comScore
scans all files on users' personal computers and modifies security
settings, among other allegations.

The lawsuit against comScore, one of the leading companies that
measures and analyzes Internet traffic, seeks an injunction
against several alleged practices, as well as damages under U.S.
electronic communications privacy laws.

ComScore collects data from people who get free software and
chances to enter sweepstakes in exchange for their participation.
It sells that information to more than 1,800 businesses around the
world, including Best Buy Co, Facebook, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo
Inc., according to comScore's Web site.

Concerns have surfaced about comScore's data collection practices
in the past, though the complaint filed on Aug. 23 by Chicago-
based law firm Edelson McGuire appears to be the first such legal
action taken against the company.

The lawsuit says comScore's software scans all accessible files on
a user's computer, as well as all files from other users on the
same network, and transmits information about those files back to
the company.

"We have reviewed the lawsuit and find it to be without merit and
full of factual inaccuracies," said comScore spokesman Andrew
Lipsman.  "ComScore intends to aggressively defend itself against
these claims."

Privacy advocates have grown more concerned about data collection,
inadvertent or not, as people increasingly transfer tasks from
shopping to banking onto the Internet.

Last year, Google Inc. was criticized for its Street View cars,
which roam city streets for mapping purposes, because they
accidentally collected reams of data from open, unsecured Wi-Fi
networks.

ComScore warns visitors to its premieropinion.com Web site that
its software monitors all Internet activity, including filling a
shopping basket, completing an application form or checking online
accounts.

"We make commercially viable efforts to automatically filter
confidential, personally identifiable information such as UserID,
password, credit card numbers, and account numbers," the warning
says.

"Inadvertently, we may collect such information about our
panelists; and when this happens, we make commercially viable
efforts to purge our database of such information."

In a 2008 blog post, comScore chairman Gian Fulgoni said the
company obtains consent from people before installing data
collection software, and that it does not disclose personally
identifiable information to its clients.

ComScore data is routinely cited in media reports about consumer
preferences and social networking Web site use, among other
topics.

The company's biggest customer is Microsoft, which accounted for
about 11% of the $175 million it took in last year.  Media
companies like News Corp are also clients, according to the
lawsuit, as is Reuters parent company Thomson Reuters Corp.

The lawsuit does not accuse comScore clients of any wrongdoing.
Best Buy, Microsoft and Thomson Reuters spokespeople declined to
comment.  Representatives for Facebook, Yahoo and News Corp. were
unavailable to comment.

According to the lawsuit, comScore attracts some users by
advertising on Web sites.  But the lawsuit also accuses comScore
of using subsidiaries with innocuous names to disseminate its
software and gain access to millions of consumers' computers and
networks.

ComScore software is embedded in free screensavers, games and
other applications without proper notice, according to the
lawsuit, which was filed in a Chicago federal court.

Once downloaded, comScore software modifies a computer's firewall
settings and gains full rights to access and change any file on
the computer, the lawsuit says.

It is nearly impossible to disable the software once it is
installed, the lawsuit says.

Jay Edelson, an attorney who represents the plaintiffs, said his
firm began its investigation of comScore in July 2010.

"We retained multiple digital forensic firms, who each conducted
dozens of independent tests," Mr. Edelson said.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, is
Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. comScore Inc, case no.
11-cv-5807.


CORELOGIC INC: Unit Faces Fair Credit Reporting Class Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
One of CoreLogic, Inc.'s subsidiaries was slapped with a
purported class action lawsuit filed in a district court in
Illinois, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On June 30, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against Teletrack, Inc., one of the Company's
subsidiaries.  The complaint alleges that Teletrack has
been furnishing consumer reports to third parties who did
not have a permissible purpose to obtain them in violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et
seq., and seeks to recover actual, punitive and statutory
damages, as well as attorneys' fees, litigation expenses
and cost of suit.  The Company intends to defend against
this claim vigorously; however, the Company may not be
successful.  At this time, the Company cannot predict the
ultimate outcome of this claim or the potential range of
damages, if any.


FISKARS BRANDS: Recalls 2,200 SmartPower String Trimmers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fiskars Brands, Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,200 Fiskars(R) SmartPower(TM) String trimmers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Engine vibration during use of the trimmers can cause wear on the
fuel line, leading to a propane fuel leak.  The Straight Shaft
Trimmers' propane canister can crack at the neck during use.  In
addition, high temperatures may develop near the Curved Shaft
Trimmers' plastic cutting guard, causing the guard to deform and
fall off.  These issues pose burn, fire and laceration hazards to
the user.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Fiskars(R) SmartPower(TM) Propane 4-Cycle
Straight Shaft String Trimmer Model 67016935 and SmartPower(TM)
Propane 4-Cycle Curved Shaft String Trimmer Model 67036946.  Both
trimmers use propane fuel.  "SmartPower(TM)" is printed on the
lower shaft and near the pull-start handle.  "Fiskars(R)" is
printed on the engine cover and on the plastic cutting guard.  The
trimmers are black, silver and orange.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11310.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Exchange stores, also known as the Army and Air Force Exchange
Service or AAFES, and online at Amazon.com, Walmart.com,
Powerequipmentdirect.com and SureSource.com, from January 2011 to
July 2011 for between $220 and $280.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trimmers and
contact Fiskars(R) to receive a full refund.  For additional
information contact Fiskars Brands toll-free anytime 24 hours a
day at (877) 495-6645, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.fiskars.com/


GEEKNET INC: Appeals on Settlement Pact in IPO Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from court approval of a global settlement of lawsuits
over initial public offerings remain pending, according to
Geeknet, Inc.'s August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

In January 2001, the Company, two of its former officers, and
Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the Company's
initial public offering, were named as defendants in a shareholder
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, later consolidated and captioned In re VA Software
Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-0242.
The plaintiffs' class action lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock from the time of the Company's initial public offering in
December 1999 through December 2000.

Among other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus
pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the
Company's initial public offering contained certain false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common
stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from
customers related to such allocations.  Various plaintiffs have
filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the initial
public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers.  These
various cases were coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

In 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the
litigation.  On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order
certifying a settlement class and granting final approval of the
settlement.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well as
the officer and director defendants, who were previously dismissed
from the action pursuant to a stipulation, will receive complete
dismissals from the case.  A group of objectors appealed the
Court's October 5, 2009 order to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  The Plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss the
appeals, some of which have been granted and some of which are
still pending.  If for any reason the settlement does not become
effective and litigation resumes, the Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend
the action vigorously.

Geeknet, Inc. is an online network for the global geek community,
comprised of technology professionals, technology enthusiasts and
general consumers of technology-oriented goods, services and
media.


HOLLY FRONTIER: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Frontier Corporation continues to defend class action
lawsuits challenging the Company's proposed merger with Frontier
Oil Corporation, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

On February 21, 2011, Holly Corporation entered into a merger
agreement providing for a "merger of equals" business combination
between the Company and Frontier Oil Corporation.  On July 1,
2011, North Acquisition, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of
Holly, merged with and into Frontier, with Frontier surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Holly.  Concurrent with the merger,
Holly Corp. changed its name to HollyFrontier Corporation and
changed the trading symbol for its common stock traded on the New
York Stock Exchange to "HFC."  Subsequent to the merger and
following approval by the post-closing board of directors of
HollyFrontier, Frontier merged with and into HollyFrontier, with
HollyFrontier continuing as the surviving corporation.

Twelve substantially similar shareholder lawsuits styled as class
actions have been filed by alleged Frontier shareholders
challenging the Company's proposed "merger of equals" with
Frontier and naming as defendants Frontier, its board of directors
and, in certain instances, Holly and the Company's then wholly
owned subsidiary, North Acquisition, Inc., as aiders and abettors.
Further, in three federal court cases, the Company and North
Acquisition, Inc. also are alleged to have violated Section 14(a)
of the Exchange Act of 1934 by soliciting proxies based on an
allegedly false and misleading proxy statement concerning the
proposed merger.  Those shareholder actions have been filed in
Harris County, Texas, Laramie County, Wyoming, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The lawsuits filed in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas
are entitled: Adam Walker, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated vs. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al.
(filed February 22, 2011), Andrew Goldberg, on Behalf of Himself
and All Other Similarly Situated Shareholders of Frontier Oil
Corporation v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed February
24, 2011), L.A. Murphy, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Paul B. Loyd, Jr., et al. (filed February
24, 2011), Zhixin Huang v. Frontier Oil Corp., et al. (filed
February 24, 2011), Robert Pettigrew, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et
al. (filed February 25, 2011), Walter E. Ryan, Jr., On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil
Corporation, et al. (filed February 25, 2011), Christopher
Borrelli, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed March 2,
2011), and Randy Whitman, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Frontier Oil Corporation, et al. (filed on
March 8, 2011).  The lawsuit filed in the District Court of
Laramie County, Wyoming is entitled Thomas Greulich, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frontier Oil
Corporation, et al. (filed March 1, 2011).  The lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas is
entitled Angelo Chiarelli, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Holly Corporation, et al. (filed on March 2,
2011).  The lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas are entitled Tim Wilcox, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frontier Oil
Corporation, et al. (filed on March 7, 2011), and Jackie A.
Rhymes, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Michael Jennings, et al. (filed on March 17, 2011).

These lawsuits generally allege that (1) the consideration to be
received by Frontier's shareholders in the merger is inadequate,
(2) the Frontier directors breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the merger at an inadequate price
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest, (3) the merger agreement includes preclusive deal
protection provisions, and (4) Frontier, and in some cases we and
North Acquisition, Inc., aided and abetted Frontier's board of
directors in breaching its fiduciary duties to Frontier's
shareholders.  The shareholder actions seek various remedies,
including enjoining the transaction from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, compensatory damages, and
costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuits.

In the cases pending in Texas state court, on March 21, 2011,
plaintiff in the Walker lawsuit filed an amended petition alleging
that Frontier's current directors also breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose material information or making
materially inadequate disclosures concerning the proposed merger
in the registration statement on Form S-4.  On March 25, 2011, the
lawsuits pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
were consolidated under the style In re: Frontier Oil Corp., Cause
No. 2011-11451, and interim class counsel was appointed on April
12, 2011.  On May 9, 2011, Holly answered the consolidated amended
petition, generally denying the allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses.  Some limited discovery occurred.

On June 17, 2011, the defendants in the consolidated state court
lawsuit reached an agreement-in-principle with the plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of that lawsuit.  In connection with the
settlement, certain additional disclosures were made to Frontier's
shareholders on June 20, 2011.  The parties contemplate that the
agreement-in-principle will be documented by the parties, that the
written agreement will contain customary provisions and further
agree that approval of the settlement must, and will, be sought
from the court following notice to the shareholders of Frontier
and consummation of the merger.  In connection with the approval
of the settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court
will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement which, if finally approved by the court, will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
actions being settled, including all claims relating to the
merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith.  In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will petition the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
the defendants.  The Company cannot be certain that the parties
will ultimately enter into a written settlement agreement or that
the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such an agreement.  If the court does not approve the
settlement, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
agreement-in-principle may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the amount of merger consideration
paid in the merger.

With respect to the federal lawsuits, on June 22, 2011 the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted
the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Wilcox and Rhymes cases.
In addition, these lawsuits also allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making
untrue statements of material fact and omitting to state material
facts necessary to make the statements that were made not
misleading in the registration statement on Form S-4.  On
April 21, 2011, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary moved
to dismiss the amended class action complaints filed in the Wilcox
and Rhymes cases.  That motion remains pending.

On May 6, 2011, the Company also moved to dismiss the original
class action complaint filed in the Chiarelli case; the Company's
subsidiary was not named as a defendant in that action.  Rather
than respond to that motion, the plaintiff sought and obtained the
court's permission to file an amended complaint, which was filed
on June 29, 2011.  On July 29, 2011, the parties filed an agreed
motion to stay the Chiarelli case so that the proposed settlement
in the consolidated state court action could be considered and
resolved by the court in Harris County.  That motion was granted
on August 4, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Wilcox and Rhymes cases
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction to enjoin the proposed merger and to prevent Frontier's
shareholders from voting on the proposed merger at a shareholders
meeting on June 28, 2011.  After a hearing on June 24, 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion.  The federal lawsuits remain
pending.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend these and any future
lawsuits, as they believe that they have valid defenses to all
claims and that the lawsuits are entirely without merit.


HOUSTON COUNTY, AL: Indigent Defense System Flawed, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Griffin, writing for Dothan Eagle, reports that a federal
lawsuit claims Houston County's indigent defense system is too
flawed to provide defendants with adequate legal representation
and asks a judge to end the program and award monetary damages.

