CAR_Public/110902.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 174

                             Headlines

A.G. EDWARDS: Mo. Sup. Court Affirms $21MM Fee Award to Milberg
BLUE COAT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
BP: Oil-Spill Claimants May Seek Punitive Damages
DELL INC: Appeals From Deal Approval in Securities Suit Pending
DELL INC: Has Yet to Submit Settlement in "Brazil" Suit for OK

DENDREON CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Washington
GOV'T OF CANADA: Judge Allows G20 Class Action to Proceed
GRANITE ROCK: Gets Favorable Ruling in Lunch Break Class Action
ITALY GOV'T: Faces Class Action Over University Entrance Exams
KASHI CO: Sued for Mislabeling Products as "All Natural"

MICHAELS STORES: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Bid in "Tyler" Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Defends 6 Payment Card Terminal Tampering Suits
MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Ragano" Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
MICHAELS STORES: Settles "Polak-Lavrov" Suits in California
NVIDIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit

NVIDIA CORP: Faces New Suit Over Weak Die/Packaging Material
OLD ORCHARD: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls 5,500 Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard
PETZL AMERICA: Recalls 20,000 Belay Devices Due to Fall Hazard
SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit's Plea for Rehearing Pending in 2nd Cir.

SILVERHILL MANAGEMENT: Unit Defends "Drinville" Suit in Calif.
SINOTECH ENERGY: October 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
STATE OF ILLINOIS: Disabilities Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
STATE OF INDIANA: Seeks Dismissal of State Fair Class Action
STATE OF TEXAS: Abortion Bill Can't Impose Penalties on Doctors

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Water Pollution Class Action Won't Proceed
TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius Headlight Class Action Settlement Stalls
VANGUARD HEALTH: Awaits Decisions in "Cason-Merenda" Suit

* Class Action Underscores Importance of FCRA Compliance
* Credit Card Issuing Banks Face Time Share Fraud Class Action


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Named in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Reserves Increase by $28MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Tidewater Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Wabtec, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7.5T Claims Pending v. Fairmont in Seven States

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Open v. CenterPoint, Units
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Lawsuits Still Pending v. Caterpillar
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Posts $113MM June 30 Respirator Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Still Named in Respirator Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Has Declaratory Judgment Case in Minn.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $31MM Aearo Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Posts $13.8MM Net A&E Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Spence, Hoke
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Has $1.64MM Liability at July 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vector Still Subject to Parsons Action in W.Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Has $18.3MM June 30 Retirement Obligations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 29,082 Cases Pending v. General Cable at July 1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Has $1.3MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Premises" Lawsuits Still Pending v. Huntsman
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco Still Subject to Potential Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Posts $2.262-Bil. Net Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Records 5,477 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 222 Cases Open v. Midwest Generation at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $49.19MM ARO at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Still Facing 530 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Posts $19MM June 30 Current Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26T Claims Still Pending v. Maremont at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Still Has Rockwell Legacy Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Curtiss-Wright

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K.'s Government "Scraps" Compensation Scheme
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belleville Files Countersuit Regarding Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Worker's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alpough's Lawsuit v. Chevron Filed on Aug. 16
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler AG Facing 123,990 Claims in U.S.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Units Facing 290 Claims in U.K.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Subject to Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex to Continue Resolving Tort Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Accrues $561MM June 30 Obligations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Park-Ohio Surge to 300 at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Cases Pending v. Parker Drilling at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Great Lakes, NATCO Subject to Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Still Subject to Asbestos Actions

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., Six Units Named in Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Ashland Inc. Drop to 75T at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22T Claims Still Pending v. Hercules at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Reserves $233T for Gradall Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liability Cases Still Ongoing v. General Motors

ASBESTOS UPDATE: VWR Funding Subject to Potential Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Still Has $2MM AROs at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Unit Still Subject to Exposure Lawsuits





                             *********

A.G. EDWARDS: Mo. Sup. Court Affirms $21MM Fee Award to Milberg
---------------------------------------------------------------
According an article posted at PointofLaw.com by Ted Frank, the
Missouri Supreme Court on Aug. 30 let stand an appellate court
ruling that affirmed a $21 million fee award to Milberg and other
class-action attorneys in a coupon settlement, without ever
addressing the Center for Class Action Fairness's argument about
the appropriate legal means for valuing coupons.

The case is Bachman v. A.G. Edwards.


BLUE COAT: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
On August 30, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint
against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and certain of the Company's
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The action for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common
stock of Blue Coat between November 24, 2009 and May 27, 2010,
inclusive.

If you purchased the common stock of Blue Coat during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you
must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 30.  Any
member of the investor class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact:

          Scott+Scott LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://scott-scott.com/bluecoat

for more information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that, during the Class
Period, the Company issued false and misleading statements:
overstating demand for Blue Coat's product and service offerings
in its all-important European market (from which 40% of sales had
traditionally originated), understating the difficulties Blue Coat
was experiencing selling its WAN optimization products after the
initial installation, understating the extent to which customers
were cancelling orders of Blue Coat products and services,
understating the extent to which Blue Coat was losing market share
to competitors, and that as a result, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's
business and financial prospects. As a result, the complaint
charges that Blue Coat's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, allowing Blue Coat's senior
executives to sell tens of millions of dollars of stock at
inflated prices.

On May 27, 2010, defendants shocked the market by announcing,
after the close of trading, that in reality, demand for Blue
Coat's product and services offerings had significantly weakened
in "almost every country in Europe." Defendants also disclosed
that Blue Coat had been unable to close multiple sales in Europe.
As a result, defendants significantly reduced the Company's
forward sales revenue and earnings guidance, causing the Company's
stock price to fall precipitously by more than 25% per share on
unusually high trading volume when trading resumed on May 28,
2010.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


BP: Oil-Spill Claimants May Seek Punitive Damages
--------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that more than
100,000 oil-spill claimants may seek punitive damages from BP and
other defendants, but not attorney fees, a federal judge ruled.
But U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier dismissed all lawsuits
brought under state law, finding that oil-spill claims fall under
jurisdiction of the federal Oil Pollution Act.

Judge Barbier also dismissed plaintiffs' request for declaratory
relief which would bar BP from requiring them to sign away their
right to sue other oil-spill defendants for damages after settling
for a "speedy and efficient recovery" from BP.

"The . . . obvious flaw in plaintiffs' request for declaratory
relief is that nothing prohibits defendants from settling claims
for economic loss.  While OPA [the Oil Pollution Act] does not
specifically address the use of waivers and releases by
responsible parties, the statute also does not clearly prohibit
it. In fact, as the court has recognized in this order, one of the
goals of OPA was to allow for speedy and efficient recovery by
victims of an oil spill."

Judge Barbier issued a 39-page ruling related to the B1 bundle.
The ruling grants in part and denies in part party requests made
related to the bundle.

The B1 pleading bundle includes all claims for private or "non-
governmental economic loss and property damages" and pertains to
claims for economic damages filed by fishermen, seafood processors
and distributors, recreational and commercial businesses, plant
and dock workers and those who worked for BP's Vessels of
Opportunity program, among others who allege financial trouble as
a result of the massive April 2010 spill.

"Plaintiffs allege claims under general maritime law, the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 . . . and various state laws.  Under general
maritime law, plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, gross
negligence, and strict liability for manufacturing and/or design
defect.  Under various state laws, plaintiffs allege claims for
nuisance, trespass, and fraudulent concealment, and they also
allege a claim for strict liability under the Florida Pollutant
Discharge Prevention and Control Act, Fla. Stat. Sec. 376.011, et
seq.  Additionally, plaintiffs seek punitive damages under all
claims and request declaratory relief regarding any settlement
provisions that purport to affect the calculation of punitive
damages," Judge Barbier wrote.

The "Order and Reasons (As to Motions to Dismiss the B1 Master
Complaint)" states that "admiralty jurisdiction was invoked by
this incident.  . . .  Therefore, general maritime law applies to
the claims of the B1 plaintiffs.  Moreover, OPA applies of its own
force, because that act governs, inter alia, private claims for
property damage and economic loss resulting from a discharge of
oil in navigable waters.  . . . Because OPA and/or general
maritime law applies to the B1 plaintiffs' claims, state law may
not be adopted as surrogate federal law under OCSLA [Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act] Sec. 1333(a)(3)(A) . . ..

"But this case does not concern conduct within state borders
(waters).  This casualty occurred over the Outer Continental Shelf
-- an area of 'exclusive federal jurisdiction' -- on waters deemed
to be the 'high seas.' . . .

"Thus, to the extent state law could apply to conduct outside
state waters, in this case it must 'yield to the needs of a
uniform federal maritime law.'"

Five pages later, Judge Barbier writes: "Defendants seek to
dismiss all general maritime claims, contending that when Congress
enacted OPA, it displaced pre-existing federal common law,
including general maritime law, for claims covered by OPA.
Defendants argue that OPA provides the sole remedy for private,
non-governmental entities asserting economic loss and property
damage claims.  They urge that when Congress enacts a
comprehensive statute on a subject previously controlled by
federal common law, the federal statute controls and displaces the
federal common law.  Defendants further argue that under OPA,
plaintiffs are allowed to pursue their claims for economic damages
solely against the designated 'Responsible Party' and that OPA
does not allow claims directly against non-Responsible Parties.

"Prior to the enactment of OPA in 1990, a general maritime
negligence cause of action was available to persons who suffered
physical damage and resulting economic loss resulting from an oil
spill.  General maritime law also provided for recovery of
punitive damages in the case of gross negligence, Exxon Shipping
Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), and strict product liability
for defective products, E. River S.S. Corp., Inc., 476 U.S. 858
(1986).  However, claims for purely economic losses unaccompanied
by physical damage to a proprietary interest were precluded under
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927).  The
Fifth Circuit has continuously reaffirmed the straightforward
application of the Robins Dry Dock rule, explaining that 'although
eloquently criticized for its rigidity, the rule has persisted
because it offers a bright-line application in an otherwise murky
area.' . . .

"One relevant exception to the Robins Dry Dock rule applies in the
case of commercial fishermen.  See Louisiana v. M/V Testbank, 524
F. Supp. 1170, 1173 (E.D. La. 1981) ('claims for [purely] economic
loss [resulting from an oil spill and subsequent river closure]
asserted by the commercial oystermen, shrimpers, crabbers, and
fishermen raise unique considerations requiring separate attention
. . . seamen have been recognized as favored in admiralty and
their economic interests require the fullest possible legal
protection.')."

Judge Barbier added: "The B1 master complaint alleges economic
loss claims on behalf of various categories of claimants, many of
whom have not alleged physical injury to their property or other
proprietary interest.  Pre-OPA, these claimants, with the
exception of commercial fishermen, would not have had a viable
cause of action and would be precluded from any recovery by virtue
of Robins Dry Dock. Accordingly, claims under general maritime law
asserted by such claimants are not plausible and must be
dismissed.

The judge wrote that "only a handful of courts have had the
opportunity to address whether OPA displaces general maritime
law."

He added that "more recent Supreme Court precedents cause this
court to question the notion that long-standing federal common law
can be displaced by a statute that is silent on the issue.  See
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) (holding that the
CWA did not displace a general maritime remedy for punitive
damages) and Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, -- U.S. --, 129 S.
Ct. 2561 (2009) (holding that the Jones Act did not displace the
availability of punitive damages for a seaman's maintenance and
cure claim).

"However, the Court finds that the B1 Master Complaint states a
viable cause of action against the non-responsible parties under
general maritime law on behalf of claimants who either allege
physical damage to a proprietary interest and/or qualify for the
commercial fishermen exception to Robins Dry Dock.  In brief,
these claims are saved and not displaced by OPA for the following
reasons.

"First, when reading OPA and its legislative history, it does not
appear that Congress intended to occupy the entire field governing
liability for oil spills, as it included two savings provisions -
one that preserved the application of general maritime law and
another that preserved a state's authority with respect to
discharges of oil or pollution within the state.  33 U.S.C. Secs.
2718, 2751.

"Second, OPA does not directly address or speak to the liability
of non-responsible parties to persons who suffer covered losses.
Although OPA contains provisions regarding the responsible party's
ability to seek contribution and indemnification, Id. Secs. 2709,
2710, it is silent as to whether a claimant can seek redress
directly from non-responsible parties.  Prior to OPA's enactment,
commercial fisherman and those who suffered physical damage had a
general maritime law cause of action against these individuals.

"Third, there is nothing to indicate that allowing a general
maritime remedy against the non-responsible parties will somehow
frustrate Congress' intent when it enacted OPA.  Under OPA, a
claimant is required to first present a claim to the Responsible
Party . . ..

"Thus, claimants' maritime causes of action against a Responsible
Party are displaced by OPA, such that all claims against a
responsible party for damages covered by OPA must comply with
OPA's presentment procedure."

With regard to punitive damages, Judge Barbier found that OPA "is
silent."

"OPA is . . . silent as to the availability of punitive damages .
. . thus, while punitive damages are not available under OPA, the
court does not read OPA's silence as meaning that punitive damages
are precluded under general maritime law."

But attorney fees are not recoverable.

"The court concludes that plaintiffs' complaint does not allege a
plausible claim for attorneys' fees under either general maritime
law or the bad faith exception, and this claim must be dismissed."

A footnote states: "This ruling is not intended to preclude
possible claims for attorneys' fees available by statute or
federal rule, or some other non-statutory exception to the
American Rule, such as common-fund fees, or situations where a
party willfully violates a court order.  See Boland, 41 F.3d at
1005."

A copy of the Order and Reasons as to Motions to Dismiss the B1
Master Complaint in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater
Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case No. 10-md-
02179 (E.D. La.) (Barbier, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/30/OilSpill.pdf


DELL INC: Appeals From Deal Approval in Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain objectors have filed notices of appeal with regard to the
final approval of the settlement resolving Dell Inc.'s securities
litigation, according to the Company's August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 29, 2011.