The suit was filed in a U.S. District Court last week by three
Dothan attorneys and an attorney from Mobile on behalf of Cenobio
Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who pleaded guilty to murder in
Houston County in 2009; and Tina Mikel, who pleaded guilty to
unlawful possession of a controlled substance in 2009.

The suit, however, is seeking class action status, meaning it
could apply to all defendants who have received legal
representation since 2004 when Houston County adopted a "contract"
system for attorneys who represent criminal defendants unable to
pay for their own lawyer.  No ruling has been made on the class
action request.

Defendants include Gov. Robert Bentley, the director of the
Alabama Administrative Office of Courts, Houston County's
presiding circuit judge, and the members of Houston County's
indigent defense commission.

Under the contract system employed in Houston County, criminal
defense attorneys are awarded contracts to represent defendants
the court deems unable to pay for their own defense.  A local
commission awards the contracts based on recommendations from the
local judges.  Typically, two or more attorneys work all indigent
defense cases assigned to a specific judge for a contract amount.
Advocates of the program say it saves the county about $1 million
per year over the old system, in which attorneys were appointed to
work indigent defense cases and billed the court according to the
hours worked.

But the suit claims the contract system results in smothering
workloads for attorneys, who are unable to provide the necessary
attention to indigent cases.  The suit claims Houston County fails
its indigent defendants by not monitoring the workload of its
contract attorneys.

Sanchez entered a blind plea of guilty in connection with the 2007
murder of Carlos Benitez and was sentenced to 40 years in prison.
He also pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of a forged
instrument and was sentenced to five years on each count, to run
concurrently at the end of his murder sentence.

Mr. Sanchez, who says he does not speak or understand English,
contested his guilty plea after sentencing, claiming his attorney
and interpreter did not adequately explain his sentencing range.
A local judge upheld the guilty plea.  The Alabama Court of
Criminal Appeals ordered the local court to hold an evidentiary
hearing and explain the reasons for the ruling.  The appeals court
agreed with the local court's findings.

"We agree with the circuit court that it appears as though Sanchez
now regrets his decision to plead guilty to his murder charge
instead of proceeding to trial and is attempting to challenge the
voluntariness of his guilty plea because he is displeased with the
sentence," the appeals court decision stated.

The suit claims Mr. Sanchez would have made a different decision
if his contract attorney had been able to devote more time to the
case.  The suit claims that during the course of Mr. Sanchez's
case, his contract attorney also worked 329 felony cases, 46
divorces and a handful of other cases.

"Hampered by excessive workloads and the absence of meaningful
administrative oversight, contract attorneys do not, or are unable
to, perform the tasks necessary to provide adequate representation
to their clients and thereby fail in the function of providing an
adversarial check upon the prosecution function," the suit states.

The suit claims the contract system fails for the following
reasons:

    * Contract attorneys don't have enough time to devote to
meetings with indigent clients prior to critical stages in their
clients' criminal proceedings.

   * Most contract attorneys don't file the necessary pre-trial
motions or challenge the sufficiency of evidence in many criminal
proceedings.

   * Contract attorneys rarely ask for additional funds from the
court for the use of expert witnesses or private investigators.

   * Contract attorneys often compel their clients to plead guilty
when they are ill-prepared for trial.

Houston County Commission Chairman Mark Culver, who serves on the
local indigent defense commission, said he did not want to comment
on the content of the lawsuit, but thought using Mr. Sanchez as a
representative defendant in a proposed class action suit was
"odd."

"I just think it's a little weird that an admitted illegal alien
would be filing a suit," Mr. Culver said.


INTEL CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Violation Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation continues to defend class action lawsuits
alleging violation of the Sherman Act and other laws, according to
the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2,
2011.

At least 82 separate class actions have been filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern
District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska,
District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of
Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee
state courts.  These actions generally repeat the allegations made
in a now-settled lawsuit filed against Intel by Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc., in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (AMD litigation).  Like the AMD litigation,
these class-action suits allege that Intel engaged in various
actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among
other things, providing discounts and rebates to the Company's
manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or
near exclusive dealings that allegedly unfairly interfered with
AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors, interfering with
certain AMD product launches, and interfering with AMD's
participation in certain industry standards-setting groups.  The
class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that
consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher
prices for computers containing our microprocessors.  The Company
disputes the class-action claims and intends to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pretrial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings).  The Delaware district court has appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court.  In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the Company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence.  This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled.  The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain personal computers
containing products sold by Intel.  In July 2010, the Special
Master issued a Report and Recommendation (Class Report) denying
the motion to certify a class.  The MDL plaintiffs filed
objections to the Special Master's Class Report, and a hearing on
these objections was held in March 2011.  The Delaware district
court has not yet ruled on those objections.  All California class
actions have been consolidated in the Superior Court of California
in Santa Clara County.  The plaintiffs in the California actions
have moved for class certification, which the Company is in the
process of opposing.  At the Company's request, the court in the
California actions has agreed to delay ruling on this motion until
after the Delaware district court rules on the similar motion in
the MDL proceedings.  Based on the procedural posture and the
nature of the cases, including, but not limited to, the fact that
the Special Master's Class Report is on review in the Delaware
district court, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising
from these matters.


INTERCLICK: Majority of History Sniffing Claims Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir Hill, writing for Forbes, reports that advertisers using
code to look at your browser history to see sites you've
previously visited in order to serve you relevant ads isn't a
federal case.  But has some legs as a state case.  A New York
judge has dismissed most of the claims of a lawsuit against
digital advertising company Interclick over 'history sniffing' and
the use of 'flash cookies' to serve up digital ads to Web surfers.

The plaintiff, New York woman Sonal Bose, had also sued Mazda,
McDonald's and Microsoft, companies that had used Interclick to
help run their advertising campaigns.  It looks like Ms. Bose's
nose was slightly off in thinking she smelled a jackpot in a class
action over history sniffing, as all of the claims against those
companies have been dismissed.

Claims that still stand against Interclick are deceptive business
practices and trespass on a computer.  The court argues that
there's no economic harm done to consumers in collecting
demographic information about them based on their Web activity, so
dismissed computer fraud and contract violation allegations.
"Advertising on the Internet is no different from advertising on
television or in newspapers," writes Judge Deborah Batts.
(Really?)  "Even if [Sonal Bose, the plaintiff] took steps to
prevent the data collection, her injury is still insufficient to
meet the statutory threshold."

This suit ran into the same problem that many of these suits do:
it may be unsettling to have your "privacy" invaded by
advertisers, but there's no obvious economic harm to the practice.
Though I would object to Judge Batts saying that online ads are no
different from TV and newspaper ones -- they allow advertisers to
collect information from people looking at the ads in a way that's
impossible in more static formats.

In this case, as in other cookie-based litigation, privacy is not
seen as economically valuable.  "It's interesting that the court
comes right out and says that even if Bose took steps to prevent
the collection, her injury isn't enough to get the court's
attention," writes Venkat Balasubramani at the Marketing &
Technology Blog.  "Not a very privacy-friendly judge here."

Good news in the ruling for advertisers that are using ad networks
coming up with new and controversial methods of delivering
relevant ads, Mr. Balasubramani says: "It's helpful from an
advertiser standpoint to get a clear ruling that their mere
purchase of advertising on an ad network will not get them sucked
into a privacy lawsuit.  I wouldn't characterize this scenario as
risk-free, but it's still nice that the court made clear that
advertisers should not be a part of this lawsuit."

Advertising networks keep coming up with new and sometimes
controversial tactics for tracking.  The latest are "supercookies"
-- which are not what Clark Kent dunks in his milk -- but instead
profiling tools that are as hard to eradicate from your computer
as bed bugs are from your home.  It looks like those opposed to
tracking may have a hard time winning their war in the courts, but
they are pressing on in Washington, D.C. where "Do Not Track"
legislation remains on the table.  Advertisers meanwhile are
pushing for a self-regulation approach to privacy protection, but
discoveries like "supercookies" are, as Julia Angwin at The Wall
Street Journal notes, making that seem like an increasingly
questionable option.


MILLER ENERGY: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of Miller Energy
Resources, Inc., f/k/a Miller Petroleum Inc. common stock who
purchased shares between March 22, 2010 and August 1, 2011,
inclusive.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that, among other
things, the Company materially overstated its financial results by
presenting financial statements that violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.  On August 1, 2011, Miller Energy announced
it would be issuing revised financial statements for the periods
ending January 31, 2011, October 31, 2010 and July 31, 2010.

If you purchased MILL common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than October 11, 2011.  Any member of the purported 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.  If you are a Miller Energy investor and would like to
discuss a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and
interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I.
Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


NEW SOUTH WALES, AU: Wants Unlawful Arrests Class Action Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that the New South Wales Government will ask a
judge to throw out claims that police could have avoided hundreds
of unlawful arrests.

The NSW Police Force is facing a class action in the state's
Supreme Court by young people who claim they were wrongfully
detained because of glitches in the police computer system.

The claimants are being represented in court by the Public
Interest Advocacy Centre.

The center's senior solicitor, Vavaa Mawuli, says there have been
complaints about the problem for years.

"To the Police Commissioner, the NSW Attorney-General and senior
staff members within NSW Police and the Attorney-General's
office," Ms. Mawuli said.

"That's been happening consistently for five years with no result
so far."

But despite that, ABC News understands the State Government
planned on Aug. 24 to ask the court to throw out the claim that
arresting officers should have know of the problem.

The Police Force's own prosecutions unit also warned more than a
year ago of an "enormous risk" of claims for damages.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Awaits Ruling on Standing Issue in IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ON SemiConductor Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
whether an appellant has standing to object to a settlement
agreement in the In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 1, 2011.

During the period July 5, 2001 through July 27, 2001, the Company
was named as a defendant in three shareholder class action
lawsuits that were filed in federal court in New York City against
it and certain of the Company's former officers, current and
former directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering. The lawsuits allege violations of the federal
securities laws and have been docketed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York as: Abrams v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No 01-CV-6114; Breuer v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6287; and Cohen v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6942. On April 19,
2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint
that supersedes the individual complaints originally filed. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters' excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the Company's
common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares
in its initial public offering. The amended complaint further
alleges that these supposed practices of the underwriters should
have been disclosed in the Company's initial public offering
prospectus and registration statement. The amended complaint
alleges violations of both the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
damages. The Company understands that various other plaintiffs
have filed substantially similar class action cases against
approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies and their public
offering underwriters in New York City, which have all been
transferred, along with the case against the Company, to a single
federal district court judge for purposes of coordinated case
management. The Company believes that the claims against it are
without merit and have defended, and intend to continue to defend,
the litigation vigorously. The litigation process is inherently
uncertain, however, and the Company cannot guarantee that the
outcome of these claims will be favorable for the Company.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters
also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In
addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of the Company's individual former officers and
current and former directors who were named as defendants in the
Company's litigation, and they are no longer parties to the
litigation. On February 19, 2003, the District Court issued its
ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter and
issuer defendants. In that ruling, the District Court granted in
part and denied in part those motions. As to the claims brought
against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the
securities laws, the District Court dismissed all of these claims
with prejudice, and refused to allow plaintiffs the opportunity to
re-plead these claims. As to the claims brought under the
registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the District Court
denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The
District Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to
dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company elected
to participate in a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in
this litigation. Had it been approved by the District Court, this
proposed settlement would have resulted in the dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and
against any of the other issuer defendants who elected to
participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current
or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were
named as individual defendants. This proposed issuer settlement
was conditioned on, among other things, a ruling by the District
Court that the claims against the Company and against the other
issuers who had agreed to the settlement would be certified for
class action treatment for purposes of the proposed settlement,
such that all investors included in the proposed classes in these
cases would be bound by the terms of the settlement unless an
investor opted to be excluded from the settlement in a timely and
appropriate fashion.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits containing
allegations substantially similar to those asserted against the
Company could not be certified as class actions due, in part, to
the Court of Appeals' determination that individual issues of
reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to the
proposed classes. On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of this ruling. On April 6,
2007, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing of the Court of Appeals' December 5, 2006 ruling. The
Court of Appeals, however, noted that the plaintiffs remained free
to ask the District Court to certify classes different from the
ones originally proposed which might meet the standards for class
certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its
December 5, 2006 decision. In light of the Court of Appeals'
December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the
plaintiffs' claims, the District Court entered an order on June
25, 2007 terminating the proposed settlement between the
plaintiffs and the issuers, including the Company.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases. The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases. On March 26, 2008,
the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety. A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009. On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement. Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement. Ten appeals were filed
objecting to the definition of the settlement class and fairness
of the settlement, five of which have been dismissed with
prejudice. On May 17, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed four of
the remaining appeals and remanded the final appeal to the
District Court to determine whether the appellant has standing to
object to the settlement. The District Court has yet to rule on
that issue. The settlement calls for a total payment of $586
million from all defendants, including underwriters, of which $100
million is allocated to the approximately 300 issuer defendants.
Under the settlement, the Company's insurers are to pay the full
amount of the settlement share allocated to it, and the Company
would bear no financial liability. The Company, as well as the
officer and director defendants who were previously dismissed from
the action pursuant to tolling agreements, are to receive complete
dismissals from the case. While the Company can make no assurances
or guarantees as to the outcome of these proceedings, based upon
the Company's current knowledge, the Company believes that the
final result of this action will have no material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.

ON SemiConductor Corporation is a premier supplier of high
performance, silicon solutions for energy efficient electronics.


R.E. LOANS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Dan Noyes, writing for ABC7 News, reports that an investment
scandal that started in the East Bay could turn out to be the
largest securities fraud in California history.  At stake,
according to a class action lawsuit, is $750 million from about
3,000 investors.

With so much money and so many investors involved, this drama is
playing out right now on several fronts with lawsuits,
bankruptcies and an FBI investigation.

The 3,000 investors are feeling the impact of the scandal in many
different ways.

"It's just outright thievery," said investor Dr. Richard
Homrighausen.  "It's such deception on such a monstrous scale."

Mr. Homrighausen has had to scale back his plans for retirement
after losing almost a million dollars.

"I have accepted that I will never get any money from this," said
Mr. Homrighausen.  "I think I, at age 84, will not live to see any
money come out, if any money comes out."

Nurse Arlyss Rothman and her husband, also a doctor, now have to
delay their retirement after investing seven figures; she's
uncomfortable saying exactly how much.

"And we understood they'd never lost a penny, this was repeated
millions and millions of times, they've never lost a penny of
investors' money," said Ms. Rothman.

And graphic artist John McGuire's two sons have had to put off
going to college.  The family's $300,000 account, which also
included money for Mr. McGuire's future medical expenses, is gone.

"They just kept taking checks," said Mr. McGuire.  "They knew this
was coming down like a house of cards."

Over the past 35 years, Walter Ng, his sons Barney and Kelly, the
varsity volleyball coach at UC Berkeley, and pediatrician Bruce
Horwitz ran a series of limited partnerships that made loans to
developers.  They told investors the properties were primarily in
California.

"As it turned out, most of the holdings were out of state," said
lawyer Richard Brown who has filed a class action lawsuit against
Mr. Ng and his partners.  "They were very speculative, you know,
the classic desert land outside of Utah or desert land in Texas or
swampland in North Carolina."

Mr. Horwitz recruited fellow doctors and his friends at the Orinda
Roadrunners Club to invest.  Mr. Ng worked the Sequoya Country
Club in Oakland, and each year, they rented out the Silver Dragon
restaurant for several nights of investor appreciation dinners.
The message was always the same.

"It was safety first, safety second, safety third," said
Mr. McGuire. "You know, everything's going great."

And that message continued, even during the real estate slump.
Mr. Ng has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and in response,
Mr. Brown has filed that class action lawsuit.  It accuses Mr. Ng
of embezzlement, of violating federal securities laws, and of
lying to investors to keep the money flowing into the latest fund,
R.E. Loans.

"They set up the second fund, Mortgage Fund '08, they began to use
part of that money to pay off investors in R.E. Loans and their
friends and family members, and that's what made it a Ponzi
scheme," said Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown says Mr. Ng and his partners took out a $50 million
Wells Fargo line of credit and continued the disbursements to
family and friends, and they didn't disclose that the line of
credit put the investors in a secondary position -- the bank will
have to be paid, before any investor sees a dime.

This is a complex case, and the I-Team has confirmed a coordinated
criminal investigation is fully underway with the FBI, the SEC and
the Department of Labor.

"It's money, but the main thing is justice," said Mr. McGuire, who
is among the first investors to sue to get his money back.

Messrs. Ng and Horwitz answered the complaint by saying, "At all
times herein, they used their good faith business judgment in the
conduct of the affairs of R.E. Loans, LLC."

Mr. Ng got out of the trial by declaring bankruptcy.  But the jury
found Mr. Horwitz "failed to act as required by law" and "breached
his fiduciary duties," and awarded Mr. McGuire $150,000 in
damages.  He's asking the trial judge to increase the amount at a
hearing this week.

Mr. McGuire is struck by the elderly investors who've been
watching his case so closely.

"At the trial, we had probably 10 to 12 investors.  I get choked
up& you would hear the stories of 'Yeah, you know, I mortgaged my
house and invested it with these people,' 'I took out my
retirement and invested it with these people,'" he said.  "They're
older and they can't get that back."

On Aug. 22, the I-Team received an e-mail from Mr. Ng's criminal
defense attorney.  It says, "He is distraught about the losses to
investors.  As an investor himself, Mr. Ng has also suffered
losses that have caused him to file for bankruptcy.  He knows that
many of his investors were even more devastated, and he hopes they
will be able to recover their losses through the bankruptcy
proceeding and restructuring efforts."


RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Abuses
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a former home for the developmentally
disabled west of Ottawa is one of two provincially-run
institutions facing a class action lawsuit in Ontario Superior
Court.

The former Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, Ont., which
closed in March 2009, was one of two institutions to be certified
for the suits Aug. 19 by Justice Carolyn Horkins in Toronto.

The other is the Southwestern Regional Centre near Chatham, Ont.

The class action is based on the Ontario government's alleged
"negligence and breach of fiduciary duties in the operation,
control and management" of the Smith Falls centre between Sept. 1,
1963 and March 31, 2009.

"The alleged physical and mental abuse that these former residents
endured is very disturbing and we are hoping that these lawsuits
will soon come to a conclusion, so that residents can finally see
justice and compensation in their lifetime," said lawyer
Kirk Baert, who will represent plaintiffs in both cases.

Mr. Baert also alleged abuses occurred unchecked for decades even
though the government was supplied alarming reports about possible
abuses.

The Rideau Regional Centre used to house about 2,500 adults with
developmental disabilities.

The government announced the sale of the property in early July to
Joe Gallipeau, a Smiths Falls residential housing developer.
Mr. Gallipeau said he would turn the land into a retirement
community.


STATE OF INDIANA: Faces Class Action Over State Fair Tragedy
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Olson, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that a class-action lawsuit filed by an Indianapolis law firm is
the largest legal action to arise so far from the collapse of a
concert stage at the Indiana State Fair.

The 18-page tort notice, filed on Aug. 22 by Cohen & Malad LLP,
claims the state of Indiana and several other parties, including
two businesses, were negligent in their handling of the Aug. 13
event and in failing to ensure the safety of the stage.

The incident claimed the lives of seven people and injured dozens
of others who were at the fair to watch a concert by country-music
group Sugarland.

Class actions typically are filed by attorneys who bring a claim
on behalf of at least 40 people.

"Here, you've got hundreds," Irwin Levin, managing partner at
Cohen & Malad, told IBJ on Aug. 23.  "There are so many people who
were there and hit by debris -- some injured seriously and some
with just emotional damage."

Mr. Levin said his firm is waiving any fee it might earn from the
lawsuit in order to maximize the limited amount of funds
recoverable from the state.

A state law limits individual damage claims against the state to
$700,000 and overall claims to $5 million per event.  The state,
however, can waive the cap, and Mr. Levin said he will encourage
it to do so.

The cap does not pertain to any private company that may be the
target of a lawsuit.

Other state entities named are the Indiana State Fair Commission,
Indiana State Police and the Indiana Department of Homeland
Security.

Besides the state, Cohen & Malad's class action names Greenfield-
based Mid-America Sound Corp., the company that installed the
stage rigging, and Los Angeles-based Live Nation Worldwide Inc.,
the promoter of the Sugarland concert.

Cohen & Malad filed the class action in Marion Superior Court on
behalf of Angela Fischer, an Indianapolis resident who attended
the concert and continues to suffer emotional trauma, Mr. Levin
said.

"She literally saw people die," he said.  "She saw injuries that
were so graphic that we can't even describe them in the
complaint."

Cohen & Malad has a national reputation for representing
individuals in class-action lawsuits.

The class action follows another tort claim notice filed by the
widow of a 49-year-old man killed by the falling stage.

Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, who is representing
the family of Glenn Goodrich, said the family has filed the notice
against the state regarding intent to file a lawsuit.  The suit
was not a class action.

Mr. Goodrich, a security worker employed by ESG Security who was
working at the show, was critically injured in the incident and
died hours later.

At least two other lawsuits were filed on behalf of other victims
on Aug. 19.


TARGET CORP: Expands Recall of Step Stools with Storage
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a
voluntary recall of about 341,000 step stools with storage,
206,000 of which were recalled on August 4, 2011.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The wooden step stools can break apart or collapse under the
weight of the user, posing a fall hazard.

Target has received 27 reports of the stools breaking or
collapsing.  Fourteen incidents involved children, eight involved
adults, and five incidents where the user's age was unknown.  Two
adults fractured their wrists, and of those victims, one also
fractured her hip and pelvis.  Additionally, six children and one
adult suffered scrapes and bruising.

The wooden step stool has two steps and comes in various colors,
including natural, natural and red, white, pink, blue and honey.
The Circo step stool has a lid on the bottom step that lifts to
provide storage.  The Do Your Room (DYR) step stool has a lid on
the top step that lifts to provide storage.  The step stools
measure approximately 13" H x 13 5/8" W x 14 1/8" D.  The Circo
brand name or DYR brand name and UPC numbers are printed on a
label found underneath the step stool.  The following step stools
are included in this recall:

                    Step Stools With Storage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brand Name  Style Description    UPC Number      Selling Period
----------  -----------------    ----------      --------------
Circo       White step stool   490970403046 or  Jun '09-Feb '10
             w/ storage         180970208597     Feb '10-Oct '10

Circo       Natural step stool 490970403053 or  Jun '09-Feb '10
             w/ storage         180970208610     Feb '10-Oct '10

Circo       Natural & red step 490970403060 or  Jun '09-Feb '10
             stool w/ storage   180970208665     Feb '10-Oct '10

Do Your     Natural step stool 097168014338     Jan '07-Aug '09
Room (DYR)  w/ storage

Do Your     Honey step stool   390970402622     Jan '07-Aug '09
Room (DYR)  w/storage

Do Your          White         859090000076 or  Jan '07-Aug '09
Room (DYR)                     490970401394

Do Your          Pink          801116004445     Jan '07-Aug '09
Room (DYR)

Do Your          Blue          801116004438     Jan '07-Aug '09
Room (DYR)

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11311.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, Vietnam, Taiwan
and Thailand and sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and
online at Target.com from January 2007 through October 2010 for
between $25 and $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the step stools and return
them to any Target store to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR: Sued Over Faulty Elevator Device
-------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Vincent, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Toronto
Community Housing has launched a class-action suit against an
elevator company for a faulty braking device, which if successful
could result in a multi-million-dollar payout to the public
housing corporation and other companies.

An Ontario Superior Court judge certified the class action earlier
this month against Scarborough firm ThyssenKrupp Elevator, which
developed a problematic braking system installed in about 2,000
elevators in Ontario.

The case centers on the "sheave jammer," a secondary braking
device designed to stop the movement of an elevator when the car's
primary control and braking systems don't work properly.

The sheave jammers on some 2,000 traction elevators -- which
operate on steel ropes looped around a "sheave," or pulley, turned
by a motor to raise or lower the car -- had to be replaced after
the Technical Standards and Safety Authority discovered problems
and ordered them removed.

The devices were originally installed between 1989 and 1991.  But
in February 2003, the TSSA received a report from ThyssenKrupp
that a sheave jammer at the Windsor Casino failed to stop an
elevator car from moving away from the floor with its doors open.

In June 2003, Thyssen performed random tests.  The TSSA
representatives who were present noted a high failure rate,
according to court documents.

In February 2005, the TSSA issued a notice warning that the sheave
jammer might not operate properly, for various reasons, and
required all elevators that had it to be tested quarterly.

ThyssenKrupp came up with modifications soon afterward, but on
July 27, 2006, the TSSA issued an order to replace all of the
sheave jammers with a device that met safety requirements, by
Aug. 1, 2007.