Four putative securities class actions filed between
September 13, 2006, and January 31, 2007, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, against
Dell and certain of its current and former directors and officers
were consolidated as In re Dell Securities Litigation, and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the court.  The lead plaintiff asserted
claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act
based on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions
regarding Dell's financial statements, governmental
investigations, internal controls, known battery problems and
business model, and based on insiders' sales of Dell securities.
This action also included Dell's independent registered public
accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant.  On
October 6, 2008, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims
with prejudice and without leave to amend.  On November 3, 2008,
the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Dell and the officer
defendants to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeal was
fully briefed, and oral argument on the appeal was heard by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 1, 2009.  On November
20, 2009, the parties to the appeal entered into a written
settlement agreement whereby Dell would pay $40 million to the
proposed class and the plaintiff would dismiss the pending
litigation.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
District Court on December 21, 2009.  The settlement was subject
to certain conditions, including opt-outs from the proposed class
not exceeding a specified percentage and final approval by the
District Court.  During the first quarter of Fiscal 2011, the
original opt-out period in the notice approved by the District
Court expired without the specified percentage being exceeded.
The District Court subsequently granted final approval for the
settlement and entered a final judgment on July 20, 2010.  Dell
paid $40 million into an escrow account to satisfy this settlement
and discharged the liability during the second quarter of Fiscal
2011.  Certain objectors to the settlement have filed notices of
appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with regard to
approval of the settlement.  While there can be no assurances with
respect to litigation, Dell believes it is unlikely that the
settlement will be overturned on appeal.


DELL INC: Has Yet to Submit Settlement in "Brazil" Suit for OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Inc. and other parties to the class action lawsuit alleging
Dell advertised discounts on products from false "regular" prices,
have yet to file their settlement documents for court approval,
according to the Company's August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 29, 2011.

Chad Brazil and Steven Seick filed a class action lawsuit against
Dell in March 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs allege that Dell
advertised discounts on its products from false "regular" prices,
in violation of California law.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, disgorgement of profits from the alleged false
advertising, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.  In December 2010, the District Court certified a class
consisting of all California residents who had purchased certain
products advertised with a former sales price on the consumer
segment of Dell's Web site during an approximately four year
period between March 2003 and June 2007.  During the first quarter
of Fiscal 2012, the plaintiffs and Dell reached a classwide
settlement in principle regarding the dispute on terms that are
not material to the company, but the settlement is still subject
to submission and approval by the District Court.


DENDREON CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say directors of
Dendreon Corp. dumped $9.5 million of their own shares at prices
inflated by false statements about its major product, an expensive
cancer drug called Provenge, and that Dendreon's market cap sank
72% in a day when the truth came out.

A copy of the Complaint in McCallion v. Gold, et al., Case No. 11-
2-29626 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/30/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN COLUCCIO
          200 Second Avenue West
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448-1777
          E-mail: brad@stritmatter.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GREICO MERRIMAN, LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com


GOV'T OF CANADA: Judge Allows G20 Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that a judge has given one G20 class action
lawsuit the green light to seek certification, while calling a
halt to another.

The C$45 million suit launched by office administrator Sherry Good
on behalf of people subject to mass arrests during the June 2010
Toronto meeting of world leaders can now ask a judge for
certification.

But the C$115 million G20 suit launched by activists Miranda
McQuade and Mike Barber is stayed, Justice Carolyn Horkins ruled
in a judgment released on Aug. 30 in Ontario Superior Court.

Legal teams from each proposed class action sought an order
staying the other.

Under court rules, only one can proceed for practical reasons,
explained lawyer Murray Klippenstein who, with Eric Gillespie,
represents Good.

"The Sherry Good lawsuit would include most of the individuals
covered by the other lawsuit," Mr. Klippenstein said.

The Good action was launched on behalf of people arrested or
subjected to mass detention and who were released without charge
or held at the Eastern Ave. detention center.

The McQuade action defines its members as those arrested,
detained, assaulted or charged on June 26 and 27, as well as all
those at the detention centre from June 25 to 30.

"There is no meaningful difference in the causes of action pled,"
Justice Horkins wrote.  Both allege Charter violations and alleged
assault and battery, false imprisonment, abuse of public office
and negligence.

However, there are important differences in the structures of the
two, including the people they seek to include, Justice Horkins
said.

The Good action focuses on mass detention and arrests at seven
locations.

In contrast, the McQuade action proposes classes of claimants that
will trigger individual inquiries before its members can be
admitted, the judge wrote.

"It requires an individual inquiry into the factual circumstances
surrounding an alleged detention or assault to determine if the
individual is a class member or not," she wrote.

The McQuade class is extremely broad and does not differentiate
between those arrested, detained, assaulted or charged, Justice
Horkins said.  "This approach seems to rely upon sweeping
allegations of wrongdoing that challenge the police conduct at
large."

In a related ruling, Justice Horkins denied an application by the
Canadian Civil Liberties Association to intervene in the Good
lawsuit.


GRANITE ROCK: Gets Favorable Ruling in Lunch Break Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Pittman, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
after three years of litigation and a 14-day bench trial, a Santa
Clara County judge has ruled that Granite Rock Co. Inc. was within
the law when it let concrete mixer truck drivers opt out of formal
lunch breaks in exchange for extra pay and getting off work early.

"I don't even know how you'd be in the concrete business if
everyone who drives a mixer truck would have to stop and have a
lunch within five hours," said Bruce Woolpert, Graniterock
president and chief executive officer.  "I just don't know how
you'd run a business."

The case, filed in January 2008, involved six former Graniterock
employees who represented about 200 other employees in a class
action suit, Driscoll, et al. v. Graniterock Co.  Plaintiffs
sought $6 million in restitution and penalties for the company's
alleged failure to adequately provide meal breaks to concrete
mixer truck drivers and pay them an extra hour pay for missed meal
breaks.  Other practices in question included waiting time
penalties and inaccurate pay stubs.  The court ruled in favor of
Graniterock on all issues.

"We basically hit a bull's-eye as to what the law meant,"
Mr. Woolpert said, noting that ambiguous state regulations have
spawned a host of similar legal challenges throughout the state.

In the Driscoll case, Graniterock contended that as long as a meal
break is provided, an employee, who has signed an on-duty meal
agreement, can voluntarily agree to waive the 30-minute
uninterrupted meal period.  The company also argued that while
there are many waiting periods in the day of a mixer driver, the
nature of the business -- working with wet concrete -- precluded
set meal times.

"When the truck leaves the yard, he can't pull over at Eric's Deli
and have a sandwich," Mr. Woolpert said.  "It's more perishable
than strawberries.  From the time the truck leaves the yard and to
when it comes back, we have to keep moving."

Plaintiffs argued, however, that the work did not prevent drivers
from taking breaks and Graniterock had to set the mandatory lunch
breaks or pay a penalty.

On Aug. 26, Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg ruled that while
the law demands that an employer provide a lunch break, an
employer is not legally responsible to ensure it is taken.  He
noted that no Graniterock driver was ever denied a lunch break,
there were no filed grievances, and drivers testified that
dispatchers regularly helped them meet demanding schedules of
being a single parent, coaching a youth basketball team and taking
care of personal business during work hours.  Drivers, he said,
preferred to eat on duty to get home earlier, receive premium pay
or because they didn't want to sit around "twiddling their thumbs"
off the clock.

"This is not a case where class members toil in ignorance and it
is only when a lawsuit is brought do they become aware of their
possible recovery," Judge Kleinberg said.

This case is just one of many similar cases filling the California
courts because of ambiguities in state labor laws, Mr. Woolpert
said.

"It's why a lot of people move their businesses to Nevada.  The
state has a set of regulations and if you have five people reading
them, they all would come away with different ideas of what it
said.  Our litigation was to clarify what the law really said,"
Mr. Woolpert said.  "I just didn't want the company to still be
struggling with what the heck does this mean for the next 60
years."

The question of whether employers have to mandate lunch breaks is
currently pending in state Supreme Court.

"This is an important issue that's really at the forefront of
employment law right now," said Alan Levins of Littler Mendelson,
a labor and employment law firm representing management.  "We
proved that lunch was available and if an employee chooses not to
take lunch, the employer should not be penalized.  One can only
hope that the Supreme Court is taking note of what the trial court
did in this case."

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Clapp said on Aug. 29 that the
ruling was likely to discourage other valid cases from being
brought in Santa Clara County.

"It's very difficult for me to explain his ruling, frankly,"
Mr. Clapp said.  "There is no doubt they (Graniterock) are
attempting to use invalid on-duty meal periods to justify off-duty
meal periods.  He (Kleinberg) issued an incredibly restrictive
ruling showing an unfriendly attitude toward this particular law."


ITALY GOV'T: Faces Class Action Over University Entrance Exams
--------------------------------------------------------------
AGI News reports that the Codacons consumers' union has announced
that "class action" will be taken against university entrance
exams.

The exams are geared to keeping student numbers steady.  Over the
last few months, Codacons has challenged the Ministry of
Education, University and Research over the exams, which it says
are "detrimental to the right to study and work, as guaranteed
under Arts. 3, 33 and 34 of the Constitutional Charter."  Not
least because "free access to work is also safeguarded by EU
directives."


KASHI CO: Sued for Mislabeling Products as "All Natural"
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action complaint claims that Kashi and Kellogg mislabel
their products as "all natural" and free of artificial
ingredients, though the "defendants knew these claims to be
false."  One such product is "composed almost entirely of
synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients," the class
claims.

Lead plaintiff Michael Bates, of Texas, sued La Jolla-based Kashi
Co., which Kellogg bought in 2000 and controls as a wholly owned
subsidiary.

"Since at least 1999, defendants prominently displayed the
promises 'all natural' and/or 'nothing artificial' on the front
labels of almost all of its products, cultivating a healthy and
socially conscious image in an effort to promote the sale of these
products.  Defendants knew these claims to be false," the
complaint states.

Mr. Bates' attorney, Yvette Golan with the Houston-based Golan Law
Firm, told Courthouse News in a statement that "in some cases"
substances in Kashi products were "hazardous" and violated "both
Kashi's and the FDA's definition of the term 'natural.'"

"Consumers must and do rely on food companies to give truthful
information about their food products.  While a food company need
not provide all-natural ingredients, it cannot falsely label its
products as 'all natural' in the hopes of capturing the growing
natural-foods market," Ms. Golan said.

"Because of the strain on resources, the FDA has not adopted a
rule for its policy on labeling foods as 'natural.'  The agency
also does not require pre-market label approval.  It thus falls on
consumers to ensure that food companies remain honest about their
ingredients," the attorney added.

The class action claims Kashi "inserted a spectacular array of
unnaturally processed and synthetic ingredients to its so-called
'all natural' products" which include bars, cereals, shakes,
cookies, crackers, pita crisps, waffles and pizza.

"For example, Kashi's so-called 'All Natural' GoLean Shakes are
composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed
ingredients, including sodium molybdate, phytonadione, sodium
selenite, magnesium phosphate, niacinamide, calcium carbonate,
calcium phosphate, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride,
thiamin hydrochloride, potassium iodide, and other substances that
have been declared to be synthetic substances by federal
regulations," the complaint states.

Mr. Bates claims that many of the "fraudulently labeled" products
contain more artificial ingredients than natural ones and make
"deceptive" health claims.

"Many of these ingredients are shocking, especially given
defendants' heavily market 'Real Foods Values.'  For example,
defendants added several ingredients that the FDA has expressly
declined to declare as GRAS or 'generally recognized as safe' as a
food additive.  Defendants added synthetic substances listed as
prescription drugs to its foods, irradiated substance, pesticides
that are a byproduct of uranium mining, and federally declared
hazardous substances.  Defendants also added several highly
processed excitotoxins to its products that are hidden sources of
monsodium glutamate, a.k.a. 'MSG,'" the complaint states.

The class claims that many ingredients in Kashi products are safe
only because of "synthetic compounds or excessive processes" that
turn them into food additives.  That makes Kashi's "all natural"
claims "demonstrably false," the class says.

Kashi products are marketed to U.S. consumers who want natural
ingredients in packaged foods, as part of an expanding $22 billion
industry, according to the complaint."  As a result of their false
and misleading labeling, defendants were able to sell these
products to hundreds of thousands of consumers throughout the
United States and to profit handsomely from these transactions,"
the complaint states.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages and statutory
penalties for unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices,
false advertising, violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment and constructive fraud, negligence
and negligent misrepresentations, strict liability, assault and
battery, and conspiracy.

A copy of the Complaint in Bates v. Kashi Company, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-01967 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/30/Kashi.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yvette Golan, Esq.
          THE GOLAN LAW FIRM
          1919 Decatur St.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (866) 298-4150 ext. 101
          E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com

               - and -

          Shirish Gupta, Esq.
          FLASHPOINTLAW, INC.
          1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (650) 539-4019
          E-mail: sgupta@flashpointlaw.com


MICHAELS STORES: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Bid in "Tyler" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss claims in a purported class action lawsuit commenced by
Melissa Tyler in Massachusetts, according to the Company's August
25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego ("San Diego
Superior Court"), on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
California consumers.  The Carson lawsuit alleges that Michaels
unlawfully requested and recorded personally identifiable
information (i.e., her zip code) as part of a credit card
transaction.  The plaintiff sought statutory penalties, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  The Company contested
certification of this claim as a class action and filed a motion
to dismiss the claim.  On March 9, 2009, the Court dismissed the
case with prejudice.  The plaintiff appealed this decision to the
California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, San Diego.  On
July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the
case.  The plaintiff appealed this decision to the Supreme Court
of California ("California Supreme Court").  On September 29,
2010, the California Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's
petition for review; however, it stayed any further proceedings in
the case until another similar zip code case pending before the
court, Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided.  On
February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled, in the
Williams-Sonoma case, that zip codes are personally identifiable
information and therefore the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971, as amended ("Song Act") prohibits businesses from requesting
or requiring zip codes in connection with a credit card
transaction.  On April 6, 2011, the Supreme Court transferred the
Carson case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to the
Court to reconsider its decision in light of Pineda decision.
Upon reconsideration the Court of Appeal remanded the case back to
the San Diego Superior Court.  The Company is reviewing the matter
in light of this recent decision and, at this time, the Company is
unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, in this case.

Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on
February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed
against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and
Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego
Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division.  Unopposed motions to coordinate these actions
have been filed.  Also, relying in part on the California Supreme
Court decision, an additional purported class action lawsuit was
filed on May 20, 2011, against the Company: Melissa Tyler v.
Michaels Stores, Inc. in the United States District Court-District
of Massachusetts, alleging violation of a similar Massachusetts
statute regarding the collection of personally identifiable
information in connection with a credit card transaction.  A
Motion to Dismiss the claims was filed and is currently pending.
The Company says it intends to vigorously defend each of these
cases and it is unable, at this time, to estimate a range of loss,
if any.


MICHAELS STORES: Defends 6 Payment Card Terminal Tampering Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is defending six purported class action
lawsuits in Illinois and New Jersey over the issue of tampering of
payment card terminals in its stores, according to the Company's
August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On May 3, 2011, the Company was advised by the U.S. Secret Service
that they were investigating certain fraudulent debit card
transactions that occurred on accounts that had been used for
legitimate purchases in selected Michaels stores.  A subsequent
internal investigation revealed that approximately 90 payment card
terminals in certain Michaels stores had been physically tampered
with, potentially resulting in customer debit and credit card
information to be compromised.  The Company has since removed and
replaced approximately 7,200 payment card terminals comparable to
the identified tampered payment card terminals from the Company's
Michaels stores.  The Company continues to cooperate with various
governmental entities and law enforcement authorities in
investigating the payment card terminal tampering, but the Company
does not know the full extent of any fraudulent use of such
information.

On May 18, 2011, Brandi F. Ramundo, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated U.S.
consumers.  The Ramundo lawsuit alleges that Michaels failed to
take commercially reasonable steps to protect consumer financial
data, and was in breach of contract and various laws, including
the Federal Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, costs, credit card
fraud monitoring services, interest and attorneys' fees.
Subsequently three additional purported class action lawsuits
significantly mirroring the claims in the Ramundo complaint were
filed against the Company: Mary Allen v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
Kimberly Siprut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., and Jeremy Williams v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., all in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.  On July 8, 2011, a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint styled In re Michaels
Stores Pin Pad Litigation ("In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated
Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on August 8, 2011, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss the In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated
Complaint.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is unable
to estimate a range of loss, if any, in the case.

Two additional purported class action lawsuits significantly
mirroring the claims in the In Re Michaels Stores Consolidated
Complaint have been filed against the Company in New Jersey: Sara
Rosenfeld and Ilana Soffer v. Michaels Stores, Inc. filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey on July 7, 2011, and removed to the
United States District Court of New Jersey on August 5, 2011; and
Lori Wilson v. Michaels Stores, Inc. filed in the Superior Court
of New Jersey on August 10, 2011.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuits
vigorously.  The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if
any, in these cases.


MICHAELS STORES: Defends "Ragano" Wage & Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is defending itself from a purported class
action lawsuit commenced by Anita Ragano alleging violations of
California's wage and hour laws, according to the Company's
August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On July 11, 2011, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed on
July 5, 2011, in the California Superior Court in and for the
County of San Mateo by Anita Ragano, as a purported class action
proceeding on behalf of Ragano and all current and former hourly
retail employees employed by Michaels stores in California.  The
Company removed the matter to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on August 9, 2011.  The
lawsuit alleges that Michaels stores failed to pay all wages and
overtime, failed to provide its hourly employees with adequate
meal and rest breaks (or compensation in lieu thereof), failed to
timely pay final wages, unlawfully withheld wages and failed to
provide accurate wage statements and further alleges that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law.  The plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, meal and rest break
penalties, waiting time penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The Company is unable
to estimate a range of loss, if any, in this case.


MICHAELS STORES: Settles "Polak-Lavrov" Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., settled for an immaterial amount the
purported class action commenced by Shirley Polak and Billie
Lavrov in Los Angeles, California, according to the Company's
August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the San
Diego Superior Court, on behalf of himself and all similarly-
situated California consumers.  The Rattray lawsuit alleges causes
of action for unlawful and unfair business practices and false
advertising under the California Business and Professions Code,
and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for
misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards are not redeemable for
cash and for failure to disclose that the plaintiff could redeem
the unused cash balance on a gift card when the value fell below
$10.00.  On March 15, 2011, the matter was mediated and a
tentative settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiff for
an immaterial amount, which continues to be subject to Court
approval.  Subsequently, on April 25, 2011, Shirley Polak and
Billie Lavrov, consumers, filed a purported class action
proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the County of Los
Angeles Superior Court, on behalf of themselves and all similarly-
situated California consumers.  The Polak/ Lavrov complaint
significantly mirrors the claims in the Rattray case and the
matter was settled for an immaterial amount.


NVIDIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a second amended complaint in the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2011.

In September 2008, three putative securities class actions, or the
Actions, were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California arising out of the Company's
announcements on July 2, 2008, that the Company would take a
charge against cost of revenue to cover anticipated costs and
expenses arising from a weak die/packaging material set in certain
versions of the Company's previous generation media and
communications processor, or MCP, and graphics processing unit, or
GPU, products and that the Company was revising financial guidance
for its second quarter of fiscal year 2009.  The Actions purport
to be brought on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA stock and assert
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  On October 30, 2008, the Actions were consolidated under the
caption In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 08-CV-04260-JW (HRL).  Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed on December 23, 2008.  On
February 6, 2009, co-Lead Plaintiff filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the designation of
co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  On February 19, 2009, co-Lead
Plaintiff filed with the District Court, a motion to stay the
District Court proceedings pending resolution of the Writ of
Mandamus by the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2009, Judge Ware
granted the stay.  On November 5, 2009, the Court of Appeals
issued an opinion reversing the District Court's appointment of
one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel, and remanding the matter for
further proceedings.   On December 8, 2009, the District Court
appointed Milberg LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as co-lead
counsel.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws,
asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The consolidated complaint
sought unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2010 and a
hearing was held on June 24, 2010, before Judge Seeborg.  On
October 19, 2010, Judge Seeborg granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.  On December 2, 2010, co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The
Company moved to dismiss on February 14, 2011, and a hearing on
the motion was scheduled for August 25, 2011.

While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, the Company
believes the claims made by other parties in these ongoing matters
are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend the actions.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces New Suit Over Weak Die/Packaging Material
------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corporation is facing another putative class action arising
from a weak die/packaging material set in certain versions of its
previous generation products, according to the Company's
August 25, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.

In September, October and November 2008, several putative consumer
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, asserting
various claims arising from a weak die/packaging material set in
certain versions of the Company's previous generation products
used in notebook configurations.  Most of the lawsuits were filed
in Federal Court in the Northern District of California, but three
were filed in state court in California, in Federal Court in New
York, and in Federal Court in Texas.  Those three actions have
since been removed or transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division,
where all of the actions now are currently pending.  The various
lawsuits are titled Nakash v. NVIDIA Corp., Feinstein v. NVIDIA
Corp., Inicom Networks, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc. and
Hewlett Packard, Olivos v. NVIDIA Corp., Dell, Inc. and Hewlett
Packard, Sielicki v. NVIDIA Corp. and Dell, Inc., Cormier v.
NVIDIA Corp., National Business Officers Association, Inc. v.
NVIDIA Corp., and West v. NVIDIA Corp.  The First Amended
Complaint was filed on October 27, 2008, which no longer asserted
claims against Dell, Inc.  The various complaints assert claims
for, among other things, breach of warranty, violations of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Business & Professions Code sections
17200 and 17500 and other consumer protection statutes under the
laws of various jurisdictions, unjust enrichment, and strict
liability.

The District Court has entered orders deeming all of the cases
related under the relevant local rules.  On December 11, 2008,
NVIDIA filed a motion to consolidate all of the consumer class
action cases.  On February 26, 2009, the District Court
consolidated the cases, as well as two other cases pending against
Hewlett Packard, under the caption "The NVIDIA GPU Litigation" and
ordered the plaintiffs to file lead counsel motions by March 2,
2009.  On March 2, 2009, several of the parties filed motions for
appointment of lead counsel and briefs addressing certain related
issues.   On April 10, 2009, the District Court appointed Milberg
LLP lead counsel.  On May 6, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint, alleging claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the laws of 27
other states, Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, Strict Liability and Negligence, and violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

On August 19, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint, and the Court heard arguments on
that motion on October 19, 2009.  On November 19, 2009, the Court
issued an order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs causes of
action for Breach of the Implied Warranty under the laws of 27
other states and unjust enrichment, dismissing with leave to amend
plaintiffs' causes of action for Breach of Implied Warranty under
California Civil Code Section 1792 and Breach of Warranty under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and denying NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss as to the other causes of action.  The Court gave
plaintiffs until December 14, 2009, to file an amended complaint.
On December 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, asserting claims for violations of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, Breach of
Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792, Breach
of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Strict Liability and
Negligence, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages.  On
January 19, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Breach
of Implied Warranty under California Civil Code Section 1792,
Breach of Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act claims in the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint.   In addition, on April 1, 2010,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class consisting of all
people who purchased computers containing certain of the Company's
MCP and GPU products.  On May 3, 2010, the Company filed an
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  A
hearing on both motions was held on June 14, 2010.  On July 16,
2010, the parties filed a stipulation with the District Court
advising that, following mediation they had reached a settlement
in principle in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The settlement in
principle was subject to certain approvals, including final
approval by the court.  As a result of the settlement in
principle, and the other estimated settlement, and offsetting
insurance reimbursements, NVIDIA recorded a net charge of $12.7
million to sales, general and administrative expense during the
second quarter of fiscal year 2011.  In addition, a portion of the
$181.2 million of additional charges the Company recorded against
cost of revenue related to the weak die/packaging set during the
second quarter of fiscal year 2011, relates to estimated
additional repair and replacement costs related to the
implementation of these settlements.  On
August 12, 2010, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement and Release.  On September 15, 2010, the Court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
and providing for notice to the potential class members.  The
Final Approval Hearing was held on December 20, 2010, and on that
same day the Court approved the settlement and entered Final
Judgment over several objections.  In January 2011, several
objectors filed Notices of Appeal of the Final Judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On February 28, 2011, a group of purported class members filed a
motion with the District Court purporting to seek enforcement of
the settlement.  The Motion claimed that NVIDIA was not properly
complying with its obligations under the settlement in connection
with the remedies provided to purchasers of Hewlett-Packard
computers included in the settlement.  On March 4, 2011, NVIDIA
and Class Counsel at Milberg LLP filed oppositions to the Motion.
The Court held a hearing on March 28, 2011, and denied the Motion
on May 2, 2011.

On July 22, 2011, a putative class action titled Granfield v.
NVIDIA Corp. was filed in federal court in Massachusetts asserting
claims for breach of implied warranties arising out of the weak
die/packaging material set, on behalf of a class of consumers not
covered by the settlement approved by the California court in The
NVIDIA GPU Litigation.  The Company says it intends to defend
against the action vigorously.


OLD ORCHARD: October 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Old Orchard settled a class action lawsuit with consumers over its
flavored juice blend products that were labeled and/or represented
as consisting of 100% Juice product.

TO: ALL PERSONS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHO PURCHASED OLD
ORCHARD FLAVORED JUICE BLEND PRODUCTS THAT WERE LABELED
AND/OR REPRESENTED AS CONSISTING OF "100% JUICE".  YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT NOW
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Representative Plaintiffs, as
defined in the Settlement Agreement and Release, in the litigation
entitled Michael Mathias, et al. v. Old Orchard Brands, LLC, et
al., Case No. BC430943 pending in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, for themselves and on behalf
of the Settlement Class Members, have entered into the Agreement
with Defendant Old Orchard Brands, LLC to resolve the Litigation.

Plaintiffs alleged that Old Orchard made false and misleading
claims in its packaging, labeling and/or promotion of Defendant's
Product.  Old Orchard denied these allegations.  Based on
information available to the parties, and the risks associated
with trial, attorneys for the class concluded that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that, pursuant to an order of the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
dated July 5, 2011, a hearing will be held on October 28, 2011 at
10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Emilie H. Elias, in Department 324
of the Central Civil West Courthouse, 600 South Commonwealth Ave.,
Los Angeles, CA 90005, to consider among other things whether the
releases provided for in the Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class and
Defendant.

For more detailed information, the complete terms of the
Settlement, and details of the claims process, please visit the
Web site http://www.mathiassettlement.comto view the Notice of
Settlement or call (310) 536-1029 and request that a copy of the
Notice of Settlement be sent to you.

As a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to support,
object to, participate in the benefits of, or exclude yourself
from the proposed Settlement.  If you choose to opt out of the
proposed Settlement, you will not be bound by the Settlement or
Judgment.  To do so, you must submit a valid request for exclusion
postmarked NO LATER THAN September 28, 2011.  If you are a
participating Settlement Class Member, you will be bound by, and
subject to, any judgment rendered in the Litigation.


PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls 5,500 Swing Sets Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pacific Cycle Inc., of Madison, Wisconsin, announced a voluntary
recall of about 5,500 Playsafe Dartmouth swing sets.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The sling-style swing seats can crack or split prematurely, posing
a fall hazard to consumers.

Pacific Cycle has received five reports of the sling-style swing
seats breaking during use, including reports of minor injuries
involving bruises and scrapes.

This recall involves Playsafe's Dartmouth Swing Set, model number
22-PS340, with date codes FSD0115AA and FSD0315AA.  The model
number and date code can be found in the owner's manual.  The
swing set has six metal legs and includes two swings with yellow
plastic sling-style seats, a yellow plastic sliding board, a two-
person glider with yellow plastic seats, yellow plastic trapeze
hanging rings and a four-person lawn swing with yellow plastic
seats and footboard.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11313.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide from January 2011
through May 2011 for about $270.