ThyssenKrupp did most of the replacement work under its service
contracts, typically charging about $12,000 per job.

TCHC, with its wealth of highrise units, ended up replacing 169
sheave jammers, at a cost of about $2 million.  It launched the
suit to recover its costs in complying with the safety order.

"We have fully complied with a Technical Standards and Safety
Association order requiring us to replace all sheave jammers with
alternate braking devices -- in our case, rope grippers -- to
protect the safety of tenants," TCHC spokesperson Jeffrey Ferrier
said in a statement on Aug. 23.

Elevator problems have long been one of the major complaints among
tenants in TCHC buildings, though TCHC says there were no safety-
related incidents as a result of the device.

Besides TCHC, other businesses that paid to have the devices
replaced include Ed Mirvish Enterprises -- for three elevators in
one of the company's buildings.

ThyssenKrupp and lawyers representing the company in the case did
not respond to a request from the Star for comment on Aug. 18.

In opposing the class-action certification, Thyssen argued
unsuccessfully that its devices varied depending on the type of
elevator they were installed in, and the nature of the
installation, and therefore the sheave jammer cannot be treated as
a "class product."

Among its allegations, TCHC argued that ThyssenKrupp "breached
their duty of care and were negligent in the design, manufacture
and installation of the sheave jammers."

Meanwhile, TCHC has decided not to appeal the certification
earlier this summer of a class-action suit brought against itself
by tenants affected by last September's fire at 200 Wellesley St.,
a TCHC building.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Awaits Approval of Wage & Hour Suits Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., is awaiting court approval of
settlements of wage and hour class actions, according to the
Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and its subsidiaries are presently involved in three
wage and hour class action cases in California and Tennessee.  All
three matters have been settled but are awaiting court approval.
The settlements in these cases, if approved by the court, will not
have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit vs. PSI
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
by Garden City Employees' Retirement System against Psychiatric
Solutions, Inc., and the former directors in 2009 alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

As reported in the May 26, 2011 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, Universal Health Services, Inc., has assumed the defense
of the class action lawsuit as a result of its acquisition of PSI,
which was completed in November 2010.

The Company is uncertain at this time as to potential liability
and damages but intends to defend the case vigorously, according
to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.


U.S. BANCORP: Continues to Defend Debit Transactions Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp continues to defend itself from purported class
action lawsuits challenging its debit transactions, according to
the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2011.

The Company is a defendant in three separate cases primarily
challenging the Company's daily ordering of debit transactions
posted to customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to
2010.  The plaintiffs have requested class action treatment;
however, no class has been certified.  The court has denied a
motion by the Company to dismiss these cases.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these matters,
including class certification.  As these cases are in the early
stages and no damages have been specified, no specific loss range
or range of loss can be determined currently.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP published a statement
regarding the Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation.

                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
                            AT SEATTLE

    IN RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL,
     INC.                         No. 2:08-md-1919 MJP
    SECURITIES LITIGATION         Lead Case No. C08-387 MJP

    This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENTS, (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND (III) MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or acquired any of the
following securities issued by Washington Mutual, Inc. or its
subsidiaries during the period from October 19, 2005 to July 23,
2008 and were damaged thereby:

    * WMI common stock (CUSIP 939322103);

    * Floating Rate Notes due August 24, 2009, offered in August
2006 (CUSIP 939322AW3);

    * 7.250% Subordinated Notes due November 1, 2017, offered in
October 2007 (CUSIP 939322AY9);

    * 7.75% Series R Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible
Preferred Stock, offered in December 2007 (CUSIP 939322814); and

    * Washington Mutual Capital Trust 2001's 5.375% Trust
Preferred Income Equity Redeemable Securities (PIERS) Units,
maturing July 1, 2041 (CUSIP 939322848).

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, (i) that the above-
captioned litigation has been certified as a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased any WMI Class
Securities from October 19, 2005 to July 23, 2008 and were damaged
thereby, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulations of
Settlement in the Action; and (ii) that Lead Plaintiff in the
Action has reached proposed settlements with the Individual
Defendants for $105 million in cash whereby WMI is also a Settling
Defendant; with the Underwriter Defendants for $85 million in
cash; and with WMI's former auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP for
$18.5 million in cash for a total settlement amount of $208.5
million in cash, plus interest thereon if all the Settlements are
approved by the Court.

A hearing will be held on November 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, at the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, United States Courthouse,
700 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington, to determine (i) whether
the proposed Settlements should be approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against the Settling Defendants in the respective
Settlements, and the releases specified and described in the
respective Stipulations of Settlement should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlements, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Funds.  If you have not yet received the
full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlements, (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing, and (III) Motion
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses, and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re
Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City
Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91310, Seattle, WA
98111-9410, (888) 588-3788. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the Web site maintained by the Claims
Administrator,
http://www.WashingtonMutualSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.comor
from Lead Counsel's Web site, http://www.blbglaw.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlements, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked no later than December 8, 2011.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of any of the
Settlements but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than October 10, 2011, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of any of the Settlements.

Any objections to the proposed Settlements, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendants
such that they are received no later than October 10, 2011, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may
be made to Lead Counsel:

          Hannah G. Ross, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (800) 380-8496
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com

By Order of the Court


WORLD WRESTLING: Appeal in IPO Class Action Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed
against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of federal securities
laws relating to its initial public offering in 1999. According to
the claims, the underwriters, who were also named as defendants,
allegedly engaged in manipulative practices by, among other
things, pre-selling allotments of shares of the Company's stock in
return for undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers
and entering into after-market tie-in arrangements to artificially
inflate the Company's stock price. The complaint further alleges
that the Company knew or should have known of such unlawful
practices. In or around March 2009, the parties agreed to a global
settlement of the litigation in its entirety. On April 2, 2009,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, which was granted by the court by order dated June 10,
2009. On October 6, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement, and various objectors have filed notices to
appeal this decision. The Company is a party to the settlement and
is not one of the parties appealing the settlement's approval.

There has been no significant development in this legal
proceeding, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., a publicly traded company
(NYSE: WWE), is an integrated media organization and recognized
leader in global entertainment.


* Arizona AG Issues Warning on Mass Joiner Mortgage Lawsuit Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Tom Horne on Aug. 23 issued a warning to
consumers to be wary of any notices or advertisements that claim
to offer homeowners facing foreclosure "complete forgiveness of
the loan" or other monetary relief if they join a class-action
lawsuit.  Such ploys are likely a pretext to collect illegal up-
front fees for foreclosure assistance.

In class action litigation, consumers generally do not have to pay
to join, and most reputable firms will not charge a fee for
attorneys to review your case or to determine if you are eligible
to join a lawsuit.

"The mortgage crisis is only made worse by predators who take
advantage of consumers who are already facing the loss of their
home," Mr. Horne said.  "State and federal law ban almost all
types of up-front fees for foreclosure assistance.  I am committed
to prosecuting anyone who engages in this type of consumer fraud,
and it is just as important that consumers be vigilant against
these types of scams."

The California Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit against
California lawyer Philip Kramer, the Law Offices of Kramer &
Kaslow, plus 19 other lawyer and non-lawyer individuals and
companies, for deceptively marketing class action or "mass
joinder" lawsuits.  The defendants in that case are believed to
have taken over $7 million in fees from homeowners in 17 states --
including Arizona -- after sending out hundreds of thousands of
flyers advertising the program.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants advertised nationwide settlements against lenders that
did not exist and that many servicers were not provided by lawyers
or legal staff.

Notices may be mailed to homeowners or posted on their doors.
Typically, the business claims that the fee they are charging is
for a forensic audit of your loan documents to see if you are
eligible to join the class action litigation.  However, the
Federal Trade Commission's Mortgage Assistance Relief Services
Rule contains a broad ban on requesting or collecting up-front
fees for almost all types of mortgage assistance, including
forensic audits related to foreclosure relief.  Arizona's
foreclosure consultant statute also prohibits companies from
collecting an up-front fee for assisting homeowners in
foreclosure.

Foreclosure rescue companies may promise to refund your fee if you
are not eligible to join the litigation.  However, the Office's
experience with guaranteed refunds indicates that they are very
difficult to obtain, or the company may disappear before the
refund is paid.  If you are facing foreclosure, refuse to pay up-
front fees and instead contact the Arizona Foreclosure Prevention
Helpline at (877) 448-1211 for free assistance provided by HUD
approved housing counseling agencies.

If you feel you've been a victim of a class joinder scam or any
other type of consumer fraud, please contact the Arizona Attorney
General's Office Consumer Information & Complaints Unit at (602)
542-5763/(520) 628-6504/(800) 352-8431.  You can also file a
consumer complaint online at:
http://www.azag.gov/consumer/complaintform.html


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: Azam Bros, Contractor Fined for Disposal Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Azam Bros Ltd, a Hunstanton, Norfolk, England-based company and
Mohammed Zahid, a contractor from Manchester, England, have been
fined after failing to manage asbestos removal work at a
renovation site in Great Yarmouth, according to a Health and
Safety Executive Press release dated Aug. 8, 2011.

Mr. Zahid was employed in May 2009 by Azam Bros to clear damage
caused by a fire at two commercial units they owned in Regent
Street, Great Yarmouth.

Complaints were received by Great Yarmouth Borough Council that a
skip outside the premises had no cover to prevent dust
contaminating surrounding work units or being exposed to the
general public.

The Council issued a Prohibition Notice to stop work and asbestos
was later found to be present.  The HSE and local authority
launched a joint investigation, which resulted in prosecution.

HSE inspectors told Norwich Magistrates' Court that Mr. Zahid
failed to order an asbestos survey, as required by law, before
starting renovation work, was not trained in asbestos removal and
did not possess the required license.

The 33-year-old Mr. Zahid, from Wilbraham Road in Manchester, was
fined a total of GBP1,000 after being found guilty of breaching
regulations 4, 5, 8(2) and 10 of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2006 and ordered to pay costs of GBP500.

Azam Bros admitted breaching Regulation 4 of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP2,500 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP2,500.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Peter Nickerson said, "Before
anyone undertakes any construction work they must consider whether
asbestos may be present and take the precautionary steps such as
carrying out an asbestos survey.  Most work with asbestos requires
a licensed contractor to remove it safely and responsibly.  Azam
Bros Ltd did not think about the risks they may have exposed the
public to by employing Mr. Zahid and trying to cut corners.

"Azam Bros Ltd obtained three estimates to renovate the units
before employing Mr. Zahid.  One of the quotes highlighted what
work may be needed if asbestos was identified but this did not
prompt the company to take any action."


COMPANY PROFILE:

Azam Bros Ltd.
Le Strange Terrace
Harlequin House
Hunstanton, Norfolk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Veterans Court OKs Board Ruling in Parker Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims upheld the ruling of
the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which ruled against William D.
Parker in his claim for compensation.

The case is styled William D. Parker, Appellant v. Eric K.
Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

Judge Lance entered judgment in Case No. 10-0698 on May 11, 2011.

Mr. Parker, through counsel, appealed a Dec. 18, 2009 Board of
Veterans' Appeals decision that determined that new and material
evidence had not been submitted so as to reopen a claim of
entitlement to service connection for chronic respiratory
conditions, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
pneumoconiosis, bronchitis, and emphysema, to include as due to
exposure to asbestos or carbon tetrachloride in service.

After consideration of Mr. Parker's and the Secretary's briefs,
and a review of the record, the Board's Dec. 18, 2009 decision was
affirmed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Lilliquist Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the decision of the
Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, which granted summary
judgment in favor of various defendants in a case involving
asbestos filed by Suzanne S. Lilliquist.

Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Christine Donohue, and Jacqueline Shogan
entered judgment in Case No. 621 WDA 2010 on May 13, 2011.

Mrs. Lilliquist, both in her own right and as the executrix of the
estate of Carl W. Lilliquist, appealed from the trial court's
grant of summary judgment dismissing all claims against Appellee,
SVI Corporation f/k/a SVI Newco, Inc. and f/k/a Stockham Valves &
Fittings, Inc. (SVI).

On Feb. 11, 2009, Mrs. Lilliquist filed the personal injury
asbestos action naming 54 entities as defendants (including SVI).
On April 9, 2009, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of SVI,
which constituted a denial of all factual averments in Mrs.
Lilliquist's complaint, an allegation of all affirmative defenses,
and claims for indemnification and contribution from other
parties.  SVI subsequently participated in discovery between the
parties.

On Sept. 29, 2009, SVI filed a motion for summary judgment based
on lack of product identification, and after Mrs. Lilliquist
identified a witness (William Timcheck) with information relevant
to the identification of SVI's products, counsel for SVI appeared
at Timcheck's deposition and participated in the questioning.

By court order dated Dec. 8, 2009, the trial court granted SVI's
motion for summary judgment on product identification with respect
to Restatement (Second) of Torts s 402, but denied it with respect
to Mrs. Lilliquist's negligence claim.

On Dec. 9, 2009, SVI filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment Based
Upon Corporate Dissolution," and on Dec. 22, 2009, SVI served Mrs.
Lilliquist with discovery in the form of supplemental
interrogatories and document requests.

On Jan. 4, 2010, Mrs. Lilliquist filed a response opposing SVI's
motion based upon corporate dissolution, which included a request
that the trial court appoint a receiver to manage the assets of
SVI.

After oral argument, on Feb. 24, 2010, the trial court granted
SVI's motion for summary judgment. Mrs. Lilliquist settled with
the remaining defendants on the eve of trial.  This timely appeal
followed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Summary Judgment Denied in Ashland
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, at
Tacoma, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment in a case involving asbestos styled Ashland Inc.,
Plaintiff v. Leo H. Long, Jr., et al., Defendants.

District Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered judgment in Case No.
C10-5889BHS on May 12, 2011.

On Dec. 7, 2010, Ashland, Inc. filed a complaint against
Defendants for breach of contract.  On Feb. 9, 2011, Leo Long
filed a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment seeking
either dismissal of Ashland's claims or summary judgment of
Ashland's claims based on collateral estoppel.

On Feb. 10, 2011, Tom Long joined in Leo Long's motion.  On
March 1, 2011, the Court signed the parties' stipulated motion to
continue the hearing of Defendants' motions to March 18, 2011.  On
March 14, 2011, Ashland responded.  On March 18, 2011, Leo Long
replied and Tom Long joined in that reply.

Ashland alleged that each Defendant breached a contract with
Ashland by refusing to indemnify and defend Ashland in an
underlying personal injury lawsuit that was filed in the Superior
Court for the State of Washington, Grays Harbor County.

The contract in question is a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA)
between Ashland, Defendants, and Atlas Foundry & Machine Co. dated
May 2, 1985.  Atlas was the buyer, Defendants were the guarantors,
and Ashland was the seller.  The sale involved stock and assets of
Ashland's Foundry Division.

In 2007, Judy Clauson filed a complaint for personal injuries
against numerous Defendants including Ashland.  Ashland alleged
that Mrs. Clauson "sought damages for personal injuries allegedly
suffered by Judy Clauson due to exposure to asbestos fibers
brought home by her former husband while he was employed at the
Long Foundry."

In 1975, U.S. Filter Company purchased two separate foundries, the
Long Foundry and the Atlas Foundry, in two separate transactions.
The Long Foundry, located in Hoquiam, Wash., became "New Atlas 2,"
a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. Filter Company.

In May 1985, Atlas purchased certain assets and assumed certain
liabilities relating to Ashland Technology, Inc.'s foundry
business by executing a PSA with Ashland Technology, Inc.  Leo
Long signed the PSA on behalf of Atlas as president of the
company.  Leo Long and his brother Tom Long also signed the PSA as
guarantors.

Shortly after the PSA, Leo Long bought out Tom Long and managed
Atlas until 1989.  In 1989, Atlas was sold to an entity owned by
TIC United Corporation (TIC).  That entity subsequently became
Atlas Foundry & Machine Company, a division of TIC.  TIC entered
bankruptcy proceedings in 2000.

Atlas Foundry & Machine Company continued to operate during the
pendency of the bankruptcy proceeding.  In 2002, under a purchase
and sale agreement, TIC transferred its Atlas assets and certain
liabilities to Atlas Foundry, LLP.  AmeriCast Technologies, Inc.
is the successor-in-interest to Atlas Foundry, LLP.

On May 3, 2007, the Clausons initiated an action against Atlas
Foundry Limited Partnership, Atlas Castings & Technology, and
AmeriCast Technologies, Inc. -- collectively, "AmeriCast" -- and
Ashland in Grays Harbor County Superior Court.

On May 15, 2007, the Clausons filed their first amended complaint
in which they alleged that Judy Clauson's former husband, Clifford
Eberwein, worked at the Long Foundry between 1979 and 1984.  The
amended complaint further alleged that Eberwein was exposed to
asbestos fibers during such employment, and that Judy Clauson
contracted mesothelioma after years of living with Eberwein.  The
Clausons alleged that AmeriCast was liable for the Clausons'
damages on the sole basis that AmeriCast was the successor-in-
interest to the Long Foundry.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the Clausons filed a second amended complaint
wherein they continued to allege that AmeriCast was liable for the
Clausons' damages because it was a successor-in-interest to the
Long Foundry.  On Dec. 20, 2007, AmeriCast moved for summary
judgment on the basis that AmeriCast was not a successor-in-
interest to the Long Foundry.

Ashland filed a brief opposing the motion.  According to
Defendants, Ashland opposed AmeriCast's motion on the same basis
that Ashland based its complaint in the instant suit, i.e., that
the 1985 PSA transferred interest in the Long Foundry to Atlas.

However, Ashland maintained that it opposed the motion in the
Clauson suit to insure that the scope of the motion was restricted
to the relief requested and did not include a finding that Ashland
was a successor-in-interest to the Long Foundry.  The judge
granted AmeriCast's motion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global Still Has $65MM Reserves at July 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s long-term reserve for asbestos claims was
US$65 million as July 2, 2011 and March 31, 2011, according to a
Company press release dated Aug. 2, 2011.

The Company's long-term insurance for asbestos claims was
US$65 million as of July 2, 2011 and March 31, 2011.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two
strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water
Management, with about 6,300 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Stearns Unit Facing 1,360 Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple lawsuits with about 1,360 claimants are pending in state
or federal court in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged
personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in
certain brakes and clutches previously manufactured by RBS Global,
Inc.'s Stearns division or its predecessor owners.

Invensys plc and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns business, have
paid 100% of the costs to date related to the Stearns lawsuits,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 2, 2011.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two
strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water
Management, with about 6,300 employees worldwide.


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

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

To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100 percent
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two
strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water
Management, with about 6,300 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS Global's Falk Unit Faces 210 Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc.'s Falk unit, through its successor entity, is a
defendant in about 210 lawsuits pending in state or federal court
in numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and
drives previously manufactured by Falk.

There are about 580 claimants in these suits.  Hamilton Sundstrand
is defending the Company in these lawsuits under its indemnity
obligations and has paid 100 percent of the costs to date.

Falk subsidiary, through its successor entity, is a defendant in
about 200 lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  (Class Action Reporter, June 24,
2011)

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two
strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water
Management, with about 6,300 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RBS' Zurn Unit Facing 7,100 Lawsuit at July 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBS Global, Inc. says that, as of July 2, 2011, its Zurn unit and
an average of about 80 other unrelated companies were defendants
in about 7,100 asbestos related lawsuits representing about 27,500
claims.

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

As of July 2, 2011, the Company estimates the potential liability
for asbestos-related claims pending against Zurn as well as the
claims expected to be filed in the next 10 years to be about US$65
million of which Zurn expects to pay about US$53 million in the
next 10 years on such claims, with the balance of the estimated
liability being paid in subsequent years.

Management estimates that its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of July 2, 2011, is about US$266.1
million, and believes that all current claims are covered by this
insurance.

However, principally as a result of the past insolvency of certain
of the Company's insurance carriers, certain coverage gaps will
exist if and after the Company's other carriers have paid the
first US$190.1 million of aggregate liabilities.

As of July 2, 2011, the Company recorded a receivable from its
insurance carriers of US$65 million, which corresponds to the
amount of its potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.

However, there is no assurance that US$266.1 million of insurance
coverage will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos
liabilities will not ultimately exceed US$266.1 million.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, RBS Global, Inc. is comprised of two
strategic platforms, Process & Motion Control and Water
Management, with about 6,300 employees worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Facing 19,212 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation, at June 30, 2011, faced 19,212 pending
asbestos personal injury claims, according to the Company's
quarterly report filed on Aug. 3, 2011 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

At March 31, 2011, the Company faced 19,293 pending asbestos
personal injury claims.  (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2011)

The Company has been named as one of many defendants (about 90 or
more in most cases) in legal actions alleging personal injury from
exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades.  In
their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants many
manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of
equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos.

The majority of the asbestos complaints pending against the
Company have been filed in New York.  Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of US$20 million
or US$25 million against about 90 defendants, regardless of the
individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
specifically identifying any Company product as the source of
plaintiff's asbestos exposure.

Of the pending cases at June 30, 2011, about 18,720 are pending in
the New York Supreme Court for New York County in New York State.
The other claims, totaling 492, are filed in various counties in a
number of state courts, and in certain Federal District Courts
(including New York), and those complaints generally assert lesser
amounts of damages than the New York State court cases or do not
state any amount claimed.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in 25,461 cases.

At June 30, 2011, the Company has been listed as a defendant in
1,056 Active or In Extremis asbestos cases in New York County.

Headquartered in Camp Hill, Harsco Corporation is a diversified,
multinational provider of industrial services and engineered
products.  The Company's operations fall into four reportable
segments: Harsco Infrastructure, Harsco Metals & Minerals, Harsco
Rail and Harsco Industrial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Multi-Party Cases Still Pending v. Badger Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other companies in recent years, Badger Meter, Inc. has been
named as a defendant in numerous multi-claimant/multi-defendant
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos.

The asbestos was manufactured by third parties and integrated into
or sold with a very limited number of the Company's products,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2011.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Badger Meter, Inc. is a manufacturer
and marketer of products incorporating liquid flow measurement and
control technologies developed both internally and with other
technology companies.  Its products are used in various
applications, including water, oil and chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 180 Actions in Md. Pending v. Pepco at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. says that, as of June 30, 2011, there are
about 180 asbestos cases still pending against subsidiary Potomac
Electric Power Company in the State Courts of Maryland.

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

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

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

Initially, a total of about 448 individual plaintiffs added Pepco
to their complaints.  While the pleadings are not entirely clear,
it appears that each plaintiff sought US$2 million in compensatory
damages and US$4 million in punitive damages from each defendant.

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

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

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Pepco Holdings, Inc.
distributes electricity and natural gas through its Potomac
Electric Power (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light, and Atlantic City
Electric utilities to about 1.9 million customers in Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Records $1.977-Bil. June 30 Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s net asbestos
liability for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011
amounted to US$1.977 billion, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
Aug. 3, 2011.

For the three months ended June 30, 2011, the asbestos-related
paid losses and loss adjustment expense were US$44 million and the
incurred losses and LAE were US$290 million.

For the six months ended June 30, 2011, the asbestos-related paid
losses and LAE were US$100 million and the incurred losses and LAE
were US$290 million.

Headquartered in Hartford, Conn., The Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc. provides insurance and wealth management services for
millions of consumers and businesses worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Subject to La. Insurance Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are
involved in an asbestos-related declaratory judgment action
entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. v. J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. et al.

The suit was filed on or about Aug. 23, 2004 by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (London Insurers), in the 23rd Judicial District Court,
Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, JRMI and two insurer
defendants, Travelers and INA.

The suit seeks a declaration that the London Insurers have no
obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury
claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts, and an environmental claim involving Babcock &
Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc., a subsidiary of B&W (B&W
PGG).

Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim requesting a
declaration of non-coverage in about 20 underlying matters.  This
proceeding was stayed by the court on Jan. 3, 2005.

Headquartered in Houston, McDermott International, Inc. is an
engineering, procurement, construction and installation (EPCI)
company focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil
and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Still Facing Antoine Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of McDermott International, Inc.'s subsidiaries are still
defendants in an asbestos lawsuit entitled Antoine, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al., which is pending in Texas court.

In a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott,
Inc., et al., filed in the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson
Parish, La., about 88 plaintiffs filed suit against about 215
defendants, including JRMI and Delta Hudson Engineering
Corporation (DHEC), another Company affiliate, generally alleging
injuries for exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals,
metals and noise while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as
Jones Act seamen.

On Jan. 10, 2007, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims, without prejudice to their right to refile their claims.
On Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v.
McDermott, Inc., et al., originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, 21 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and about
30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging exposure to welding fumes, solvents, dyes,
industrial paints and noise.

Boudreaux was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007.  The District Court
entered an order in September 2007 staying the matter until
further order of the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of
the co-defendants.