Consumers should immediately stop using the sling-style swing
seats, remove the seats from the swing set and contact Pacific
Cycle to obtain free replacement seats.  For additional
information, contact Pacific Cycle toll-free at (877) 564-2261
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.pacific-
cycle.com/ or e-mail customerservice@pacific-cycle.com


PETZL AMERICA: Recalls 20,000 Belay Devices Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Petzl America Inc., of Clearfield,
Utah, and manufacturer, Petzl SAS, of Crolles, France, announced a
voluntary recall of about 18,000 units of GRIGRI 2 belay device
with assisted braking in the United States of America and about
2,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Excessive force on the handle can cause it to become stuck in the
open position.  When stuck open, the assisted braking function is
disabled, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

Seven devices worldwide, including one in the U.S., were returned
after the users noticed that the handle could become stuck in the
open position.  No injuries have been reported.

The GRIGRI 2 belay device is used by rock climbers to control the
climber's safety rope during a fall or while being lowered on the
rope.  The first five digits of the serial numbers of devices
affected by this recall range from 10326 to 11136.  The serial
number is engraved on the body of the product underneath and
protected by the folded handle.  The belay devices are 4 inches in
length and 2 inches in width, and come in grey, blue, and orange
colors.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11314.html

The recalled products were manufactured in France and sold at
sports and recreation stores in the U.S. and Canada from February
2011 to June 2011 for about $95.

Consumers should stop use of the affected GRIGRI 2s immediately,
and contact Petzl America for a replacement.  For additional
information, contact Petzl America at (800) 932-2978 between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.petzl.com/us/outdoor/us/recall-replacement-grigri-2/


SIGNET JEWELERS: Unit's Plea for Rehearing Pending in 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for rehearing filed by a subsidiary of Signet Jewelers
Limited is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to the Company's August 25, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

In March 2008, private plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit for
an unspecified amount against Sterling Jewelers Inc. ("Sterling"),
a subsidiary of Signet, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that U.S. store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities.  In June 2008, the District Court referred
the matter to private arbitration where the plaintiffs sought to
proceed on a class-wide basis.  In June 2009, the arbitrator ruled
that the arbitration agreements allowed the plaintiff to proceed
on a class-wide basis and seek class certification.  Sterling
challenged the ruling and the District Court vacated the
arbitrator's decision in July 2010.  The plaintiffs appealed that
order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
July 1, 2011, in a 2-1 majority decision, the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision and instructed the District
Court to confirm the Arbitrator's Award; a vigorous dissent
determined that the District Court's judgment in Sterling's favor
should have been affirmed.  On July 15, 2011, Sterling filed a
petition for rehearing by the full court of the Second Circuit.
Sterling's petition is currently pending.

Sterling denies the allegations in the action and intends to
defend them vigorously.


SILVERHILL MANAGEMENT: Unit Defends "Drinville" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Silverhill Management Services Inc. is defending a
purported class action lawsuit pending in California, according to
the Company's August 26, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 24, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Reorganization with Fuel Doctor, LLC, a California limited
liability company ("FDLLC"), Emily Lussier, the Company's
controlling shareholder, and a certain member of FDLLC.

As a result of the closing under the Plan, FDLLC became a
subsidiary of Silverhill; and the managers of FDLLC were appointed
as the officers and directors of the Company.  After compliance
with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, Silverhill
intends to change its corporate name to Fuel Doctor Holdings, Inc.
to reflect its new business focus.

FDLLC is a defendant in a matter entitled Drinville, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Fuel Doctor, LLC and DOES
1-20, Inclusive filed March 16, 2011, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.  This purported
class action alleges violation of various violations of California
statutes principally related to false advertising and consumer
protection in that FDLLC's products are alleged not to provide the
benefits claimed.  The lawsuit seeks class certification,
unspecified damages and exemplary damages, among other things.
The lawsuit is in an early stage and FDLLC will vigorously defend
the same.

Another Federal lawsuit against FDLLC alleging false patent claims
has been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, by the
plaintiff.

Until FDLLC's product is established in the market and its
benefits accepted, FDLLC says it may anticipate these types of
lawsuits will be brought from time to time.


SINOTECH ENERGY: October 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against SinoTech Energy Limited, and certain
of its officers, directors and underwriters.

The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy
Limited, et al., 11-CV-05935, alleges violations of the United
States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's
American Depository Shares from November 3, 2010 through August
16, 2011, including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November
3, 2010 initial public offering.  Claims for November IPO
purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Claims for other Class Period purchasers
fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously
issued financial statements and declarations about its future
prospects.  Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1)
the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than
$100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty
shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only
chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or
no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer,
which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has
unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial
statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent
with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company
has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive
statements the Company made regarding its internal financial
controls were false and misleading.

On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name
Alfred Little published an investigative report detailing these
and other problems at SinoTech.  The day the Report was issued,
the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from
$4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close
of trading on August 16, 2011 -- a decline of $1.67 per share on
unusually high trading volume.  The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading
after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that
trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied
NASDAQ's request for additional information."  To date, trading
has not resumed.

If you purchased the common stock of SinoTech and wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 18,
2011 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  To be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that you will adequately
represent the class.  Your share in any recovery will not be
enhanced or diminished by the decision whether or not to serve as
a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the proposed class may retain
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC or other attorneys to serve as
your counsel in this action, or you may do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC -- http://www.cohenmilstein.com
-- is a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting
investor class actions and actions involving securities fraud.
The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia,
Chicago, and West Palm Beach, and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Cameron Clark, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (888) 240-0775
                     (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  cclark@cohenmilstein.com


STATE OF ILLINOIS: Disabilities Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla K. Johnson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge on Aug. 30 gave her preliminary approval to a
settlement that could eventually help thousands of disabled, low-
income Illinois residents live more independently while saving the
state money in the process.

State officials and advocates for the disabled lauded their
agreement as a money-saving milestone after U.S. District Judge
Joan Humphrey Lefkow gave it her initial backing and set a Dec. 20
hearing for fielding comments and objections.

If the judge gives the deal her final approval, it could affect
not only 20,000 low-income people with physical disabilities and
mental illnesses living in Cook County nursing homes, but also
thousands more nursing home residents throughout Illinois.

Illinois could save $2,320 per person annually by housing
Medicaid-eligible people with disabilities in houses and
apartments with community services instead of in nursing homes,
advocates and state officials agreed.

Michael Gelder, Gov. Pat Quinn's senior health adviser who helped
guide the settlement negotiations, said Cook County would be "a
demonstration project" for the rest of the state.

"We're shaping government services to the way people want to be
served and in a way that should be less costly," Mr. Gelder told
The Associated Press.  The settlement, also called a consent
decree, requires that the new housing arrangements cost the state
the same amount of money or less than if the disabled residents
had remained in nursing homes, Mr. Gelder said.

"We built into this consent decree some special protections for
the state to make sure that after 2 1/2 years if it's more
expensive than what we're paying in nursing homes, we can adjust
that," Mr. Gelder said.  The amount of housing assistance could be
reduced, for example, if the net cost is more than the state was
paying for nursing homes, he said.  Mr. Gelder said evidence from
other states suggests that savings are the more likely scenario.

The proposed settlement outlines how Illinois will provide housing
assistance and other money to help with security deposits, to
build wheelchair ramps and to make other modifications to homes to
make them more accessible to the disabled.

In Illinois, housing assistance has been available to people with
developmental disabilities and mental illnesses, but hasn't
generally been available to people with physical disabilities in
the past.

In the deal's first phase, the state would spend $10 million to
help at least 1,100 nursing home residents move into houses or
apartments.  More people would be helped in the second phase.

Nursing home residents would be evaluated by qualified
professionals to determine what help they would need to live more
independently.

Pat Comstock of the Health Care Council of Illinois, the state's
largest nursing home trade group, said it's too early to tell
whether the settlement could cause some facilities to close as the
state shifts resources to community housing.

Ms. Comstock said the safety of disabled residents should be
considered along with their wishes for where to live.

"We need to make sure we aren't putting individuals at risk by
rushing to move them out just for the sake of moving them out,"
Ms. Comstock said.

Lenil Colbert, 39, a named plaintiff in the case, had a stroke in
2005 that left him partially paralyzed.  The former delivery
driver lived with his mother for a while, then was transferred
from a hospital to an Oak Park nursing home in 2006.  He had three
roommates, a curfew and little privacy, although the help he
received in the nursing home could have been provided in the
community, according to the lawsuit.

Since the case was filed, Mr. Colbert has moved out of the nursing
home and now lives in his own apartment.  A personal assistant
helps him about five hours a day, he said.

"Nursing homes may work for some people, but I think everyone in
nursing homes should have the option to move out," Mr. Colbert
said at a news conference on Aug. 30.

The settlement would resolve a 2007 lawsuit filed by Access
Living, an advocacy group for the disabled, and other groups.
Their lawsuit claimed that Illinois violates the civil rights of
people with disabilities by not giving them housing choices.

"Here in Illinois, people with disabilities have been
institutionalized for way too long," said Access Living President
and CEO Marca Bristo.  "In fact, we institutionalize the non-
elderly disability community in nursing homes more than any other
state in the nation."

The lawsuit is one of three similar class-action lawsuits
involving housing for mentally ill and disabled adults.

Earlier this year, a judge approved a similar deal affecting 6,000
disabled adults living in privately operated care facilities and
3,000 adults living at home with aging parents and other family
members.  Last year, in the first of the three cases to be
settled, a judge approved an agreement involving 4,500 people with
mental illness who live in specialized nursing homes.

The case is Colbert v. Quinn.


STATE OF INDIANA: Seeks Dismissal of State Fair Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Ritchie, writing for The Indianapolis Star, reports that
the state is asking a Marion County judge to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of all victims of the Indiana State
Fair stage collapse.

According to a news release from the Indiana Attorney General's
Office, attorneys at an Indianapolis law firm didn't follow the
proper procedure when they filed suit.

By law, people who sue the state must warn the state of potential
litigation by filing a tort claim notice and then give the state
90 days to respond before suing.

Attorneys at Indianapolis law firm Cohen and Malad didn't give the
state 90 days to respond before filing suit on behalf of Angela
Fischer and all of the stage collapse victims.

In the suit, Ms. Fischer claims that the collapse, which killed
seven and injured dozens, caused her to suffer "severe emotional
trauma."  She was not physically injured.

Some local attorneys have been critical of the suit and have
questioned whether it's a publicity stunt.

However, Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in the news release
that his request for the dismissal is based on procedure, not the
merits of the suit.

"We can't have one claimant try to cut in line when other
claimants are following the rules," Mr. Zoeller said in the
release.

The state has received six tort claim notices so far, and the
people pursuing the class action suit were the only ones who
didn't follow the proper procedure, according to the release.


STATE OF TEXAS: Abortion Bill Can't Impose Penalties on Doctors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Barron at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge called parts of a controversial Texas abortion bill
"unconstitutionally vague" and ruled that, for the time being,
physicians won't face penalties for not subjecting women to images
of the fetus and sounds of the heart before performing abortions.

Texas House Bill 15, signed by presidential candidate Gov. Rick
Perry on May 19, is set to amend the Texas Woman's Right to Know
Act as of Sept. 1.

In a federal class action filed June 13, Metropolitan Ob-Gyn P.A.
dba Reproductive Services of San Antonio and its owner and
director, Dr. Alan Braid, called the bill unconstitutional.

"The Act imposes strict liability, criminal penalties, and a
mandatory penalty of the non-renewal of a medical license on any
physician who fails to comply with any one of myriad requirements
for providing government-mandated information to a patient in
advance of an abortion," the class action claims.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks partially granted a motion for a
preliminary injunction on Aug. 30, barring multiple penalties that
the bill would impose if "the physician does not place the
sonogram images where the pregnant woman may view them, or does
not make audible the heart auscultation, if the pregnant woman
elects not to view the images or hear the heart auscultation."

"The court finds several portions of the act are
unconstitutionally vague; and further finds the act violates the
First Amendment by compelling physicians and patients to engage in
government-mandated speech and expression," Judge Sparks wrote.

The judge, who was appointed to the bench in 1991 by President
George H.W. Bush, was not convinced that the bill would violate
the equal protection clause.  "If the Texas Legislature wishes to
prioritize an ideological agenda over the health and safety of
women, the equal protection clause does not prevent it from doing
so under these circumstances," the 55-page order states.

"It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend
the state's righteous duty to become intimately involved in a
woman's decision to get an abortion are also positively
scandalized at the government's gross overreaching in the area of
health care," Judge Sparks added in a footnote.

The judge also rejected claims that the bill would violate the
First and 14th Amendments by subjecting abortion patients to
unwanted speech.  After sifting through claims alleging that
various elements of the bill were unconstitutionally vague,
Judge Sparks ultimately accepted that three of the provisions
qualified as such.

"The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is
required to say things and take expressive actions with which the
physician many not ideologically agree, and which the physician
may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must
not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and
expression, but must also actively participate -- in the best case
by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by
disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant
facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in
records that are, at best, semi-private," the ruling states.  "In
the absence of a sufficiently weighty government interest, and a
sufficiently narrow statute advancing that interest, neither of
which have been argued by fefendants, the Constitution does not
permit such compulsion."

In the same order, Judge Sparks granted the motion to certify a
plaintiff class of "all medical providers who perform abortion
services in Texas currently and/or in the future."  He also
certified a defendant "class of all county and district attorneys
in the state of Texas with authority to prosecute misdemeanors."

"Although defendants are likely correct all Texas prosecutors
would adhere to any injunction issued by the court in this case
even if they were not technically legally bound to do so,
defendants cannot guarantee this, and the court is not inclined to
tempt fate," Judge Sparks wrote.

"Certification is not unnecessary where, as here, hundreds of
individual state actors, properly accustomed to exercising their
prosecutorial discretion, might choose to disregard a non-binding
ruling from a federal court," he added.

The judge also refused to dismiss claims against Travis County
Attorney David Escamilla, whom the complaint names as the
representative for the defendant class.

Other named defendants are Dr. David Lakey, commissioner of the
Texas Department of State Health Services, in his official
capacity; and Mari Robinson, executive director of the Texas
Medical Board, in her official capacity.

Dr. Lakey and Ms. Robinson promptly appealed the preliminary
injunction, giving notice on Aug. 30.