Additionally, on Jan. 29, 2007, in a matter entitled Antoine, et
al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al., filed in the 164th Judicial
District Court for Harris County, Tex., 43 plaintiffs originally
named in the Antoine matter filed suit against JRMI, MI and about
65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime products defendants,
alleging Jones Act seaman status and generally alleging personal
injuries for exposure to asbestos and noise.

On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order staying all
activity and deadlines in this matter other than service of
process and answer/appearance dates until further order of the
Court.

The Antoine plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on Feb. 20,
2009, which is pending before the Texas District Court.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount in both
cases and attorneys' fees in the new Antoine case.

Headquartered in Houston, McDermott International, Inc. is an
engineering, procurement, construction and installation (EPCI)
company focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil
and gas projects worldwide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Corp. Still Subject to Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemtura Corporation is routinely subject to claims and litigation
relating to product liability claims, including claims related to
its current products and asbestos-related claims concerning
premises and historic products of its corporate affiliates and
predecessors.

The Company said it believes the claims relating to the period
before the filing of the Chapter 11 cases are subject to discharge
under the Plan and will be satisfied, to the extent allowed by the
Bankruptcy Court, solely from the Disputed Claims Reserve.

Headquartered Middlebury, Conn., Chemtura Corporation is dedicated
to delivering innovative, application-focused specialty chemical
and consumer product offerings.  It operates in various end-use
industries including agriculture, automotive, construction,
electronics, lubricants, packaging, plastics for durable and non-
durable goods, pool and spa chemicals, and transportation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Ongoing v. FMC Corporation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like hundreds of other industrial companies, FMC Corporation has
been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 3, 2011.

Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from
exposure to asbestos in premises of the Company or to asbestos-
containing components installed in machinery or equipment
manufactured or sold by discontinued operations.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, FMC Corporation is a diversified
chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial
markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and
market-leading products.  The Company operates in three distinct
business segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals and
Industrial Chemicals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Issues Split Rulings in Cardona
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, issued
split rulings in a case involving asbestos styled Jose Cristobal
Cardona, Plaintiff v. B.A. Bledsoe, et al., Defendants.

District Judge James M. Munley entered judgment in Civil Action
No. 3:CV-11-0054 on May 12, 2011.

In his Complaint, Jose Cristobal Cardona named as Defendants
Warden B.A. Bledsoe; Captain B. Trate; Assistant Warden A.W.
Hudson; Corrections Officer C. Anderson; Lieutenant Flemming;
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Administrative Remedies
Administrator Harrell Watts; BOP Regional Director J.L. Norwood;
and BOP Director Harley Lappin.

Mr. Cardona first alleged that Defendants Bledsoe and Lappin had
conspired to implement Program Statement 5217.01, which allows for
the existence of a Special Management Unit (SMU) at USP Lewisburg.
Mr. Cardona alleged that the SMU Program failed to comply with the
Administrative Procedures Act Notice and Comment Requirements.

Mr. Cardona's next claim is that, upon his arrival at the SMU, he
was assigned to Cell # 205 in D-Block with inmate Manriquez, and
that, even though he told the officer that the cell was not big
enough for the two of them, and that he was not welcome by
Manriquez, the officer, Defendant C. Anderson, and Defendant
Flemming, took Cardona to the shower area to "talk the issue
over."

Mr. Cardona alleged that when he told Anderson and Flemming that
he refused to participate in the SMU Program and asked to be
placed in "the hole/segregation," Anderson and Flemming told him
that if he did not go into the cell with Manriquez, he would be
placed in four-point restraints.

In his next claim, Mr. Cardona alleges that, he was forced to
double cell with an inmate in Z-Block who was awaiting transfer to
the BOP's Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colo. (USP
Florence ADMAX) after the inmate assaulted a corrections officer.

In addition, Mr. Cardona complained that he has been on lockdown
23/7 since June 19, 2009, and that he has been forced to eat his
meals "on an asbestos contaminated floor," and he is suffering
breathing problems and chest pains.

Finally, Mr. Cardona alleged that USP Lewisburg does not have a
SMU for inmates who refuse double celling and that forcing inmates
into compliance with this practice violates the Eighth Amendment.

On April 19, 2011, Mr. Cardona filed a document entitled
"Plaintiff's Amendment to His Initial Complaint."  In his
supplement to his Complaint, he alleged that he informed
psychologists on staff at USP Lewisburg, Mr. Karpag and Ms. Mink,
that he is suffering from psychological problems from being double
celled without adequate living space and that Karpag and Mink, who
he sought to add as Defendants, ignored his requests for health
care.

It was ordered that Mr. Cardona's application for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis was denied.  The Administrative Order entered on
Jan. 7, 2011 was vacated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Northwestern Suffers Setback in Suit v. Insco
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, denied
Northwester National Insurance Company's petition on the basis
that Insco, Ltd. had already appointed a replacement arbitrator.

The case is styled Northwestern National Insurance Company,
Petitioner v. Insco, Ltd., Respondent.

District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin entered judgment in Case No. 11
Civ. 1124(SAS) on May 12, 2011.

In 1978, Insco and NNIC executed a reinsurance agreement whereby
Insco agreed to reinsure a certain percentage of NNIC's
liabilities in exchange for premium payments (Reinsurance
Agreement).

In 1999, NNIC reimbursed policyholder Abex Corporation for
liabilities arising from thousands of asbestos claims brought
against Abex.  Three other insurance companies (Maryland Casualty,
Liberty and Travelers) paid Abex's defense costs and subsequently
sought contribution from NNIC.  After mediation in the underlying
litigation, NNIC secured discounted contribution costs and sought
reimbursement from Insco under the Reinsurance Agreement.  Insco
refused to pay the claimed amount and NNIC commenced arbitration
proceedings in June 2009.

Under the Reinsurance Agreement, NNIC and Insco each selected
respective party-appointed arbitrators.  The umpire was thereafter
selected by lot.  On Feb. 2, 2010, at an organizational meeting,
the arbitrators made disclosures about possible conflicts of
interest and both parties accepted the panel as properly
constituted.

On Oct. 28, 2010, the umpire revealed that he had learned that one
of Insco's counsel was working for an insurance company for which
Insco's arbitrator was a board member.  On Dec. 10, 2010, after
Insco's counsel requested that the panel update its disclosures,
NNIC's arbitrator informed the parties that she had since been
appointed as an arbitrator in two arbitrations that involved
NNIC's counsel's firm.

On Feb. 15, 2011, three days prior to oral argument on NNIC's
summary judgment motion in the arbitration proceedings, Insco sent
a 21-page letter to the panel demanding that ail three arbitrators
resign immediately on the basis of evident partiality.

On Feb. 16, 2011, Insco's counsel emailed the umpire and NNIC's
counsel reiterating that it sought a new panel and informing NNIC
that Insco would select an additional party-appointed arbitrator.
On Feb. 18, 2011, NNIC filed the instant petition seeking judicial
appointment of an ARIAS-certified arbitrator to replace Insco's
arbitrator.

On March 4, 2011, Insco's counsel informed NNIC's counsel that
Insco had appointed Jonathan Rosen -- an ARIAS-certified
arbitrator -- as its replacement party arbitrator.  NNIC's counsel
objected on the grounds that Insco did not have authority under
the Reinsurance Agreement to appoint a replacement arbitrator.
NNIC's petition was denied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants' Dismissal Bid OK'd in Rullan Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted
the New York City Department of Sanitation's and the New York
State Division of Human Rights' motion to dismiss a case involving
asbestos filed by Juan Rullan.

Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. entered judgment in Case No. 10 CV
8079(RPP) on May 12, 2011.

On Oct. 25, 2010, Mr. Rullan, appearing pro se, filed a complaint
in this district against the New York City Department of
Sanitation and the New York State Division of Human Rights,
alleging discrimination based on his disability in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act).  On Feb. 8, 2011, DOS moved
to dismiss the complaint.  On Feb. 8, 2011, NYSDHR also moved to
dismiss the complaint.

Mr. Rullan was appointed to the position of sanitation worker by
DOS on Dec. 11, 1989.  Prior to his hiring, Mr. Rullan informed
the DOS medical clinic that he had previous instances of emotional
problems including, psychiatric and mental issues, and that he had
been admitted twice to psychiatric care facilities.  Also, at
least twice during his time at DOS, Mr. Rullan "was referred to
psychiatric consultations and evaluations."

On June 26, 2009, Mr. Rullan filed a verified complaint of
discrimination and retaliation with the NYSDHR and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  In response to the
complaint, the DOS Equal Employment Opportunity Division conducted
an investigation of Mr. Rullan's allegations.

The investigation included interviews of Mr. Rullan's supervisors,
reviews of his DOS records, reviews of an investigation of Mr.
Rullan's behavior toward his co-workers conducted by the DOS Field
Investigation Audit Team, and an inquiry into why he was not paid
his night differential.

On March 4, 2010, after investigation, the NYSDHR issued an
opinion determining that there was "no probable cause to believe
that the respondent had engaged in or is engaging in the unlawful
discriminatory practice complained of" and dismissed Mr. Rullan's
complaint.

On May 4, 2010, Mr. Rullan sought to reverse the decision of the
NYSDHR by commencing a special proceeding in New York State
Supreme Court and added the NYSDHR as a respondent.  He further
alleged in the petition that he "didn't have a disability when
[he] came [to] the job," that his brother died on May 15, 1973,
and that his father died on Jan. 15, 1980.

In support of his petition, Mr. Rullan included a memorandum from
his DOS medical file labeled "World Trade Center Attack - Employee
Exposure," indicating "that during his employment with [DOS, Mr.]
Rullan worked in the areas of the World Trade Center on or after
Sept. 11, 2001, and as a result may have been exposed to
asbestos."

On July 13, 2010, the NYSDHR submitted an answer to Mr. Rullan's
petition admitting that they issued a no probable cause finding to
Mr. Rullan's complaint.  On July 23, 2010, DOS cross moved to
dismiss the Article 78 Petition.

On July 29, 2010, the EEOC adopted the NYSDHR's no probable cause
finding and issued a right to sue letter.  On Oct. 25, 2010, Mr.
Rullan filed the instant action in federal court naming both DOS
and NYSDHR as Defendants.

On Jan. 3, 2011, the New York State Supreme Court granted DOS's
cross motion to dismiss, finding that the NYSDHR engaged in a
sufficient investigation of Mr. Rullan's claim against DOS, and
that the agency's action was not "arbitrary and capricious."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Republic Posts $139.7MM Reserves at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's net asbestos and
environmental claim reserves amounted to US$139.7 million as of
June 30, 2011, compared with US$144.9 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company's gross asbestosis and environmental claim reserves
amounted to US$188.8 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with
US$195.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fresenius Still Involved in Sealed Air Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA is engaged in litigation with
Sealed Air Corporation to confirm its entitlement to
indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses and expenses
incurred by the Company relating to pre-Merger tax liabilities and
Merger-related claims.

The Company was originally formed as a result of a series of
transactions it completed under the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization dated as of Feb. 4, 1996, by and between W. R.
Grace & Co. and Fresenius SE (Merger).

At the time of the Merger, a Grace subsidiary known as W. R. Grace
& Co.-Conn. had, and continues to have, significant liabilities
arising out of product-liability related litigation (including
asbestos-related actions), pre-Merger tax claims and other claims
unrelated to National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC), which was Grace's
dialysis business prior to the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. agreed to
indemnify the Company, FMCH, and NMC against all liabilities of
Grace, whether relating to events occurring before or after the
Merger, other than liabilities arising from or relating to NMC's
operations.  Grace and certain of its subsidiaries filed for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings) on April 2, 2001.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against Grace and
FMCH by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace & Co.-
Conn., and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the
Grace bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings,
alleging among other things that the Merger was a fraudulent
conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act and
constituted a conspiracy.

All such cases have been stayed and transferred to or are pending
before the U.S. District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the Grace bankruptcy estate and
Grace in the matters pending in the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings
for the settlement of all fraudulent conveyance and tax claims
against it and other claims related to the Company that arise out
of the bankruptcy of Grace.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement as amended (Settlement
Agreement), fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on
behalf of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and
the Company will receive protection against existing and potential
future Grace-related claims, including fraudulent conveyance and
asbestos claims, and indemnification against income tax claims
related to the non-NMC members of the Grace consolidated tax group
upon confirmation of a Grace bankruptcy reorganization plan that
contains such provisions.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay a total of
US$115 million without interest to the Grace bankruptcy estate, or
as otherwise directed by the Court, upon plan confirmation.  No
admission of liability has been or will be made.  The Settlement
Agreement has been approved by the U.S. District Court.

In January and February 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court entered
orders confirming the joint plan of reorganization.  These
confirmation orders are pending before the U.S. District Court.

Subsequent to the Merger, Grace was involved in a multi-step
transaction involving Sealed Air Corporation.  Under the
Settlement Agreement, upon final confirmation of a plan of
reorganization that satisfies the conditions of the Company's
payment obligation, this litigation will be dismissed with
prejudice.

Headquartered in Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care AG &
Co. KGaA is engaged primarily in providing dialysis services and
manufacturing and distributing products and equipment for the
treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Transocean Ltd. Still Ongoing in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries are still subject to
asbestos complaints filed in Mississippi courts.

In 2004, several of the Company's subsidiaries were named, along
with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21 complaints
filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts of the
State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out of
exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986.

A Special Master, appointed to administer these cases pre-trial,
subsequently required that each individual plaintiff file a
separate lawsuit, and the original 21 multi-plaintiff complaints
were then dismissed by the Circuit Courts.  The amended complaints
resulted in one of the Company's subsidiaries being named as a
direct defendant in seven cases.  The Company has or may have an
indirect interest in an additional 12 cases.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants used or
manufactured asbestos-containing products in connection with
drilling operations and have included allegations of negligence,
products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the
Jones Act and general maritime law.

The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.  In each of these cases, the complaints have
named other unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies
that allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos.

In 2009, two cases that were part of the original 2004 multi-
plaintiff suits went to trial in Mississippi against unaffiliated
defendant companies which allegedly manufactured drilling-related
products containing asbestos.  The Company was not a defendant in
either of these cases.

One of the cases resulted in a substantial jury verdict in favor
of the plaintiff, but this verdict was subsequently vacated by the
trial judge on the basis that the plaintiff failed to meet its
burden of proof.  While the court's decision is consistent with
the Company's general evaluation of the strength of these cases,
it has not yet been reviewed on appeal.  The second case resulted
in a verdict completely in favor of the defendants.

Two cases went to trial in 2010, one resulting in a substantial
verdict for the plaintiff and one resulting in a complete verdict
for the defendants.  The Company was not a defendant in either
case and both of the matters are currently on appeal.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. is a
provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas
wells.  At June 30, 2011, the Company owned or had partial
ownership interests in and operated 136 mobile offshore drilling
units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cases v. Transocean Unit Drop to 977 at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. says that, as of June 30, 2011, one of its
subsidiaries was a defendant in about 977 asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 3, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

As of March 31, 2011, the subsidiary was a defendant in about
1,028 asbestos-related lawsuits.  (Class Action Reporter, May 27,
2011)

The subsidiary was involved in lawsuits arising out of its
involvement in the design, construction and refurbishment of major
industrial complexes.

The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its
operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation and, either directly or indirectly as the beneficiary
of a qualified settlement fund, funding from settlements with
insurers, assigned rights from insurers and "coverage-in-place"
settlement agreements with insurers, and funds received from the
commutation of certain insurance policies.

The subsidiary has been named as a defendant, along with numerous
other companies, in lawsuits alleging bodily injury or personal
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Some of these lawsuits include multiple plaintiffs and the Company
estimates that there are about 2,147 plaintiffs in these lawsuits.
For many of these lawsuits, the Company has not been provided with
sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether
all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary,
the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged
injuries.  The first of the asbestos-related lawsuits was filed
against this subsidiary in 1990.

Through June 30, 2011, the amounts expended to resolve claims,
including both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs,
have not been material, all known deductibles have been satisfied
or are inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and
expenses and costs of settlement have been met by insurance made
available to the subsidiary.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. is a
provider of offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas
wells.  At June 30, 2011, the Company owned or had partial
ownership interests in and operated 136 mobile offshore drilling
units.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Involved in Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
From time to time, California Water Service Group has been named
as a co-defendant in several asbestos related lawsuits, according
to the Company's annual report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2011.

Several of these cases against the Company have been dismissed
without prejudice.  In other cases, the Company's contractors and
insurance policy carriers have settled the cases with no effect on
the Company's financial statements.

Headquartered in San Jose, Calif., California Water Service
Group's business is conducted through its operating subsidiaries.
The bulk of the business consists of the production, purchase,
storage, treatment, testing, distribution and sale of water for
domestic, industrial, public and irrigation uses, and for fire
protection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TRW Automotive Units Subject to Pending Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
While certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries have
been subject in recent years to asbestos-related claims,
management believes that those claims will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

In general, these claims seek damages for illnesses alleged to
have resulted from exposure to asbestos used in certain components
sold in the past by the Company's subsidiaries.  Management
believes that the majority of the claimants were vehicle
mechanics.

Most of these claims name numerous manufacturers and suppliers of
a variety of products allegedly containing asbestos.  Management
said it believes that, to the extent any of the products sold by
the Company's subsidiaries and at issue in these cases contained
asbestos, the asbestos was encapsulated.

Based upon several years of experience with such claims,
management said it believes that only a small proportion of the
claimants has or will ever develop any asbestos-related illness.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
annual legal fees to defend these claims have been material in the
past.

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


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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Cases Still Pending v. NL Industries
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.

In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from
working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by
the Company.  There are 1,125 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of about 2,350 plaintiffs.

In addition, the claims of about 7,700 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio, Indiana and Texas state courts.

Headquartered in Dallas, NL Industries, Inc., through its
majority-owned subsidiary, CompX, manufactures components that are
sold to industries including office furniture, recreational
transportation (including performance boats), mailboxes, tool
boxes, home appliances, banking equipment, vending equipment and
computer-related equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Facing 57,957 Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation faced 57,957 unresolved asbestos claims
at June 30, 2011, compared with 66,090 claims at June 30, 2010,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 3, 2011
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company faced 61,249 unresolved asbestos claims at March 31,
2011, compared with 74,839 claims at March 31, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 27, 2011)

At June 30, 2011, the Company recorded 4,253 claims filed, 8,878
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved and 39,859
claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem
Products, Inc.

At June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 3,675 claims filed, 12,606
claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved and 44,873
claimants with claims against both the Company and Amchem.

The Company is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades.  These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The alleged claims primarily relate to products that the Company
sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products
located on the Company's premises, and the Company's
responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former
subsidiary, Amchem.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
It also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $28MM June 30 Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation recorded defense costs of US$28 million
during the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$36
million during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

The Company posted asbestos-related defense costs of US$13 million
during the three months ended March 31, 2011, compared with US$14
million during the three months ended March 31, 2010.  (Class
Action Reporter, May 27, 2011)

Resolution costs were US$26 million during the six months ended
June 30, 2011 and six months ended June 30, 2010.

The Company expenses defense costs as incurred.  The pretax impact
for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was US$15
million in the second quarter of 2011 (US$22 million in the second
quarter of 2010), and US$28 million in the first six months of
2011 (US$36 million in the first six months of 2010) and was
reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of
income.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
It also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Posts $50MM Receivable at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was US$50 million at both
June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

At Dec. 31, 2002, the Company increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to US$1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage.

At June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010, all of the receivable for
insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

Total receivables for asbestos-related costs were US$263 million
as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$298 million as of Dec. 31,
2010.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
It also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Engaged in N.Y. Insurance Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related insurance litigation
filed in New York court is ongoing.

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds.

The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers that are not
signatories to the 1985 Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

Since the filing of the case, the Company has reached settlements
with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation,
including settlements reached with two significant carriers in the
fourth quarter of 2009.

Headquartered in Houston, Union Carbide Corporation produces
building-block chemicals like ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into plastics resins: polyethylene and polypropylene.
It also produces ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make
polyester fibers and antifreeze.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Purks Action v. Texaco Filed on Aug. 4 in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The family of the late James Lee Purks (Patricia, Robert, Gary and
Bryan Purks), on Aug. 4, 2011, filed an asbestos suit Mr. Purks'
former employer, Texaco, in Jefferson County District Court, Tex.,
The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the lawsuit, James Purks, employed as a pipefitter,
worked at Texaco's Port Arthur refinery from 1952 to 1979 and was
routinely exposed to asbestos fibers.  The suit stated, "As a
result of such exposure, James Purks developed an asbestos-related
disease, specifically lung cancer, from which he died a painful
and terrible death on April 20, 2011."

Provost Umphrey attorney Collin Moore, Esq., represents the Purks
family.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B190-639.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Purks Case v. 18 Firms Filed on Aug. 4 in Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A second asbestos lawsuit on behalf of James Lee Purks was filed
against 18 defendant corporations in Jefferson County District
Court, Tex., on Aug. 4, 2011, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

The suit was filed by James Purks' family (Patricia, Robert, Gary
and Bryan Purks).  James Purks had worked as a pipefitter at
Texaco for 27 years.  His second suit focuses of the distributors
of the asbestos products he worked with, court papers say.

The suit names as defendants Amtek, Bechtel, Crown Cork & Seal,
D&F Distributing, Dana Companies, Flour Enterprises, Flour
Maintenance, Foster Wheeler Constructors, Foster Wheeler Corp.,
Foster Wheeler Energy, General Electric, Goulds Pumps, Henry Vogt
Machine, Ingersoll Rand, Owens Illinois, Riley Power, Union
Carbide and Zurn Industries.

The suit claims, "As a result of his exposure, James Purks
developed an asbestos-related disease, lung cancer, and died on
April 20, 2011."

The Purks family is suing for exemplary and punitive damages.
Provost Umphrey attorney Bryan Blevins, Esq., represents them.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. E190-640.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Turek's Lawsuit v. 60 Firms Filed in Kanwha Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Sue Turek, on behalf of her late husband Thomas F. Turek
Sr., filed an asbestos lawsuit against 60 defendant corporations
in Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on June 16, 2011, The West
Virginia Record reports.

According to the complaint, Mr. Turek was diagnosed with lung
cancer and on May 3, 2011, he died due to his lung cancer.  Mrs.
Turek claims her husband had previously smoked cigarettes from
1960 until 2000, but then quit.

According to the suit, Mr. Turek was employed by the defendants
from 1965 until 1986 and was exposed to asbestos during the
employment.

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

Case No. 11-C-1001 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Long Suit v. 10 Firms Filed on Aug. 2 in W.Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos lawsuit styled Charles H. Long and Ruth Long vs. AK
Steel Corporation; AmChem Products, Inc.; and Bechtel Corporation
et al., was filed on Aug. 2, 2011 in Kanawha County Court, W.Va.,
The West Virginia Record reports.

The Longs claim the 10 defendants are responsible for Mr. Long's
lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural plaques.  They seek
compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment
interest.

Craig E. Coleman, Esq., represents the Longs. Case No. 11-C-1264
is assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metheny Case v. 88 Firms Filed in Kanawha Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Metheny and Betty Lee Metheny, of Tunnelton, W.Va., filed
an asbestos lawsuit against 88 defendant corporations in Kanawha
Circuit Court, W.Va., on May 11, 2011, The West Virginia Record
reports.

On May 11, 2011, Mr. Metheny was diagnosed with mesothelioma, of
which he and Mrs. Metheny claim the defendants are responsible,
according to the complaint.  The Methenys claim Mr. Metheny was
exposed to asbestos during his employment with Allegheny Power
from 1955 until 1991.

The Methenys seek a jury trial to resolve all issued involved.
They are being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq.

Case No. 11-C-1163 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Worcestershire Firms Fined for Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two firms from Worcestershire, England, and a contractor from Hall
Green have been prosecuted for releasing asbestos fibers during an
office refurbishment project in Birmingham city centre, according
to a Health and Safety Executive Press release dated Aug. 9, 2011.

HSE inspectors uncovered a series of failings during the
refurbishment of 114-116 Colmore Row, work that included upgrading
a lift containing asbestos insulating board.

Birmingham Magistrates' Court heard how building owners Evanacre
Colmore Row Ltd and project managers Marchment Consulting hired
builder Roland Morewood to carry out work over the weekend of 29
January 2010.

When lift engineers arrived, they found pieces of asbestos
insulating board spread around the lift shaft area and refused to
carry on working.

HSE inspectors stopped all workers from going into the building
until it had been decontaminated.  Air tests taken on several
floors of the premises revealed significantly high levels of
asbestos fibers, which were also found in several vacuum cleaners.