A copy of the Order in Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion
Services, et al. v. David Lakey, M.D., et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00486 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/31/Abortion%20Order%201.pdf


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Water Pollution Class Action Won't Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Pelham, writing for Daily Telegram, reports that more than
60 property owners could file separate lawsuits over groundwater
pollution from the Tecumseh Products Co. plant in Tecumseh after a
judge denied class action status on Aug. 29.

"I do not like the idea of inviting 60-some litigants," said
Lenawee County Circuit Judge Margaret M.S. Noe.  But potential
damage to each property has to be evaluated separately, she said,
which does not allow a class action suit.

Tecumseh attorney Charles Gross said options that remain open for
property owners include joining separate claims and sharing the
cost of an appraisal study to determine damages in the case.  He
told the court class action status was needed to make an estimated
$30,000 to $50,000 appraisal study practical.

Mr. Gross represents brothers Thomas and Robert Robarge who filed
suit in 2009 after they learned groundwater beneath their homes
had been contaminated with chemical solvents dumped on factory
property.

Mr. Gross argued at the Aug. 29 hearing that Tecumseh Products has
admitted liability for the groundwater contamination in a 2010
consent agreement with the federal Environmental Protection
Agency.  He also said 36 monitoring wells operating in the area of
the Tecumseh plant have identified at least 62 properties affected
by the underground contamination.

"Every one of these people have a problem," Mr. Gross argued.
Owners and potential buyers will have problems borrowing against
the property because of the proven groundwater contamination.

He agreed any loss of value has to be proven for each individual
property.  But class action status would relieve each owner from a
legal battle to first prove Tecumseh Products is responsible.

"Each of these plaintiffs shouldn't have to prove liability and
causation," Mr. Gross said.

"These guys are going to deny everything," Mr. Gross said.  "This
is why we have class actions.  It is the only way for individuals
in Tecumseh, Mich., to have a chance against this group."

Tecumseh Products has not admitted any liability, said company
attorney Robert Jackson of Detroit.

A Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in the lawsuit allowed only a
nuisance claim to proceed against the company, he said, and that
requires "a property owner by property owner analysis.  They have
to prove a substantial interference with their use and enjoyment."
Because the city has a municipal water system, he said, property
owners do not have contact with the affected groundwater.

"Plaintiffs simply cannot meet the requirements of class action,"
Mr. Jackson said.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Prius Headlight Class Action Settlement Stalls
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge, citing concerns about a request for attorney
fees, has put the brakes on a proposed class action settlement
between Toyota Motor Corp. and nearly 300,000 owners and lessees
of Prius hybrids who claimed that their headlights were defective
because they intermittently shut off.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real, during a final settlement hearing
on Aug. 29 in Los Angeles, said he was having a "big problem"
going through the fees request, estimated at $4.7 million for five
plaintiffs' firms.  Toyota's lawyers have maintained in court
documents that the amount is too high -- particularly since the
value of the settlement is less than $4.7 million.

Both sides support approving the deal despite the fees dispute.
But Judge Real expressed concern about the deal's fairness and
rescheduled a fairness hearing for Oct. 17.

The claims were unrelated to separate litigation over sudden
unintended acceleration.  Toyota faces more than 200 lawsuits in
multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge James Selna in
Santa Ana, Calif., regarding those claims.

The Prius headlight actions involve two class actions filed in
May 2009 and February 2010.  The deal, reached on Oct. 4, would
resolve claims on behalf of U.S. owners and lessees of 2006
through 2009 model Prius vehicles with factory-made high-intensity
discharge headlights.  Toyota has denied allegations that the
vehicles were defective, citing a National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration investigation that found no problems.

The settlement would reimburse in cash class members who replaced
their headlight bulbs within five years or 50,000 miles of driving
the vehicles, according to court documents.  Class members who
paid for parts and labor for replacements after five years or
50,000 miles would receive reimbursement on a case-by-case basis.
The settlement would extend the warranty for class members who
have yet to repair their headlights.

Notices of settlement were sent to 293,670 class members,
according to court documents.

On Jan. 10, Judge Real certified the proposed class.

On June 6, San Francisco's Girard Gibbs submitted a motion to
approve nearly $4.7 million in attorney fees for approximately
6,881 hours of work.  The request included $1.9 million to Girard
Gibbs; $720,000 to Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten of
Tarzana, Calif.; $250,000 to Los Angeles-based Arias Ozzello &
Gignac; $1.2 million to Los Angeles-based Initiative Legal Group;
and nearly $600,000 to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in
Washington.

In opposing the fee request, Toyota estimated the total value of
the settlement at between $3.3 million and nearly $4.7 million,
including the value of extended warranty repairs, according to
documents filed on July 8.

Toyota's attorney, Michael Mallow, a partner in the Los Angeles
office of Loeb & Loeb, called the request "an astounding case of
'piling on.' "

"This work could have, should have, and from Toyota's perspective,
was, performed by only one of the plaintiff law firms for a
quarter of the amount claimed by the collective five firms," he
said.  "Simply put, this Court should not award the settlement
class' lawyers fees and costs that eclipse the value of the
settlement itself."

Given the $4.7 million request, plaintiff attorneys want fees
equal to at least 101% of the settlement value, Mr. Mallow said in
court documents.

He maintained that a more reasonable fee award, based on 25% of
the value of the settlement, would be $1 million to $1.2 million.
Additionally, he said, the fees are unreasonable when compared to
what Loeb & Loeb billed Toyota: About $1.5 million for 4,218 hours
of work.

Mr. Mallow criticized the contributions of the four firms other
than Girard Gibbs, calling much of their work duplicative.

During the hearing, Mr. Mallow said that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit's Aug. 19 decision in a case involving
Motorola's Bluetooth headsets "may assist" the judge in deciding
the fees issue.

In that case, which involved claims of hearing loss, the 9th
Circuit found that the trial judge had failed to adequately test
whether the attorney fees were excessive.  The 9th Circuit found
that U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer had failed to cross check
the amount the plaintiffs could have demanded by billing at their
usual hourly rates -- called the "lodestar" amount -- to what they
would have received were their fees based on a percentage of the
settlement.

In reply papers filed on July 18, plaintiffs' lawyers called
Toyota's attempt to "cross-check" the lodestar amount against an
estimated percentage of the settlement "inappropriate" for this
type of litigation, in which no common fund is available.
Additionally, Toyota's own estimate of its legal costs, as a
comparison, excluded work done by its in-house attorneys, they
argued.

In addition to the two class actions in federal court in Los
Angeles, the proposed settlement would resolve a related action in
Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court.  A fourth class
action, which would not be affected by the settlement, is pending
in federal court in New Jersey.  During the hearing, Judge Real
raised questions about the status of both of those cases.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Awaits Decisions in "Cason-Merenda" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., is awaiting court decisions on a
motion for class certification, and motions for summary judgment
in the "Cason-Merenda" lawsuit pending in Michigan, according to
the Company's August 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,
2011.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action lawsuit was
filed in San Antonio, Texas, against the Company's Baptist Health
System subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas, and two other large
hospital systems in San Antonio.  The lawsuit is captioned
Maderazo, et al v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et. al., Case No. 5:06cv00535 (United States
District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division,
filed June 20, 2006 and amended August 29, 2006).  In the
complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system
defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified
San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the
San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated
the federal antitrust laws.  The complaint alleges two separate
claims.  The first count asserts that the defendant hospitals
violated Section 1 of the federal Sherman Act, which prohibits
agreements that unreasonably restrain competition, by conspiring
to depress nurses' compensation.  The second count alleges that
the defendant hospital systems also violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act by participating in wage, salary and benefits surveys
for the purpose, and having the effect, of depressing registered
nurses' compensation or limiting competition for nurses based on
their compensation.  The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs
filed the complaint is alleged to comprise all registered nurses
employed by the defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount
pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and attorneys fees.  From
2006 through April 2008 the Company and the plaintiffs worked on
producing documents to each other relating to, and supplying legal
briefs to the court in respect of, solely the issue of whether the
court will certify a class in this lawsuit, the court having
bifurcated the class and merit issues.  In April 2008 the case was
stayed by the judge pending his ruling on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The Company believes that the allegations
contained within this putative class action lawsuit are without
merit, and it has vigorously worked to defeat class certification.
If a class is certified, the Company will continue to defend
vigorously against the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,
Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee against some of the
hospitals or hospital systems in those cities (none of such
hospitals or hospital systems being owned by the Company).  The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these cases
said in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and in December 2006 they brought a substantially
similar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals or hospital
systems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area, one of which
systems was DMC.

Effective January 1, 2011, the Company purchased substantially all
of the assets of The Detroit Medical Center, a Michigan non-profit
corporation, and certain of its affiliates (collectively, "DMC"),
which assets consist primarily of eight acute care and specialty
hospitals in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area and related
healthcare facilities.

The lawsuit is captioned Cason-Merenda, et al. v. Detroit Medical
Center, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-DAS (United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
filed December 15, 2006.  Since representatives of the Service
Employees International Union ("SEIU") joined plaintiffs'
attorneys in announcing the filing of all four complaints on
June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in the media, the Company
believes that SEIU's involvement in these actions appears to be
part of a corporate campaign to attempt to organize nurses in
these cities, including San Antonio and Detroit.  The registered
nurses in the Company's hospitals in San Antonio and Detroit are
currently not members of any union.  In the lawsuit in Detroit
against DMC, the court did not bifurcate class and merits issues.
Discovery has closed.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification.  DMC and the other defendants have filed motions
for summary judgment.  The motions are currently pending before
the trial judge.

The Company says that if the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and/or
Detroit lawsuits (1) are successful in obtaining class
certification, and (2) are able to prove both liability and
substantial damages, which are then trebled under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, such a result could materially affect the Company's
business, financial condition or results of operations. However,
in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of these
matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.


* Class Action Underscores Importance of FCRA Compliance
--------------------------------------------------------
According an article posted at Employment Screening Resources by
Les Rosen, a new class action lawsuit filed in federal court on
August 23, 2011 underscores once again the importance of
background screening firms following the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).  According to the civil complaint for damages, a
background screening firm allegedly reported sexual offender data
on applicants based solely upon a name match only, without making
any effort whatsoever to confirm if the data belonged to the
applicant.  The suit alleges that such a practice violated the
rule contained in FCRA section 607(b) that a screening firm must
take reasonable procedure to assure maximum possible accuracy.

In addition, the class action suit contends the screening firm
"also reported public record information to employers without
informing consumers that such information was being reported and
without maintaining strict procedures to assure that the public
information that it reported was complete and up to date" as
required by FCRA section 613.

In this case, the lead plaintiff had a common name, and the
screening firm reported seven possible sexual offender matches
relating to three individuals with the same name.  The first
possible match was convicted when the plaintiff was four years
old, had a different date of birth, and was of a different race.
The second possible match belonged to a 66 year old person of a
different race sentenced to life in prison also with a different
date of birth.  The third individual was also another race and had
a different date of birth.  The plaintiff contended he never lived
in any of the states where the matches were reported and was not a
sexual offender.

Based upon his allegations, it appears that matching the records
to the plaintiff would have demonstrated the sexual offender
record did not belong to the plaintiff.

According to the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, when contacted by the plaintiff,
the background screening firm advised him that the screening firm
had a practice of routinely reporting all sexual offender matches
based upon first and last name while making no effort to determine
if the matter was applicable to a candidate.  The suit contends
that the background screening firm told the lead plaintiff that it
often leads to problems.  The suit alleged that a background
screening firm can use other information to insure accuracy, such
a date of birth.

As a result, the suit alleged that the background screening firm
"creates and distributes grossly and obviously inaccurate consumer
reports to employers by including sex offender information in its
consumer reports without making sure that some aspect of the
consumer's unique personal identifying information -- such as a
date of birth, middle initial, social security number, or even
race information -- matches its reported sex offender
information."

The lawsuit alleges that the background screening firm acted in
reckless disregard of its duties, and is seeking punitive on
behalf of the class of individuals who have been wrongly
identified as sex offenders by the screening firm as well as
attorney's fees.  Class action cases can create substantial
exposure for defendants.

At this point, only a complaint has been filed, which is merely an
allegation, and no response has been filed and there have been no
judicial determination made as to the accuracy of the allegations.

However, the seriousness of the allegations, if true, underscores
the differences between professional background screening firms
and mere data vendors.  A professional background screening firm
such as Employment Screening Resources (ESR) that provides real
background checks would never report that a person was possibly a
sexual offender without taking appropriate steps under the FCRA to
evaluate the accuracy of the data.  In addition, as a firm that is
accredited by the National Association of Professional Background
Screeners (NAPBS), ESR has an obligation to take steps to ensure
accuracy and comply with the FCRA.

This type of case also underscores why employers should consider
only dealing with accredited background screening firms that have
policies and procedures in place to ensure the maximum possible
accuracy.

In addition, providing information to employer as alleged was one
of the issues brought up before the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) on their meeting of July 26, 2011, where some
speakers complained about inaccurate data.

Since the matter is only in the allegation stage, and there has
been no judicial determination as of the truthfulness of the
charge, ESR's policy is to not identity any of the parties.


* Credit Card Issuing Banks Face Time Share Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Legal Justice, LLC is a private lawyer referral
service and consumer advocacy group.  Starting in 2010, The Center
for Legal Justice, LLC began referring members of the public to
various consumer protection attorneys that specialize in aiding
victims of Time Share Fraud and unfair credit card lending
practices.

Time Share Fraud is a major problem in Florida and other states.
The Florida Attorney General has engaged numerous business
organizations and individuals in enforcement actions alleging
deceptive trade practices and organized fraud.

The first scheme involves telemarketers falsely representing that
they had procured a buyer for their property, when in reality, no
buyer had been procured.  The second scheme involved targeting
those same victims under the guise that a fund had been set up by
the Attorney General that was being used to compensate victims of
the initial time share fraud, when in reality, the telemarketer
was a former time share resale marketing employee.

In addition to helping victims of Time Share Fraud recover their
monies, The Center for Legal Justice has also referred many
clients to the Delta Law Firm to receive representation due to
major Credit Card Issuing banks misrepresenting balances and
placing erroneous charges for various reasons on consumers'
monthly statements.  The Delta Law Firm filed class action
litigation against three major credit card-issuing banks alleging
that the banks misrepresented the rights of cardholders with the
intent to induce them to pay for charges that they were not
responsible for.

The managing partner of the Delta Law Firm, Attorney Howard
Feinmel, discovered, while assisting customers obtain credits from
issuing banks, that cardholders do not realize that if they are
not satisfied with a credit card purchase in excess of $50, they
may not be obligated to pay for it.  Mr. Feinmel commented that,
"Many of these victims are elderly and have been customers of the
bank for over 20 years and I find the fact that the bank refuses
to cooperate with them unconscionable."

A spokesperson for The Center for Legal Justice wondered who was
advocating for these elderly victims: "The Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Depository Insurance
Corporation and Office of Thrift Supervision was made aware of the
practices of the banks and, in some instances, assisted in
obtaining credits but in most circumstances refused to act."

Rather than attempt to collect against defunct organizations the
Delta Law Firm directed their attention to the credit card banks
that processed the transactions.  By utilizing the section of the
contract entitled "Your Rights if You Are Dissatisfied with Your
Credit Card Purchases," the Delta Law Firm was able to obtain an
excess of $300,000 in permanent credits.  However, the credit card
companies, realizing that they would not be able to collect from
the merchant, began misrepresenting that the cardholder only had
60 days to initiate the dispute.

There is no such time restriction when the dispute is in the
nature of a "claims and defenses" dispute.

A copy of the litigation is available here:

     http://thedeltalawfirm.com/Class_Action.html


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Still Named in Exposure Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, PPG Industries Inc. has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.

Most of the Company's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that the Company should be liable for injuries
involving asbestos-containing thermal insulation products, known
as Unibestos, manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PC).  The Company and Corning Incorporated are each
50% shareholders of PC.

The Company has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products.  As of the April
16, 2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against
it, the Company was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits involving about 114,000 claims served on it.

During the period of the stay, the Company generally has not been
aware of the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PPG Industries, Inc. manufactures
coatings and specialty products.  The Company operates in more
than 60 countries around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Reserves Increase by $28MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s P&C group's asbestos reserves
were increased by US$28 million (net of reinsurance) and its
environmental reserves were increased by US$22 million (net of
reinsurance), according to a Company press release dated Aug. 1,
2011.

At June 30, 2011, the P&C group's insurance reserves include
US$382 million, net of reinsurance recoverables, of A&E reserves.

At June 30, 2011, the Company's three year survival ratio was 18
times paid losses for asbestos reserves and 12.3 times paid losses
for the total A&E reserves.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, American Financial Group, Inc.
is an insurance holding company with assets in excess of $30
billion.  Through the operations of Great American Insurance
Group, the Company is engaged primarily in property and casualty
insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products for
businesses, and in the sale of traditional fixed and indexed
annuities and a variety of supplemental insurance products, such
as Medicare Supplement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Tidewater Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tidewater Inc. is involved in various legal proceedings that
relate to asbestos and other environmental matters, according to
the Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on Aug. 4, 2011.

In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to these proceedings is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows.

Headquartered in New Orleans, La., Tidewater Inc. provides
offshore service vessels and marine support services to the global
offshore energy industry through the operation of a diversified
fleet of marine service vessels.  The Company operates in two
reportable segments: International and the United States, and it
has one of the broadest global operating footprints in the
offshore energy industry.


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

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

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

Headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa., Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation provides equipment and services for the
global rail industry.  Its products improve productivity and
reduce maintenance costs for customers, can be found on virtually
all U.S. locomotives, freight cars, subway cars and buses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7.5T Claims Pending v. Fairmont in Seven States
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of CONSOL Energy, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company, which distributes industrial supplies, currently is named
as a defendant in about 7,500 asbestos-related claims in state
courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey,
Texas and Illinois.

This number has been reduced from the 22,500 pending claims that
were previously reported after a review of the dockets where these
cases are pending found that about 15,000 cases had been dismissed
by administrative order, without the payment of any damages or
settlement amounts.

Because a very small percentage of products manufactured by third
parties and supplied by Fairmont in the past may have contained
asbestos and many of the pending claims are part of mass
complaints filed by hundreds of plaintiffs against a hundred or
more defendants, it has been difficult for Fairmont to determine
how many of the cases actually involve valid claims or plaintiffs
who were actually exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied
by Fairmont.

In addition, while Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or
contribution in certain jurisdictions from manufacturers of
identified products, the availability of such indemnity or
contribution is unclear at this time, and in recent years, some of
the manufacturers named as defendants in these actions have sought
protection from these claims under bankruptcy laws.

Fairmont has no insurance coverage with respect to these asbestos
cases.  Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos cases
have not been material.

Headquartered in Canonsburg, Pa., CONSOL Energy Inc. is a coal
mining company with some 4.5 billion tons of proved reserves,
mainly in northern and central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin,
and produces about 59 million tons of coal annually.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Open v. CenterPoint, Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos.

Some facilities owned by the Company contain or have contained
asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing materials.  Some
of the claimants have worked at locations owned by the Company,
but most existing claims relate to facilities previously owned by
the Company's subsidiaries.

The Company anticipates that additional claims like those received
may be asserted in the future.  In 2004, the Company sold its
generating business, to which most of these claims relate, to
Texas Genco LLC, which is now known as NRG Texas LP.

Under the terms of the arrangements regarding separation of the
generating business from the Company and its sale to NRG Texas LP,
ultimate financial responsibility for uninsured losses from claims
relating to the generating business has been assumed by NRG Texas
LP, but the Company has agreed to continue to defend such claims
to the extent they are covered by insurance maintained by the
Company, subject to reimbursement of the costs of such defense
from NRG Texas LP.

Headquartered in Houston, CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s operating
subsidiaries own and operate electric transmission and
distribution facilities, natural gas distribution facilities,
interstate pipelines and natural gas gathering, processing and
treating facilities.


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

No other significant asbestos matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 4, 2011.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Posts $113MM June 30 Respirator Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's respirator mask/asbestos liabilities amounted to
US$113 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$126 million
as of Dec. 31, 2010.

Respirator mask/asbestos insurance receivables amounted to US$121
million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$122 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

As of June 30, 2011, the Company had reserves for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities of US$82 million (excluding Aearo
Technologies reserves).

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company's businesses are
organized, managed and internally grouped into segments based on
differences in products, technologies and services.  It continues
to manage its operations in six operating business segments:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics;
Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and
Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Still Named in Respirator Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of June 30, 2011, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent about 2,200 individual claimants
compared to about 2,148 individual claimants with actions pending
at Dec. 31, 2010.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

A minority of claimants generally allege personal injury from
occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously
manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well
as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at
Company premises.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company's businesses are
organized, managed and internally grouped into segments based on
differences in products, technologies and services.  It continues
to manage its operations in six operating business segments:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics;
Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and
Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Still Has Declaratory Judgment Case in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, since Jan. 5, 2007, has been facing an asbestos-
related declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its
insurers -- Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co.,
both part of the Continental Casualty Group -- disclaiming
coverage for respirator mask/asbestos claims.

These insurers represent about US$14 million of a US$121 million
insurance recovery receivable.  The action, pending in the
District Court in Ramsey County, Minn., seeks declaratory judgment
regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.

The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers.  This action is similar in nature to an action
filed in 1994 with respect to breast implant coverage, which
ultimately resulted in the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling of
2003 that was largely in the Company's favor.

The plaintiff insurers have served an amended complaint that names
some additional insurers and deletes others.  A significant number
of the insurer defendants named in the amended complaint have been
dismissed because of settlements they have reached with the
Company regarding the matters at issue in the lawsuit.

The case is currently in the discovery phase.  Trial is scheduled
to begin in the fall of 2012.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company's businesses are
organized, managed and internally grouped into segments based on
differences in products, technologies and services.  It continues
to manage its operations in six operating business segments:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics;
Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and
Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Posts $31MM Aearo Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, through its Aearo Technologies subsidiary, as of
June 30, 2011, has recorded US$31 million as the best estimate of
the probable liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs
related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-
related claims.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo.  Aearo manufactures
and sells various products, including personal protection
equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain
respiratory protection products.

As of June 30, 2011, Aearo or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation)
are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the
Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which
plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek
damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and
judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement among
Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of
Warner Lambert and their insurers (Payor Group).

Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety"
brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical
Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual
plaintiff.  Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further
limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on
July 11, 1995.

This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot an
annual fee of US$400,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and
liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, asbestos and silica-
related product liability claims for respirators manufactured
prior to July 11, 1995.

Because the date of manufacture for a particular respirator
allegedly used in the past is often difficult to determine, Aearo
and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the
alleged use of respirators while exposed to asbestos or silica or
products containing asbestos or silica prior to Jan. 1, 1997.

With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is
limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of
respirators while exposed to asbestos, silica or other
occupational dusts on or after Jan. 1, 1997.

To date, Aearo has elected to pay the annual fee.  Aearo could
potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the
pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by its agreement with Cabot if
Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement,
or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these
matters.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minn., 3M Company's businesses are
organized, managed and internally grouped into segments based on
differences in products, technologies and services.  It continues
to manage its operations in six operating business segments:
Industrial and Transportation; Health Care; Display and Graphics;
Consumer and Office; Safety, Security and Protection Services; and
Electro and Communications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIHL Posts $13.8MM Net A&E Reserves at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Corporation's Allegheny Insurance Holdings LLC's (AIHL)
asbestos and environmental reserves for unpaid loss and loss
adjustment expenses include US$13.9 million of gross reserves and
US$13.8 million of net reserves as of June 30, 2011, and US$14.1
million of gross reserves and US$14 million of net reserves as of
Dec. 31, 2010.

These reserves were for asbestos and environmental impairment
claims that arose from reinsurance assumed by a subsidiary of
Capitol Transamerica Corporation and Platte River Insurance
Company (CATA) between 1969 and 1976.

This subsidiary exited such business in 1976.

Headquartered in New York, Alleghany Corporation is engaged in the
property and casualty and surety insurance business through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Alleghany Insurance Holdings LLC (AIHL).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Actions Still Pending v. Spence, Hoke
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International Inc. says small numbers of asbestos-related
claims have been filed against two of its subsidiaries: Spence and
Hoke.

The Company acquired Spence in 1984 and Hoke in 1998.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products for the industrial,
aerospace and energy markets.  The Company is based in Burlington,
Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Leslie Controls Has $1.64MM Liability at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc.'s Leslie Controls, Inc. subsidiary
recorded current asbestos and bankruptcy-related liabilities of
US$1,642,000 as of July 3, 2011, compared with US$79,831,000 as of
Dec. 31, 2010, according to a Company press release dated Aug. 4,
2011.

Leslie recorded asbestos- and bankruptcy-related liabilities
of US$79,801,000 as of April 3, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter,
May 20, 2011)

Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy-related recoveries were
US$124,000 during the three months ended July 3, 2011.  Its
asbestos and bankruptcy-related charges were US$28,908,000 during
the three months ended July 4, 2010.

Leslie's asbestos and bankruptcy-related charges were US$877,000
during the six months ended July 3, 2011, compared with
US$28,260,000 during the six months ended July 4, 2011.

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets
valves and other highly engineered products for the industrial,
aerospace and energy markets.  The Company is based in Burlington,
Mass.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vector Still Subject to Parsons Action in W.Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. Continues to be subject to a case involving
asbestos styled Parsons v. AC & S Inc. in West Virginia.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a case pending in
West Virginia, the personal injury class was commenced on behalf
of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury
claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos
fibers.

The complaint seeks to recover unspecified damages.  The case has
been stayed as a result of the December 2000 bankruptcy of three
of the defendants.

Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and
Vector Tobacco Inc. units are engaged in the manufacture and sale
of cigarettes in the United States.  Its New Valley LLC unit is
engaged in the real estate business and seeks to acquire
additional operating companies and real estate properties.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UIL Has $18.3MM June 30 Retirement Obligations
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2011, UIL Holdings Corporation's asset retirement
obligations, including estimated conditional AROs, were US$18.3
million and consisted primarily of obligations related to removal
or retirement of asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contaminated equipment, gas pipeline and cast iron gas mains.

The long-lived assets associated with the AROs are primarily gas
storage property, distribution property and other property.  As of
Dec. 31, 2010, the Company's ARO was US$17.8 million.

Headquartered in New Haven, Conn., UIL Holdings Corporation's
primary business is ownership of its operating regulated
utilities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 29,082 Cases Pending v. General Cable at July 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation, as of July 1, 2011, was a defendant in
a total of about 29,082 asbestos cases (of which 590 were non-
maritime cases and 28,438 were maritime cases) brought in various
jurisdictions throughout the United States.

As of April 1, 2011, the Company was a defendant in about 29,017
asbestos cases, of which about 579 were non-maritime cases and
28,438 were maritime cases brought in various jurisdictions
throughout the United States.  (Class Action Reporter, June 10,
2011)

In addition, Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by
the Company.

The Company had accrued, on a gross basis, about US$4.9 million as
of July 1, 2011 and US$5.1 million as of Dec. 31, 2010 and had
recovered about US$500,000 million of insurance recoveries for
these lawsuits.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Digital Realty Has $1.3MM Liability at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.'s accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities on its condensed consolidated balance sheets was about
US$1.3 million as of June 30, 2011 and Dec. 31, 2010.

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

Headquartered in San Francisco, Digital Realty Trust, Inc. owns,
acquires, develops, redevelops and manages technology-related real
estate.  As of June 30, 2011, its portfolio consisted of 96
properties, excluding two properties held as investments in
unconsolidated joint ventures, of which 81 are located throughout
North America, 14 are located in Europe and one is located in
Asia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Premises" Lawsuits Still Pending v. Huntsman
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation has been named as a "premises defendant" in a
number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility.

In the past, these cases typically have involved multiple
plaintiffs bringing actions against multiple defendants, and the
complaints have not indicated which plaintiffs were making claims
against which defendants, where or how the alleged injuries
occurred or what injuries each plaintiff claimed.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to the
Company's ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners
generally have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and
to indemnify the Company against, asbestos exposure claims.