Asbestos insulating board was found stored in Mr. Morewood's van,
which itself was heavily contaminated with raised levels of
asbestos fibers in the air.  By law, it should have been disposed
of by a licensed contractor.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE principal inspector Richard
Lockwood said, "Evanacre Colmore Row had an asbestos survey, which
clearly showed that asbestos was present in the lift.  Marchment
Consulting, which has expertise in building work, should have
known how to deal with asbestos and materials containing its
fibers in refurbishment projects."

Evanacre Colmore Row Ltd, of Cottonfields New Road, Cutnall Green,
Droitwich, pleaded guilty on Aug. 9, 2011 to breaching Regulations
11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and
was fined GBP7,000 and ordered to pay GBP1,500 costs.

Marchment Consulting Ltd, of Kidderminster Road, Droitwich,
pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 11(1)(a) and 16 of the
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined GBP7,000 and
ordered to pay GBP1,500 costs.

Roland Morewood, of Mapleton Road, Hall Green, Birmingham, pleaded
guilty to breaching Regulations 8(1) and 16 of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2006 and fined GBP1,000 and ordered to pay
GBP823 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MassDEP Fines 2 Landlords for Disposal Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has
levied individual fines totaling US$33,185 against Jason S. Balut
and Steven R. Drouin for violating state asbestos regulations,
according to a MassDEP press release dated Aug. 8, 2011.

The violation occurred at a jointly owned rental property located
on Tacoma Street in Springfield, Mass.

In January of 2010, MassDEP conducted an inspection of the
property after receiving a complaint from a tenant that the owners
may have illegally removed asbestos thermal insulation (ATI) from
a boiler located in the basement of the house.

During the inspection, MassDEP found pieces of remnant ATI on the
tenant's belongings, on the basement floor, on pipe fittings and
on the ground outside of the house.  MassDEP also learned that the
asbestos insulation had not been removed in accordance with state
regulations and that the removed ATI had not been properly
disposed of.

At the MassDEP's directive, the owners retained a licensed
asbestos abatement contractor to clean up the property.

Michael Gorski, director of MassDEP's Western Regional Office in
Springfield, said, "The proper removal of the asbestos by a
licensed asbestos abatement contractor would have been far less
costly to the property owners than what they ultimately paid in
penalties and cleanup costs."

As part of a settlement agreement with MassDEP, Mr. Balut and Mr.
Drouin will each pay US$5,000 of their assessed penalties.  The
remaining balance of their penalties, US$28,185, will be suspended
during a one-year probationary period.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McLean Lawyer Seeks Rehearing in Honeywell Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Wylder, Esq., of Bloomington, Ill., on Aug. 5, 2011,
petitioned the Fourth District appellate court to reconsider a
July 15, 2011 decision overruling two precedents that have
sustained his unique series of trials in McLean County, Ill., in a
case involving Honeywell International Inc., The Madison/St. Clair
Record reports.

Mr. Wylder had said the Fourth District appellate judges who
rejected a verdict in an asbestos conspiracy trial defended
Honeywell and Pneumo-Abex better than the companies defended
themselves.

Mr. Wylder told Fourth District judges they drew inferences and
made arguments that defendants did not present to them or to the
jury.  He challenged their finding that expert witness Barry
Castleman lacked qualifications to testify about the significance
of experiments with mice.

Mr. Wylder's clients claim Honeywell predecessor Bendix and
Pneumo-Abex predecessor American Brake and Block conspired with
others to conceal the hazards of asbestos.

Mr. Castleman has testified at each trial that in 1943, companies
suppressed a report from a scientist who exposed 11 mice to
asbestos dust and found tumors in eight.  Verdicts keep
increasing, hitting a peak of US$90 million in 2010.

In the case, Mr. Wylder wants the Fourth District to hear again,
jurors awarded US$2 million in compensatory damages to Juanita
Rodarmel, widow of Baxter Rodarmel.

They awarded punitive damages of US$400,000 against Honeywell and
US$100,000 against Pneumo-Abex.

Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski reduced compensatory damages to
US$183,333, after subtracting amounts other companies had paid to
settle Ms. Rodarmel's claims.

Fourth District judges Thomas Appleton, John McCullough, and John
Turner ruled that Judge Drazewski should have entered judgment for
Honeywell and Pneumo-Abex.

Judge Appleton overruled a precedent from 2000, counting
suppression of the report as evidence of agreement between Abex
and asbestos producer Johns-Manville.  He overruled a precedent
from 2008, allowing four other pieces of evidence.

Judge Appleton resorted to a wisecrack in correcting Judge
Drazewski's decision to allow evidence that Johns-Manville helped
Bendix write a position paper.

Mr. Wylder declared in his petition for rehearing that no one
suggested a communication between private enterprises was the same
as a reputable medical journal.

In addition to discarding evidence, the Fourth District ruled that
Judge Drazewski should never have heard a claim that Mr. Rodarmel
died because Mrs. Rodarmel carried fibers home from work.

Fourth District review of McLean County conspiracy trials will
continue on Sept. 8, 2011 when a panel of three judges will hear
oral arguments in three appeals at once.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Davis Lawsuit v. 79 Firms Filed in Kanawha Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles W. Davis Jr., on behalf of his father Charles W. Davis,
filed an asbestos lawsuit against 79 defendant corporations in
Kanawha Circuit Court, W.Va., on July 13, 2011, The West Virginia
Record reports.

According to the complaint, on July 24, 2009, Charles W. Davis was
diagnosed with lung cancer, of which he died of four days later.

Charles W. Davis previously smoked cigarettes from 1944 until
1989, but then quit, according to the suit.  His son claims while
working at Allied Chemical as an operator and foreman from 1945
until 1979, his father was exposed to the harmful asbestos fibers.

Charles W. Davis Jr. seeks a jury trial to resolve all issued
involved.  He is being represented by Victoria L. Antion, Esq.,
Scott A. McGee, Esq., and Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq.

Case No. 11-C-1162 has been assigned to a visiting judge.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Barrowford Builder's Death Related to Asbestos
---------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of 77-year-old John Sutcliffe, a
former builder from Barrowford, England, was related to workplace
exposure to asbestos, The Citizen reports.

The inquest heard that Mr. Sutcliffe came into contact with
asbestos sheets every day as he made corrugated roofs for farm
buildings.  He used to cut the sheets to size before nailing them
to a wooden frame and would be left covered in dust.

In a letter written before his death on March 23, 2011, Mr.
Sutcliffe said he would often kneel on the asbestos sheets to
drill holes in them with a hand drill, which in turn would create
lots of dust.

Mr. Sutcliffe said the two places he worked did during his career
did not have a sink so he could not wash his hands and he would
often have to eat his lunch with his hands covered in asbestos
dust.

East Lancashire pathologist Dr. Abdul Al-Daoud carried out a post-
mortem on Mr. Sutcliffe.  Dr. Al-Daoud said he found evidence of
two types of cancer with a tumor in the periphery of the lung and
evidence of a tumor removed from the stomach.

It was explained to the inquest that similar tumors in the lung
can be caused by smoking but this was not the case with Mr.
Sutcliffe as he had stopped smoking when he was 35 years old.

East Lancashire coroner Richard Taylor recorded a verdict of
industrial disease explaining that the cancer that killed Mr.
Sutcliffe was caused by exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Clearwater Men Charged for Hazard Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district judge has found guilty 49-year-old Stephen J.
Spencer, an architect from Clearwater, Fla., and 54-year-old Guy
Gannaway, a contractor from Safety Harbor, Fla., of violating the
Clean Air Act in connection with the mishandling of asbestos on a
work site, the St. Petersburg Times reports.

Mr. Spencer was sentenced to probation and 30 hours of community
service.  He had been found guilty in 2011 of two counts of
failing to have a trained asbestos supervisor on the site.  A
federal jury acquitted him on five other related charges.

Also sentenced was Mr. Gannaway, who was found guilty on eight
counts and acquitted on three.  He was sentenced to 90 days in
federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release and
home detention.

The two had been partners with developer John Loder, whose Sun
Vista Development Group rode high during the real estate boom,
buying four large properties with the intent of turning them into
high-end condominiums.

Mr. Loder and Sun Vista crashed.  Two of his projects (Bay Pines
Mobile Home Park in Seminole and Snell Isle Club Apartments in St.
Petersburg) never got off the ground.  In 2010, Mr. Loder, Mr.
Spencer and Mr. Gannaway were accused of violating federal laws in
connection with disposal of asbestos from two others.  One, called
Barefoot Beach Resort, was in Indian Shores, and the other was in
South Pasadena.

A jury found Mr. Loder not guilty of five charges, and the court
declared a mistrial on two others.

Although Mr. Spencer and Mr. Gannaway were found guilty in
connection with mishandling asbestos on the Indian Shores project,
the light sentences indicated that the government had been
overzealous in its prosecution of the men, Clearwater attorney
George Tragos said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Firms Fined $110T for Violations at Monterey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two companies had agreed to settle US$110,000 in fines for
asbestos violations stemming from a 2009 renovation project at
Windsor Monterey Care Center, the Monterey County Herald reports.

The work involved scraping an asbestos-laden acoustic ceiling.
The facility's parent company was faulted for failing to conduct a
federally required asbestos survey or to notify California
Occupational Safety and Health Administration or the Monterey Bay
Area Unified Air Pollution Control District before the project.

S&F Management Co. LLC, which oversaw the work, failed to protect
workers.  Because wet methods were not used, asbestos dust was
released, increasing the workers' risk for lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases.

Windsor Monterey Care Center ultimately hired an environmental
firm to remediate the contamination and properly dispose of the
hazardous waste.

Monterey County environmental prosecutor Dije Ndreu stressed the
importance of conducting pre-demolition asbestos surveys, which
are required of all facilities except residential buildings with
four or fewer dwellings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Mgmt. Fined GBP32T for Disposal Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Waste Management, which is based on the Pool Road Industrial
Estate in Nuneaton, England, has been fined GBP32,000, plus
GBP2,174 costs, for failing to dispose of asbestos properly, the
Coventry Telegraph reports.

Crown Waste Management pleaded guilty at Coventry Magistrates'
Court to three charges brought by the Environment Agency under
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the
Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.

Kiran Cassini, prosecuting, told the court that in September 2009
Crown Waste Management were contracted to remove asbestos lagging
from Gamecock Barracks in Bramcote.  Two skips were delivered to
the site by Crown Waste Management and later collected for
disposal.  The skips were deposited on land at Pool Road,
Nuneaton, where no environmental permit was in force.

Mr. Cassini explained that on both occasions, when the skips were
collected, the relevant consignment notes were not provided as
required by the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.

It was not until Nov. 17, 2009 that a consignment note was
provided stating that the asbestos had been taken to Sita Limited,
in Packington Lane, near Coventry, that was authorized to accept
asbestos when, in fact, the waste remained on land at Pool Road
until the Environment Agency began to investigate matters.

Following intervention by the Environment Agency, the asbestos was
finally disposed of correctly in July 2010.

In mitigation, the court was told that the incident arose as a
result of a member of staff "forgetting" that the waste had been
deposited opposite the permitted facility.  The employee had since
been dismissed, the court heard.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UW Stevens Point Charged for Hazard Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce found
that the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point violated several
regulations related to asbestos, WFSX reports.

Filed in July 2011, the report says a construction project in the
Communication Arts Center in 2010 contained asbestos, and that the
school failed to protect its employees.  However, UWSP officials
say they have appealed the findings.

The investigation occurred in response to a complaint filed by a
UWSP associate professor of communication.  The report lists six
violations against the school and corrective action that must be
taken by next month.

According to the report, tile containing asbestos was removed by a
contractor from room 234 in the CAC, the site of a restroom
renovation.  The report indicated this is a place where employees
work.

The report also says UWSP did not determine how much asbestos
existed before opening the project up to bidding.

As a result of failing to identify the presence of asbestos, UWSP
did not notify employees working nearby that the construction
project included asbestos abatement.  The university also failed
to provide alternate routes around the construction project or
post signs warning of asbestos, according to the report.

The investigation report requires the school to address the
violations and correct them by Sept. 13, 2011.   This includes
keeping employees away from areas where asbestos could migrate,
not starting any more projects until the location of the asbestos
is determined, explaining the violations in question, and
developing plans to prevent similar problems in the future.

However, UWSP officials dispute the report.  Jeff Karcher, UWSP
director of Safety & Loss, said the school has appealed the
report.  He said the contractor took all of the required actions
to protect the health of employees.  He said the petition also
says UWSP did notify its employees during the actual removal work.

Mr. Karcher also said the building where the renovation took place
is safe.

                            *********

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  * * *