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
nine tendered cases, 39 unresolved cases, and 1,086 unresolved
cases.  During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company
recorded 21 tendered cases, 14 resolved cases, and 1,145
unresolved cases.

The Company has never made any payments with respect to these
cases.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company had an accrued liability
of US$13 million relating to these cases and a corresponding
receivable of US$13 million relating to its indemnity protection
with respect to these cases.

Certain cases in which the Company is a "premises defendant" are
not subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators.
During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
eight cases filed, five resolved cases, and 40 unresolved cases.
During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
one case filed, two resolved cases, and 38 unresolved cases.

The Company paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure
cases that are not subject to indemnification of US$342,000 during
the six months ended June 30, 2011 and US$200,000 during the six
months ended June 30, 2010.  As of June 30, 2011, the Company had
an accrual of US$337,500 relating to these cases.

Salt Lake City, Utah-based Huntsman Corporation manufactures
differentiated organic chemical products and of inorganic chemical
products.  Its products are used in applications, including those
in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products,
durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical,
packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining,
synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunoco Still Subject to Potential Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal and administrative proceedings are pending or may be brought
against Sunoco, Inc. arising out of its current and past
operations, including allegations of exposures of third parties to
toxic substances (such as benzene or asbestos) and general
environmental claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Aug. 4, 2011.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Sunoco, Inc. is principally a
petroleum refiner and marketer and chemicals manufacturer with
interests in logistics and cokemaking.  The Company's cokemaking
operations currently are conducted in Virginia, Indiana, Ohio,
Illinois and Vitoria, Brazil.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Claims Ongoing v. Rockwell Automation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of the
Company's products many years ago.

Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
the Company as defendants, together with hundreds of other
companies.  In some cases, the claims involve products from
divested businesses, and the Company is indemnified for most of
the costs.

However, the Company has agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos
claims associated with products manufactured or sold by its former
Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair
services businesses prior to their divestiture by the Company,
which occurred on Jan. 31, 2007.

The Company is also responsible for half of the costs and
liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former
Rockwell International Corporation's (RIC) divested measurement
and flow control business.

The Company has maintained insurance coverage that it believes
covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from its former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.

Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity Company and
Kemper Insurance, the insurance carriers that provided liability
insurance coverage to Allen-Bradley, the Company entered into
separate agreements on April 1, 2008 with both insurance carriers
to further resolve responsibility for ongoing and future coverage
of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.

In exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its
remaining liability and has been released from further insurance
obligations to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide entered into a cost
share agreement with the Company to pay the substantial majority
of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos
claims.

In connection with the sale of its Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, the Company
agreed to indemnify the purchaser, Baldor Electric Company, for
costs and damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental
and asbestos matters of these businesses, arising before Jan. 31,
2007, for which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount
received for the sale.

Federal Pacific Electric, a non-operating entity that had been
retained following the sale of the Company's Dodge mechanical and
Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses,
dissolved under Delaware law on March 31, 2011.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Rockwell Automation, Inc. is an
industrial automation company that serves automotive, food and
beverage (including dairy), personal care, life sciences, oil and
gas, mining, and paper and pulp markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Posts $2.262-Bil. Net Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc.'s net asbestos-related
liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense were
US$2.262 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2011,
compared with US$1.075 billion as of June 30, 2010.

The Company's gross asbestos-related liability for unpaid claims
and claims adjustment expense were US$5.368 billion during the six
months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$2.977 billion during
the six months ended June 30, 2010.

The net asbestos-related IBNR (incurred-but-not-reported) included
in the above liability was US$1.799 billion during the six months
ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$781 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2010.

The gross asbestos-related IBNR included in the above liability
was US$4.070 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2011,
compared with US$1.825 billion during the six months ended June
30, 2010.

On June 17, 2011, Chartis completed a transaction with National
Indemnity Company (NICO), a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway,
Inc., under which the majority of Chartis' U.S. asbestos
liabilities were transferred to NICO as part of Chartis' ongoing
strategy to reduce its overall loss reserve development risk.

Upon the closing of this transaction, but effective as of Jan. 1,
2011, Chartis ceded the bulk of its net asbestos liabilities to
NICO under a retroactive reinsurance agreement with an aggregate
limit of US$3.5 billion.  Chartis paid NICO about US$1.67 billion
as consideration for this cession and NICO assumed about US$1.82
billion of net asbestos liabilities.

As a result of this transaction, Chartis recorded a deferred gain
of US$150 million in the second quarter of 2011, which is being
amortized into income over the settlement period of the underlying
claims.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc. is
an international insurance organization with operations in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  The AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Int'l. Records 5,477 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. recorded 5,477 asbestos claims
during the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared with 4,966
asbestos claims during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
40 claims opened, 72 claims settled, 265 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved, and 841 other claims.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded
222 claims opened, 109 claims settled, and 534 claims dismissed or
otherwise resolved.

Headquartered in New York, American International Group, Inc. is
an international insurance organization with operations in more
than 130 countries and jurisdictions.  The AIG companies serve
commercial, institutional and individual customers through one of
the most extensive worldwide property-casualty networks of any
insurer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 222 Cases Open v. Midwest Generation at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were about 222 asbestos cases for which Midwest Generation,
LLC Company was potentially liable that had not been settled and
dismissed at June 30, 2011.

There were about 228 asbestos cases for which the Company was
potentially liable and that had not been settled and dismissed at
March 31, 2011.  (Class Action Reporter, May 20, 2011)

The Company entered into a supplemental agreement with
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on Feb. 20,
2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of the
Company's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement.

Under this supplemental agreement, the Company agreed to reimburse
Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for 50% of specific
asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 and related expenses
less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing
arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with future
asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement.

The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximum
liability.  The supplemental agreement had an initial five-year
term with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-year
terms (subject to the right of either party to terminate); under
the automatic renewal provision, it has been extended until
February 2012.

The Company had recorded a liability of US$55 million at June 30,
2011 related to this contractual indemnity, included in benefit
plans and other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance
sheets.

Headquartered in Bolingbrook, Ill., Midwest Generation, LLC sells
wholesale electricity to markets in the Midwest.  The independent
power producer has a generating capacity of more than 5,770 MW,
primarily from its six coal-fired power plants in Illinois (5,740
MW); it also oversees the operation of the Fisk and Waukegan on-
site generating plants which have 305 MW of capacity.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hawaiian Electric Posts $49.19MM ARO at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.'s Hawaiian Electric Company
subsidiary recorded asset retirement obligations of US$49,191,000
as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$36,019,000 as of June 30,
2010.

HECO recorded AROs of US$48,714,000 as of March 31, 2011, compared
with US$23,985,000 as of March 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter,
June 24, 2011)

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

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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Still Facing 530 Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of June 30, 2011, faced about 530
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 4, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the Company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation.  Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants.  To date, the costs resulting from the litigation,
including settlement costs, have not been significant.

At June 30, 2011, the Company had recorded litigation liabilities
of about US$32 million, a significant portion of which relates to
asbestos.

Headquartered in Richmond, MeadWestvaco Corporation provides
packaging solutions to many of the world's brands in the food,
beverage, tobacco, healthcare, beauty and personal care, and home
and garden industries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Posts $19MM June 30 Current Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s current asbestos-related liabilities amounted to
US$19 million as of June 30, 2011, compared with US$18 million as
of Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 4, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's long-term asbestos-related liabilities were
US$66 million as of both June 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

The Company's current asbestos-related recoveries were US$11
million as of June 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.  The Company's
long-term asbestos-related recoveries were US$55 million as of
June 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., Meritor, Inc. supplies integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 26T Claims Still Pending v. Maremont at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s Maremont Corporation subsidiary is still subject
to about 26,000 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2011
and Sept. 30, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report
filed on Aug. 4, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries, Inc., a predecessor of the Company, acquired
Maremont in 1986.  Maremont and many other companies are
defendants in suits brought by individuals claiming personal
injuries as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Maremont's asbestos-related reserves for pending and future claims
were US$67 million as of June 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.
Maremont's asbestos-related insurance recoveries were US$57
million as of June 30, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2010.

Prior to February 2001, Maremont participated in the Center for
Claims Resolution (CCR) and shared with other CCR members in the
payment of defense and indemnity costs for asbestos-related
claims.  The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos
claims on behalf of its members until February 2001, when it was
reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements.

Since the CCR was reorganized in 2001, Maremont has handled
asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel and has
taken a more aggressive defensive approach that involves examining
the merits of each asbestos-related claim.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., Meritor, Inc. supplies integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Still Has Rockwell Legacy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., along with many other companies, has also been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos used in certain components of
Rockwell International products many years ago.

Liability for these claims was transferred to the company at the
time of the spin-off of the automotive business to the Company
from Rockwell in 1997.  Currently there are thousands of claimants
in lawsuits that name the Company, together with many other
companies, as defendants.

The Company determined that the probable liability for pending and
future claims over the next four years is US$18 million as of June
30, 2011 and US$17 million as of Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Troy, Mich., Meritor, Inc. supplies integrated
systems, modules and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Cases Still Pending v. Curtiss-Wright
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries have been named in
a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 5, 2011.

To date, neither the Company nor its subsidiaries have been found
liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any
case.  The Company said it believes that the minimal use of
asbestos in its past and current operations and the relatively
non-friable condition of asbestos in its products makes it
unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos
litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate.

The Company does maintain insurance coverage for these potential
liabilities and the Company said it believes adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.

Headquartered in Parsippany, N.J., Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a
diversified, multinational manufacturing and service company that
designs, manufactures, and overhauls precision components and
systems and provides highly engineered products and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.K.'s Government "Scraps" Compensation Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
It was claimed on Aug. 14, 2011 that victims of asbestos poisoning
have been "betrayed" after the United Kingdom Government quietly
"dumped plans for a compensation fund," The Northern Echo reports.

A proposal for a "fund of last resort" of up to GBP400 million -
to help former workers unable to trace the employers who exposed
them to asbestos dust has been dropped, a trade union said.  The
Northern Echo also revealed that a separate plan for a national
research center for mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
diseases has also been abandoned.

Both proposals were tackled in a consultation that concluded 15
months ago, but ministers have said nothing since -- an
extraordinary delay for government proposals.

Jim Kennedy, the political officer of the UCATT union of
construction workers, said, "The government is betraying people
with mesothelioma -- there is a deafening silence about this.
Ministers won't formally say that this scheme has bitten the dust,
but we are confident it has."

The proposal for a research center has definitely been dumped.  A
department for health (DoH) spokesman said, "The idea was raised
with the previous administration, but no agreement was reached."

However, a department for work and pensions (DWP) spokeswoman
denied the "fund of last resort" had been abandoned.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belleville Files Countersuit Regarding Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Property owner Ronnie Phillips who sued the city of Belleville,
Ill., for tearing down his commercial building after a fire in
2010 now faces a counterclaim from the City to get him to clean up
asbestos at the site, the News-Democrat reports.

Julie Bruch, the attorney representing Belleville in the case,
said the City's position is that the asbestos was released during
the May 2010 fire and not as a result of the building being torn
down soon after, as Mr. Phillips has suggested.

There was supposed to be a hearing on Aug. 16, 2011 on Mr.
Phillips' attorney's motion for a judge to order Belleville to
clean up the asbestos, but that hearing has been continued to
September 2011, and Mr. Phillips has 30 days to respond to the
City's counterclaim, which was filed on Aug. 12, 2011 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court.

Belleville seeks for Mr. Phillips to clean up the asbestos or pay
for the City to do so, and to require him to pay the City for his
share of the demolition cost.  The counterclaim also seeks payment
for attorney fees, court costs, and compensatory damages.

Penni Livingston, Esq., the attorney for Phillips, said that she
tried on Aug. 16, 2011 to negotiate splitting the asbestos
remediation bid of US$42,000 four ways -- Mr. Phillips, Chester
Nance, the owner of the other property that burned, the City, and
Hank's, the company that tore down the building.  She said that
with that, Mr. Phillips would hand over to the city the nearly
US$50,000 insurance payment for his part of the demolition.

Ms. Livingston argued that all four parties are in trouble with
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for tearing it down
without the proper notice, so this way they could share the
burden.  She said everyone but the city was on board, and that the
city said they would split it only if Mr. Phillips dropped his
lawsuit against the City.

In May 2011, Mr. Phillips sued the city of Belleville for going
against state law in tearing down his East Main Street building
without the proper 15-day notice and response period for the
owner, without a court order, and without notifying the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.  Ms. Livingston seeks for Mr.
Phillips in excess of US$1 million in compensation, plus US$3,500
per month in lost rent until the building is rebuilt and occupied.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hampshire Worker's Death Due to Hazard Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
An inquest heard that the death of John Huxham, a worker and
grandfather from Hampshire, England, was due to workplace exposure
to asbestos, the Daily Echo reports.

Mr. Huxham died at his home last June 2011.  Southampton Coroners'
Court heard that due to his history of working with asbestos,
including a spell at the Liverpool docks, the 87-year-old Mr.
Huxham was told that it was likely he was suffering from
mesothelioma.

However, pathologist Dr. Adrian Bateman found that, while there
was evidence of asbestos exposure, there was no evidence of
mesothelioma.  He concluded that the immediate cause of Mr.
Huxham's death was heart disease and that asbestos exposure was a
less direct cause.

Southampton coroner Keith Wiseman recorded a verdict of death by
natural causes contributed to by asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alpough's Lawsuit v. Chevron Filed on Aug. 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
The children of the late Thaddeus Alpough, on Aug. 16, 2011, filed
suit in Jefferson County District Court, Tex., against their
father's former employer, Chevron USA, alleging the Company
exposed him to asbestos, The Southeast Texas Record reports.

According to the suit filed by Mary Alpough and her siblings, Mr.
Alpough worked at Chevron's Port Arthur refinery as a boilermaker
helper and pipefitter -- occupations that exposed him to asbestos
dust and fibers.

The suit states, "As a result of such exposure, Thaddeus Alpough
developed asbestos-related pleural disease, lung cancer and then
gastric cancer, for which he died a painful and terrible death on
May 7, 2010."

Beaumont attorney Keith Hyde, Esq., of the Provost Umphrey law
firm represents the Alpough family.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, has been assigned to
Case No. B190-682.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler AG Facing 123,990 Claims in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG faced 123,990 asbestos claims in the United
States during the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2011,
compared with 122,490 claims during the quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2010.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded 1,100
new claims and 690 claims resolved.  During the quarter ended
June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 1,000 new claims and 3,940
claims resolved.

During the six months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
2,380 new claims and 2,810 claims resolved.  During the six months
ended June 30, 2010, the Company recorded 2,210 new claims and
4,820 claims resolved.

Total asbestos-related assets amounted to US$205,418,000 as of
June 30, 2011, compared with US$219,901,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.
Total asbestos-related liabilities amounted to US$304,944,000 as
of June 30, 2011, compared with US$337,500,000 as of Dec. 31,
2010.

Through June 30, 2011, total cumulative indemnity costs paid were
about US$752,800,000 and total cumulative defense costs paid were
about US$353,800,000.

Net asbestos-related payments were US$8 million during the quarter
ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$200,000 during the quarter
ended June 30, 2010.

Net asbestos-related payments were US$20.5 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2011, compared with US$6.6 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2010.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Units Facing 290 Claims in U.K.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler AG's subsidiaries faced 290 open asbestos-related
claims as of June 30, 2011, according to the Company's quarterly
report filed on Aug. 4, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Some of the Company's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom have
received claims alleging personal injury arising from exposure to
asbestos.  To date, 978 claims have been brought against its U.K.
subsidiaries.  None of the settled claims has resulted in material
costs to it.

Total asbestos-related assets were US$31,797,000 as of June 30,
2011, compared with US$31,046,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.  Total
asbestos-related liabilities were US$31,797,000 as of June 30,
2011, compared with US$31,046,000 as of Dec. 31, 2010.

The liability estimates are based on a U.K. House of Lords
judgment that pleural plaque claims do not amount to a compensable
injury.  If this ruling is reversed by legislation, the total
asbestos liability and related asset recorded in the U.K. would be
about US$54.5 million.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Still Subject to Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and
other primary defendants, Gardner Denver, Inc. has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos personal injury lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos from
multiple sources and typically the Company is one of about 25 or
more named defendants.  In the Company's experience to date, the
substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury
for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed
and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos
and silica litigation lawsuits.  However, neither the Company nor
its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or
distributed asbestos fiber.  Moreover, the asbestos-containing
components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the
subject Products.

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

The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers
or indemnitors where necessary.  The latest of these actions,
Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London,
et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial
District, Adams County, Ill., as case number 10-L-48.

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

Headquartered in Wayne, Pa., Gardner Denver, Inc. designs,
manufactures and markets engineered industrial machinery and
related parts and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex to Continue Resolving Tort Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
M & F Worldwide Corp. says that Pneumo Abex LLC, now owned by a
Settlement Trust, will continue to resolve asbestos-related claims
asserted against it in the tort system.

The Company's non-operating contingent claims were generally
associated with its indirect, wholly owned, non-operating
subsidiary, Pneumo Abex (together with its predecessors in
interest, "Pneumo Abex").

Substantially all of these contingent claims, which include
various environmental and asbestos-related claims, are the
financial responsibility of third parties.  One of those third
parties, Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc. (Original
Indemnitor), provides indemnification for certain of these
contingent claims.

Another, Cooper Industries, LLC (Friction Guarantor), assumed all
liability for and provided indemnification against substantially
all asbestos-related claims asserted against Pneumo Abex after
August 1998 and not indemnified by the Original Indemnitor.

In 1995, MCG Intermediate Holdings Inc. (MCGI), the Company and
two of its subsidiaries entered into a transfer agreement, which
required MCGI, an indirect subsidiary of Holdings, to undertake
certain administrative and funding obligations with respect to
certain categories of contingent claims.

Pneumo Abex was obligated to reimburse the amounts so funded only
when it received amounts under related indemnification and
insurance agreements.  The Transfer Agreement permitted Pneumo
Abex to require MCGI to fund 50 percent of the costs of resolving
certain indemnification and insurance disputes involving Pneumo
Abex.

As a result of coverage agreements with various insurance
carriers, payments by the Original Indemnitor and funding payments
under the Transfer Agreement, all but an immaterial amount of
Pneumo Abex's monthly expenditures for its contingent claims were
managed and paid by others through April 5, 2011.

On April 5, 2011, the Company and an affiliate of Holdings
consummated a February 2011 settlement agreement with the Friction
Guarantor and certain affiliates of the Friction Guarantor under
which they settled various claims relating to the Friction
Guarantor's indemnification obligations.

The Company transferred all of the membership interests in Pneumo
Abex to a Delaware statutory trust (Settlement Trust), and the
Settlement Trust became the sole owner and managing member of
Pneumo Abex.  The Company also contributed a total of US$15
million to Pneumo Abex and paid US$5 million to the Settlement
Trust.

The Company recorded a charge of US$20 million during the three
months ended March 31, 2011 as a result of these payment
obligations.  Concurrently, the Friction Guarantor paid US$250
million to the Settlement Trust and gave it a promissory note in
the amount of US$57.5 million, subject to certain adjustments,
payable over four years and guaranteed by certain parent entities
of the Friction Guarantor.

As a result of these transactions, an indemnity and funding
arrangement from Mafco Worldwide with respect to Pneumo Abex's
contingent claims terminated, and the Company received an
indemnity from the Settlement Trust against any liability for the
matters formerly subject to the Friction Guarantor's indemnity.

Headquartered in New York M & F Worldwide Corp. is a holding
company that conducts its operations through its indirect wholly
owned subsidiaries, Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. and Mafco
Worldwide Corporation.  The Company has organized its business and
corporate structure along the following four business segments:
Harland Clarke, Harland Financial Solutions, Scantron and Licorice
Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Still Facing Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings, Inc. says that Georgia-Pacific, LLC is a
defendant in suits brought in various courts around the nation by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to products containing asbestos.

These suits allege a variety of lung and other diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by Georgia-
Pacific.

Although it has been working to diversify its supplier base, the
Company is still dependent on Georgia-Pacific for a significant
percentage of its products.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Ga., BlueLinx Holdings, Inc. distributes
building products in the United States.  It operates in all of the
major metropolitan areas in the United States and distributes
about 10,000 products from over 750 suppliers to service more than
11,500 customers nationwide, including dealers, industrial
manufacturers, manufactured housing producers and home improvement
retailers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Accrues $561MM June 30 Obligations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC's accrued obligations for
asbestos and other personal injury matters were US$561 million
during the three months ended June 30, 2011, compared with
US$626 million during the three months ended June 30, 2010.

The Company's accrued obligations for asbestos and other personal
injury matters was US$563 million during the three months ended
March 31, 2011, compared with US$648 million from Feb. 13, 2010 to
March 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, June 3, 2011)

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for Company employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967.

However, other types of exposures, including exposure from
locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after
1967 until they were substantially eliminated at the Company by
1985.

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Tex., Burlington Northern Santa Fe,
LLC is a holding company that conducts no operating activities and
owns no significant assets other than through its interests in its
subsidiaries.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company is engaged
primarily in the freight rail transportation business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawsuits v. Park-Ohio Surge to 300 at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., at June 30, 2011, was a co-defendant in
about 300 cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,240
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 5, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At March 31, 2011, the Company was a co-defendant in about 260
cases asserting claims on behalf of about 1,230 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
(Class Action Reporter, June 17, 2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp.
operates through three segments: Supply Technologies, Aluminum
Products and Manufactured Products.  Supply Technologies provides
customers with Total Supply Management tm services for a broad
range of high-volume, specialty production components.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 15 Cases Pending v. Parker Drilling at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Drilling Company says that, at June 30, 2011, there were
about 15 asbestos-related lawsuits in which it is one of many
defendants, according to the Company's quarterly report filed on
Aug. 5, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the State
of Mississippi.

There were about 16 asbestos lawsuits at March 31, 2011 in which
the Company was one of many defendants.  (Class Action Reporter,
May 27, 2011)

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

Headquartered in Houston, Parker Drilling Company provides rental
tools, drilling services, and project management services.  Its
rental tools subsidiary specializes in oil and gas drilling rental
tools providing equipment like drill pipe, heavy-weight drill
pipe, tubing, high-torque connections, blow out preventers and
drill collars used for drilling, workover and production
applications.


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

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

Prior to the commencement of discovery in any of the reactivated
cases, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name a group of cases that
they intended to pursue and to dismiss the remaining cases without
prejudice.  Plaintiffs have currently named 38 cases against the
Company that they intend to pursue, each of which involves one
plaintiff.  The remaining cases against the Company either have
been or will be dismissed.

Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases could file a new lawsuit if they
develop a new disease allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos on
board the Company's vessels.

Headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill., Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
Corporation provides dredging services in the United States.  In
addition, the Company is the only U.S. dredging service provider
with significant international operations, which represented 14
percent of its dredging revenues for the first six months of 2011,
compared with the Company's three year average of 23 percent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Still Involved in Exposure Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation is still named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
contained in products made by the Company, according to the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in
these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against
these claims.

The claims are similar to previous asbestos suits that named the
Company as defendant, which either were dismissed when it was
shown that the Company had not supplied products to the
plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for amounts below the
expected defense costs.

Headquartered in Batavia, N.Y., Graham Corporation is a global
designer and manufacturer of custom-engineered ejectors, vacuum
systems, condensers, liquid ring pump packages and heat exchangers
to the refining and petrochemical industries, and a nuclear code
accredited supplier of components and raw materials to the nuclear
power generating market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Still Subject to Asbestos Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited says it will continue to be subject to
litigation and arbitration proceedings in the ordinary course of
business, including litigation generally related to the scope of
coverage with respect to asbestos and environmental claims.

No significant asbestos-related matters were disclosed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., Six Units Named in Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.

Those components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.  To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States.  Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment.  The balance has been settled for various
insignificant amounts.

Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the
Company's business unit.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Ill., IDEX Corporation is an applied
solutions company specializing in fluid and metering technologies,
health and science technologies, dispensing equipment, and fire,
safety and other diversified products built to its customers'
specifications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims v. Ashland Inc. Drop to 75T at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. faced 75,000 open asbestos-related claims during the
nine months ended June 30, 2011, compared with 84,000 claims
during the nine months ended June 30, 2010.

The Company faced 76,000 open asbestos claims during the six
months ended March 31, 2011, compared with 89,000 claims during
the six months ended March 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, May
27, 2011)

During the nine months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and 9,000 claims
dismissed.  During the nine months ended June 30, 2010, the
Company recorded 2,000 new claims filed; 1,000 claims settled; and
17,000 claims dismissed.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against the Company result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 over the sale of a former
subsidiary -- Riley Stoker Corporation.

Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$550 million at June 30,
2011 compared to US$537 million at Sept. 30, 2010.

At June 30, 2011, the Company's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$434 million, of which US$54 million relates to
costs previously paid.  Receivables from insurers amounted to
US$421 million at Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides specialty
chemicals, technologies and insights.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 22T Claims Still Pending v. Hercules at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s Hercules subsidiary faced 22,000 open asbestos
claims during the nine months ended June 30, 2011, compared with
20,000 claims during the nine months ended June 30, 2010.

Hercules faced 22,000 open asbestos claims during the six months
ended March 31, 2011, compared with 20,000 open claims during the
six months ended March 31, 2010.  (Class Action Reporter, May 27,
2011)

During the nine months ended June 30, 2011, the Company recorded
2,000 new claims.  During the nine months ended June 30, 2010, the
Company recorded 1,000 claims dismissed or settled.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos.  Those claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.

Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$315 million at
June 30, 2011 compared to US$375 million at Sept. 30, 2010.  The
receivables from insurers amounted to US$48 million as of June 30,
2011 and US$68 million as of Sept. 30, 2010.

Headquartered in Covington, Ky., Ashland Inc. provides the
specialty chemicals, technologies and insights to help customers
create new and improved products for today and sustainable
solutions for tomorrow.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alamo Group Reserves $233T for Gradall Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamo Group Inc. has a reserve of US$233,000 concerning a
potential asbestos issue at Gradall's facility in New
Philadelphia, Ohio, that is expected to be remediated over time.

The Company had a reserve of US$277,000 concerning a potential
asbestos issue at Gradall's facility that is expected to be re-
mediated over time.  (Class Action Reporter, June 23, 2011)

On June 30, 2011, the Company had an environmental reserve in the
amount of US$1,474,000 related to the acquisition of Gradall's
facility.  Three specific remediation projects that were
identified prior to the acquisition are in process of remediation
with a remaining reserve balance of US$53,000.

The balance of the reserve, US$1,188,000, is mainly for potential
ground water contamination/remediation that was identified before
the acquisition and believed to have been generated by a third
party company located near the Gradall facility.

Headquartered in Seguin, Tex., Alamo Group Inc. designs,
manufactures, distributes and services high quality equipment for
right-of-way maintenance and agriculture.


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

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


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

No significant asbestos-related matters were discussed in the
Company's quarterly report filed on Aug. 5, 2011 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 201.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CoreSite Realty Still Has $2MM AROs at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation's asset retirement obligations
amounted to US$2 million at June 30, 2011 and US$2.1 million as of
Dec. 31, 2010, according to the Company's quarterly report filed
on Aug. 5, 2011 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company records accruals for estimated retirement obligations.
The AROs relate primarily to the removal of asbestos and
contaminated soil during development or redevelopment of the
properties as well as the estimated equipment removal costs upon
termination of a certain lease under which the Company is the
lessee.

Headquartered in Denver, Colo., CoreSite Realty Corporation,
through its controlling interest in CoreSite, L.P., is engaged in
the business of owning, acquiring, constructing and managing
technology-related real estate.


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

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

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

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

Additionally, about 40 cases were dropped by plaintiffs in 2010
without requiring a settlement.

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.'s
business consists of the generation, transmission, distribution
and sale of electric energy conducted through its principal
subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL).

                            *********

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  * * *